Labour not to work on West Lothian question

[arp1]

Because like I said, westminister is the uk parliament and mps as such should be entitled to vote on all matters within HoC

[arp1]

We have the Scottish Irish and welsh parliaments for their own needs, England needs the same and westminister is for UK only matters, simples isn't it? Ps England Fridays? Why did they not start Scotland Mondays, welsh Tuesdays and n.irish Wednesdays before devolution?

[ukwill]

arp1 said:

Because like I said, westminister is the uk parliament and mps as such should be entitled to vote on all matters within HoC

But that isn't answering the question. The obvious solution has already been put forward.

It's transparent to anyone not blinkered that Labour are only bleating about this because of their own position as a consequence. However, that isn't the fault of EVEL - it's entirely the fault of Labour policies. IF Labour had decent enough policies they would have enough English seats not to care less about this whole issue.

Their current position doesn't appear all that "progressive" to me.

[oyster]

McWigglebum4th said:

LucreLout said:

I don't think labour have any clue as to the strength of feeling on that issue in their Northern heartlands.

The next non-labour government will resolve the issue. They'll have too. It'll forever reduce the economic damage labour can inflict on England as they'll be unable to force through tax rises here to shore up Scotland and Wales. That is a very good thing all round.

One small point

in 1997 if every single person in scotland voted tory the PM would of been tony blair

in 2001 if every single person in scotland voted tory the PM would of been tony blair

in 2005 if every single person in scotland voted tory the PM would of been a hung parliament

remove the scottish MPs from the houses of parliament in 2005 then the PM would of been tony blair

h
a
v
e

[McWigglebum4th]

oyster said:

h
a
v
e

d
o
n
'
t

g
i
v
e

a

c
r
a
p

g
e
t

a

l
i
f
e

[loafer123]

arp1 said:

The problem is that Westminster is the UK parliament. If you want English votes for English matters, have your own assembly to sort it out and leave westminister for the rest of uk only matters. You cannot have Westminster for both English and uk matters as that's a rather monopolistic situation to be in. Why not have the English assembly in Newcastle, Manchester, Brum or Sheffield for example?

The English MPs could meet in regional cities as well as London - a great way of getting closer to voters.

[bullies180]

oyster said:

McWigglebum4th said:

LucreLout said:

I don't think labour have any clue as to the strength of feeling on that issue in their Northern heartlands.

The next non-labour government will resolve the issue. They'll have too. It'll forever reduce the economic damage labour can inflict on England as they'll be unable to force through tax rises here to shore up Scotland and Wales. That is a very good thing all round.

One small point

in 1997 if every single person in scotland voted tory the PM would of been tony blair

in 2001 if every single person in scotland voted tory the PM would of been tony blair

in 2005 if every single person in scotland voted tory the PM would of been a hung parliament

remove the scottish MPs from the houses of parliament in 2005 then the PM would of been tony blair

h
a
v
e

This isn't about who would or would not have been Prime Minister, or which party was in government or even what bills were passed that wouldn't have been without the scottish MP vote. This is about addressing an unbalance in democracy. Is it fair going forward?

[HarryW]

If they were as honourable as they purport to be then the simplest answer would be that non English constituent MP's would abstain from votes that are only applicable to England. As already said put aside a day that deals only with English matters. However, As politician's can't be trusted to even submit their expenses honestly I doubt that will happen.

I can't understand how anyone could be in a position of 'power' and be too thick (or assumption that the public are too thick more like) to understand the simple premis that in today's devolved Union there is a requirement to allow English only votes to occur. Going to the expense of regional assemblies or an English only Parliament is wholly unnecessary and abhorrent to any tax payer.

I suppose the current bare faced lying emanating from those that oppose it only goes to highlight what self serving scum they really are. The sooner the professional political class are culled the better. Let's bring forward boundary changes that reduces the amount of seats by half. Where's Cromwell when you need him.

[arp1]

In that case, Scottish mp's only for the vow thingymajig

[LucreLout]

HarryW said:

If they were as honourable as they purport to be then the simplest answer would be that non English constituent MP's would abstain from votes that are only applicable to England. As already said put aside a day that deals only with English matters. However, As politician's can't be trusted to even submit their expenses honestly I doubt that will happen.

I can't understand how anyone could be in a position of 'power' and be too thick (or assumption that the public are too thick more like) to understand the simple premis that in today's devolved Union there is a requirement to allow English only votes to occur. Going to the expense of regional assemblies or an English only Parliament is wholly unnecessary and abhorrent to any tax payer.

I suppose the current bare faced lying emanating from those that oppose it only goes to highlight what self serving scum they really are. The sooner the professional political class are culled the better. Let's bring forward boundary changes that reduces the amount of seats by half. Where's Cromwell when you need him.

It's just a desperate attempt to assign cost to something that need cost nothing.
The left hate England. Hate it. And it's showing.

[JMGS4]

What were the actual figures? I believe its a shade under 70 Labour seats in Wales, Ulster and Scotland who'd not be allowed to vote in an English Parliament... means, thank goodness, that the Labour scum would NEVER EVER again be in power in England.....

[Du1point8]

JMGS4 said:

What were the actual figures? I believe its a shade under 70 Labour seats in Wales, Ulster and Scotland who'd not be allowed to vote in an English Parliament... means, thank goodness, that the Labour scum would NEVER EVER again be in power in England.....

Think you are missing the point... They can get power and run the UK, just that to pass anything for England in England using votes, they need the full support of the other parties and not just use their own MPs to pass laws that aid everyone but England.

[gruffalo]

So in other words MP's would need to vote not along party lines but more as their constituents want or the system would end up in a stalemate.

Sounds like democracy to me.

[McWigglebum4th]

JMGS4 said:

What were the actual figures? I believe its a shade under 70 Labour seats in Wales, Ulster and Scotland who'd not be allowed to vote in an English Parliament... means, thank goodness, that the Labour scum would NEVER EVER again be in power in England.....

1997 labour majority = 179 seats

scotland 71 MPs
Wales = 41 MPs
Ireland = 18 MPs

Total = 130

So how will labour never again rule in engeerrllllannnnndddd

http://www.ukpolitical.info/England.htm

[Oilchange]

It's not about that at ALL!
It's about not putting 'of' when you bloody well should have put 'HAVE'.
Duh!

bullies180 said:

oyster said:

McWigglebum4th said:

LucreLout said:

I don't think labour have any clue as to the strength of feeling on that issue in their Northern heartlands.
The next non-labour government will resolve the issue. They'll have too. It'll forever reduce the economic damage labour can inflict on England as they'll be unable to force through tax rises here to shore up Scotland and Wales. That is a very good thing all round.

One small point

in 1997 if every single person in scotland voted tory the PM would of been tony blair

in 2001 if every single person in scotland voted tory the PM would of been tony blair

in 2005 if every single person in scotland voted tory the PM would of been a hung parliament

remove the scottish MPs from the houses of parliament in 2005 then the PM would of been tony blair

h
a
v
e

This isn't about who would or would not have been Prime Minister, or which party was in government or even what bills were passed that wouldn't have been without the scottish MP vote. This is about addressing an unbalance in democracy. Is it fair going forward?

Edited by Oilchange on Saturday 18th October 15:59

[otolith]

English and Welsh Parliament with the same devolved powers as the Scottish Parliament. Very much smaller HoC for UK matters. Keep the change as cost neutral as possible and reform the unfair boundary issue in the HoC while we are at it.

[Skywalker]

If Westminster had a day for Home Countries business, then the profligate waste of duplicated effort could be saved in the regional parliaments.

I would not want MPs from non English constituencies voting on English only matters - but why the hell would anyone suggest another level of government for troughers which will soak up taxpayers cash faster than an MP can submit an expenses claim.

[arp1]

So why are non scottish mps voting on new powers for Scotland then, based on that assertion?

[loafer123]

arp1 said:

So why are non scottish mps voting on new powers for Scotland then, based on that assertion?

Where is that "not sure if serious" meme when I need it?!

[bullies180]

Oilchange said:

It's not about that at ALL!
It's about not putting 'of' when you bloody well should have put 'HAVE'.
Duh!

bullies180 said:

oyster said:

McWigglebum4th said:

LucreLout said:

I don't think labour have any clue as to the strength of feeling on that issue in their Northern heartlands.
The next non-labour government will resolve the issue. They'll have too. It'll forever reduce the economic damage labour can inflict on England as they'll be unable to force through tax rises here to shore up Scotland and Wales. That is a very good thing all round.

One small point

in 1997 if every single person in scotland voted tory the PM would of been tony blair

in 2001 if every single person in scotland voted tory the PM would of been tony blair

in 2005 if every single person in scotland voted tory the PM would of been a hung parliament

remove the scottish MPs from the houses of parliament in 2005 then the PM would of been tony blair

h
a
v
e

This isn't about who would or would not have been Prime Minister, or which party was in government or even what bills were passed that wouldn't have been without the scottish MP vote. This is about addressing an unbalance in democracy. Is it fair going forward?

Edited by Oilchange on Saturday 18th October 15:59

Thanks