Left wingers are getting a bit scared
Discussion
s2art said:
XJ Flyer said:
s2art said:
edh said:
s2art said:
But did the HoC paper also subtract the Welsh Labour MPs? (and for that matter, Scots and Welsh LibDem MPs, as it would have some impact)
No - although Labour have a majority of 12 in Wales at the moment - so wouldn't have made much of dent in Blair's majorities. Lib Dems side with the Tories, so getting rid of them is good
..and of course we'd have Welsh mp's voting on a different subset of matters nless they get the same devolution settlement as Scotland.
Then once more of the government is devolved to UK cities & regions (as Daniel Hannan suggests..), there might be precious few "English" matters to be discussed at a UK parliament.
I'd vote for that
edh said:
s2art said:
edh said:
s2art said:
Looks like the Tories, and UKIP, are pushing for 'English laws by English votes', and it seems popular. Plenty of big issues for English matters, NHS, Education, infrastructure, tax and spending etc etc. I guess stuff like energy production would be in the UK matters camp.
I'd expect most of that to be devolved to a more local level - as it is in Scotland. Tax and spending, well some of that will be UK wide, some devolved, and a limited amount English.education is similarly devolved - why should there be any level of control of schools between the DFE and governing bodies of individual schools / groups of schools ? it;s just job creation for LAs to suggest anything else if the 'essential ' support services provided by the LEAs are provided so well then i'm sure they can win the contracts to provide them , alternatively schools or groups of schools (especially the big academy groups could provide this in house sharing economies of scale
every school could be 'direct grant' from government and accountable to OFSTED for service delivery ...
Edited by mph1977 on Tuesday 23 September 23:04
edh said:
s2art said:
edh said:
s2art said:
Looks like the Tories, and UKIP, are pushing for 'English laws by English votes', and it seems popular. Plenty of big issues for English matters, NHS, Education, infrastructure, tax and spending etc etc. I guess stuff like energy production would be in the UK matters camp.
I'd expect most of that to be devolved to a more local level - as it is in Scotland. Tax and spending, well some of that will be UK wide, some devolved, and a limited amount English.crankedup said:
I agree, its not the fairness that concerns me its the possibility of one political party in England having no serious opposition in Parliament. Its a balance of power required for democracy to work well for the Country.
But that wouldn't happen. Labour would change its policies to appeal to a greater percentage of the voters, or other parties would move to fill that void.
XJ Flyer said:
s2art said:
XJ Flyer said:
s2art said:
edh said:
s2art said:
But did the HoC paper also subtract the Welsh Labour MPs? (and for that matter, Scots and Welsh LibDem MPs, as it would have some impact)
No - although Labour have a majority of 12 in Wales at the moment - so wouldn't have made much of dent in Blair's majorities. Lib Dems side with the Tories, so getting rid of them is good
..and of course we'd have Welsh mp's voting on a different subset of matters nless they get the same devolution settlement as Scotland.
Then once more of the government is devolved to UK cities & regions (as Daniel Hannan suggests..), there might be precious few "English" matters to be discussed at a UK parliament.
I'd vote for that
s2art said:
XJ Flyer said:
s2art said:
XJ Flyer said:
s2art said:
edh said:
s2art said:
But did the HoC paper also subtract the Welsh Labour MPs? (and for that matter, Scots and Welsh LibDem MPs, as it would have some impact)
No - although Labour have a majority of 12 in Wales at the moment - so wouldn't have made much of dent in Blair's majorities. Lib Dems side with the Tories, so getting rid of them is good
..and of course we'd have Welsh mp's voting on a different subset of matters nless they get the same devolution settlement as Scotland.
Then once more of the government is devolved to UK cities & regions (as Daniel Hannan suggests..), there might be precious few "English" matters to be discussed at a UK parliament.
I'd vote for that
Which leaves the question do you really think that given the choice between higher English income tax or cuts an unchallenged Con Party wouldn't go for English cuts not English tax increases.Although the English economy obviously loses either way.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Tuesday 23 September 22:25
crankedup said:
Rovinghawk said:
crankedup said:
I am very concerned that the Labour Party could lose those Scottish voting Rights in Parliament.
Not losing all their rights- just losing the right to be involved in stuff that's none of their actual business.We can't vote in theirs, they can't vote in ours. Seems fair to me.
XJ Flyer said:
s2art said:
XJ Flyer said:
s2art said:
XJ Flyer said:
s2art said:
edh said:
s2art said:
But did the HoC paper also subtract the Welsh Labour MPs? (and for that matter, Scots and Welsh LibDem MPs, as it would have some impact)
No - although Labour have a majority of 12 in Wales at the moment - so wouldn't have made much of dent in Blair's majorities. Lib Dems side with the Tories, so getting rid of them is good
..and of course we'd have Welsh mp's voting on a different subset of matters nless they get the same devolution settlement as Scotland.
Then once more of the government is devolved to UK cities & regions (as Daniel Hannan suggests..), there might be precious few "English" matters to be discussed at a UK parliament.
I'd vote for that
Which leaves the question do you really think that given the choice between higher English income tax or cuts an unchallenged Con Party wouldn't go for English cuts not English tax increases.Although the English economy obviously loses either way.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Tuesday 23 September 22:25
s2art said:
Guarantees? What guarantees? All Cameron has done so far is indicated that, for the moment, he is in favour of maintaining the Barnett formula. No one has promised that this is some form of 'in perpetuity' arrangement. How could it be? It is already being discussed that in future it will be based on need to all corners of the UK rather than Scotland, Wales and N.I. The Welsh in particular are getting pretty shirty about it, not to mention the north of England.
These guarantees.I think that's a 'bit' more than an 'indication' that 'Cameron' is 'in favour' of maintaining the formula.As I've said I'd guess that any attempt to unravel that deal would trigger a new Scottish independence referendum.At least this time the Scottish would go into it with their eyes open and we might get the anti federalist vote for independence that both countries need.Being that the last vote was obtained by giving the Scots promises that we can't afford and that the Cons obviously only wanted to use as an excuse to set up an English Con fiefdom to slash the English budget to pay for it. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-2...
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independe...
Edited by XJ Flyer on Wednesday 24th September 00:06
XJ Flyer said:
s2art said:
Guarantees? What guarantees? All Cameron has done so far is indicated that, for the moment, he is in favour of maintaining the Barnett formula. No one has promised that this is some form of 'in perpetuity' arrangement. How could it be? It is already being discussed that in future it will be based on need to all corners of the UK rather than Scotland, Wales and N.I. The Welsh in particular are getting pretty shirty about it, not to mention the north of England.
These guarantees.I think that's a 'bit' more than an 'indication' that 'Cameron' is 'in favour' of maintaining the formula.As I've said I'd guess that any attempt to unravel that deal would trigger a new Scottish independence referendum.At least this time the Scottish would go into it with their eyes open and we might get the anti federalist vote for independence that both countries need.Being that the last vote was obtained by giving the Scots promises that we can't afford and that the Cons obviously only wanted to use as an excuse to set up an English Con fiefdom to slash the English budget to pay for it. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-2...
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independe...
Edited by XJ Flyer on Wednesday 24th September 00:06
Dont see any guarantees regarding the Barnett formula there. And I have no problems in rich areas subsidising poor areas, any more than I have no problems in the richest paying more taxes than the poorest.
s2art said:
XJ Flyer said:
s2art said:
Guarantees? What guarantees? All Cameron has done so far is indicated that, for the moment, he is in favour of maintaining the Barnett formula. No one has promised that this is some form of 'in perpetuity' arrangement. How could it be? It is already being discussed that in future it will be based on need to all corners of the UK rather than Scotland, Wales and N.I. The Welsh in particular are getting pretty shirty about it, not to mention the north of England.
These guarantees.I think that's a 'bit' more than an 'indication' that 'Cameron' is 'in favour' of maintaining the formula.As I've said I'd guess that any attempt to unravel that deal would trigger a new Scottish independence referendum.At least this time the Scottish would go into it with their eyes open and we might get the anti federalist vote for independence that both countries need.Being that the last vote was obtained by giving the Scots promises that we can't afford and that the Cons obviously only wanted to use as an excuse to set up an English Con fiefdom to slash the English budget to pay for it. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-2...
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independe...
Edited by XJ Flyer on Wednesday 24th September 00:06
Dont see any guarantees regarding the Barnett formula there. And I have no problems in rich areas subsidising poor areas, any more than I have no problems in the richest paying more taxes than the poorest.
Or we pay up which is obviously what the idea of an 'English' parliament,within the federal UK system,is all about.IE a way of making the required cuts in the English budget and/or increasing English taxes to pay for the Scottish pledges within a federal UK framework.Being that an English parliament has no powers to change the federal/UK budget,especially in view of the pledges given to Gordon Brown to secure the Scottish yes vote.
Which is confirmed by Boris' and Owen Patterson's view of the situation.In which case the Scottish referendum was only the first round in the long drawn out process of the inevitable breakup of the UK assuming that the English don't want to be stitched up to keep the federal scam going.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Wednesday 24th September 01:58
crankedup said:
I agree, its not the fairness that concerns me its the possibility of one political party in England having no serious opposition in Parliament. Its a balance of power required for democracy to work well for the Country.
So I'm sure you'd back boundary change reform to make constituencies more equally sized too?
edh said:
I disagree - control of the NHS and Education has been centralised. Academies answerable to DFE, hospitals answerable to DH. Many tax & spending decisions won't be "English" only - will affect 100%, not 85% of constituencies. The budget & autumn statement are UK-wide, not English.
Power has devolved downward to the individual organisations, in education schools, with oversight at Westminster.Under the settlement offered to the Scots and extended to the welsh, most government policy and departments will only affect England, which will include Taxation policy (but not the overall spending totals decided at UK level).
It is in labour's interest to pretend that simply fairness in who votes will be unworkable, but the opposite is the case, Most of the legislation will only effect England so to have separate sittings of parliament and ministers for English only, or UK wide departments would be fairly straightforward to arrange.
JagLover said:
edh said:
I disagree - control of the NHS and Education has been centralised. Academies answerable to DFE, hospitals answerable to DH. Many tax & spending decisions won't be "English" only - will affect 100%, not 85% of constituencies. The budget & autumn statement are UK-wide, not English.
Power has devolved downward to the individual organisations, in education schools, with oversight at Westminster.Under the settlement offered to the Scots and extended to the welsh, most government policy and departments will only affect England, which will include Taxation policy (but not the overall spending totals decided at UK level).
It is in labour's interest to pretend that simply fairness in who votes will be unworkable, but the opposite is the case, Most of the legislation will only effect England so to have separate sittings of parliament and ministers for English only, or UK wide departments would be fairly straightforward to arrange.
The fact is if an English parliament intends to work for us then we need independence just as in the case of the EU.Without that the only powers that an English parliament would have would be to slash English spending and/or increase English taxes in order to meet our UK commitments.In just the same way that the UK does in the case of meeting our commitments to the EU budget and no one does cuts in public spending as good as the Cons.IE the worst of all worlds situation of an ideologically anti public spending administration working against the interests of the English within a selectively socialist when it suits it regime.Being that technically under such a system there would be nothing stopping the Cons from privatising the English health system and education systems etc while keeping the minimum wage the same.While still taxing the English to pay for the socialist run rest of the UK.Which is why we really do need a strong Labour opposition in England within that potential environment and it is the fact that the English aren't stupid enough not to know it which luckily is what will hopefully stop Cameron and the Cons in their tracks.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Wednesday 24th September 14:49
Edited by XJ Flyer on Wednesday 24th September 14:52
JagLover said:
Power has devolved downward to the individual organisations, in education schools, with oversight at Westminster.
Under the settlement offered to the Scots and extended to the welsh, most government policy and departments will only affect England, which will include Taxation policy (but not the overall spending totals decided at UK level).
It is in labour's interest to pretend that simply fairness in who votes will be unworkable, but the opposite is the case, Most of the legislation will only effect England so to have separate sittings of parliament and ministers for English only, or UK wide departments would be fairly straightforward to arrange.
I do not see how over all spending (and remember this includes borrowing) can be decided at a UK level. Say we have a majority Labour UK and Scottish government but a majority England Con government.Under the settlement offered to the Scots and extended to the welsh, most government policy and departments will only affect England, which will include Taxation policy (but not the overall spending totals decided at UK level).
It is in labour's interest to pretend that simply fairness in who votes will be unworkable, but the opposite is the case, Most of the legislation will only effect England so to have separate sittings of parliament and ministers for English only, or UK wide departments would be fairly straightforward to arrange.
We could see the UK and Scottish governments wanting to increase spending but the English looking to reduce.
A better solution would be to delegate tax raising powers as well. Delegating corporation taxes and VAT maybe to complex since this would involve large companies having to divide their trading between the to states. However, no reason not to delegate income tax, CGT, and IT. We can argue about PRT later.
We would also need to allow the separate states to borrower in there own names.
This would mean the relevant government would have to spend only what they raised.
I can see that this may not work as the relevant tax base at state and federal level my be different to the expenditure so you might still need a formula to allocate either up or down.
The problem is that allocation should be on an agreed basis and not open to arbitrary changes by the state or federal government. Since parliament cannot bind it self this also means we need a written constitution.
j_s14a said:
crankedup said:
I agree, its not the fairness that concerns me its the possibility of one political party in England having no serious opposition in Parliament. Its a balance of power required for democracy to work well for the Country.
But that wouldn't happen. Labour would change its policies to appeal to a greater percentage of the voters, or other parties would move to fill that void.
Mrr T said:
JagLover said:
Power has devolved downward to the individual organisations, in education schools, with oversight at Westminster.
Under the settlement offered to the Scots and extended to the welsh, most government policy and departments will only affect England, which will include Taxation policy (but not the overall spending totals decided at UK level).
It is in labour's interest to pretend that simply fairness in who votes will be unworkable, but the opposite is the case, Most of the legislation will only effect England so to have separate sittings of parliament and ministers for English only, or UK wide departments would be fairly straightforward to arrange.
I do not see how over all spending (and remember this includes borrowing) can be decided at a UK level. Say we have a majority Labour UK and Scottish government but a majority England Con government.Under the settlement offered to the Scots and extended to the welsh, most government policy and departments will only affect England, which will include Taxation policy (but not the overall spending totals decided at UK level).
It is in labour's interest to pretend that simply fairness in who votes will be unworkable, but the opposite is the case, Most of the legislation will only effect England so to have separate sittings of parliament and ministers for English only, or UK wide departments would be fairly straightforward to arrange.
We could see the UK and Scottish governments wanting to increase spending but the English looking to reduce.
A better solution would be to delegate tax raising powers as well. Delegating corporation taxes and VAT maybe to complex since this would involve large companies having to divide their trading between the to states. However, no reason not to delegate income tax, CGT, and IT. We can argue about PRT later.
We would also need to allow the separate states to borrower in there own names.
This would mean the relevant government would have to spend only what they raised.
I can see that this may not work as the relevant tax base at state and federal level my be different to the expenditure so you might still need a formula to allocate either up or down.
The problem is that allocation should be on an agreed basis and not open to arbitrary changes by the state or federal government. Since parliament cannot bind it self this also means we need a written constitution.
(1) An independent sovereign nation state.
(2) A group of sovereign states entering into an agreement of 'Confederation' in which each retains total sovereignty and unilateral powers of opt out and/or VETO.
(3) A federal system in which 4 previously seperate sovereign nation states form a union in which the union is the sovereign supreme power of government.Which obviously includes setting the budget of the Union/Nation.
The overall budget spending requirement is decided at UK level and will have to remain that way or it is no longer the UK.The only powers that an English parliamnet would have if we keep the UK federation is to cut its share of how much it takes from that overall budget.Not how much it contributes which would remain under UK control.Which is why the Scottish voted to keep the union instead of doing what would be best for us in finishing it and returning the UK to being seperate sovereign nation states.Of which we would could 'then' all have the choice to change the UK consitution from what was a Federation of non sovereign states to a Confederation.The two things being as different as chalk and cheese.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Wednesday 24th September 16:49
Johnnytheboy said:
crankedup said:
I agree, its not the fairness that concerns me its the possibility of one political party in England having no serious opposition in Parliament. Its a balance of power required for democracy to work well for the Country.
So I'm sure you'd back boundary change reform to make constituencies more equally sized too?Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff