Off Topic Political Debate

I'm sorry Cologne but your 85% will cut no ice with anyone outside of Labour who think they need Scottish support to rule (they don't). Could you imagine the uproar if it were suggested that even one lone English MP had the right to sit in Holyrood? No - talk of two tier MPs is total nonsense. The rest of the UK has assemblies containing only their own members - it is a historic anachronism now that we have Sots, Welsh and Irish devolution but England does not. It is actually very bad for the union as it perpetuates the myth of some that England IS the UK. The cat is out of the bag and will lead in some way to England having only English MPs to vote on matters that affect them alone.

You fail to distinguish between legislation that affects only England - those matters on which the others now have their own control - and UK wide legislation.

How you create an english Parliament is to be decided - the cheap version is simply to exclude non English MPs for "internal" matters and to have days set aside for those. Those days simply would not involve non English MPs - they would not be second class they simply have no voice on English affairs - and should not want to have. It is only the Party system - and Labour in particular that causes a problem. Irish MPs already do not vote on matters not concerning them - by choice and I suspect no self respecting SNP member would deign to vote on English matters in Westminster.

Reforn of the voting system and the decision whether to have a separate Parliament and if so where it should be located etc etc can come later.

 

I suspect that there may be some hastily cobbled together gentlemans' agreements to formalise that and then have something more substantial after the election. If Welsh and Scottish based labour MPs continue to vote on English issues then I have an inkling it will get mentioned in dispatches! Whilst i personally believe the whole West Lothian issue can wait, I accept many others don't agree and see it as a major point of principle and can undersatnd that. I certainly hope for now that point of principle is settled with a quick fix with anything more substantial being agreed later down the line - though obviously there'll need to be a set timetable or it will not happen...

 

It is time you stopped using Germany or other countries as a benchmark for England. Germany was devastated by the war and so its whole system and culture had to be restarted. Post war the English devised the modern Union system in Germany - and as a result they work with not against others. In 1979 the Unions WERE the problem - they brought down the Callaghan government and believed they could do the same to Thatcher. There was no way they were going to cooperate to build new industries alongside declining ones. Tough as it was the dying industries had to die. As I said before - the failure was for politicians since then not to go to those areas to rebuild with new technology.

I do not assume that London will drag anything with it. I simply assert that London prospering creates wealth which the UK needs. It is up to politicians to devise tax systems and expenditure proposals to distribute welath if they want to. You make the same mistake that Labour makes - and is why every single Labour government has ended in economic crisis. You need to create wealth in order to distribute it. Labour kills wealth creation but has unrealistic plans of how to spend money - result is always currency or debt crises. You say you have lived in Germany for 25 years so have no conexion with labour politics - maybe so but you sound very like them. Cameron did not nearly lose the UK - unless you admit that by employing a bunch of incompetent Labour has-beens to run the Better Together campaign he made a mistake. Even that is not his fault given that any intervention by Tories in Scotland swelled the Yes vote.

Please do not use the phrase "your" government in response to me unless you simply mean the UK government. I do not support Cameron or Milliband. As it happens I see no reason to oppose reasonable taxes on financial transactions if carefully thought out and sensibly used - and more importantly they are not of a sufficient amount to hamper the City. The EU is already trying to do that.

I cannot beleive you really do not understand the importance of a better infrastruture in England. Birmingham will stay where it is but if communications are improved to there and much further North more companies will see less disadvantages in siting themselves on "fringes". Germany understood that and built its Autobahns - France, Japan and virtually every other major advanced economy realise that to prevent hot spots you need to have better communication.

 

Leo, do not delude yourself into thinking that the 85% constitutes an English Parliament or could even be a substitute for one. An English parliament would have to be specifically elected for that purpose or it has no legitimacy.

 

I tend to agree with you - and think the best solution is a "quick fix" to prevent non English MPs voting in Westminster for now - and that would enable us to deliver the promises made to Scotland which is essential. A longer term solution cna then be considered at a greater degree of leisure. I think the West Lothian question has only become important as people have seen what the other nations have and England does not. I have said before I consider Farage a very dangerous man - if we do nothing to create an "English" on "English issues" solution then his support will grow and grow as he wil promise it and will gain even more populist support.

 

What is it with you and the 85%? Who are you to say what has legitimacy? I am anything but deluded. If you cannot see that stopping non English MPs from voting on issues where Wales, Scotland and Ireland have their own control is fair then I cannot help you.
If the necessary Parliamentary Rules (not even legislation) are drawn up and the parties go into the next election with that as their avowed policy then the short term problem is solved - and in fact solved democratically. If LAbour oppose it they may as well hand the next election to the Tories

 

What I would suggest might be more beneficial to England, rather than an "English Parliament", are Regional Assemblies along the lines of the German Landes.

 

As I see it, Milliband would be really stupid not to accept this. If you take out recesses and the dissolution then we only have about 4 months left of the parliament. There's not a lot that would be agreed through law then anyway so he might as well just get on with it. I agree with you - if Labour doesn't go alomng with this then it's had it. On the other hand, agreeing the "quick fix" and then working up proposals for how this will all operate in the future is likely to bring it either more respect or perhaps even support.

From a personal point of view I hope they do get this sorted quickly purely because I cannot bear the idea of the next 6 months being dominated by arguments about the constitution - with Cameron able to respond to everything by saying "don't look at me blame Milliband".

 

Sorry about the constant references to Germany Leo - but one last note on that. It was the Americans who established Germany's post war structure not the British - they did it to prevent any reoccurence of centralization of power. You are right in the infrastructure of Germany - but remember - not all roads lead to Berlin, in fact only about 5% of them. Reference to 'your' government simply means that you are British and it is therefore 'your government' even though you didn't vote for them. My point about HS2 is that it is symbolic of the concentration of power upon London - compare this to the travel times between Birmingham and Manchester or the 60 mins. needed between Manchester and Leeds (only 40 miles away from each other). Remember that Britain has had 200 years of central government to solve the north south divide and has failed to do so - is it illogical to look for alternatives ? Look at Britain's history closely and see how, for over a hundred years the north produced England's wealth and the south spent it. Take maybe a trip to Oldham and try to remind yourself that this town once processed more cotton than Germany and France combined - yet where are the reminders of that wealth now ? Did any of it circulate anywhere other than London ? I am not against English MPs voting on English matters - but they need to be elected for that purpose. I am also saying that we need to look further and establish a constitutional settlement which will stand the test of time - if those ideas are similar to those of Labour then so be it - they are also similar to those of the Greens.

 

Without wishing to resurrect a long defunct thread, if you look at all the detail on HS2, you will find that the intention is not just to link London and Birmingham, but also link Birmingham with Manchester, Nottingham, Leeds and Newcastle. Osborne has also floated the idea of an HS3 linking Leeds and Manchester in addition to the already planned electrification of the existing Leeds Manchester Trans-Pennine route.

HS2 is not a railway simply to cut 15 minutes off the London Birmingham railway travel time, it is all about the capacity (or lack of it) to cope with the projected increases in passenger travel between London, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Nottingham, Sheffield, Leeds etc. - all cities who actively support HS2. Glasgow and Edinburgh are campaigning for their cities to be joined to HS2 sooner rather than later.

It is about investing in this country's transport infrastructure, as France, Germany, Spain, Italy, China and even the USA are doing with their high-speed lines.

 

More than I knew - thanks Vic

 

Leo, almost everybody here and in Westminster agree on the idea of English devolution - and I am no different so we do not need for our debate to degenerate into abuse. However there is no general agreement, or shared vision, of what is actually meant by devolution. What Labour is in favour of (and also the Greens) is the post election establishment of a constitutional convention which would debate all aspects of Britain's constitution - this debate being so important that it cannot only be debated in Westminster. Also the Lib Dems are in favour of decentralization of Tax. The problem of a short term agreement regarding curtailing Scottish MPs rights in Westminster is, that we do not know how long this emergency situation would last, and the Tories have not indicated that they see any real need for changes extra to this. Many of our hypotheses over this issue will be decided by the actual manifestos of the parties for the next election - there may be some surprises there.

 

The Scottish independence No campaign was cleverly associated with Labour by allowin Darling to head it up, the impression I have here is that there is no fallout or blame on Cameron whatsoever from what has just occurred and I'd say it's pretty neutral anyway and this issue will not impact on the next election. We already have regional responsibilities in the form of local councils, yes a little more power can be devolved but I'm not in favor of multi level splintered beurocracy which is how I see any further tiers. Watford is a good example of how to re-develop a local economy, the fact the North was so slow at this process is down to the desire in certain regions to hold on too long, my strong opinion is come up with early re-development, succession, replacement plans that make business sense and create prosperous employment and no government or business will stand in the way but will fully support and develop it, sounds like that's what happened in Germany. As for the "green" opportunity, don't go there, I'm disgusted by the raping of the Scottish countryside by ridiculously corrupt wind projects. This winter we are already planning the closure of businesses on temporary basis to take away some grid load to stop disruption to domestic supply. Its a crazy situation bought about by a strong and corrupt green lobby combined with corrupt politicians at both national and european level.

 

I was taught the British set up the Unions but you could be right.
Germany is in a central position relatively within Europe so of course all areas can benefit economically.
Britain is an isolated island on the fringe of Europe - London and the South East have the advantage of closer proximity to our major market.
In my job I travelled all over the UK and to Ireland so I do not need to go back to Oldham thanks. Whatever it produced is part of history - time moves on and leaves slow coaches, slow trains and Unions behind.
I do not think the Greens oppose an Engllish Parliament - only Labour for short sighted self interest.

Lastly - I agree that England as well as the UK needs a far better regional policy. However since my school days studying economics in the Sixties there have been several failed attempts to create Development Areas and the like - White Papers, Green Papers - you name it. This though is not bound up with an English parliament. Our problem is that the UK model of first past the post creates confrontational government - a winner and a loser. All my life we have bounced between Conservatives and Labour - and frankly they are both as bad as each other. Yet when we finally get a Coalition Government people moan that promises are broken. Well wake up - nobody won the election so policies that have been put in place are a mixture of Tory and Liberal policies and there have been some losers - unfortunately it is Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems who suffered mnost - -not least because they lost on University Fees. Now they are a rump of what they were five years ago. A real shame as the only way to stop Tory-Lab-Tory-Lab-Tory-Lab is PR - and that looks further away than ever.

I hope we get a quick fix for England - as a Farage stopper as much as anything and then during the next Parlaiment engage the nation in a real discussion on the best way forward

 

Please see post 132 on Labour and the Greens.

 

You are quite welcome Leo. The railways in Britain (and especially HS2) are a special interest for me, I have to admit. It shouldn't do, but it does make my blood boil when I see and hear ill-informed and ill-judged comments and criticism being made about the railways, particularly in the media. There have been decades of under investment, starting from before Beeching incidentally, when we were still building steam engines into the 1960s when most other countries had started to (and some completed) the move to diesel and electric traction. (Margaret Thatcher apparently hated the railways and only travelled on them once during her time as PM.

We need to retrieve this under investment, and do it fast.

The government (of all hues) have at last realised that rail transport has an increasingly important role to play in the transport needs of Britain in the 21st century. I often hear the cry that rather than spend money on a "vanity" project, they should be spending it on improving the current infrastructure. The fact is that Network Rail is doing just that - anyone who has been to London Bridge, Manchester Victoria or Reading stations will see this. Network Rail expect to spend around £38 billion in the next 5 years on improving the current rail facilities - that is without factoring in the billions to be spent on new rolling stock for the Great Western, East Coast Main Lines, Thameslink and Crossrail. It is not an either HS2 or current network decision. Both are needed.

Existing lines (like the West Coast Main Line through Watford) cannot be significantly further improved to cope with the expected traffic (passenger and freight) in the 2020s. Can you imagine adding an extra 2 lines to Bushey Arches, through the Junction and a third Watford Tunnel, let alone Hemel, Berko and Leighton Buzzard! Yet this is what people are effectively advocating!

Sorry to go off at a tangent, but railways are political and have been badly served by Westminster for years.

 

Why is there no talk of commonwealth. The four nations come togethr for things considered of importance to all and when things are not each decides for themself.

With this arrangement if England wants one election system and the others something else that is for them, if Scotland wants free universities that is their decision and so on.

What cannot stand is one government department taking money from the people as tax and then spending it unequally. If England has 85% of the population that is what they get from the chest. I can see there is going to be arguments about tax on oil or tax on sales but the government pot is for all, where the money arrives from is of no consequence. The commonwealth nations have their money and should spend as they think and once the money is gone that is their limit until next year. Also whatever is decided to be part of the common wealth; health or police is financed centrally and separate from England Scotland North Ireland or Wales own spending.

 

Government must spend unequally across the nation in order to equilibrate some of the imbalances and try to stimulate a broader economy. There is a problem if all money and investment is focused inward on the capitol. I seem to remember from my very early human geography studies that it is always the case that investment focuses around the capitol be it UK, Italy, France, Spain whatever all with different political systems and this is a result of human factors which cannot be dialed out. Its a delicate balance between reward and stimulation, we have to keep rewarding the producers of wealth so they do not migrate away from the nation whilst stimulating wealth creation in the less productive areas. I don't pretend to have the perfect answer but good communication of short, mid and long term goals and visions on a regional basis would be where I would start to get the peoples buyin. We have a real problem when wealth is only measured in pounds shillings and pence, wealth should be measured using may more factors and benefit given to individuals and businesses building prosperity when measured as a function of profit, security, productivity, employment, work life balance, health and opportunity. Very difficult to capture all the metrics but it's worth the effort, we need pillars in society, one is profit, two is health, three is education, and four is security. I think we can with these foundations being made a priority and available to all build a system that promotes "wellbeing" for everybody with differences in living style and progress based upon individual effort rather than luck. That may sound a bit socialist for somebody of a nature that believes in free market economics but as stated I was once a socialist albeit I moved away from the movement when S Africans came and addressed a rally I was at at Uni where we were urged to take up arms ad fight with violence our system, I then got involved in deep discussion with respect to the miners situation in the times of Scargill with some core members of the labour movement and in analyzing the situation came to the realization that it is indeed always the case that the left are looking to fight the capitalist system for no real reason apart from ideology which falls down in all cases. At that point I read the communist manifesto and the works of Markx and Engels and decided a new philosophy was needed which I decided to write but never got around to it.....Whilst our system is nowhere near perfect it is in need of tweaking rather than throwing out the baby with the bathwater....

 

All the Labour Party want is to continue the crazy situation of Scottish MP's voting on English issues solely for voting numbers.

Correct the unfairness now along with devolvement for all. Minor changes can then be debated at length.
If it is not linked to the promised extra powers for Scotland it will not be addressed seriously by Labour.
Talk of devolved power for regions is also something that can wait as it is an unnecessary complication used to muddy the waters.

 

I agree with you on devolution of powers to regions Scully - what regions would those be for a start. Sort out England - then worry about how to help regions - they need economic assistance not political power.