Labour Party flat out refuse any English powers

Watch
Poll: What is the real reason Labour have rejected English powers
They do not want to lose power in Westminster (13)
76.47%
They have legitimate concerns about English devolution (4)
23.53%
Ace123
Badges: 2
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#1
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29606220

The Labour party have ruled out English votes for English laws and have flat out refused to work on cross party talks. They are claiming it is a political stitch up. Do you agree or is it simply Labour do not want to lose power and are worried about losing their Scottish seats rather than creating a fair system for all nations?

So much for democracy- very clear Labour support devolution to Wales, NI and Scotland because it suits them politically but deny English devolution because it could harm them
0
reply
Phoebe Buffay
Badges: 19
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report 7 years ago
#2
To be honestI sort of agree. Once you start going down the route of English votes for English laws, then why not go further?

Why should MPs from Cornwall say vote on a matter that only affects London for example? It would be much more effective to devolve power to regions and cities.
1
reply
Aj12
Badges: 18
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
Report 7 years ago
#3
English votes for English laws would cause huge instability. The system needs a far more substantial rework than just barring Scottish MP's from certain votes. That and Labour is self interested here too, but then the Tories would be doing the same if they had a Scottish rather than Southern English base.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#4
Report 7 years ago
#4
Neither Labour nor the Tories have a particular fetish for devolution because local people tend to act in their own self interest and not in the parties interest. The difference today is that the Tories in coalition with a federalist party have decided they want to devolve some power while Labour would rather keep power centrally.

Equally though by linking it to English votes the Tories have killed the Bishop of Labour. Such a policy would remove most of Labours electoral boundary advantage without requiring boundary change. In this case Labour are protecting themselves in fear of being kept in check.

So the simple answer is both. But whoever came up with the idea is pretty brilliant politically.
0
reply
Snagprophet
Badges: 17
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#5
Report 7 years ago
#5
(Original post by Phoebe Buffay)
Why should MPs from Cornwall say vote on a matter that only affects London for example? It would be much more effective to devolve power to regions and cities.
Because Cornwall is not a country.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#6
Report 7 years ago
#6
(Original post by Phoebe Buffay)
To be honestI sort of agree. Once you start going down the route of English votes for English laws, then why not go further?

Why should MPs from Cornwall say vote on a matter that only affects London for example? It would be much more effective to devolve power to regions and cities.
Aye, it will encourage English rather than British nationalism and that's a big reason I'm against it.

This is not a policy ever meant to be enacted though. Its a perfect trap in which with the likelihood of a coalition or minority being high, the Tories can blame the anti English parties for blocking it.
0
reply
Phoebe Buffay
Badges: 19
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#7
Report 7 years ago
#7
(Original post by Snagprophet)
Because Cornwall is not a country.
So what? The main objection I see to Scottish MPs voting on English matters is because they are not elected by the English. Why should an MP who has been elected somewhere like Cornwall have a right to vote over matters which do not affect Cornwall, but some other region such as London ?
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 16
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#8
Report 7 years ago
#8
Misleading thread title. Labour does not 'flat out' refuse English powers. They rightly identify major constitutional flaws with the Tories' proposals and honestly, if these problems are true, then they will be worse than the status quo. They in fact support greater local devolution, as it's quite obvious that 'devolution' to England is not devolution at all.
0
reply
Snagprophet
Badges: 17
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#9
Report 7 years ago
#9
(Original post by Phoebe Buffay)
So what? The main objection I see to Scottish MPs voting on English matters is because they are not elected by the English. Why should an MP who has been elected somewhere like Cornwall have a right to vote over matters which do not affect Cornwall, but some other region such as London ?
So sometimes it's fine for someone from Edinburgh or Glasgow to vote one way at everyone else's expenses but not in other cases?
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 5
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#10
Report 7 years ago
#10
(Original post by Phoebe Buffay)
So what? The main objection I see to Scottish MPs voting on English matters is because they are not elected by the English. Why should an MP who has been elected somewhere like Cornwall have a right to vote over matters which do not affect Cornwall, but some other region such as London ?
There is no real legislation that is passed in the HoC that is London only, and therefore it does impact on Cornwall. Issues such as health and education are the same.

In Wales, Scotland and NI health and education are devolved issues.
0
reply
Abbie :)
Badges: 10
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#11
Report 7 years ago
#11
To be fair, if we are getting more devolved powers I fully agree that the rest of the UK should be able to get Scottish MPs to stop holding advantage over them.

But Labour is being tactical about this, I can see why it would hugely d.adv them
0
reply
Kendrick Lamar
Badges: 0
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#12
Report 7 years ago
#12
(Original post by Phoebe Buffay)
To be honestI sort of agree. Once you start going down the route of English votes for English laws, then why not go further?

Why should MPs from Cornwall say vote on a matter that only affects London for example? It would be much more effective to devolve power to regions and cities.
Because Cornwall can't vote on issues that affect only everyone but themselves.
0
reply
MindTheGaps
Badges: 17
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#13
Report 7 years ago
#13
Labour have clearly decided the Heywood and Middleton result isn't something they need to worry about. Otherwise their insistence on running on an anti-referendum, anti-England* ticket would be baffling.

*Because that is how the Tories, and especially UKIP, will portray it.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#14
Report 7 years ago
#14
(Original post by Rinsed)
Labour have clearly decided the Heywood and Middleton result isn't something they need to worry about. Otherwise their insistence on running on an anti-referendum, anti-England* ticket would be baffling.

*Because that is how the Tories, and especially UKIP, will portray it.
Cameron will be PM in June 2015, i'm increasingly sure of that (and in 2012 i expected a Labour majority). While Miliband has correctly bet that the poorest of the working classes will hate the Tories for their welfare reforms most notably, his squeezed middle strategy has flopped (the middle are squeezed but not sufficiently to abandon the Tories) and in addition to the 'Us and them' he's now anti-English.
0
reply
WharfedaleTiger
Badges: 13
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#15
Report 7 years ago
#15
Firstly Labour haven't flat out refused to engage on this - they're refused to engage with the Tories EVEL plan and favour a full constitutional convention on the matter.

For the past 20 odd years (since 1997) we've been messing around with the constitution in an unprecedented way and adding EVEL, devo max to the situation will make it almost impossible to work. We need a proper overview and discussion about how we want to UK to be run and not some more tacked on proposals.

EVEL is a stupid, idiotic and constitutionally illiterate idea the Tories are pushing for party political advantage. It raises far, far more issues than it solves. Labour are quite right to refuse to engage.
0
reply
paddyman4
Badges: 14
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#16
Report 7 years ago
#16
(Original post by Phoebe Buffay)
To be honestI sort of agree. Once you start going down the route of English votes for English laws, then why not go further?

Why should MPs from Cornwall say vote on a matter that only affects London for example? It would be much more effective to devolve power to regions and cities.
Because Cornwall doesn't have any autonomy. The relationship is balanced because London MPs have the same power over Cornish lives as Cornish MPs have over Londoner lives.

An example of the problem was mentioned in BBC News. During the Labour government, a vote to introduce controversial NHS trusts was narrowly passed against Tory opposition. Because of some Labour rebellions, the vote only passed because Scottish Labour MPs voted it through. But Scotland had autonomy over Health and never introduced the trusts there - so Scottish MPs decided how health should be run in England exclusively, and then decided something else for themselves.

So your analogy would only be accurate if Cornish MPs currently had the power to impose things on London without imposing them on Cornwall, whilst simultaneously having the autonomy to decide Cornish matters for themselves without external influence. This is not the case.
0
reply
paddyman4
Badges: 14
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#17
Report 7 years ago
#17
Labour is showing its true colours.

The need to resolve the West Lothian Question is clearly urgent now. As it stands, Scottish MPs can impose health and education policies on England whilst having autonomy over these things in their own country. But when tax powers are devolved to Scotland it becomes even more serious. How can we have a situation where Scottish politicians can vote to raise taxes in England whilst voting to lower taxes in Scotland?
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 5
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#18
Report 7 years ago
#18
(Original post by WharfedaleTiger)
Firstly Labour haven't flat out refused to engage on this - they're refused to engage with the Tories EVEL plan and favour a full constitutional convention on the matter.

For the past 20 odd years (since 1997) we've been messing around with the constitution in an unprecedented way and adding EVEL, devo max to the situation will make it almost impossible to work. We need a proper overview and discussion about how we want to UK to be run and not some more tacked on proposals.

EVEL is a stupid, idiotic and constitutionally illiterate idea the Tories are pushing for party political advantage. It raises far, far more issues than it solves. Labour are quite right to refuse to engage.
Why's EVELYN stupid and idiotic?

Labour created this mess with a poorly thought out devolution programme.

If I we're an MP of an English constituency I'd be getting a little worried that certain parts of the UK can start undercutting others.

The referendum debate has demonstrated that whinging and whining gets you stuff.

My only concern, although it shouldn't really be one is a race to the bottom and an increase in competition which is good. The main concern is that if labour get voted in they'll make up any tax shortfall on ever expanding public spending by borrowing money.
0
reply
A Mysterious Lord
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#19
Report 7 years ago
#19
Hardly a surprise, Labour depends on votes from Scottish MPs.
0
reply
MindTheGaps
Badges: 17
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#20
Report 7 years ago
#20
(Original post by WharfedaleTiger)
Firstly Labour haven't flat out refused to engage on this - they're refused to engage with the Tories EVEL plan and favour a full constitutional convention on the matter.
Sounds like a kick into the long grass to me.

For the past 20 odd years (since 1997) we've been messing around with the constitution in an unprecedented way and adding EVEL, devo max to the situation will make it almost impossible to work. We need a proper overview and discussion about how we want to UK to be run and not some more tacked on proposals.

EVEL is a stupid, idiotic and constitutionally illiterate idea the Tories are pushing for party political advantage. It raises far, far more issues than it solves. Labour are quite right to refuse to engage.
I don't think anyone's denying that we need a broad, thorough look at the constitution. But, significant powers were promised to Scotland on a relatively short time-scale, and this turns the West-Lothian question from a constitutional intrigue into an urgent matter. It will simply not be acceptable to the English public for Scots MPs to vote on devolved matters in England for years, while this all gets resolved in a time-frame that the Labour Party feels comfortable with, if at all.

EVEL is simple, easy and cheap to implement and, importantly, has the support of the large majority of the country. Hopefully it would be a temporary solution, until we can build up the infrastructure for large scale devolution to local governments. I don't think it's idiotic, frankly and that is an assertion you don't even try to justify. I don't see how this will make our constitution 'unworkable'.

A cynic would say Labour's opposition is party political. Maybe the Tories' support is too, but at least they can claim to be on the side of public opinion.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How would you describe the quality of the digital skills you're taught at school?

Excellent (28)
9.62%
Okay (86)
29.55%
A bit lacking (105)
36.08%
Not good at all (72)
24.74%

Watched Threads

View All