Sports Personality Of The Year...
Film, Media & TV0 min ago
Home Rule For England
This poll is closed.
- Yes - 121 votes
- 76%
- No - 38 votes
- 24%
Stats until: 08:10 Fri 20th Dec 2024 (Refreshed every 5 minutes)
© AnswerBank Ltd 2000 - 2024. All Rights Reserved.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by AB Editor. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
no its a great way of saving of saving the exes and wages of 10000 non entities. All you need is few managers per council to arrange the local services. No need for local politics at all. No need for any devolution either just a load more scrounging because they cannot get a proper job. You could abolish most of the lords too should save billions alogether. Tell Millipede.
When the Scottish independence vote was being agreed two or three years ago, Salmond pushed for three options - Yes, No and Devo max. The No campaign saw that this would split their vote, and wisely pushed for a straight Yes/No choice.
This also gave the No campaign the ability to offer Devo max if things were looking tight, which duly happened. Whether they planned that far ahead, who knows?
When devolution was first introduced in the nineties its extent was limited, partly at least because giving further powers would raise the West Lothian question. In fact, even the limited powers given raised it, but it was pushed aside.
Once Devo max was offered in the independence campaign, it should have been clear that this would again raise the West Lothian question in the event of a No vote. Given that No votes, so many powers are now to be devolved that it is simply unfair on the English that they don't get to decide on so many issues for themselves - the issue can not be pushed aside this time.
So you can clearly see the logic for why EVEL (English Votes for English Laws) is a natural consequence of the whole devolution -> independence vote -> devo-max process, and it makes perfect logical sense.
The politics of it is more subjective, however. Personally, I think the West Lothian question has been debated for so long and is so well understood that not a lot more research is needed. No solution is glaringly better than the others, so one solution simply has to be chosen and got on with. Also I think that a matching timetable for devo-max and EVEL is logical and fair, since they are two sides of the same coin.
This also gave the No campaign the ability to offer Devo max if things were looking tight, which duly happened. Whether they planned that far ahead, who knows?
When devolution was first introduced in the nineties its extent was limited, partly at least because giving further powers would raise the West Lothian question. In fact, even the limited powers given raised it, but it was pushed aside.
Once Devo max was offered in the independence campaign, it should have been clear that this would again raise the West Lothian question in the event of a No vote. Given that No votes, so many powers are now to be devolved that it is simply unfair on the English that they don't get to decide on so many issues for themselves - the issue can not be pushed aside this time.
So you can clearly see the logic for why EVEL (English Votes for English Laws) is a natural consequence of the whole devolution -> independence vote -> devo-max process, and it makes perfect logical sense.
The politics of it is more subjective, however. Personally, I think the West Lothian question has been debated for so long and is so well understood that not a lot more research is needed. No solution is glaringly better than the others, so one solution simply has to be chosen and got on with. Also I think that a matching timetable for devo-max and EVEL is logical and fair, since they are two sides of the same coin.
If there are to be 'English laws for English people', then one other thing should definitely happen; namely, the 'English people' must ensure that their 'English Bishops'...ie the hierarchy of their established C of E church...are permitted to vote in the House of Lords only on matters SOLELY affecting the English!
Surely TTT we can do it without having another level of Government. I know this sounds simplified but when things are being discussed in the house about English only Matters, send the scots out to the bar whilst the English vote on what's nothing to do with the scots. If it effects them, tough. A lot of things decided by the Scottish Parliament on how to spend their allowance has riled the English (prescriptions, Uni fees etc). We certainly do not want to go back to Prescotts days of Regional Governments who overrule local governments (an idea that was rejected in the NE then brought in a way by 2 Jags). I'm sure it can be workable.
A wonderful idea, YMB! (Who would ever have imagined I might say such a thing?)
Yes, getting rid of the House of Lords as a whole - certainly as it is currently constituted regarding its membership, size and so forth - is a great concept.
If the Government was really serious about looking at the UK 'constitution' in the round, it should certainly be considering all such ideas. However, given that they are conspicuous by their absence in official pronouncements, I have no faith that they really ARE serious.
Yes, getting rid of the House of Lords as a whole - certainly as it is currently constituted regarding its membership, size and so forth - is a great concept.
If the Government was really serious about looking at the UK 'constitution' in the round, it should certainly be considering all such ideas. However, given that they are conspicuous by their absence in official pronouncements, I have no faith that they really ARE serious.
The Lords definitely needs some kind of reform. I too don't like part of my government being unelected bishops!
However, the response to accelerated devo-max is EVEL, not reformation of the Lords.
IMO the Lords should be elected on a PR basis (using the general election ballot, not a separate ballot, so that every vote in an election counts once for the commons on a first-post the post basis and once for the Lords on a PR basis). Each party in the election should provide a list of Lords candidates, and those at the top of the list get elected according to the proportion of votes received by their party. That's the basic principle, although crossbenchers complicate things a little ...
However, the response to accelerated devo-max is EVEL, not reformation of the Lords.
IMO the Lords should be elected on a PR basis (using the general election ballot, not a separate ballot, so that every vote in an election counts once for the commons on a first-post the post basis and once for the Lords on a PR basis). Each party in the election should provide a list of Lords candidates, and those at the top of the list get elected according to the proportion of votes received by their party. That's the basic principle, although crossbenchers complicate things a little ...
The problem with the House of Lords at the moment is that the way it's made up is a bad idea in theory, but in practice it tends to work rather well. Many of the important details in law are often sorted out at the level of the Lords, and many a judge or Decision-Maker has been grateful for the work carried out there to clarify issues that were not well sorted-out in the Commons.
If at the moment one of the key problems in politics is that there is so much distrust of elected politicians, I'm not sure how having even more of them is the answer to that! Neither the concept of an English Parliament, nor an elected Upper Chamber, is particularly appealing -- to me, anyway. An alternative solution to reforming the Lords would be to move it away from party politics altogether and have a large panel of specialists in relevant fields, whose job it was to vet laws at a full level of detail, but which would ultimately have very little power of veto. At the same time some reform of the Commons along the lines of making it more representative would be useful, eg by switching to a Mixed-Member Proportional voting system, or something like that; but I'm not convinced that I want a second fully-elected chamber -- and I certainly don't want to see an English Parliament, sitting awkwardly at a level between the regional councils and Westminster, with the EU parliament at the very top. Too many politicians!
If at the moment one of the key problems in politics is that there is so much distrust of elected politicians, I'm not sure how having even more of them is the answer to that! Neither the concept of an English Parliament, nor an elected Upper Chamber, is particularly appealing -- to me, anyway. An alternative solution to reforming the Lords would be to move it away from party politics altogether and have a large panel of specialists in relevant fields, whose job it was to vet laws at a full level of detail, but which would ultimately have very little power of veto. At the same time some reform of the Commons along the lines of making it more representative would be useful, eg by switching to a Mixed-Member Proportional voting system, or something like that; but I'm not convinced that I want a second fully-elected chamber -- and I certainly don't want to see an English Parliament, sitting awkwardly at a level between the regional councils and Westminster, with the EU parliament at the very top. Too many politicians!
> The [way] the House of Lords ... is made up is a bad idea in theory, but in practice it tends to work rather well
Fully agree with this! One of the benefits of the PR-list proposal is that it wouldn't change the makeup of the Lords too much, especially not too quickly, but it would make it more democratically elected.
Fully agree with this! One of the benefits of the PR-list proposal is that it wouldn't change the makeup of the Lords too much, especially not too quickly, but it would make it more democratically elected.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
Body & Soul6 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles9 mins ago
Are Labour Preparing To Dump The P M ?
News9 mins ago
Body & Soul19 mins ago
