So .... devolution for England?

[BobF64]

I have a strong suspicion that the mooted "mansion tax" will get a lot of people thinking, even those without a £2M house; "once they've wasted that money am I going to be one of the ones next on the list for their moneygrubbing".

It never works like that.

It will be strong support for the "mansion tax", until all those with mansions leave the country because theyre sick of being forced to pay for the "feckless", at which point all those that supported the idea will find themselves protesting about it because they never thought it would ever apply to them.

[crossy]

The only thing I'd add is that in this world of devolved powers, and/or a federal UK, then points 5 and 6 are matters for an English Parliament, not. U.k one. If England wants power devolved to English regions, fine. If it doesn't, fine. And how Scotland handles it is for Scotland, not England.

Quite true - sorry, didn't make myself clear enough. And when you say "English Parliament" you mean exactly that. English political setup can, and in fact should, imho only be the purview of the English people and the politicians that (pretend to?) represent them.

The principle seems clear to me - either we're a unified country and we all decide all matters together, or we aren't. And implicit in that is that given that England is 85% of the population, if the bulk of the view of England is for a, for example, Tory government, then that's what the government is likely to be. If some regions don't like that, and want a devolved government, then fine. But then, if it's a devolved matter, it's a devolved matter for everyone.

Problem is that we aren't a united country - NI, Wales and Scotland already have devolution - so the mission is to make that work better. And I'll argue that given 3/4's of the country has devolution, then England must get it too. But the point is whether "England" as an entity or whether some further sub-division is needed. Being Scotland-based I don't feel able to comment either way.

/nit-picking mode on
The West Lothian Question dates from Tam Dalyell in 1977 in a Commons debate on devolution.
The constitutional issue it refers to does, yes, date from Irish Home Rule debates in the late 1800s.
Edit - Willian Gladstone, 1886. Thanks, Wikipedia.

Quite true, I omitted that bit of information (it was on BBC Scotland on Tuesday morn). Continuing the Hexus mission to educate and inform?

[Saracen]

....

Problem is that we aren't a united country - NI, Wales and Scotland already have devolution - so the mission is to make that work better. ....

Exactly. Personally, I'd be quite happy with devolution abolished and the UK run as one country. However, first, it isn't going to happen, and second, I understand why Scots. etc, feel they want more say.

Or, I'd be quite happy with Scotland (and, if the people wish it, Wales and/or NI) being fully independent, separate states.

But if we're a single state with certain powers and policy areas devolved, then it MUST apply in both directions. If Scotland wants it's education policy decided by MSPs in Holyrood then it's MPs have no democratic mandate to comment on it for England, or for that matter, Wales or NI.

What I don't understand is how Labour (leadership) seem to think they can somehow fudge that and get away with relying on Scottish Labour MPs to dictate to England on devolved issues if (and repeat IF) they fail to get a majority in England, just because it suits their vested party self-interest. It is simply undemocratic, as more than a few Labour backbenchers have pointed out.

[ik9000]

But if we're a single state with certain powers and policy areas devolved, then it MUST apply in both directions. If Scotland wants it's education policy decided by MSPs in Holyrood then it's MPs have no democratic mandate to comment on it for England, or for that matter, Wales or NI.

Agreed. And what if the CABINET is Scottish MPs? Then even with a veto on Scottish MPs voting, the agenda is still being set by Scottish MPs on matters that don't affect them. Presumably this would rule out Scottish MPs being eligible for Cabinet Minister for Health, Education, and anything else that has been devolved? And what about Chancellor - given that the majority of the people in the UK live in England, should we allow a Scottish chancellor, who could well and truly shaft this side of the border, knowing it wouldn't be so bad for his kin north of it? This is where the call for an English parliament comes from.

The problem is the more tiers of government the more costs, bureaucracy and political guff gets created. It benefits no-one.

So: English MPs only for the relevant cabinet positions for anything that is devolved, no Scottish or similar devolved MPs allowed to vote on English matters, and parliament sitting some days for English only matters seems the most sensible compromise IMO.

[ik9000]

It never works like that.

It will be strong support for the "mansion tax", until all those with mansions leave the country because theyre sick of being forced to pay for the "feckless", at which point all those that supported the idea will find themselves protesting about it because they never thought it would ever apply to them.

Yes, and labour have a wonderful track record of "mission creep" with poorly drafted laws applying to situations they weren't drafted for. Such as councils snooping on people's bins under their farcical "anti-terror" laws.

I'm not a fan of the tories, but I can't abide seeing that slimey creepy bunch of labour half-wits back in power. Given how they shafted the country through their recklessness and short-sightedness I really don't think they are fit to govern. Regardless of who is at the helm.

Why oh why is there not a sensible alternative. And don't mention UKIP. I said sensible!

[peterb]

Yes, and labour have a wonderful track record of "mission creep" with poorly drafted laws applying to situations they weren't drafted for. Such as councils snooping on people's bins under their farcical "anti-terror" laws.

Well, it will be 'fiscal drag' - a bit like death duties, which originally applied to the wealthiest in the country (sounds familiar) but as the threshold was frozen, more and more people find themselves (or their survivors) caught in the net. The same will be true for 'mansion' tax. The name just drips of socialist spite.

But this is really off topic - belongs more to a Labour party conference thread.

[RobbieRoy]

Why oh why is there not a sensible alternative!

I tend to think that the political parties we have to choose from exist as they do because of our electoral system. First past the post and extreme weighting of support for one party or other in certain geographical areas have meant that small or new parties never stand a chance unless they wait around for decades acting as pressure groups, like the Greens. UKIP aren't really a new party, they're just the extreme right wing of the tory party!

In addition, a general lack of engagement with politics and allied lack of understanding of things like proportional representation or the fundamental legal principles that govern our country means that there is little interest amongst the wider population. We don't even have a written constitution in this country and technically we're all still subjects of her majesty the queen so culturally we're disengaged.

This is, I think, why there will be so many arguments against federalisation, although I also think that a federal solution would help change that culture while alr solving the West Lothian question.