Talk

Advanced search

English Votes for English Laws

(40 Posts)
SilverOldie2 Thu 22-Oct-15 23:04:46

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34599998

About time this was brought into effect. I fail to understand how the SNP can reasonably expect to vote on their own affairs and on England's too.

Isitmebut Fri 23-Oct-15 08:17:12

And the vote was closer than it should have been thanks to Labour, who are always going to be held to ransom by the SNP to try and get their seats back north of the border, rather than take a more balanced approach.

“Government accused of risking 'disunited kingdom' as Commons approves English votes for English laws”

”The landmark reform has been agreed in the Commons by 312 votes to 270”
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/government-accused-of-risking-disunited-kingdom-as-commons-approves-english-votes-for-english-laws-a6704856.html

Labour and the Scottish National Party accused the Conservatives of pandering to English nationalists and trying to dilute Ukip’s appeal, warning that the move could hasten the break-up of the United Kingdom. But the opposition parties failed to halt the controversial proposal for a new English-only “consent stage” for English-only bills. All MPs will take part in the later stages of their passage and the same system will apply for matters affecting only England and Wales.

The landmark reform has been agreed in the Commons by 312 votes to 270, a government majority of 42. Moves by Labour to derail them were rejected.

Chris Grayling, the Leader of the Commons, insisted: “We are determined to strengthen the Union - we are devolving more powers across the United Kingdom, and now is the time to give the English more say over their own destiny."

But the Commons Leader sparked concern by suggesting that plans to build a third runway at Heathrow Airport might be considered “English-only” legislation if it were just a planning decision. That would cause a huge row because it would be seen as a strategic matter for the UK as a whole, with a knock-on effect in its three other nations.

And despite Scotland getting via the Barnett Formula a substantial amount of money to spend MORE per person than in England.

*”Alex Salmond: SNP won’t back runway in South-East unless Scotland gets cash”^
www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/salmond-snp-won-t-back-runway-in-southeast-unless-scotland-gets-cash-a3092236.html

”Alex Salmond today said the SNP will not back a new runway in south-east England unless David Cameron hands millions of pounds to Scotland.”

”In an interview with the Standard he demanded the Prime Minister put cash on the table to secure critical support from his party in the Commons.”

There has not been any new airport capacity in the South’s main airport hubs for around 60-years despite a huge growth in our population and globally billions of more people able to travel - and no can say that this government isn’t looking to pump huge amounts of ££investment into looking to narrow the north-south divide.

What a thoroughly grubby little man, within a grabby little (one way, not runway) ‘me, me, me’ party.

Isitmebut Fri 23-Oct-15 08:42:40

Although the price for the SNP to grant the 'right' for England to have another runway, goes beyond grubby - just think how much the 'Boris Island' airport project in the Thames Estuary would have cost in extra Scottish taxation, if given the nod.

Salmond demands £500million for Scotland in exchange for SNP backing a third runway at Heathrow

• Former First Minister makes ransom demand at the SNP conference today
• SNP veteran demanded a guarantee for extra flights to and from Scotland
• Tory majority of 12 could force Cameron to rely on support from SNP MPs

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3276161/Salmond-demands-500million-Scotland-exchange-SNP-backing-runway-Heathrow.html

I suspect the SNP's problem is that it sees every Westminster decision as a threat to an independent Scotland, not a United Kingdom - where like it or not, due to the capital and City being in the South - the largest contributor to taxes funding the £700 bil the UK government spends each and every year on our services, pensions, welfare, benefits etc, will mainly be derived from there.

weeburrower1 Fri 23-Oct-15 13:47:04

The correct way to have gone about it would have been to create an English parliament with policy areas devolved to it, the way it happens with the other countries.

All this does is create a two tier system within the UK parliament with the other countries budgets at the mercy of England only MPs, and effectively bars MPs from constituencies outside England from being cabinet ministers and prime minister.

So we'll done Tories, you've pretty much sped up the break up of the UK.

Isitmebut Sat 24-Oct-15 22:28:41

I suggest you read the proposals because how can 'English only' matters affect other countries within the Union.

Show me the passage that says the cabinet ministers and PM (who only get one vote each out of 625 MPs) would be barred from being from outside England - although based on all the Scots in the Blair/Brown cabinet and the shitstack that administration left, possibly as a belated revenge for the Highland Clearances - that might not be a bad idea.

Clearly what it stops, as Mr Salmond freely admits above, is that while a country like Scotland can decide so many of its own policies, holding England to ransom trying to decide English only policies, is apparently fair game.

So we'll done Tories, you've pretty much sped up the break up of the UK.

Your problem there is Scotland can't afford it, you have no Scottish currency or interest rates or yield curve, and so an independent Scotlands taxes and inflation will rise enormously as spending has to be slashed - and THAT is real austerity.

And when Labour gets back in, if Scotland is still within the UK, the whole economy will go 'south' again (and I don't mean south of England) - and the resulting IMF bailout, that takes no existing policy prisoners (ask Greece), will put the Barnett Formula with its ancient formula in the salami slicer.

AgentCooper Sat 24-Oct-15 22:37:05

Isitmebut, what a crass thing to say. If you'd had ancestors whose lives were ruined by the Highland Clearances, I doubt you'd be so flippant. Blair was just a dick and a sociopath, and you'll find the majority of we Scots do not proudly claim him as one of our own.

The thing that perplexes me about EVEL is that it does seem a decisive step towards dismantling the Union, which Cameron was very much against. I don't disagree with it in principle, as long as each nation has the same rights and powers, but it would seem that England having its own devolved parliament would be better.

Isitmebut Sat 24-Oct-15 22:54:45

Clearly the SNP and their supporters WANT it to be seen as trying to dismantle the Union - so please tell me why Scotland can decide so many of its own policies, but England can't decide policies specific to England - like Education, where it was Scottish MPs in Westminster votes that enable Labour to FIRST put up Tuition Fees, when Scotland has none?

Scotland despite the Barnett Formula derived from a much larger England's diversified economy, is allowed to bring in students from outside the UK for a free education, but charges English students - which seems a bit of a piss take to me, but that is your right.

Clearly the party will aggressive form is the SNP, who cared not if England with 50 odd million voted for a Conservative Party - the SNP with a few million voters wanted to decide English policies one way or another - and ''Plan A' with Labour failed.

April 23 2015; ”Nicola Sturgeon says the SNP would prop up a Labour government even if the Tories had a 40-seat lead”

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/nicola-sturgeon-says-the-snp-would-prop-up-a-labour-government-even-if-the-tories-had-a-40seat-lead-10200407.html

”The Scottish nationalist leader told BBC Newsnight that the Tories would need to secure a majority elsewhere in order to govern again and that she would not support David Cameron to become prime minister.”

“Even if the Tories are the largest party, if there is an anti-Tory majority, my offer to Labour is to work together to keep the Tories out," the first minister told the programme.”

weeburrower1 Sun 25-Oct-15 08:37:34

The word I used is 'effectively' barred. How can you have a cabinet minister or prime minister who can't vote on a certain proportion of issues?

Your third paragraph is exactly why the correct solution was and is a seperate English Parliament, not the UK Pariament being used as a de facto English Parliament with a two tier system and a funding system which impacts on everyone else's but without everyone else having a say in it. There is absolutely no question that for example, health and education would be an English only issue if it was a devolved matter. The fact that spending on health and education in England is **exactly what determines the budget in Scotland

Those are the reasons the break up of the UK has been sped up. I did not request a discussion on independence - or your groundhog day version of it,

Your put me off this forum, every single time I bother to post on it. Your second paragraph is shameful.

Isitmebut Sun 25-Oct-15 12:33:24

Weeburrower1 ….. re your Your put me off this forum, every single time I bother to post on it. Your second paragraph is shameful.

Then please explain to me WHY there is, on the face of it, discrimination between English students and foreign students studying in Scotland?

The reason many SNP supporters will not want to post on here is that unless preaching to your own choir audience, your policies/statements get questioned and they are not designed to be scrutinized; for decades both the SNP and Labour in Scotland have whipped up Scotland against the Conservative over the fecking Poll Tax (I’d argue was fairer than the Council Tax under a socialist government) and pretending everything was OK in the Kingdom in both 1979 and 2010, and so in no need of serious (bound to be unpopular to most) reforms.

Re two separate parliaments for England where what, around 533 MP’s out of around 650 Westminster MPs are English in one crumbling building with more admin costs; with no doubt separate and specific PMQT questions from another ‘awkward squad’ politicking/representing the interests of just England by trying to STOP more money going to other members of the union e.g. questioning the fairness of the Barnett Formula?

Careful what you wish for in the UK parliament becoming MORE divided on country lines and bogged down in English only demands, along the lines of the SNP, often complaining about the result of legislation, not yet formed – and opposing the governments policies for the hell of it – like staying in a stagnant EU no matter what, giving up a nuclear deterrent in a more volatile world, the cutting of a £153 bil government overspend as ‘austerity’, the bombing of ISIS in Syria where their main HQ/logistics are, a third runway in the South etc etc etc.

weeburrower1 Sun 25-Oct-15 13:26:57

Why do you assume I'm an SNP supporter and why would you assume that I should answer for their policies? Because I'm Scottish? Your comment was both akin to the argument about Thatcher being representative of all women in politics, and also disparaging of Scottish history and Scottish people in general. Your arrogance and sense of superiority is established so I won't hold my breath for an apology.

That is why you put me off. Apart from the the fact your replies are frequently irrelevant to what has been said, you rant, insult and take no heed of what people are actually saying. Using the UK Parliament as a de facto English Parliament is not democratic for the reasons I've already mentioned. The would be no 'two separate parliaments for England' - in case you hadn't noticed, Westminster is the UK Parliament, not the English Parliament.

The most democratic way to approach the issue would be have an English Parliament with English only affairs devolved to it - ie health and education - with the UK Parliament for all UK issues which aren't devolved to the four parliaments/assemblies. It's not difficult. England should be able to decide on its own health and education policies. The fact that Scotland's budget is directly determined by those policies IS A PROBLEM as far as EVEL goes. The mechanism for determining devolved budgets must be changed, with the budget of all four constituent parts of the UK being determined in the same way. It's the most democratic route, and the first step towards a federal UK - the only thing which can save it. Pursuing a system whereby one part of the UK determines everyone else's budgets through a two-tier supposed UK Parliament isn't going to work.

The Tories are gerrymandering commons votes for years to come. It's the Tories, knowing full well that Labour traditionally rely on votes from Labour MPs in Scotland and Wales to reach majorities, who have divided the UK Parliament along country lines. England now basically has perpetual Tory rule regardless of who wins elections, and subsequently so does everyone else.

That may suit you, but we both know there are a lot of people it doesn't suit. The clock is ticking on the UK.

Isitmebut Sun 25-Oct-15 14:31:19

Weeburrburrower1 … you may or may not be SNP (I really don’t give a pooh), but by taking anything on such an anti Scottish personal level, while totally dishing out so much of your own pooh, you might as well be SNP; where taking nationalist offence, has reached a new (political tool) level.

Apparently since the SNP has secured 56 Westminster seats on the promise to their Scottish voters of ‘roaring’ us to death, we now apparently need MORE government in Westminster than just the ability of English MPs to do what those of Scotland (and currently I believe to a lesser extent in Wales and Ireland) can do in determining policies that affect only their own people.

Only the SNP don’t just want that, they seem to think that their 56 seats are like 56 ‘Willy Wonka’ tickets to run the UK’s policies, rather than concentrate on taking their new powers to change/reform Scotland’s policies for the 5 million within i.e. on tax, spending and welfare, how they see fit – knowing they are within a much stronger, economically more diversified union on some formula they would not have to pay the bills, if independent.

The accusation of the Conservatives trying to stay in power is laughable; Labour/socialism thanks to unfair English constituency boundary lines has had an electoral advantage for many years, with or without Scottish seats – but that was fine, right – the PROBLEM is not the Conservatives, it is now socialism has too many parties to chose from.

Seriously, take away Trident, in a United Kingdom there is hardly a fag papers width of difference between the higher spending, higher taxes, less cuts Labour Party and the SNP, so in a reality where Scotland cannot afford to be independent - so I’d say the main problem of socialism getting a majority in the UK, is the SNP.

Sturgeon is offering more than she can ever deliver if ever independent, while not using the power she has now (never mind the new ones she’ll receive) e.g. higher Scottish taxes to fund ‘nice’ things, as want to keep Scottish voters sweet ahead of another Independence push.

That is Sturgeon’s and Scotland’s problem, who lost a Referendum to be independent, NOT won an election to dictate to the UK no matter how much she tried “I won’t work with a majority Conservative party”.

weeburrower1 Sun 25-Oct-15 14:44:46

SNP, SNP, SNP. Seriously, change the record.

Literally the only point you've even attempted to respond to involves boundaries, the changes to which again benefit the Tories on top of the fact they're the only party which doesn't tend to rely on any MPs outside England to deliver majorities on votes.

In light of your refusal to discuss the points I posted on the thread with, once I again I find myself not wishing to engage with you further and I'd appreciate if you just wouldn't respond to me in future.

JeffreysMummyIsCross Sun 25-Oct-15 14:57:54

Your put me off this forum, every single time I bother to post on it.
I honestly don't know why you bother. Most of us have given up on this board now. It's hardly a discussion forum any more, just a ranting ideologue talking to themself. A shame, because there used to be interesting discussions here.

blacksunday Sun 25-Oct-15 16:33:54

Complain to Mumsnet, Jeff and Burrower1.

GiddyOnZackHunt Sun 25-Oct-15 16:39:47

Good point black There's a precedent been set by the roneik episode.

blacksunday Sun 25-Oct-15 20:36:36

I stopped arguing with Isitmebut a long time ago. I realised they absolutely no interest in honest debate or discussion.

They were dishonest, disingenuous, and manipulative. Their sole purpose is to make the Tories look as good as possible and Labour as bad as possible, using propaganda from Tory party HQ.

It's not worth trying to engage with it. Don't it. Not only are you wasting your own time, but your helping him to defecate on and disrupt all the threads.

I have already complained to Mumsnet about this, and suggested they implemented a poster-level 'ignore' feature where individual posters and choose to ignore other individual posters so that they won't appear on their newsfeed.

I suggest other people do the same.

Shutthatdoor Sun 25-Oct-15 20:41:16

It's hardly a discussion forum any more, just a ranting ideologue talking to themself. A shame, because there used to be interesting discussions here.

Actually I think the name calling has a lot to do with that. Many posters say they don't want to post because they will get pounced upon.

The recent threads show this more and more.

ThroughThickAndThin01 Sun 25-Oct-15 20:44:03

Their sole purpose is to make the Tories look as good as possible and Labour as bad as possible

You've got a flaming cheek complaining about that blacksunday because that is you in reverse. confused

If you've complained to 'mumsnet' about this, then I'm going to do the same about you.

blacksunday Sun 25-Oct-15 22:35:53

ThroughThickAndThin01-

> You've got a flaming cheek complaining about that blacksunday because that is you in reverse.

Actually, no I don't. I certainly do criticise the Tory scum, because they're the party in government. I'm not a rah-rah Labour supporter. I thought New Labour under Tony Blair was odious, and I hope to see him tried for war crimes in the Hague.

> If you've complained to 'mumsnet' about this, then I'm going to do the same about you.

Good! Please do so. What I've complained about is the need to have an 'ignore poster' option. If you find my posts annoying or disruptive, then I encourage you to put me on your personal 'ignore posts' lists, should that feature ever be implemented.

Isitmebut Mon 26-Oct-15 11:03:41

Based on the two way discussion that we WERE having, including the change within the SNP since the Independence vote, my opinions are factual not rude, whether people like them or not.

I would say 20 posts with disgusting pig ignorant language on the politics board, started about Cameron with and that stupid book/comment the authors are distancing themselves from, put MORE posters off this forum than someone putting balance/facts forward to an often unbalanced set of post(er)s ..... blacksunday, you know who you are. lol

People on the street and on social media have complained about the aggression and tactics of the pro Scottish independence 'Storm Troopers' (which is collective, no mention of the SNP there) - where if you don't see their way, there's no way.

When they try to ban those from boards those not 'on blind socialism or SNP support message' rather than take on the points being made on how self centred, nay boorish their politicians in Westminster have become (to the 50-odd million in the UK not in their target audience) - you know that your own opinions are on track.

Interesting.

Isitmebut Mon 26-Oct-15 11:12:41

"I'm not a rah-rah Labour supporter"

More a 'ha-ha' supporter, often posting with very sick titles e.g. "Tories f*****g kids", that the Labour movement if had any sense would distance themself from IT, rather than the other way around.

I wonder if titles like that, and the ability not to add "Tory scum" on most of its post puts off posters on here who might have the audacity not to agree with its propaganda drops?

blacksunday ... for you to complain about me and my posts, is bordering on the psychotic. IMO

JeffreysMummyIsCross Mon 26-Oct-15 12:33:39

Isitmebut - it surely hasn't escaped your notice that only about three people use the Politics board now. I am sure that I am not the only person who has been driven away by your disruptive posting style. Just to be clear - this has nothing whatsoever to do with your political views. But it has everything to do with the way that you post - the underlining and bolding, which gives the impression of shouting. The length of your posts, which give the impression of an ideological rant, often with little reference to previous posts, but intended primarily to slate your political opposition. The same uncritical party-political line trotted out at every opportunity. All this has turned this board into little more than an outlet for your extensive political rantings, when once it was a decent forum for debate - yes, people disagreed, but there was actual engagement with each other and a proper discussion (of a sort). If the intention of your posting has been to stifle debate by killing off every thread on this board then, well done, goal accomplished. I can guarantee you have only driven people away, though, rather than converting them to your viewpoint.

I repeat, this has nothing to do with your right-wing views. I would be saying exactly the same thing if you were a fervent Marxist posting in the same manner.

Isitmebut Mon 26-Oct-15 13:20:22

CrossMummy ... As I've explained above, based on the content and bullying by numerous other posters, to say I'm responsible, is frankly bollocks (and I so wanted to underline & bold that).

Firstly, whether here or on the News, there are more posts that I don't participate on, than ones I do.

Next, if within a post I want to emphasis salient points for those who may not to read the whole thing, I do so, using the Mumsnet 'Emphasis' features provided - I am not 'importing' unfair features - maybe if others HAD a salient point or two rather than a general rant, they'd use it to.

Your "actual engagement" means from what I've seen is around one hundred posts of 'he said, she said', or requesting facts, while I cut to the the chase - as its much harder to bullsquirt/add propaganda when a poster lays out their (often qualified) views for all that disagree to reply to - rather than having pages of confusion (with a subliminal message), which suits the agenda of many on here.

This thread is about 'English Votes for English Laws', which I feel very strong about and even started threads on over the past few years, but I can see why some would not want my opinion on it, whether underlined, bold, or plain naked.

Isitmebut Mon 26-Oct-15 13:26:47

P.S. Has it ever occurred to you that some may not post/reply, because they agree with me, even on what was seen as a very left wing board with several rather nasty 'close down the non believer posters' bullies? Spooky, huh.

GiddyOnZackHunt Mon 26-Oct-15 13:50:38

I agree with JeffreysMummy.
I love a nice chat and a bit of a row about politics.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now