UK Constitutional Reform Thread

[Mr Pigeon]

In all seriousness, I think the perfect system would be one centred on the principles of Collectivism - similar to Freetown Christiania of Copenhagen. Regarded by civic authorities as a large commune, but with the special coverage of state supervision rather than from the municipality. And, obviously, every second Friday of the month would be Wacky Tacky Tie Day.

Brllrllrllrl, cats and dogs!

Brlrlrlrl.

 

[Wolfboy]

I'm a bit late to this thread but here's where I'm at in my thinking:

Well first things first, I am feeling fairly optimistic about politics for the first time in a while and I think this result could be a catalyst in the UK. Change has to happen now in Scotland and that could break the dam across the country. I really think it was the very best result for everyone across all the nations - if it had been a landslide No, things might have just stayed the same and as I’m sure you’ve gathered from the things I’ve written over the past few days I firmly believe a Yes vote would have been a disaster.

The incredible turn out was great to see and hopefully the rest of the country have sat up and taken notice, seen that a hard fought campaign can pay dividends. Having said that, I would say that this was a yes/no question and therefore very easy to engage with; I’m not saying it’s been an easy decision, but you could invest as much or as little time in it and vote one way or the other for either one simple or a multitude of reasons. The job we and the politicians have on our hands now is a hugely complex one and I think there is no way 85% of the country will have the patience for the political machinations to come. But I hope that enough people will get involved to keep the politicians on the straight and narrow.

As said, Scotland now has to get further powers pushed to Holyrood which means Wales and Northern Ireland will want (and should get) similar devolved powers. Plus the English back benches were already grumbling about an English parliament before the referendum was over.

So (and this is what I hope) a form of federal government is coming. Decisions that are local to the four nations are made by the respective nation and the UK is there as a safety net for everyone and to handle the larger issues that effect everyone. Plus it is a much better gateway to the international community than the any of the four smaller countries alone - be that for the EU or the wider world with NATO and the UN.

As for the level of devolution I think that breaking things down to the four national levels would be fine for now, maybe it could than be revisited in say 15 years time to see if it would make sense to devolve local powers further still.

It struck me as quite an important part of the referendum that the Scots had the small but rich islands that did not want to be a part of and independent Scotland and wanted to break away with exactly the same arguments the mainland Yes voters were using to attempt to leave the UK (right down to ‘hey, we’ve got oil, we’ll be fine!’). It clearly wasn’t as simple as the One Scotland, One Vision dreams that the Yes campaign seemed to me to be built on.

And in England there are similar divides between the north, the south east and the south west in terms of economic power and maybe more local devolution could help tackle the issues that are specific to the regions. For example I grew up in a small village in the Pennines, surrounded by towns such as Huddersfield, Halifax and Oldham and equidistant from Manchester & Leeds. There is a sleeping giant right there and if the correct infrastructure were put in place – a high speed rail link or some other idea along those lines that joined them up and also went further north to include the North East and Liverpool – the North could be a major powerhouse again.

BUT, I think that would be too much too fast. I think the more sensible route over the next few years would be to concentrate on four national parliaments with the Westminster houses above them.

Other wise it’s 4-4-2 to 3-5-2 overnight. Nobody likes that much change!

 

[Wolfboy]

Beyond the general structure of the country the fine details become much more difficult for me. How do the houses work? How do they interlock?

Well for a start I think the four separate nations should choose what ever method of representation they see fit and as an Englishman I’ve come to think I would want an English parliament to remain first past the post as it is now, but maybe we’d have to look at the constituency boundaries to make sure there is a fair balance once we remove the Celtic nations from the map.

I used to be quite a fan of the idea of proportional representation but the past few years and the rise of lowest common denominator politics has put me right off. I am of course talking about the likes of UKIP with their awful shouty empty rhetoric that appeals to the type of person who wants someone easy to blame for their problems. With that mob the bogeyman is the EU and I also think Salmond went down that path in the referendum with his constant bleating about scaremongering & bullying deflecting from his lack of concrete answers to important questions.

I do see the benefits though, for example I love the idea of some green representation. Plus the idea of a system where the professional politics machine that chases the vital swing seats at elections rather than concentrating on the bigger picture no longer being of any use is also appealing.

But the idea that Nigel Farage could be sat in the first house after not doing enough to win a seat under the current electoral rules bothers me greatly. I think the downside outweighs the positives on this one. Maybe I'm thinking too personally on this and the fact that he has a voice is what's great and terrible about democracy at the same time and who am I to pick and choose?

Beyond that, I think the same MPs would sit in the UK house making the decisions that only effect the country as a whole with a second house sitting above them that replaces the House of Lords. Yup, sod those old bastards. There is no way in this day and age any person should sit in a position of such power with out being elected. I would say this is where PR can come into play though, the second house I feel is a better place to utilise it. They'd sit and do pretty much the same job as the Lords so a fair representation of all parties would be a good balance against lower house.

 

[Wolfboy]

Cats in hats... yeah I can buy into that

 

[Mr Pigeon]

Cats in hats... yeah I can buy into that

Do you see, people? See the potential of the hat policy to change the world for the better.

 

[Walrus]

@Wolfboy

Realistically speaking, what do you think the UK would have to do to get the House of Lords abolished? I can't imagine the privileged old farts agreeing to it, but it would probably struggle to find a single person who actually values them and would want to keep them.

I think the next few weeks will be crucial for Cameron - to see if he has the balls to actually make some radical changes. I don't think public support would be an issue.

 

[The Mitcher]

Do you see, people? See the potential of the hat policy to change the world for the better.

Yes...I see fedoras and stetsons coming back into fashion...bowler hats, bowler hats everywhere! brlrlrlrl

 

[Mr Pigeon]

One Nation. One Hat. One Man. One Goal. One Mission. One Heart. One Soul. One Solution.

Wowowowow, gimme one vision, yeah.

 

[rcoobc]

So (and this is what I hope) a form of federal government is coming. Decisions that are local to the foI donur nations are made by the respective nation and the UK is there as a safety net for everyone and to handle the larger issues that effect everyone. Plus it is a much better gateway to the international community than the any of the four smaller countries alone - be that for the EU or the wider world with NATO and the UN.

As for the level of devolution I think that breaking things down to the four national levels would be fine for now, maybe it could than be revisited in say 15 years time to see if it would make sense to devolve local powers further still.

It struck me as quite an important part of the referendum that the Scots had the small but rich islands that did not want to be a part of and independent Scotland and wanted to break away with exactly the same arguments the mainland Yes voters were using to attempt to leave the UK (right down to ‘hey, we’ve got oil, we’ll be fine!’). It clearly wasn’t as simple as the One Scotland, One Vision dreams that the Yes campaign seemed to me to be built on.

And in England there are similar divides between the north, the south east and the south west in terms of economic power and maybe more local devolution could help tackle the issues that are specific to the regions. For example I grew up in a small village in the Pennines, surrounded by towns such as Huddersfield, Halifax and Oldham and equidistant from Manchester & Leeds. There is a sleeping giant right there and if the correct infrastructure were put in place – a high speed rail link or some other idea along those lines that joined them up and also went further north to include the North East and Liverpool – the North could be a major powerhouse again.

BUT, I think that would be too much too fast. I think the more sensible route over the next few years would be to concentrate on four national parliaments with the Westminster houses above them.

Beyond the general structure of the country the fine details become much more difficult for me. How do the houses work? How do they interlock?

Well for a start I think the four separate nations should choose what ever method of representation they see fit and as an Englishman I’ve come to think I would want an English parliament to remain first past the post as it is now, but maybe we’d have to look at the constituency boundaries to make sure there is a fair balance once we remove the Celtic nations from the map.

I used to be quite a fan of the idea of proportional representation but the past few years and the rise of lowest common denominator politics has put me right off. I am of course talking about the likes of UKIP with their awful shouty empty rhetoric that appeals to the type of person who wants someone easy to blame for their problems. With that mob the bogeyman is the EU and I also think Salmond went down that path in the referendum with his constant bleating about scaremongering & bullying deflecting from his lack of concrete answers to important questions.

I do see the benefits though, for example I love the idea of some green representation. Plus the idea of a system where the professional politics machine that chases the vital swing seats at elections rather than concentrating on the bigger picture no longer being of any use is also appealing.

But the idea that Nigel Farage could be sat in the first house after not doing enough to win a seat under the current electoral rules bothers me greatly. I think the downside outweighs the positives on this one. Maybe I'm thinking too personally on this and the fact that he has a voice is what's great and terrible about democracy at the same time and who am I to pick and choose?

Beyond that, I think the same MPs would sit in the UK house making the decisions that only effect the country as a whole with a second house sitting above them that replaces the House of Lords. Yup, sod those old bastards. There is no way in this day and age any person should sit in a position of such power with out being elected. I would say this is where PR can come into play though, the second house I feel is a better place to utilise it. They'd sit and do pretty much the same job as the Lords so a fair representation of all parties would be a good balance against lower house.

I don't really understand what you mean with regards to Proportional Representation. By definition, the "English Parliment", if there is to be one, will be filled with politicians that couldn't win a seat in the house of commons, or aren't ready to, or are too old, or whatever. Having FPTP or PR doesn't change that.

It is true that under PR, the likes of the BNP, UKIP, English Greens etc, would finally get a look in, and that is nothing but a good thing (except the BNP). What you are calling "the rise of lowest common denominator politics" is actually just new parties appearing that actually appeal to people. What you are saying is that UKIP have put you off having politics where anyone can vote for a party that actually appeals to them, and not have a meaningless vote in doing so. Your saying you would rather see the 3 main parties become more and more meaningless to the average voter, and the average voter become more and more marginalized. I don't really understand, maybe you'll have to explain a bit more.

FPTP is such an awful joke of a system; In England during the 2010 General Election the Lib Dems got 85% of the votes that Labour got, but only took 23% of the seats.


Your idea of the 4 countries having devolved powers for now and revisiting it in 15 years would work I think. I'm really not sure how well the ideas of city rule is going to work. I'm not against it, but there is probably only 10 or so places in the UK where it makes sense.

 

[Count Orduck]

Personally, an English parliament still seems bloated to me, and not substantially different enough from the current UK one. If we're going to federalise -- as I believe we should -- by giving greater powers to the regions, then I think England should also be split. Even just in two as a north / south, but a north / south-west / south-east divide seems even better. This isn't splitting the country, and it's not ruining the UK, it's just giving more power to devolved local governments to make decisions based on local needs, whilst keeping a unified and strong federal government that looks after the interests of the country as a whole.

 

[711]

After a few years of England in a UK federation, would the English be more amenable to England in a European federation?

Thin end of the wedge, so to speak?

 

[Walrus]

Personally, an English parliament still seems bloated to me, and not substantially different enough from the current UK one. If we're going to federalise -- as I believe we should -- by giving greater powers to the regions, then I think England should also be split. Even just in two as a north / south, but a north / south-west / south-east divide seems even better. This isn't splitting the country, and it's not ruining the UK, it's just giving more power to devolved local governments to make decisions based on local needs, whilst keeping a unified and strong federal government that looks after the interests of the country as a whole.

I think if England is to get a parliament, then the role of the UK parliament needs to change substantially, to focus purely on larger issues like defence.
This would mean that in terms of size, the UK government could be much smaller than currently.

After a few years of England in a UK federation, would the English be more amenable to England in a European federation?

Thin end of the wedge, so to speak?

That would still be quite a jump I would wager. I think most of the English/Brits like our island, like the UK and it's history. A European federation? Not sure. I like the idea of England/UK in Europe, and I think that going forward, in order for Europe to effectively compete with the other global superpowers it needs to unite and become an even more joint venture though.

Hmm, it's a toughy. I need to think about it.

 

[The Mitcher]

One Nation. One Hat. One Man. One Goal. One Mission. One Heart. One Soul. One Solution.

Wowowowow, gimme one vision, yeah.

Oooone naaaation under a haaaat!


Also...FRIED CHICKEN!

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

I want to see free paper hats given out to every man, woman, child and cat in the country.

We could put union flag hats on the MP's every Monday Tuesday and alternate Wednesday and flag of St George hats on them for rest of the week. That would allow us to know when the English parliament is in sitting and when it's the UK parliament.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

The conservatives want to keep the same MP's less the home nation's ones in the same building and call it an English parliament because 84% of the UK population can't afford to have their own elected assembly in a separate place to Westminster, while the remaining 16% of the population can afford three between them.

Is it me or are they missing the whole point about devolved powers?

 

[Mr Pigeon]

We could put union flag hats on the MP's every Monday Tuesday and alternate Wednesday and flag of St George hats on them for rest of the week. That would allow us to know when the English parliament is in sitting and when it's the UK parliament.

This actually sounds like a great idea.

 

[rcoobc]

The conservatives want to keep the same MP's less the home nation's ones in the same building and call it an English parliament because 84% of the UK population can't afford to have their own elected assembly in a separate place to Westminster, while the remaining 16% of the population can afford three between them.

Is it me or are they missing the whole point about devolved powers?

It's horrible isn't it. To be fair, the English public haven't asked for these powers. We haven't had a referendum and none of the main parties had anything about this in their manifestos. But its still horrible.

 

[rcoobc]

I think if England is to get a parliament, then the role of the UK parliament needs to change substantially, to focus purely on larger issues like defence.
This would mean that in terms of size, the UK government could be much smaller than currently..

This is what I want too.

Cut the number of MPs by 30% or more, which will save the cost of 150 mp. They can keep FPTP if they want.

Scrap the house of lords entirely. This will save the cost of another 750 lords.

Setup an English parliment using PR, with 600 or so members. This is still a net saving. All 4 local houses can act as the lords did at times.

Have the house of commons act on far fewer issues: Defence, finance, etc. Local parliaments would either have total country over some issues, or be given a range of options of figures

 

[Cheesy]

This is what I want too.

Cut the number of MPs by 30% or more, which will save the cost of 150 mp. They can keep FPTP if they want.

Scrap the house of lords entirely. This will save the cost of another 750 lords.

Setup an English parliment using PR, with 600 or so members. This is still a net saving. All 4 local houses can act as the lords did at times.

Have the house of commons act on far fewer issues: Defence, finance, etc. Local parliaments would either have total country over some issues, or be given a range of options of figures

Needs to happen. Shame it probably won't at all.

 

[Walrus]

I do wonder if there is anyone who still sees a place for the House of Lords in modern politics, and whether any of the major parties would have the balls to just plain get rid of them.

 

[Mr Pigeon]

I do wonder if there is anyone who still sees a place for the House of Lords in modern politics, and whether any of the major parties would have the balls to just plain get rid of them.

I doubt they think that it's needed nowadays either, but like you said no one has the stones to do anything about it. It's part of a vicious cycle.

 

[bishblaize]

I do wonder if there is anyone who still sees a place for the House of Lords in modern politics, and whether any of the major parties would have the balls to just plain get rid of them.

Its a pretty daft system I agree. However it does have one upside, which is that it allows talented people to work in Governmental positions without the need for being elected.

Bear in mind that the ability to win a constituency election and the ability to work in the highest reaches of Government do not necessarily go hand in hand.

 

[Walrus]

Its a pretty daft system I agree. However it does have one upside, which is that it allows talented people to work in Governmental positions without the need for being elected.

Bear in mind that the ability to win a constituency election and the ability to work in the highest reaches of Government do not necessarily go hand in hand.

That was certainly the original aim for it, and I am all for a meritocracy system (although anyone involved in such a system should only have input in an area where they actually have some knowledge and expertise) but the current HoL is more just a rich men's club.

 

[bishblaize]

That was certainly the original aim for it, and I am all for a meritocracy system (although anyone involved in such a system should only have input in an area where they actually have some knowledge and expertise) but the current HoL is more just a rich men's club.

Hmm, could be. I've known a few lords (or baronesses) and none of them fit that bill, but they were probably the minority. They didn't treat it as one big jolly. tbh I found MPs worse for that. The HoC is like a big boarding school sometimes, very childish. Put me off politics in the end.

 

[Walrus]

Hmm, could be. I've known a few lords (or baronesses) and none of them fit that bill, but they were probably the minority. They didn't treat it as one big jolly. tbh I found MPs worse for that. The HoC is like a big boarding school sometimes, very childish. Put me off politics in the end.

I agree with that on the commons, it's one of the things that put me off politics as well. Just like a bunch of bickering children. PMQT also has degenerated to petty pointscoring. It's sad to think that these are the people in charge of the country.

 

[Walrus]

So...this went well...

 

[sun_tzu]

Conservatives have introduced a veto for English MP's
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33351688

The government will give MPs from English constituencies a new "veto" over laws affecting England only.

Commons Leader Chris Grayling said the change, also applying in some cases to Welsh MPs, would bring "real fairness to our constitutional arrangements".

MPs will vote, for the first time, with tablet computers in some cases where the "double majority" system applies.

Labour said it was an "outrage" that ministers wanted to rush into making "profound constitutional change".

Shadow Commons leader Angela Eagle said the plans risked creating two classes of MPs and accused the Conservatives of a "cynical" attempt to "manufacture itself a very much larger" majority in the Commons.

Under the proposals, all MPs would continue to vote on all key stages of legislation.

But English MPs - and in some cases English and Welsh MPs - will have a veto in Westminster when debating matters that have been devolved to the devolved administrations.

Labour's Angela Eagle criticised the 'back of a fag packet' proposals
MPs will debate the changes on 15 July, Mr Grayling said, and the system will be changed using the rules - known as standing orders - that dictate how Parliament conducts its business.

With more powers set to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament after September's independence referendum, Tory MPs have said it is not right that MPs representing Scottish constituencies can continue to determine laws affecting England only.

Mr Grayling told MPs that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were getting a "stronger voice" and that it was "only fair" to do the same for England.

The Speaker will be asked to certify which bills or parts of bills relate to England or England and Wales only, he said.

New system

• The Speaker will judge which parts of a bill relate to just England, or England and Wales
• An England-only committee stage will consider bills deemed "England-only in their entirety"
• Membership of this committee will reflect the number of MPs each party has in England
• Where sections of legislation relate only to England or England and Wales, agreement of a "Legislative Grand Committee" will be required

What is the 'English Question'?

There will be no changes in the House of Lords, Mr Grayling said. But where Lords amendments are certified as England or England and Wales only, a "double majority" system applies, meaning it will need a majority of both the whole House of Commons and MPs representing English or English and Welsh constituencies.

Tablet computers will be used so MPs can instantly register whether they have used their veto where the "double majority" rule applies.

To jeers from opposition benches, Mr Grayling said "Today we are answering the West Lothian Question", a reference to the constitutional anomaly that lets Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland MP at Westminster vote on measures that only apply in England.

West Lothian Question

• Many powers - like education - have been devolved from Westminster, and are the responsibility of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish governments
• In 1977 Labour MP Tam Dalyell - the MP for West Lothian - highlighted what he saw as a dilemma caused by devolution: that Scottish MPs would carry on voting on English issues but English MPs wouldn't have a say on matters in Scotland
• He said it was absurd that he was able to vote on matters affecting the English town of Blackburn, Lancashire, not Blackburn, West Lothian, which was in his own constituency
• Debate over the anomaly has intensified with the new powers being handed to Scotland following its independence referendum

The SNP's Pete Wishart described the English votes policy as a "cobbled together unworkable mess", and said it was "totally unacceptable".

He said this policy showed that the Tories were doing their best to ensure Scotland would become an independent country.

Labour's Sir Gerald Kaufman, the father of the house, said the title of the motion, English votes for English laws, "sounds racist".

He added: "This government is undermining the whole basis of British democracy, right through from when the Magna Carta was signed."

 

[The Mitcher]

Conservatives have introduced a veto for English MP's
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33351688

That's not good enough, they are still voting on my matters

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

However Peter Wilshart, an SNP MP, said that the proposals were "unworkable garbage".

He said: What we are creating is two classes of Members of Parliament which will have a signifcant impact on the ability to look after our constituents.

"With this double majority you're as well to stamp the Scottish MPs foreheads before we go into the lobby. This is the most dramatic and important constitutional statement since the days of Gladstone.

"Never before has there been an assault on the rights of Members of Parliament in this house.

"This lot are doing their best to ensure Scotland becomes an independent nation. This is going to make the whole movement to independence even more irresistable."

Mr Grayling said that his plans will provide a final answer to the West Lothian Question of whether MPs from Scotland should be able to vote on English matters while English MPs cannot vote on devolved powers.

He said: "Today we are answering the West Lothian Question and recognising the voice of England in our great Union of nations. It is a vital next step in ensuring our constitutional is fair and fit for the future."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...announces-English-votes-for-English-laws.html

 

[Cheesy]

Both sides have a point here. English people shouldn’t have a situation where Scottish MP’s can vote on things which will only affect the English.

At the same time though, there’s a point to be made that it will create different classes of MP. This is why I think England should either receive devolution, or have regional devolution; not this nonsensical city devolution plan.

It feels a bit daft for a state to have devolved areas, but with varying powers of devolution. Make it equal across the board, and ensure that Scotland/England/Wales/Northern Ireland have equally devolved powers. It can be federalism if that’s what they want, but doesn’t necessarily have to be.

As it is though, the Tories will probably want to ensure as much power remains at Westminster as is possible.

 

[Walrus]

Agree with @Cheesy - best way to sort the UK political scene will be for each state to have pretty much identical levels of devolution.