Should England have its own parliament?

[Dumb Ideologies]

Yeah, I don't know who will support an English Parliament. As you've said English Democrats are a disgrace, trying to get Richard Barnbrook on board. There's been rumours that UKIP will support an English Parliament.

I do expect there's a few that aren't nationalistic but want more power for Wales because they believe in decentralisation.

I'd have to also say this. While I have seen polls indicating a high level of support, it's hard to tell what that means. Is that support a 'yeah, I guess that's a good idea' or a 'I strongly believe in this'? It's a commonsense position, but one that'll have to involve a lot of political upheaval. Is the support of the kind that'll bring people to the streets to mass protest? Is there space for it to even be used as a major electoral point by a new party? I suspect that's why the English Democrats have drifted on to other issues. It doesn't strike me as a 'vote-swinging' issue. People thinking 'yeah, might be a good idea' doesn't bring about political change.

[North Suran]

...but they have acted in ways that treat the English unfairly, that's the whole point! MPs do have a bias, because they are part of a political party.

MPs in English constituencies are elected by the English. They have a vested interest in defending the English, since otherwise they would risk losing their seats.

[Breten (Ancient)]

...but they have acted in ways that treat the English unfairly, that's the whole point! MPs do have a bias, because they are part of a political party.

MPs in English constituencies are elected by the English. They have a vested interest in defending the English, since otherwise they would risk losing their seats.

The MPs are in British constituencies. If they had a vested interest in defending England, why aren't they doing it? Could it be because this year we have NI/Welsh/Scottish elections, to be treating England as a cash cow their party will get more votes in the other nations. Your argument just doesn't stand up to logic.

[Pesda]

These examples are quite old, and on the last tuition fees vote, most Scottish and Welsh MPs voted against the increse.

Other than that, your argument is valid.

The point stands though, why should the Welsh and Scottish MPs get any vote at all on the matter? In fact, if you think about it, they weren't sticking up for England, they were sticking two fingers up to the Gov't when they did this.

I think we should agree that they were sticking up for England and sticking two fingers up at the goverment

In response to your argument, why should English MPs decide to send Welsh troops to Afghanistan?

[Georgism]

Have it in Westminster. Exclude non-English MPs for English only issues. Creating a new parliament etc would be expensive and not really worth it.

[Georgism]

In response to your argument, why should English MPs decide to send Welsh troops to Afghanistan?

Because they're part of the British army. Not the Welsh army.

[North Suran]

MPs in English constituencies are elected by the English. They have a vested interest in defending the English, since otherwise they would risk losing their seats.

The MPs are in British constituencies.

They are in English constituencies within Britain. What do you think a representative elected in Texas is more concerned with - the interests of the nation, or the interests of Texas?

If they had a vested interest in defending England, why aren't they doing it?

The UK just recently (and barely) emerged from a recession. The Tories were elected on an austerity platform. They are cutting across the board, in order to tackle the growing deficit. It is not some sort of vindictive Anglophobia - especially when you remember how English-dominated the governing cabinet is.

Could it be because this year we have NI/Welsh/Scottish elections, to be treating England as a cash cow their party will get more votes in the other nations.

Which makes no sense, since - as aforementioned - there are more seats in England than in all the other home nations combined.

[Chumblywumbly]

MPs in English constituencies are elected by the English. They have a vested interest in defending the English, since otherwise they would risk losing their seats.

The MPs are in British constituencies. If they had a vested interest in defending England, why aren't they doing it? Could it be because this year we have NI/Welsh/Scottish elections, to be treating England as a cash cow their party will get more votes in the other nations. Your argument just doesn't stand up to logic.

What are you saying here?

That English MPs are deliberately screwing over their constituents to garner support for their respective parties in Holyrood and Cardiff?

[North Suran]

In response to your argument, why should English MPs decide to send Welsh troops to Afghanistan?

Because they're part of the British army. Not the Welsh army.

Then surely, by the same logic, you'd agree with allowing non-English MPs to vote on issues which affect England, since this is the British parliament?

[North Suran]

The MPs are in British constituencies. If they had a vested interest in defending England, why aren't they doing it? Could it be because this year we have NI/Welsh/Scottish elections, to be treating England as a cash cow their party will get more votes in the other nations. Your argument just doesn't stand up to logic.

What are you saying here?

That English MPs are deliberately screwing over their constituents to garner support for their respective parties in Holyrood and Cardiff?

I think so, and it makes about as much sense as the US Government screwing over the mainland in order to secure the support of Puerto Rico.

[Breten (Ancient)]

Because they're part of the British army. Not the Welsh army.

Then surely you'd agree with allowing non-English MPs to vote on issues which affect England, since this is the British parliament?

No, not on issues which affect solely England.

[Pesda]

In response to your argument, why should English MPs decide to send Welsh troops to Afghanistan?

Because they're part of the British army. Not the Welsh army.

I don't think that they should be in the British army.

[North Suran]

Then surely, by the same logic, you'd agree with allowing non-English MPs to vote on issues which affect England, since this is the British parliament?

No, not on issues which affect solely England.

So the Welsh, Scottish and Irish shouldn't have to serve in the British Army?

[Kington Langley]

England has always been the dominant nation in the United Kingdom (several people think the UK and England are the same thing) and out of the 650 constituencies in the UK, 533 of these are English so if anything England is already over-represented. Creating a devolved English Parliament would only make it worse.

[Breten (Ancient)]

The MPs are in British constituencies. If they had a vested interest in defending England, why aren't they doing it? Could it be because this year we have NI/Welsh/Scottish elections, to be treating England as a cash cow their party will get more votes in the other nations. Your argument just doesn't stand up to logic.

What are you saying here?

That English MPs are deliberately screwing over their constituents to garner support for their respective parties in Holyrood and Cardiff?

Not the "English MPs" but their parties. Why do you think parties in Wales/Scotland are making a big deal out of protecting them from the cuts...at the expense of the English taxpayer. England has suffered disproportionately from the cuts (although incidentally I agree with the cuts, just wish they were evenly distributed).

[Georgism]

Then surely you'd agree with allowing non-English MPs to vote on issues which affect England, since this is the British parliament?

No. I'd support stopping non-English MPs from voting on England-only issues in Westminster. We could even call it the 'English parliament' if it matters that much. There's just no point in making a new building with new MPs. It costs money, etc.

[Georgism]

No, not on issues which affect solely England.

So the Welsh, Scottish and Irish shouldn't have to serve in the British Army?

Nobody has to serve in the British Army.

[Breten (Ancient)]

Then surely you'd agree with allowing non-English MPs to vote on issues which affect England, since this is the British parliament?

No. I'd support stopping non-English MPs from voting on England-only issues in Westminster. We could even call it the 'English parliament' if it matters that much. There's just no point in making a new building with new MPs. It costs money, etc.

There's been reports done which suggest an English Parliament could save money. When I find the report I'll post it on here. We could reduce the amount of MPs for a start, and there are an obscene amount of MLAs for the population of Northern Ireland. Also, we could always scrap the Greater London Assembly.

[--Europe--]

Personally - a Federal Britain seems a better way than all the devolution. I now await the abuse...

[Chumblywumbly]

[Welsh troops can be sent to Afghanistan by English MPs b]ecause they're part of the British army. Not the Welsh army.

Then surely, by the same logic, you'd agree with allowing non-English MPs to vote on issues which affect England, since this is the British parliament?

I don't believe that's logically analogous.

Afghanistan arguably affects the whole of the UK, whereas legislation only affecting England doesn't.

[Breten (Ancient)]

No, not on issues which affect solely England.

So the Welsh, Scottish and Irish shouldn't have to serve in the British Army?

How did you work that one out? :S

I don't think you've got the hang of this!

[Georgism]

There's been reports done which suggest an English Parliament could save money.

An English parliament in addition to Westminster? I doubt it.

We could reduce the amount of MPs for a start,

By almost doubling them?

Also, we could always scrap the Greater London Assembly.

Never!

[North Suran]

No. I'd support stopping non-English MPs from voting on England-only issues in Westminster. We could even call it the 'English parliament' if it matters that much. There's just no point in making a new building with new MPs. It costs money, etc.

There's been reports done which suggest an English Parliament could save money. When I find the report I'll post it on here. We could reduce the amount of MPs for a start, and there are an obscene amount of MLAs for the population of Northern Ireland. Also, we could always scrap the Greater London Assembly.

You'd have to build a new parliament building (Scotland's cost around £300 million), which isn't wise, considering the post-recession climate and the current savage austerity measures. You'd have to create an entirely new framework for the English Parliament, complete with another layer of bureaucracy. You'd have to hold another set of elections to elect members. And on top of all this, we'd still have to pay for the UK Parliament, since it would still have reserved powers.

It certainly wouldn't save money.

[Breten (Ancient)]

Personally - a Federal Britain seems a better way than all the devolution. I now await the abuse...

So long as it doesn't involve a federal Europe, I'd support that.

[North Suran]

Personally - a Federal Britain seems a better way than all the devolution. I now await the abuse...

Surely a Federal Britain is the culmination of total devolution?