Ep. 192 English Devolution - which reform is best?

Hello and welcome back to the A Level Politics Show, Peeps. I hope Paper One went well for you if you're sitting your external exams in 2025. Paper One is always a tough one, but you made it through and just Alak that some of the questions which came up were the subject of some very recent podcasts and those were largely recorded due to requests that you had made dear listener. So you are a better predictor than me, a reckon of what might come up. Now we turn our attention to Paper Two. In today's episode, we're diving into one of the thorny but hugely important topics, further devolution in England. This pod serves as an update pod to episode 60 and was requested by Esther. So we'll both take the credit I think Esther if this comes up in June. The question is this, evaluate the view that none of the proposals for English devolution will work. Evaluate the view that none of the proposals for English devolution will work. To make this manageable, I'll be breaking down the episode into three key sections. One, the idea of English votes for English laws or evil which has been suspended, but we could just simply bring that back. Two, the idea of an English parliament, would it solve more problems than it creates? And three, the case for regional assemblies and an increase in city or metro mayors are these realistic and workable suggestions. A few things to consider first of all. Let's define the non-political word in the question. In this case, it's what counts as working. For devolution in England to work, there would a need to be strong support within England with what's happening. B, there ought to be greater fairness and symmetry of power. C, the new bodies would have to stand a better chance of representing the people they serve and be more regional-sensitive. And D, to work any new arrangement would have to be better than the current situation of piecemeal reform. I'm going to be pretty specific in my direction. I think that with the exception of regional assemblies, none of the measures for English devolution will work. I'll keep referring back to the criteria I have just laid down to explain my views, which is a good tip for getting AO2. Set the criteria with which to judge the question in your intro. And that goes for any 30 marker, to be honest. And then keep referring back to it throughout. OK, let's dive in. We'll start with a concept of English votes for English laws. Now, English votes for English laws or evil was a pledge contained in the 2015 Tory manifesto and reforms were introduced soon after the general election. It attempted to address the so-called West Lothian question, which begs the question, what should be done about non-English MPs in Westminster voting on English only matters? This question became increasingly pertinent following the establishment of devolved bodies in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The evil procedures involved the following, the procedure removed non-English MPs from taking part in the committee stages of a bill that was deemed English only in nature by the speaker. The new procedures were approved by a commons vote in October 2015 and used for the first time in the House of Commons in January 2016 when Scottish MPs were barred from amending the housing bill. However, evil was suspended in 2020 and is no longer in effect. The simple solution to English devolution might be just simply to bring it back. So proponents argued that evil struck the right balance between ensuring continued representation in Westminster for UK citizens or UK citizens for that matter while tackling the unfairness of the West Lothian question. It would also say that we brought it back a lot of money avoiding the establishing of new institutions. It is far simpler and fairer than rolling out devolution in a piecemeal fashion to some regions but not to others. Take the current Labour Government's plan for devolution or what we call the devolved priority plan, which was announced in February 2025. It aims to fast track six areas to receive devolved status, which include Cumbria, Cheshire, Essex, Hampshire, East Anglia and Sussex. Hello to the people in those regions if you're listening. Now these areas would have new metro mares and combine powers of smaller local authorities together. Yet the Midlands is largely missing from Labour's plans. Evil would simply allow English MPs to all vote for the good of England and would thus avoid this hot potch asymmetric approach. However, there are real problems with evil and there are real reasons why we should not bring it back. Firstly, it still ignores regional specific decision making while the plans of the current government would bring decision making much closer to the people. There were also massive downsides to the way the original evil was implemented. It still allowed all MPs of vote, including Scottish MPs and Welsh MPs, on the final reading of the bill so that non-English MPs could still prevent a bill deemed English nature from passing. The SMP sided with other opposition parties and Tory rebels to defeat the government on loosening English Sunday trading laws in 2016. The first passed the post system also allowed for single party dominance over decision making in England. When it commenced, critics argued that evil gave the then ruling conservatives an unfair advantage since it has a majority or had a majority of English seats. Thus, evil could allow the government to dominate Parliament and decisions affecting the English, even more than it could dominate decisions affecting the whole of the UK. Currently, Labour has 64% of the seats in England alone. It won 348 out of 543 seats in England in the 2024 general election. Thus, evil in today's environment would not produce anything different to that which we had under Cameron's Conservatives. There was also the thorny issue of what exactly constituted an English-only matter. The SMP voted on English Sunday trading, precisely because they argued that longer opening hours in England would affect Scottish businesses across the border that closed earlier. Any decision on the English budget always has a knock-on effect for those in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The system also risked politicising the speaker since it was they who were given an elevator status by declaring which bills were English in nature. Thus, evil would not improve the current plans to extend evolution to new institutions, because it would ignore region sensitivity while still allowing for single party dominance from Westminster. Evil would merely perpetuate the Westminster-nose-best approach, which many claims served as badly during the pandemic when different regions were placed in different lockdown tiers against their will. Let's then consider an English Parliament instead. Now the justification for an English Parliament is pretty straightforward. England is the only nation in the UK to not have its own Parliament, which has created resentment. People feel that Westminster is too remote from other parts of England. Thus, any proposal for an English Parliament usually entails placing it outside of London, reducing that city's political dominance and potentially reducing the North-South divide. We could put it bang in the middle of the country like nottingham, for example. An English Parliament would permanently resolve the West-Slow-Deen question. It would clarify what is meant by English-only issues and leave the Westminster Parliament free to focus on truly national issues. The evil measure introduced in 2015 and since suspended did not go far enough as non-English MPs could still vote on English-only matters, and English Parliament would not have any non-English MPs in it, thus solving the matter once and for all. Now hard-right politicians argue that English identity and culture has been under threat from immigration and multiculturalism, and English Parliament, they say, would promote and preserve this English identity. Even Kierstarma has worried about how the nation has, and I quote, "become an island of strangers." Yet herein lies the problem. An English Parliament would elevate those kinds of little England of views. It would not contain the more progressive elements that the Celtic nations so often inject into our current system. There are also huge practical considerations. If each nation of the UK, including England, had its own Parliament, it would raise the question of what the UK Parliament is for. It would not give any more autonomy to the different regions in the UK. The people of Cornwall are as likely to feel as distant from an English Parliament inside, notting him, as they are to the UK Parliament in Westminster. Decisions would still be top-down, clunky, and lack the regional sensitivity that we see in regional devolution. Let's take Winterfuel payments cuts. These would still come in under a Labour-dominated English Parliament, especially if we're using first pass the post. These cuts have affected some areas far more than others, which a national body is blind to. In Rutland, for example, the Daily Mirror Interactive Map in September 2024 estimated that about 95% of pensioners in Rutland would lose their winter fuel payment altogether compared with only 55% in the London borough of Tower Hamlets. Surely regional assemblies would have a better chance to address these issues if they were in charge of winter fuel payments just as Scotland is. Here, the Scottish government has mitigated the impact introducing the pension age winter heating payments. So here we can see that an English Parliament would fail in its ring sensitivity. It would just be too big and too Westminster-like. Isn't an English Parliament just a really expensive way to introduce evil with just the same number of problems? What is more, there is little support for an English Parliament. A U-Gov survey in July 2024 showed that only 10% of the English public strongly support the creation of an English Parliament. Polls also suggest that most English voters say they wish to be governed from the Westminster Parliament. So those first two suggestions, evil and an English Parliament would not work. Let's consider though arguments for regional assemblies. Now those against regional assemblies argue that only a few regions have a strong regional identity, places like Yorkshire and the West Country. Having regions in charge of taxes could also lead to damaging tax competition in a bid to lure businesses to specific regions. The former Conservative government's free ports idea, Post-Brexit, highlighted the danger of tax competition between regions as the lower tax regions take businesses away from the higher tax ones. There is also limited cross-party support for regional assemblies. The Sunack government openly opposed the work of devolved governments while the Starma government has created the council for the regions and the nations. Very different approaches indeed. They would also claim these critics that asymmetric devolution is an appropriate model for a country such as the UK and a nation as complex as England. Some regions feel well served by the Westminster Parliament while others do not. And so it is right that devolution is applied on a case-by-case basis. Indeed, some argue that the piecemeal approach whereby some places get city or metro mayors is preferable. Once Labour's devolution priority programme is in place, Merrill Devolution would, according to the Institute for Government, cover almost 70% of England's population. A gradual rollout envisaged by the plan would be admittedly more complex but would reflect the complex nature of England and would allow time for these new combined authorities under the plan to bed in and for future devolution programmes to learn from them. Yet the introduction of city or metro mayors and we can assume these future plans that has more of them will still allow Westminster to keep control of the purse strings while passing on responsibility for service cuts. They have minimal tax raising powers and are thus reliant on funding from central government still. Transport for London is supervised by the London Mayor but they have to go cap and hand to the UK treasury every now and then for funding increases. The ultra low admission zone scrapage scheme for polluting cars in London would have perhaps had greater support if the Tory government in Westminster would have subsidised it more or preferably Mercedes-Can had greater revenue raising powers of his own. Thus regional assemblies would arguably be a better solution than what we have now and what we are going to get more of. Messy reorganisation of existing local authorities and metro mayors with limited powers perhaps that's why turnout was so low for these elections only 24% for the Liverpool mayoral election in 2024. No wonder why the London Mayor's controversial U les plan lacks legitimacy in the eyes of its many opponents he was reelected on just 40% turnout. Instead supporters of regional assemblies claim they would be able to be in charge of large areas have greater revenue streams and be able to address the legitimacy issue by resolving the problem of asymmetrical devolution. Currently only some cities and metro regions have enjoyed devolved powers in England. Regional assemblies would resolve this asymmetry by creating a more federal system. It would therefore correct the democratic deficit that the current arrangements produce. They would certainly better reflect regional identity than the UK government. They argue supporters of regional assemblies that central government frequently fails to understand regional sensitivities. They might point to an example such as the pasty tax proposed by the government in 2012 which could have affected West country businesses had there not been a U-turn. Regional authorities rather than Westminster are best placed to take decisions on tax and on other matters that suit regional needs would a Cornish assembly dare tax pasties. There is cross-party support actually. The Sunack government issues with it notwithstanding. There is cross-party support for regional devolution in England as shown by a recent report supporting this model by the political and constitutional reform select committee of the House of Commons. Thus regional assemblies would have greater legitimacy. They would be more regional sensitive. They would be neater and more symmetric and therefore more legitimate than the peaceful approach that we've seen from the Labour government thus far. So which of the proposals for English devolution will work? An English Parliament unlikely and I think it would play into the hands of the hard right. English folks for English laws already scrapped and for good reason. Existing plans, too messy and not bold enough quite frankly, but regional assemblies they offer real potential if underpinned by a final constitutional settlement through an entrenched UK constitution spelling out the powers of the devolved bodies and through representative electoral systems. Let's remember that these metro mayors are all elected under first pass the post now which entrenched the adversarial politics of Westminster at a lower level. So we need to change that. Okay, that's it from me. If you're enjoying the A-level politics show and want even more paper to goodness, subscribe to the A-level politics show plus plus plus plus for just £1.99 a month, you'll get access to the entire back catalogue with revision rich pods ready whenever you need them. Cancel anytime, deets in the show notes. Oh, and don't forget to take part in the post pod polls and I'll be back again very soon with more pods to help you nail the rest of your politics exam. Thanks for all your suggestions and questions in the Spotify comments. We're building a real community here and it means a lot. Until the next time then, happy revising. Bye. [Music]