‘English votes’ rules used for first time – to ensure rented homes may remain unfit for use

Ah! So this is how the Tories managed to ensure that private rented homes may continue to be unfit for human habitation.

It seems it was the first use of “English votes for English laws”, also known as EVEL.

Or should that be “EVIL”?

New “English votes for English laws” rules have been implemented in the House of Commons for the first time.

Conservative MPs cheered as English and Welsh members prepared to give their consent to parts of the Housing and Planning Bill that only apply to their constituencies.

Housing Minister Brandon Lewis said he was “very proud” to be implementing the reforms.

Source: ‘English votes’ rules used for first time in House of Commons – BBC News

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:


9 thoughts on “‘English votes’ rules used for first time – to ensure rented homes may remain unfit for use

  1. John Gaines

    Stick with the EVIL for accuracy; Reich wing Tories in Land Enclosure swindle, Cameroon the stupid does love owning lots and lots of Land, especially if its FREE.

  2. Dez

    Interesting development…..I have no information if scotland will follow or already have this new change in place already. I take it, from the heading, that this housing and planning change does not contain any requirements for landlords to ensure their rented housing stock is fit for purpose etc. Housing issue aside this does open up the question that this method of voting can lead to all manner of pieces of legislation being rubber stamped easily through the system. This type of voting means unless the legislation is so outrageous that even the tory members rebel it is a done deal no matter what the voters think or want …… what next me thinks??

  3. daijohn

    Bit baffled down ‘ere in the West Country ’bout the adding up. The winning majority was 93 – and the total vote 513 have they got that many?

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      There are 650 MP seats in the House of Commons. Scotland and Northern Ireland were ruled out of voting under EVEL, which means 77 MPs couldn’t vote. That leaves 573, so a total vote of 513 is perfectly possible.

  4. Joan Edington

    These MPs may have cheered but I feel that the middle-England voters who gave the Tories their outright majority are going to regret it. I am not saying this as an SNP supporter, by the way, since I suspect that if all the MPs that lost their seats to the SNP in Scotland were still in place, they would all (bar one) have voted for this amendment. That is why the Tories brought in EVEL. It was not really to give the English say on their own matters, as they said to appease the more nationalistic English voters. It was to silence the more left-wing Scots and ensure their winning on issues that may have proved more difficult.

    What makes me wonder about this vote, however, is who voted with the Tories from the other parties. If all 59 Scots MPs had been allowed, and voted for the amendment, there would still have been a good majority against it.

  5. David

    That’s compassionate conservatism for you. Can’t beat it, can you? How a bit more compassionate bombing of civilians in Syria?

Comments are closed.