This entry was posted
on Tuesday, January 3rd, 2006 at 7:34 pm and is filed under Gavin Ayling's blog.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Heh – the link doesn’t work, mate. Presumably it should be pointing here?
Can’t say I agree with the campaign personally (I find the idea of having tinpot half-arsed ‘devolved’ parliaments quite disagreeable anyway) but there you go.
(I find the idea of having tinpot half-arsed ‘devolved’ parliaments quite disagreeable anyway)
As someone living in a part of the UK which already possesses one of these sublime, and costly, bits of nonsense I am sadly obliged to agree with your sentiments. On the other hand, if sufficient of my English cousins wish to inflict a similar body upon themselves then who am I to naysay them?
I assume saying that Wales doesn’t have a parliament, merely an assembly which can only pass secondary legislation and then requires a Westminster rubber stamp, would be considered pedantic?
Bill and Paul, I agree, the best solution is not devolution and another layer… But that’s what’s been given to the other nations of the UK so why not England?
James, It isn’t pedantic but it is important… What it excellently illustrates is the complete muddle that is devolution today. One country has proper devolution; another is closed at the moment while the British government makes up its mind; Wales has less devolution because the Welsh Nationalists were less successful at convincing their electorate; and England was denied altogether because Regional Assemblies were the preferred method and because, I assume, England would not obediently elect a left-wing representation.
The argument for an English Parliament is simple. If the Scots want devolution (which they patently do) that is great but the offer must be made to the other nations of the UK too or we end up with Scottish MPs causing things to become law in England that are not law in Scotland and which the majority of English MPs (and, indeed, MSPs) do not support. Worse, Cabinet MPs are selected from the ruling British party and not from the result of an English election (equivalent to the Scottish Parliament election).
Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are both Scottish and as you say, an English Parliament would not elect a reliably left wing government (unless you count the current Tory Party).
I’m afraid Cameron isn’t for it either – I had the good fortune to speak to George Osborne shortly before DC’s election and he told me an extra layer of government was not on the cards. They want English votes for English laws (no surprise there really, it would strengthen the hand of the Tory national parliamentary party).
The only way you’ll get your wish is if there is sufficient English disquiet over the issue which means we’ll have to learn to complain a lot more.
Personally, I see room for a Texas style part-time legislature. At least then the downside (that a politician without a job that needs doing will find one to do anyway) is minimised. The upside to English Conservatives of devolution is the possibility of advancing a conservative agenda in England that could not be sold in Scotland or Wales. That doesn’t actually require an English parliament, just a manifesto promise that “Scotland and Wales would be allowed to decide these issues for themselves”, or something like that.
Mark, My hope is that the party will come to realise that they’ll get more joy from an English Parliament than they would from English Votes on English Matters (EVoEM). Basically, if the ruling party relies on Scottish and Welsh MPs (as it has done many times in the past but before devolution) then the party that has the majority of English MPs will continually defeat legislation proposed by the party that has the majority of British MPs. Further, if the party with the English majority supports the gist of the proposal by the British majority party (as with Blair’s Education White Paper currently) then there will be a permanent position of support for half-hearted bills… And “English Votes” does not absolutely proclude non-English MPs from wasting debate time presumably…?
EVoEM is a fudge to silence those who find the current settlement unfair just as the Scottish Parliament was a fudge to keep the pro-Independence movement in Scotland quiet for a time…
I’m not sure what I think about the devolution thing. I guess I’d go with what’s “fair”. That is, given Wales and Scotland can control their own affairs to some degree, so should England be able to.
Of course, the original position was that nobody had any devolved powers really, so in fairness Scotland and Wales are out of order. hmmm.
Mr Carrot, I agree with your fairness point, but I would include what the people want in it too… If the people of Britain agree that Scotland should have independence or a parliament, then that should be provided and then, in the interests of fairness, further devolution to take account of that. As it is at the moment, the Scots have been handed power over England and their own affairs without recourse to democracy for us (the English).
As Churchill said “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” Governments should attempt to remember what democracy means and then complaints can be shown to be foundless.
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
#1 by Paul on January 3rd, 2006 - 7:48 pm
Heh – the link doesn’t work, mate. Presumably it should be pointing here?
Can’t say I agree with the campaign personally (I find the idea of having tinpot half-arsed ‘devolved’ parliaments quite disagreeable anyway) but there you go.
#2 by Gav on January 3rd, 2006 - 8:00 pm
Thanks Paul, fixed now!
#3 by Bill (Scotland) on January 3rd, 2006 - 8:36 pm
Hi Paul
(I find the idea of having tinpot half-arsed ‘devolved’ parliaments quite disagreeable anyway)
As someone living in a part of the UK which already possesses one of these sublime, and costly, bits of nonsense I am sadly obliged to agree with your sentiments. On the other hand, if sufficient of my English cousins wish to inflict a similar body upon themselves then who am I to naysay them?
#4 by James Hellyer on January 3rd, 2006 - 9:31 pm
I assume saying that Wales doesn’t have a parliament, merely an assembly which can only pass secondary legislation and then requires a Westminster rubber stamp, would be considered pedantic?
#5 by Gav on January 3rd, 2006 - 9:54 pm
Bill and Paul, I agree, the best solution is not devolution and another layer… But that’s what’s been given to the other nations of the UK so why not England?
James, It isn’t pedantic but it is important… What it excellently illustrates is the complete muddle that is devolution today. One country has proper devolution; another is closed at the moment while the British government makes up its mind; Wales has less devolution because the Welsh Nationalists were less successful at convincing their electorate; and England was denied altogether because Regional Assemblies were the preferred method and because, I assume, England would not obediently elect a left-wing representation.
The argument for an English Parliament is simple. If the Scots want devolution (which they patently do) that is great but the offer must be made to the other nations of the UK too or we end up with Scottish MPs causing things to become law in England that are not law in Scotland and which the majority of English MPs (and, indeed, MSPs) do not support. Worse, Cabinet MPs are selected from the ruling British party and not from the result of an English election (equivalent to the Scottish Parliament election).
#6 by mark on January 3rd, 2006 - 11:49 pm
Gav,
It’s a noble cause but I can’t see it happening.
Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are both Scottish and as you say, an English Parliament would not elect a reliably left wing government (unless you count the current Tory Party).
I’m afraid Cameron isn’t for it either – I had the good fortune to speak to George Osborne shortly before DC’s election and he told me an extra layer of government was not on the cards. They want English votes for English laws (no surprise there really, it would strengthen the hand of the Tory national parliamentary party).
The only way you’ll get your wish is if there is sufficient English disquiet over the issue which means we’ll have to learn to complain a lot more.
Personally, I see room for a Texas style part-time legislature. At least then the downside (that a politician without a job that needs doing will find one to do anyway) is minimised. The upside to English Conservatives of devolution is the possibility of advancing a conservative agenda in England that could not be sold in Scotland or Wales. That doesn’t actually require an English parliament, just a manifesto promise that “Scotland and Wales would be allowed to decide these issues for themselves”, or something like that.
#7 by Gav on January 4th, 2006 - 12:05 am
Mark, My hope is that the party will come to realise that they’ll get more joy from an English Parliament than they would from English Votes on English Matters (EVoEM). Basically, if the ruling party relies on Scottish and Welsh MPs (as it has done many times in the past but before devolution) then the party that has the majority of English MPs will continually defeat legislation proposed by the party that has the majority of British MPs. Further, if the party with the English majority supports the gist of the proposal by the British majority party (as with Blair’s Education White Paper currently) then there will be a permanent position of support for half-hearted bills… And “English Votes” does not absolutely proclude non-English MPs from wasting debate time presumably…?
EVoEM is a fudge to silence those who find the current settlement unfair just as the Scottish Parliament was a fudge to keep the pro-Independence movement in Scotland quiet for a time…
#8 by j0nz on January 4th, 2006 - 10:17 pm
I feel sorry for the Welsh having an assembly. They have to sit cross legged in a school gym and sing hymns. Thats no way to run a country…
#9 by Raw Carrot on January 5th, 2006 - 2:08 am
I’m not sure what I think about the devolution thing. I guess I’d go with what’s “fair”. That is, given Wales and Scotland can control their own affairs to some degree, so should England be able to.
Of course, the original position was that nobody had any devolved powers really, so in fairness Scotland and Wales are out of order. hmmm.
#10 by Gav on January 5th, 2006 - 12:14 pm
Mr Carrot, I agree with your fairness point, but I would include what the people want in it too… If the people of Britain agree that Scotland should have independence or a parliament, then that should be provided and then, in the interests of fairness, further devolution to take account of that. As it is at the moment, the Scots have been handed power over England and their own affairs without recourse to democracy for us (the English).
As Churchill said “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” Governments should attempt to remember what democracy means and then complaints can be shown to be foundless.