Here are three good things about the so called 'expenses crisis':
1) Okay, so it turns out that most of our politicians are brazen chancers with their snouts well and truly buried in the taxpayer-funded trough - what a surprise that is! Still, it's very reassuring to see one of the vital checks and balances of our political system in action and working extremely well; namely, the free press. Corruption has not been allowed to continue indefinitely and the public still have enough power that the politicians have had to sit up and take very serious note of public outrage. This says a great deal for our political system and indeed, the very fact of public outrage at the greed and underhandedness of many members of our political class is a very healthy sign for our political culture; in many countries, including in mainland Europe, politicians' profligacy with public money is expected and tolerated.
2) BBC's 'Question Time' moved to peak viewing hours; Civic Halls packed to the rafters for public meetings with constituency MPs - the British public have not been this animated by politics for decades! Admittedly there seems to be a 'Jerry Springer' element to the masses' new found passion for politics - the thrill of venting righteous judgement on the low-life miscreant squirming on the public stage - but the fact that the issue of financial corruption and the waste of public money seems to have become so important to the British electorate can only be a good thing for the anti-EU movement, bearing in mind that the EU is the institution whose accountants have refused to sign off the accounts for the past 13 years and that MEPs financial packages are notoriously over-generous.
3) The massive level of public contempt for the three main British parties means that UKIP now have a very good chance of achieving a very significant percentage of the vote in the upcoming EU and council elections - perhaps even better than in 2004.
So, it's not all doom and gloom for UK politics after all!
Friday, 29 May 2009
Friday, 27 March 2009
Nothing wrong with Regions
In an earlier post I admitted that I do not have a problem with thinking of myself as British and that I am quite happy to be a citizen of the United Kingdom. I have a further, more shocking confession to make now. The fact is that I see no problem with the idea of regional government for England.
Before anyone denounces me as a heretic, let me just make two qualifications to what I've just said: firstly, said regional bodies would have to be elected by the populations they serve and to be accountable to their electorates and to the UK parliament, not appointed by central Government or directly accountable to Brussels. Secondly, they would have to have at least the same powers as the Scottish Parliament, with a Government and a First Minister for each region.
The 'West Lothian Problem' would be solved and, in fact, the power of each citizen would in a sense have increased as government would have been brought that much closer to the people.
The main arguments that I have heard or read against regionalisation (aside from the fact that the regionalisation proposed by New Labour was basically the imposition of an EU plan to bypass national government) are (a) that it would 'break up' England and (b) that it would create a situation whereby various parts of England are forced to compete with each other for favour or funds from central government.
As far as argument (a) is concerned, we would be in a situation where there was no overall government for England, but where all parts of the UK were subject to the ultimate authority of the UK Parliament. This is basically the situation we were in for almost 300 years until 1999 and most people in England didn't have a problem with the fact that there was no one political body representing England during that period. It was only the creation of the democratic deficit caused by unequal devolution that led to the desire of many people for an English parliament as a way of addressing the unfairness. With the deficit resolved by powers equal to those of the Scottish Parliament being given to the English regions, I believe that demand for an English parliament would fall away once again.
As for objection (b), that regional government would lead to competition for favour or funding from the UK Government, well, isn't that what already happens with local government? And don't different parts of England already compete for these things, anyway, through their elected representatives in the UK Parliament? Competition isn't always a bad thing anyway, and much of the problem could be resolved by giving the power to raise taxes to the Regional Parliaments, enabling them to be largely locally funded rather than having to get money from Westminster.
I'm not in favour of central government imposing regions on the English against their will and I realise that the people of the North East of England overwhelmingly rejected the idea of regional government when John Prescott tried to sell the idea to them. However, I think the objections may have been in part to do with the fact that the form of regional government that New Labour were proposing involved taking powers away from local councils, and also with the involvement of the EU in Labour's plans to regionalise England. In principle though, I see no reason why people might not be persuaded to support a truly democratic, fair and accountable system of regional government for England as a way of returning fairness to the UK constitution, and I certainly would have no problem with such an arrangement.
Before anyone denounces me as a heretic, let me just make two qualifications to what I've just said: firstly, said regional bodies would have to be elected by the populations they serve and to be accountable to their electorates and to the UK parliament, not appointed by central Government or directly accountable to Brussels. Secondly, they would have to have at least the same powers as the Scottish Parliament, with a Government and a First Minister for each region.
The 'West Lothian Problem' would be solved and, in fact, the power of each citizen would in a sense have increased as government would have been brought that much closer to the people.
The main arguments that I have heard or read against regionalisation (aside from the fact that the regionalisation proposed by New Labour was basically the imposition of an EU plan to bypass national government) are (a) that it would 'break up' England and (b) that it would create a situation whereby various parts of England are forced to compete with each other for favour or funds from central government.
As far as argument (a) is concerned, we would be in a situation where there was no overall government for England, but where all parts of the UK were subject to the ultimate authority of the UK Parliament. This is basically the situation we were in for almost 300 years until 1999 and most people in England didn't have a problem with the fact that there was no one political body representing England during that period. It was only the creation of the democratic deficit caused by unequal devolution that led to the desire of many people for an English parliament as a way of addressing the unfairness. With the deficit resolved by powers equal to those of the Scottish Parliament being given to the English regions, I believe that demand for an English parliament would fall away once again.
As for objection (b), that regional government would lead to competition for favour or funding from the UK Government, well, isn't that what already happens with local government? And don't different parts of England already compete for these things, anyway, through their elected representatives in the UK Parliament? Competition isn't always a bad thing anyway, and much of the problem could be resolved by giving the power to raise taxes to the Regional Parliaments, enabling them to be largely locally funded rather than having to get money from Westminster.
I'm not in favour of central government imposing regions on the English against their will and I realise that the people of the North East of England overwhelmingly rejected the idea of regional government when John Prescott tried to sell the idea to them. However, I think the objections may have been in part to do with the fact that the form of regional government that New Labour were proposing involved taking powers away from local councils, and also with the involvement of the EU in Labour's plans to regionalise England. In principle though, I see no reason why people might not be persuaded to support a truly democratic, fair and accountable system of regional government for England as a way of returning fairness to the UK constitution, and I certainly would have no problem with such an arrangement.
Thursday, 19 March 2009
Email to Department of Health re: NHS Constitution
Dear Sir/Madam,
as an employee of the NHS I am currently reading the 'Handbook to the NHS Constitution for England'.
I note from the 'Overview' section at the beginning of the handbook that "the NHS Constitution applies only to the NHS in England. The devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are responsible for developing their own health policies." Yet the overview also states that the the Health Bill, introduced in Parliament on 15th January 2009, proposes that "all NHS organisations, as well as third sector and independent organisations providing NHS care, should be legally required to take account of the NHS Constitution in performing their NHS functions." Since, in actual fact, the constitution only applies in England, it seems unfair that MPs from constituencies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should be entitled to participate in debating and voting on legislation to enshrine it in law. Is there any mechanism in place to prevent MPs whose constituents will not be directly affected by the NHS constitution (as it does not apply in the UK countries in which they live) from participating in the passage of this legislation through Parliament and, if not, how is their participation justifiable?
I look forward to hearing from you in regard to my concerns,
Kind regards
Andrew
as an employee of the NHS I am currently reading the 'Handbook to the NHS Constitution for England'.
I note from the 'Overview' section at the beginning of the handbook that "the NHS Constitution applies only to the NHS in England. The devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are responsible for developing their own health policies." Yet the overview also states that the the Health Bill, introduced in Parliament on 15th January 2009, proposes that "all NHS organisations, as well as third sector and independent organisations providing NHS care, should be legally required to take account of the NHS Constitution in performing their NHS functions." Since, in actual fact, the constitution only applies in England, it seems unfair that MPs from constituencies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should be entitled to participate in debating and voting on legislation to enshrine it in law. Is there any mechanism in place to prevent MPs whose constituents will not be directly affected by the NHS constitution (as it does not apply in the UK countries in which they live) from participating in the passage of this legislation through Parliament and, if not, how is their participation justifiable?
I look forward to hearing from you in regard to my concerns,
Kind regards
Andrew
Tuesday, 17 March 2009
Cameron wants to play Happy Families with the UK
Last night David Cameron came to Watford to speak to members of the local community in an unscripted question and answer session as part of a series of meetings under the banner of 'Cameron Direct' which are being broadcast live over the internet on the Conservative Party website. Incidentally, I think this is a healthy development, a return to 'hustings' type politics and away from the stage-managed, spin-ridden performances we have come to expect from the current regime.
I am not a resident of Watford, but I work there and one of my colleagues is a Tory councillor so she managed to smuggle me in. I was determined to ask Cameron a question in connection with his recent decision to adopt Ken Clarke's proposal for an English Grand Committee to make unchallenged amendments to laws affecting only England (a treacherous sell out, in my opinion, of the English people) and after half an hour or so I managed to catch Mr. Cameron's eye and was allowed to ask my question.
The question I put to him was, "If you win the general election, will you be fair to the people of England and bring in 'English Votes on English Laws', or will it just be 'English Votes on English amendments' that Kenneth Clarke is proposing?"
Now, I realise that the idea of 'English Votes on English Laws' (EVoEL) is not entirely fair to the people of England - the only thing that would be truly fair would be a referendum on how we should be governed, just as the Scots and Welsh were given. However, I wanted my question to be brief and concise, and to highlight the fact that what Clarke has recommended falls short of straightforward EVoEL (because I think the Conservatives are trying to palm it off to the public as being the same thing as EVoEL) and that as such, even compared to the former Tory policy of EVoEL, the new policy is grossly unfair to England.
Here is the full text of Cameron's response to my question, interspersed with my thoughts in italics:
"Well, I think the Kenneth Clarke plan is the right one, I mean let me first say what I won't do. I don't want to have an English Parliament. We've got, frankly, enough politicians, paid enough, with enough big salaries and all the rest - we do not want a whole new English Parliament alongside the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Parliament (sic) and the existing Westminster Parliament.
- Thanks for telling us what we do or don't want, Dave. No need for a referendum, then -
So, how do we deal with this issue that you rightly raise of when, um, English - given that Scottish MPs (sic) in the Scottish Parliament deal with health, education and housing
- erm, don't forget policing, justice, the environment, arts, agriculture etc -
- how do we deal with the issue that when the Westminster Parliament is looking specifically at English health, education and housing, that English MPs have the decisive say. How do we that? Well, I think the Ken Clarke plan is a very good one. We don't want to create a situation where there are two classes of Member of Parliament, and make it too divisive.
- I'm so fed up of hearing this pathetic argument. There are already two classes of MP. Those who can vote on domestic matters affecting their own constituents, ie. English MPs, and those who can't, ie. MPs for Scottish or Welsh constituencies -
We want to keep the United Kingdom together, I think that's important. But what Ken has said in his proposal to me is, look, when the Westminster Parliament's talking about education you just make it sit as a Grand Committee with just English MPs that discuss that bill, and have a convention that when it comes to the whole House of Commons at the end of the process that they don't overturn what the English MPs have done,
- He's trying to make it sound like Scottish / Welsh / Northern Irish MPs won't be able to vote on English legislation, but that's not true, it's only the amendments made by English MPs that will be protected -
and I think this idea of conventions and processes working in our flexible constitution has worked very well over centuries and I think we can make this work as well. What I don't want to do is kind of have a big row between England and Scotland.
- Who said anything about a row? Dave, do you really think the Scots are going to get that stroppy if they're not allowed to participate in governing England's domestic affairs, even though they have their own Parliament and Government to run their country? -
This is the United Kingdom, it's like a family, and I want to keep the family together. Families fall out over lots of things like money and arrangements like this and I don't want to inflame the situation so actually we end up seeing the United Kingdom become the disunited Kingdom. I want to try and keep the family together
- Surely the best way to keep a family together is to treat all the members fairly. Not to disadvantage one at the expense of the others -
because I think we are more together - England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland - than we are if we start to break up."
I sat politely through all this, waiting for Mr. Cameron to invite me to respond to his answer, as he did with all the other questioners, both before and after me. I wish now that I'd just butted in and interrupted him, because when he'd finished his response he just moved straight on and took another question. To me, this is a sign that he is aware of the weakness of his position and doesn't really want to discuss it.
I genuinely believe that the Tories are trying to pretend that the policy they have decided to adopt is not really any different from straightforward 'English Votes on English Laws', in order to give the impression that if they come to power then the West Lothian Question will have been satisfactorily answered. This fraud must be shown up for what it is.
The whole question and answer session can be viewed here. My question is at approximately the 32 minute mark.
I am not a resident of Watford, but I work there and one of my colleagues is a Tory councillor so she managed to smuggle me in. I was determined to ask Cameron a question in connection with his recent decision to adopt Ken Clarke's proposal for an English Grand Committee to make unchallenged amendments to laws affecting only England (a treacherous sell out, in my opinion, of the English people) and after half an hour or so I managed to catch Mr. Cameron's eye and was allowed to ask my question.
The question I put to him was, "If you win the general election, will you be fair to the people of England and bring in 'English Votes on English Laws', or will it just be 'English Votes on English amendments' that Kenneth Clarke is proposing?"
Now, I realise that the idea of 'English Votes on English Laws' (EVoEL) is not entirely fair to the people of England - the only thing that would be truly fair would be a referendum on how we should be governed, just as the Scots and Welsh were given. However, I wanted my question to be brief and concise, and to highlight the fact that what Clarke has recommended falls short of straightforward EVoEL (because I think the Conservatives are trying to palm it off to the public as being the same thing as EVoEL) and that as such, even compared to the former Tory policy of EVoEL, the new policy is grossly unfair to England.
Here is the full text of Cameron's response to my question, interspersed with my thoughts in italics:
"Well, I think the Kenneth Clarke plan is the right one, I mean let me first say what I won't do. I don't want to have an English Parliament. We've got, frankly, enough politicians, paid enough, with enough big salaries and all the rest - we do not want a whole new English Parliament alongside the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Parliament (sic) and the existing Westminster Parliament.
- Thanks for telling us what we do or don't want, Dave. No need for a referendum, then -
So, how do we deal with this issue that you rightly raise of when, um, English - given that Scottish MPs (sic) in the Scottish Parliament deal with health, education and housing
- erm, don't forget policing, justice, the environment, arts, agriculture etc -
- how do we deal with the issue that when the Westminster Parliament is looking specifically at English health, education and housing, that English MPs have the decisive say. How do we that? Well, I think the Ken Clarke plan is a very good one. We don't want to create a situation where there are two classes of Member of Parliament, and make it too divisive.
- I'm so fed up of hearing this pathetic argument. There are already two classes of MP. Those who can vote on domestic matters affecting their own constituents, ie. English MPs, and those who can't, ie. MPs for Scottish or Welsh constituencies -
We want to keep the United Kingdom together, I think that's important. But what Ken has said in his proposal to me is, look, when the Westminster Parliament's talking about education you just make it sit as a Grand Committee with just English MPs that discuss that bill, and have a convention that when it comes to the whole House of Commons at the end of the process that they don't overturn what the English MPs have done,
- He's trying to make it sound like Scottish / Welsh / Northern Irish MPs won't be able to vote on English legislation, but that's not true, it's only the amendments made by English MPs that will be protected -
and I think this idea of conventions and processes working in our flexible constitution has worked very well over centuries and I think we can make this work as well. What I don't want to do is kind of have a big row between England and Scotland.
- Who said anything about a row? Dave, do you really think the Scots are going to get that stroppy if they're not allowed to participate in governing England's domestic affairs, even though they have their own Parliament and Government to run their country? -
This is the United Kingdom, it's like a family, and I want to keep the family together. Families fall out over lots of things like money and arrangements like this and I don't want to inflame the situation so actually we end up seeing the United Kingdom become the disunited Kingdom. I want to try and keep the family together
- Surely the best way to keep a family together is to treat all the members fairly. Not to disadvantage one at the expense of the others -
because I think we are more together - England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland - than we are if we start to break up."
I sat politely through all this, waiting for Mr. Cameron to invite me to respond to his answer, as he did with all the other questioners, both before and after me. I wish now that I'd just butted in and interrupted him, because when he'd finished his response he just moved straight on and took another question. To me, this is a sign that he is aware of the weakness of his position and doesn't really want to discuss it.
I genuinely believe that the Tories are trying to pretend that the policy they have decided to adopt is not really any different from straightforward 'English Votes on English Laws', in order to give the impression that if they come to power then the West Lothian Question will have been satisfactorily answered. This fraud must be shown up for what it is.
The whole question and answer session can be viewed here. My question is at approximately the 32 minute mark.
Saturday, 7 March 2009
There is power in a Union
I used to think that my support for an English parliament made me an English Nationalist, a term which I don't feel entirely comfortable with. The enemy, I thought, were the Unionists, those who continued to believe in the idea of Britain, so beloved of and endlessly (and sick-makingly) trumpeted by Gordon Brown. Which was a shame, because I quite like being British and I'm quite fond of the concept of the United Kingdom.
But the architects and supporters of the unfair devolution settlement have not just done harm to England, they have also done great damage to Britain and to the UK as a whole. Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Charlie Falconer et al are not, I now realise, true Unionists - they're nationalists. They are the ones who have seen to it that the 'United Kingdom' is no longer united. They are the ones who have ensured that the UK parliament now contains two classes of MPs - those who can legislate on domestic matters affecting their own constituencies and those who cannot because such matters are now the remit of the devolved parliament/assemblies. They are the ones who refuse to extend equal privileges to all the constituent nations of the UK and who have created a situation whereby the degree of democratic influence a UK citizen has over how he/she is governed depends on whether or not he/she lives in one of the 'proud, historic nations' of the UK or merely in one of the 'regions'.
The people responsible for asymmetric devolution have put the interests of individual UK nations above those of the UK as a whole and in my book that makes them nationalists (Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish). To wish to help limit the damage and remedy the unfairness by advocating equal constitutional rights for the people of England makes me, I now realise, not an English nationalist but a believer in, and supporter of, the United Kingdom.
Thursday, 5 March 2009
Great minds think alike
Not too long ago, the Conservatives were a divided party, riven by disagreement and factions. Under David Cameron's leadership, however, they have found a new unity of mind and purpose - so much so, in fact, that on the matter of England's democratic deficit it seems that some Tory minds think completely and utterly alike. Just look, for example, at the similarity between the response of Shadow Justice Minister Dominic Grieve to a letter from the CEP's Gareth Young and the letter I received on the same day (3rd March) from my MP, Mike Penning (Conservative, Hemel Hempstead) in reply to an email from me.
And, even more amazingly, this article on the website conservativehome by Shrewsbury and Atcham MP Daniel Kawczyinski contains a passage which is completely identical to one in the letters mentioned above ("I do agree with David Cameron on this issue. Ken Clarke’s proposals strike a balance between giving the English electorate the accountability they deserve, and preserving the UK as a single state.")
How refreshing to see such unity and togetherness amongst politicians. Looks like David Cameron really has put an end to 'Punch and Judy politics', at least within his own party.
And, even more amazingly, this article on the website conservativehome by Shrewsbury and Atcham MP Daniel Kawczyinski contains a passage which is completely identical to one in the letters mentioned above ("I do agree with David Cameron on this issue. Ken Clarke’s proposals strike a balance between giving the English electorate the accountability they deserve, and preserving the UK as a single state.")
How refreshing to see such unity and togetherness amongst politicians. Looks like David Cameron really has put an end to 'Punch and Judy politics', at least within his own party.
Wednesday, 4 March 2009
My MP toes party line
On 3rd March I received this letter in reply to the email I sent to my MP, Mike Penning (Conservative, Hemel Hempstead) on 21st February:
Dear Andrew
Thank you for your recent correspondence about Conservative proposals for an English Grand Committee.
I do agree with David Cameron on this issue. Ken Clarke's proposals strike a balance between giving the English electorate the accountability they deserve, and preserving the UK as a single state.
An English Parliament would move us towards a federal state and would lead to the creation of a new tier of politicians. The federal arrangement it would create would be lop-sided and unstable as England would dominate by virtue of its size - in terms of population and wealth. And it would be both expensive and unneccessary at a time when we should be looking at cutting the cost of politics.
Regional assemblies are also not the answer. They represent artificial areas to which people have no local or emotional ties, and they too would be expensive layers of additional bureaucracy that people in England do not want.
Once again, thank you for taking the time to write to me with your thoughts. If you have any further views on this matter or any other please don't hesitate to get in touch.
Yours sincerely,
Mike Penning
Dear Andrew
Thank you for your recent correspondence about Conservative proposals for an English Grand Committee.
I do agree with David Cameron on this issue. Ken Clarke's proposals strike a balance between giving the English electorate the accountability they deserve, and preserving the UK as a single state.
An English Parliament would move us towards a federal state and would lead to the creation of a new tier of politicians. The federal arrangement it would create would be lop-sided and unstable as England would dominate by virtue of its size - in terms of population and wealth. And it would be both expensive and unneccessary at a time when we should be looking at cutting the cost of politics.
Regional assemblies are also not the answer. They represent artificial areas to which people have no local or emotional ties, and they too would be expensive layers of additional bureaucracy that people in England do not want.
Once again, thank you for taking the time to write to me with your thoughts. If you have any further views on this matter or any other please don't hesitate to get in touch.
Yours sincerely,
Mike Penning
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
