Tuesday, August 07, 2007

Another MP Comes Out for an English Parliament

In an interview of ConservativeHome, Tory MP Mark Field advocates the creation of an English Parliament. He says...

Since the expulsion of most of the hereditary peers, I have, in principle, favoured the option of a fully or largely-elected House of Lords. However, I recognise that such an outcome is unlikely to be within the realms of practical politics, not least as the House of Lords as currently constituted is likely to be hostile and there would be little agreement as to the timing or form of elections. I would prefer to see the creation of a completely new federal parliament. Four, full, national parliaments in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland with most of the existing powers of the House of Commons and over them a federal United Kingdom parliament, which would debate defence and foreign affairs, make treaties and administer a cohesion fund for the poorer parts of the UK. It would be funded by a per GDP levy on the national parliaments. There would be no need for extra politicians, as the national
parliaments would send representatives to the UK parliament and meet together
for its debates, which could be held in the old House of Lords chamber.

I appreciate it is a bold, indeed a radical, suggestion but I believe that the only way to restore the balance of the British constitution, which had served us so well for so long, is to offer the British people this fairer alternative in a referendum once we have won the next election.


Read the full interview HERE. He talks about his strong views on the Ealing Southall by-election and much more besides.

45 comments:

Graham said...

I agree an English Parliament is needed, but would retain a directly elected, although smaller, House of Commons.

I also think an English Parliament should be at least 150 miles from London, as a counterbalance to the dominance of London and the South East - how about Liverpool?

PS. I am English, but have lived and worked in Wales for many years.

Jim said...

No UK = No Monarchy. As ever the blue noses never seem to think anything through. In your desperate attempts to try and look like a viable opposition it seems that your only plan is to attack Brown on the grounds of his place of birth.

An English parliament will end the union… FACT; and you would be willing to do this just because you have only a few MPs in Scotland…What appalling judgment. The Duke of Edinburgh will have to go, Prince of Wales will have to go as will the Union Jack. An English parliament will inevitably lead to this… As I have said…never think things through.

Federal system…. Very European. Maybe it is a good idea, NI, Wales and Scotland could then join the Euro….See you haven’t thought it through at all.

Arnie said...

Jim, with respect, what on earth are you talking about? I don't see how it is a fact that an English Parliament would end the union, infact I think it would probably save it.

As for your idea about different parts of a federal uk using different currencies, don't be stupid, I don't know of any federal system in the world that allows state legislatures/governments to adopt individual currencies. It seems that it is you who has not thought this through.

I put it to you that the reason you don't want an English Parliament is that you are scared that the Conservatives would win the most seats in it, rather than for any noble reason.

Jim said...

Arnie what are you talking about. If we have fully blown English, Scottish and Welsh institutions that legistrate for there own areas, than by default that is NOT a union. In time those SEPARATE institutions can do as they please, including referenda to abolish the monarchy, join the Euro etc etc etc.

Jim said...

Sorry Arnie but you haven’t a clue. What is a Federal Government? It is a governmental form in which authority is divided between a central government and various local governments. The idea that England Scotland and Wales could even support a federal system is nonsense.

Adrian Yalland said...

Jim,you are talking rubish. A federal system would make no difference to the status of the monarch, or any of the titles the royal family hold.

It would simly be a re-drawing of political powers enacted by an act of Parliament.

It might actually save the union as it would redress the aweful over representation of Scottish voters, and resolve the West Lothian question.

As for being 'European', there aren't that many federal European states. France isn't federal, Italy isn't, and neither is Sapin, Portugal, Greece, Sweden, Poland, Slovenia.....in fact, the only federal state in Europe I can think of is Germany - and they have 12 Lander, where as the these prosoals suggest only 5 for roughly the same population.

Curously enough, Australia and Canada are federal - and they are our commonwealth cousins!

Jim said...

WHAT !!!!!!!!!

Australia and Canada are made up of provinces…NOT separate countries.

Fact remains, a divided union will lead to the break up of the UK, and inevitably lead to the end of the monarchy. Do you expect an INDEPENDENT Scotland to have the Queen as head of state.. Don’t be feckin stupid.

Colin said...

The last thing this poor benighted country needs is another talking shop for superannuated politicians. We are crawling with bizzies with nothing better to do than to pass myriads of new laws and make regulations to further ensnare the piopulation. What with a Scottish parliament, Welsh Assembly, Northern Ireland Government (!!) and the 'regional assemblies' so beloved of the odious John Prescott (isn't life better now he is out of the frame?), together with the European 'parliament' (Ha!) and two chambers at Westminster, we must be one of the over-represented, most expensively and least-effectively governed country in the western world.

To add an 'English' parliamentas yet another layer of government, with, no douby a £300m building in some provincial town, a huge budget and all the trappings, is frankly bonkers.

I'd abolish the toytown parliaments and assemblies in Edinbrgh, Cardiff and Belfast, as well as the 'regional assemblies' and reduce the number of 'sitting' (that's mostly what they do) MPs at Westminster to somewhere south of 450 or 500.

Any Tory leader worth his or her salt would be advocating smaller government, less regulation, lower taxes and restoration of the freedoms that 10 years of labour maladminstration by a mendacious regime has taken from us. These are true Tory principles and it doesn't take a genius to see that. Unfortunately the current leader has to look 'conservative' up in the dictionary!

SamuelCoates said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hughes Views said...

Where will it all end? There's a growing movement for the restoration of the Kingdom of Mercia - how else can we free ourselves from dominance by those naughty knaves of Wessex?

Just the way to face up to challenges of globalisation and the billion and a half Chinese or the ditto Indians, let's break our union up into tiny little fragments....

Barnacle Bill said...

colin I quite agree with you.
We need less rather than more piggies sticking their noeses in the trough of our taxes.
It's a pity foot and mouth did not affect politicans - a cull might do them some good!

jimbo said...

I think we need less politicians, not for any negative reasons on their performance, cost or perks, but because the voter doesnt know who their representatives are? In some areas you have 4 town cllrs, 1 district cllr and county cllrs/GLA members, council leaders and a mayor,a AM or MSP plus your MP and upto 6 MEPs.
I think on the whole us bloggers know our onions, but does anyone know all of the above?
Some unified system, with less representaives, so people can hold their politicians to account.
Cut out the layers that are un-neccessary and create a german-esque lander system using the councils that are left in replacement for the HoL.

Madasafish said...

Personally I think Jim is talking through another orifice than his mouth. Federal systems work rather well - see the US, Canada, Germany for a start.

Having said that, the current system is clearly - to anyone who takes a dispassionate view - (i.e. thinks)... not sustainable in the long term. To call it a dog's breakfast would be an insult to dogfood:-)

It is clear the current government is gradually destroying the institution sof this state thru well meaning but incompetently carried out reforms:
DEFRA
Doctors hours reform
Border controls
Asylum seekers..
the prison system
drug law reform

to name but a few.

So he last thing we need is another reorganisation.Holes and digging comes to mind. Which says a lot for the incompetence of the Tory MP who raised it.

Elect muppets : you get a mess. QED.

Stewart said...

Firstly, all those moaning about extra politicians should note that this proposal actually mentions that there would be no need for extra politicians. Memebrs of the Parliament would then go to the House of Commons to debate national interests if I read this proposal right.

Secondly, all this moaning about over-representation of Scots forget that Labour still have a majority in the Commons if only English MPs have a vote.

Yes the Tories got more votes but it's a bit like Bush and Gore in 2000. The tories have to think of a strategy to win seats in England and this might work if it's thought through enough.

As for abolishing the Parliaments/ Assembly this would gaurantee an independent Scotland which as a nationalist I obviously wouldn't have a problem with. But it would be better for the Tories if they didn't have the blood on their hands.

Newmania said...

This new found interest in the Union from the traitorous left who were so quick to take the steps that killed it for electoral gain is just priceless . They had no idea that despite taxing the English to pay for massive public sector work in Scotland and shoving £13billion there a year the Scots would still want to be a country. This is because they did not realise how socialism would destroy Scotland and that people are more than economic units they need loyalty and identity.

The problem for Brown is that the Labour party will never form a majority in England or at least it is exceedingly difficult and that is what has prompted this new interest in the flag. When 200 Conservatives rebelled over the devolution of Scotland wanting an amendment to include the UK in the devolution vote they did so out of loyalty to the Union.. They made a noble stand but time has moved on and the Union will eventually cease except as a formal fact much as the Queen has . Arrangements regarding the monarchy and flag are scarcely vital, the name Britain was only one gleaned from old books in recent history much like Mercia ,.I have great difficulty retaining my sandwich listening to their entirety disingenuous faux patriotism.

. It was inevitable that there would be increasing resentment in England of being ruled by Scottish seats where it is not reciprocal quite obviously Scottish votes cannot count for more than English . The English are , by a large majority in favour of English votes and as such have been given to Scotland there is absolutely no argument whatsoever except from personal ambition for denying us equality. I do not see any need for the expense and fanfare of Parliaments. The simple fact of English votes for English laws will do adequately in effect creating a Parliament composed of two Parliaments . The Conservative Party would probably form the majority in England and the labour party the majority in the UK..( as it now appears ).

I have to say this dim Jim strikes me as about the age of six.Has he had his head stuck so far up his fundament that he ahs not noticed the frenzied Labour activity to shore up their weakness. They have hinted at coalition with the Liberals and the great threat is of a form of transferable voting designed to negate the English majority . Now he starts twittering about Prince Charles ... bizarre

Colin I would agree with most of what you say but we have devolved assemblies and we are not going to get rid of them . Sadly we cannot go backwards and the simplest way forward is English votes . At the moment Scotland has left the pattern of UK voting and he Conservatives are barely represented , this is a long term trend whib is more important that the actual democratic deficit . Its leaves the South and the private sector in England supporting the Conservative party against foreign seats paid for with their own money . In turn this has meant the governing of England has been wildly out of step with the wishes of the English . That is one reason why the Labour Party are trying to replace the English with immigrants as quickly as they can and cover the country with council housing to create dependency where they thrive of the 30000,000 houses due for the South 1,000,000 will be inhabited by immigrants who have not yet arrived. The English are under a foreign yoke and attacked for the ethnicity .The Labour party is anti English , dominated as it is by the Celtic fringe. It cannot go on like this


Gordon brown knows that unless he can get a majority in England as well as the UK there will be a constitutional crisis that will be impossible to sustain , so in some ways we already have our parliament as a fact. In sum this is the crucial political question of the age and the Labour Party have nothing but callous deceit to contribute . “ What about the flag..?” pathetic.

Newmania said...

Where will it all end? There's a growing movement for the restoration of the Kingdom of Mercia

Hughes views - That pressure comes form the EU whose regional policy is designed to erode national boundaries .Your glassy eyed boyfriend Gordon Brown is even now lying throught his newly whitened teeth about the staggering fraud of the Constitution / Treaty this lie , is like a dead body and as the weeks go by ......

How typical that whilst implausibly posing as a Union patriot for transparent reasons he is privately colluding in the break up of England. That is another way in which he is trying to resolve the problem of Labour`s Celtic satellites and their imminent flying off .

English representation whatever it is called would also put an end to his plans to dismantle the country into regions and solve the Scottish problem that way.

nadds said...

The solution is pretty simple

English MP's only vote on issues that relate England. No need for another parliament; no issue on Jock, Welsh or Irish ministers, they can speak on issues, but just don't have a vote

Defence, security, most of the budget voted on by all

How does that break up the union?

It costs no more than today.

Toque said...

Interesting timing given that the Democracy Task Force will report its recommendations of the English and West Lothian Questions later this month.

Is Mark Field preparing the ground?

Could we be in for a spectacular Cameron u-turn to try and save his poll ratings?

Jim said...

Would we be having this debate if the PM wasn’t Scottish or the Tories had more MPS in Scotland, probably not? Twenty years ago Conservatives were represented well in Scotland; Thatcher sealed those MPs fate. Now Twenty years on because successive Tories governments plundered Scotland, the Scots now vote for anyone but them. Do the Tories try to change their policies towards Scotland, or attempt to win back the confidence and support of the Scots…Nope. You have opted to divide a nation, divide its people, divide it institutions just because you cant be bothered to try and change and win back Scotland…TYPICAL. The selfish easy route that will have devastating consequences to the Union.

Bayleaf said...

Top posts, Newmania [12:57 and 13:07].

Why not let MPs for Scotland, Wales & NI constituencies contribute to the debate on England-only matters (they might have something useful to say) but not allow them to vote?

That would not disbar a Prime Minister who represented a Scottish constituency, merely remove any chance of his voting on matters that didn't affect his constituents. It wouldn't affect his or anyone else's ability to vote on UK-wide matters.

Madasafish said...

Jim said "Now Twenty years on because successive Tories governments plundered Scotland, .."

The Barnett formula from the 1960s meant Scotland was allotted far more public spending than England.

>Jim

You might convince people if your facts were correct. Instaed you make as much sense as Michael Foot did.
Learn some history.. and stop having chips on both shoulders... the Scots are the unhealthiest race in Europe cos it's always someone else's fault..(usually the English).. whilst those Socts with get up and go.. did just that...as I did. Bunch of losing whingers:-)

Newmania said...

Would we be having this debate if the PM wasn’t Scottish or the Tories had more MPS in Scotland, probably not?

That’s like saying you wouldn’t mind having an umbrella full of holes if it wasn’t raining. The debate is provoked by the rise of Scottish nationalism. Such a feeling would always affect the Conservative Party which was the Party of the Union and Margaret Thactchers period was only part of a rift going back to the 50s . It is not a coincidence that the PM is Scottish , so was the last one and that is because of the Scottish base of the Labour party and it absence from the South of England, they benefited from this anti Englishness . Times have changed , they were not changed by the Conservatives or by the English and they should not be the ones to suffer. The Conservative Party realised devolution meant the slow death and they remain conflicted about it . The Labour Party couldn’t give a toss frankly. Not about the flag , not about the Queen not about the old ties that are now so weakened . If you do , your Party is laughing at you.
You have opted to divide a nation,

No the Labour Party did that by its support of devolution and the Scots did it by turning against the Union partly because of the myths spread by the Scots BBC and the Labour Party that Scotland was( holds nose) plundered !!! The Conservative Party is not well placed to represent Scottish nationalism because of its Unionist roots . You are wrong to say that the end of the Union is being driven by Conservatives the mainstream of Conservative opinion only wants equality for the English with the Scots . There is no wish to push this further than it needs to go and much regret that it has come so far . You cannot throw devolution at Scotland to shore up your position and then come whining to us when the English want fair treatment.

The Labour Party have continued to exploit this historic change cynically by turning Scotland into client state with English taxes which was also not sustainable with the new realities. Their sheer moral iniquity seems to have sickened the Scots who I am sure will be excellent neighbours and friends in the future


divide its people, divide it institutions just because you cant be bothered to try and change and win back Scotland…TYPICAL. The selfish easy route that will have devastating consequences to the Union.


Jim I feel sorry for you . You sound as if you almost believe this nonsense. The only people who can look back with pride on their record are the Conservatives .They have been on the wrong end of the shift( mirrored throughout Europe ) and take no pleasure in what has happened , but it has and you cannot rule England with foreign votes . Scotland is now its own country and we wish it well. It is not our country any more.
It is not selfish to wish to have a constituional arrangement that reflect the realities. It is unsafe not to and Labour crocodile tears just make me giggle

jimbo said...

How about landlocked MPs not being allowed votes on Marine Bills, or MPs without a university in their constituency not being allowed to talk about top-up fees? Should metropolitan MPs have been absent from the house during the Fox hunting
debate?
Creating different classes of MP is a dangerous precedent and an English Parliament is purely a psephology debate on BOTH sides. The UK constituation evolves with
rare need for sledgehammer tactics and faddish changes based on election data.

Colin said...

This thread has been hijacked by a lot of theorlogical debate about the so-called 'West Lothian Question'. This can be answered by abolishing the premise on which it is based - by sweeping away the wasteful and unnecessary tottown legislatures in Edinburgh, Cardiff and - ludicrously - Belfast. All three are part and parcel of Blair's botched attempts at devolution - like everything else he touched his constitutional 'reforms' were ill-thought through and fatally flawed. Newmania says 'we have devolved assemblies and we are not going to get rid of them ' - there is no good reason not to rid ourselves of these inneffective, divisive, excessively expensive bits of constitutional garbage. They're about as much use as Derry Irvine's Pugin wallpaper.

fairdealphil said...

Surprised that no-one seems to want to talk about what Mark Field says about Ealing Southall - particularly the defections by Labour councillors to the Tories and the negative effect it had on the campaign by David Cameron's Conservatives...

Remember the defections: Iain Dale said it was evidence that Labour's campaign was disintegrating, Conservative Home praised Grant Shapps and said it was Brown's Ealing Bombshell...


http://fairdealphil.blogspot.com/2007/08/tory-mp-reveals-how-even-good-news.html#links

Funny what difference a month makes...

David Lindsay said...

Mark who?

The Tories' cack-handed attempts to play the "English" card become more hilarious by the day. And that's just Newmania. Nobody cares. Perhaps they should. But they don't.

The Tories predicted a torrent of English hostility to Brown as PM. Where is it? At the end of the day, the English know, like and respect the Scottish doctors or bank managers whom Brown so resembles.

Cameron, by contrast, is a posh Scot: English public school, Oxbridge, married into the English baronetage, Southern English seat, sense of entitlement to be PM instead of some state school and Scottish university son of the manse from the old Fife coal belt.

That intra-Scottish class conflict is the key to understanding why he and Brown detest each other quite so much. And I think we all know which side of that conflict is more agreeable to most of the English.

Good grief, imagine who would stand for an English Parliament (and yes, I am aware that I might well be eating my words if it were ever actually to be set up), or who would turn out to vote for such a thing!

The latter would be very few in number, but that would only make them all the more dangerous. And the former would be "elected" from party lists. NOOOOO!

Support for independence itself in Scotland is now at pre-Braveheart levels, though continuing to decline; that is why the SNP is not even attempting to hold a referendum on independence, following an election specifically on the Union which returned vastly more Unionist than separatist MSPs, with the Unionists taking nearly seventy per cent of the vote.

Meanwhile, Plaid Cymru doesn't know what it thinks, and isn't worth thinking about.

So let's get on with rebuilding our country, Britain, with a strong Parliament and strong local government able to tell an over-mighty executive where to go, an over-mighty judiciary where to go, Brussels where to go, and Washington where to go.

A key part of this would be for the Parliament of the United Kingdom to avail itself of its unmdoubted right to legislate in matters where the devolved bodies may also legislate, there being no doubt whatever that the former would prevail over the latter wherever the two conflicted (which is why there is, in fact, no West Lothian Question).

After all, one does rather suspect that Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling have certain views on, say, health, or education, or transport in their own constituencies. And now they have the chance to give legislative effect to those views.

The Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly could carry on enacting subordinate legislation if they so chose, but after a while people would start questioning what on earth they were for. And after a few years of that, they could just quietly be wound up.

Yak40 said...

The idea of an English Parliament is worthy of discussion but not before more important matters are settled.
If Blair's Legacy (EU sell out) is whipped thru' parliament then just about everything forward will be dictated by Brussels without checks or balances and any English parliament will be reduced to the status of a regional council.

Christopher Booker has a nice summary: http://tinyurl.com/2cgvqf

Of course there's lots of other places to look as the doc is now available in English. E.g. EU Referendum: http://www.eureferendum.blogspot.com/

David Lindsay said...

yak40, I can only assume that you are extremely anti-Cameron,a nd want to provoke the crisis taht would get rid of him. Well, good for you.

Does Cameron really want a referendum on the EU Constitreaty? After all, we all know that Michael Heseltine's mini-me would then have to campaign for a Yes vote, or else sit out the referendum campaign altogether.

It would be far better for him to use the lack of a referendum (and there isn't going to be one - Gordon Has Spoken on this) as his excuse for nominally whipping his party against the Constitreaty itself, though taking no action against those who voted in favour, or abstained, or just didn't turn up.

In any case, a referendum campaign would be rigged, with all the money on the Yes side, and with the BBC, which is convinced that only the Tory Hard Right has the slightest doubts about the EU, putting up various rather disagreeable cranks against three or four pro-Constitreaty speakers at a time, drawn from across the parties as if theat meant that they somehow held a range of views. Oh, and from time to time, it might put up Tony Benn instead.

Furthermore, these (not including Benn) would also be the only people writing Vote No articles for the only newspapers to carry such articles: the Times, Telegraph, Mail and Sun/News of the World titles.

The Yes Campaign would have no difficulty in saying even to most readers of those newspapers that their own views had nothing in common with those of such persons on any other issue (Do Telegraph readers want to abolish farm subsidies? Do Sun readers want to abolish the NHS?), so how could they have anything in common over this, either?

Parliament should throw out the Constitreaty. It wants to, so let it do so.

Yak40 said...

"yak40, I can only assume that you are extremely anti-Cameron,a nd want to provoke the crisis taht would get rid of him."

No, I'm not tho' I admit to being underwhelmed.

I'm actually thinking about the future of the country rather than party politics, simple as that.

Geezer said...

Fairdealphil:
Nice to see another idiot Lefty, stinking out a Conservative blog, but it at least reminds people why they shouldn't vote Labour! Can't you find some dreary socialist blog to inhabit, you old wind-bag? There must be some "Ken is God" type blog where you can indulge in some sort of cyber mutual-masturbation with other lefty morons? Perhaps you and Jim can hook-up or something.

Anyway,

I can see why the English National thing is appealing to Conservatives. All those Scottish MPs, voting in Westminster on things that only affect the English and not their own constituents. It's amazing how many English people haven't even considered that fact! Well, not amazing when the MSM, especially the BBC, ignore this.

But, The Tory Party is a Unionist Party, any move away from that would be a radical and risky departure. The BBC, I'm sure would start some sort of all out assault on them for this move as well. On the other hand, to make the point subtly and feed the English national theme out in a more unofficial way, is very sensible. Brown may have tried to soften his accent, but at the end of the day, he is a Scottish socialist who loves pumping English taxpayers money North of the border. The people of England should be made fully aware of this!

Sea Shanty Irish said...

The concept of an English assembly makes a lot of sense, which is not the same thing as saying that it would actually work. But it's surely worthy of serious consideration. Though I tend to agree that this is NOT a salient issue with the English electorate, in the way that devolotion did have significant (if hardly dominant) appeal to Scots and Welsh voters.

As for the British Monarchy, its remarkable history so far - in particular the Queen's role as Head of the Commonweatlth -strongly suggests it can deal with the consequences of an English assembly (or English regional assemblies).

Plus am nae so sure an independent Scotland would necessarily forsake QEII, her heirs & successors. Just as an independent QUEBEC might well retain the monarchical connection.

Nor am I convinced a English assembly would be totally dominated by the Tory Party. Particularly if there was some form of proportional voting, which seems an obvious requirment given precedents of previous devolutions.

Indeed, one of the historical shortcomings of the Conservative Party has been its curious blindness to the true power and potential of the monarchical concept, combined with blind attachment to the precise terms of the Union imposed by hook & by crook upon the hapless Welsh, Scots and Irish . . . to say nothing of the long-suffering Yorkish, Cornish and Kentish!

Finally, would like to point out the remote possiblity that pragmatic monarchy AND creative unionism MIGHT be part of a grand reunion signified by the mutual, positive co-existence of a genuinuely United Ireland that also belongs to a truly United Kingdom.

Stranger things have been known to happen . . . such as the current DUP-SF regime at Storemont . . .

John said...

What the Scots wanted in 1707 was FEDERAL UNION . They stated it then loud and clear using those words . It is what they have always wanted amd , partially , beaing in mind that they retained independence of religion, law , education and other institutions , what they got .

What they have now obtained with their own parliament is what they wanted then .

It is the slow and historically and constitutionally ignorant English who cannot grasp that federal British union would work perfectly well .

Someone said
" Do you expect an INDEPENDENT Scotland to have the Queen as head of state.. Don’t be feckin stupid. "

The answer is - YES I do .

Monarchy is an integral part of Scottish nationalism , right back to Mac Erc of 303BC or thereabouts . Scots antimonarchists have always made a noise but I suspect this is more to do with anti Englisness. Republicanism in Scotland is out of kilter with any Scot who has an appreciation of the sweep of Scottish history . The SNP want a Queen of Scotland again and a constituional Scottish style monarchy .

Make no mistake , a Queen of Scotland would be enormously popular IN SCOTLAND . Salmond , a student of Scottish history , knows this which is why he supports the idea and is comfortable with it .

Newmania said...

Sea Shanty your suggestion that England is not a proper country is somewhat offensive or would be if it wasn’t so stupid.( The Kentish ?...) You may well be right however that faced with the realties of the situation Labour will try to amend elections in such a way as to thwart the will of the people , a transferable vote by some formula. I know they have plans and I think things may get a little hot around here if they try to throw the ball away when they can’t win. I would not out it past them. Such a betrayal would call for direct action . None of this is any business of yours as a clownish foreigner .


JIM- You are driving me nuts its just so difficult to get anywhere with someone who will claim one and one equals three and anyway it equals more than it did during the Thatcher period. You seriously with a straight face are going to sit their and argue that its right that the English should have less democratic rights than the Scots . Do you think England is less a country? You think the Scots are inherently more deserving of representation ?Your Labour pretence that a country is no more valid a boundary than any other is chilling and must make betrayal conveniently easy for you. How far do you think you would get with this crap in the pub over the road from me ?( Which thanks to you lot I no longer go to)



David L You can be interesting IMHO but on this subject your position is inherently untenable . 70% of the English favour English votes It is not just a Conservative issue. If you can tell anything that the English get from the current arrangement expect abuse , high taxes diffuse democracy and half value votes I would love to know. On a referendum . If the yes vote was certain we would have had one.
That all there is to say and I have already answered the rest of your repeated mantra which is not exactly tricky given its flimsy foundations. Not worth it if you will not readIf Brown is not able to get a majority in England he will not be able to rule England. He knows it even if you lot do not .



BTW Am I the only English person commenting.? I seem to be the only Conservative and I am getting a bit fed up with nothing to look at but attempts to sabotage Iains blog with gibberish.
It used to be that we had a solid basis of discussion with a bit of moon-bat brown sauce on the side .Now its all brown sauce and bugger all nourishment.

vanfuertes said...

As has been mentioned, there are two problems with the idea of an English parliament;
a) The primary reason for calls for an English parliament is the fact that Scottish MPs vote on matters that do not affect their constituencies. That is true. However, MPs have ALWAYS done this. MPs in West London were not and should not have been barred from voting on trade union matters, or issues concerning coalminers. The current situation is no different.
b) Even if one were to conclude (incorrectly) that federalism was necessary, a situation whereby we'd see one parliament representing 50 million people and three others representing less than 6 million each is the most bizarre, unequal and ridiculous form of federalism one could ever imagine. There would need to be REGIONAL parliaments for there to be any prospect of a successful federal UK, but this was rejected by the people of the North East in a referendum not all that long ago.

Perhaps the regular mention of English parliaments and West Lothian questions is actually a Tory campaign to undermine the Union? After all, the chances of a general election victory in England would be pretty good. To come out and say, 'we no longer support the Union' would probably result in derision, but by sneakily trying to drive a wedge between England and the Celtic nations the Tories might be able to force their way into power, in England at least.

fairdealphil said...

geezer (anonymous) says:

"Can't you find some dreary socialist blog to inhabit, you old wind-bag? There must be some "Ken is God" type blog where you can indulge in some sort of cyber mutual-masturbation with other lefty morons?"

Doh, thanks for the warm welcome diamond. Sorry you blame me for spoiling your party...

You obviously think Mr Dale's Diary is a closed shop, open only cartoon characters.

But on our side of the fence, we believe free speech is a wonderful gift...

Some real people on your side think so too...

Clearly Mark Field MP does after DC's fiasco in Ealing Southall...

And Lord Stanley Kalms thinks so too...Didn't mince his words to DC did he...?

Oh, and Lord Saatchi who says DC's nicey-nicey policies don't win elections...

And Ali Miraj who says DC has replaced substance with spin...

And Sir Tom Cowie who closed the cashpoint saying the Tory Party is now run by out of touch arrogant old Etonians...

Graham Brady MP does too of course, despite losing his job on DC's team because he called for what became Tory policy a couple of days later...

Wasn't it Mr Brady who said last week that DC only appeals to the Metropolitan elite...?

Surely Tories wouldn't want to prevent free speech...?

Newmania said...

FD-Phil- That sort of daub is exactly what is sending this blog down the tubes . Instead of discussing education we discuss whenether Labour can spin the Brady bunch as a division. Instead of discussing racism language and Political correctness we discuss whether Labour can spin a cheap smear into a catastrophe . Instead of discsussing politics we are defending an implication of division based on a collection of irrelevant snippets we have all read and amount to nothing ( unless you are a hired propogandist which noone else is)

This is the Labour way. Free speech means free to repeat slogans you and the other Daleks are making the whole thing a bore.
I appeal to your residual humanity to stop posting graffitti . Personally I think "Free speech" is a vastly over rated liberty which , as we have seen, becomes in cynical hands the theft of choice. At the least what was souffle of wit and insight has become like lstening to mashed gears grinding to a standstill. Painful

I admit you are not the worst offender Jim and Chris Paul are the most autistic and Sea Shanty the most pointless. David Lindsay is a deluded fantasist but entertaining . Its a sad day when such an excellent blog is vandalised as it has been.

I think you know what to do,I have left a pearl handled pistol in the hall and I do not expect to see you again. Goodbye Fair Deal Phil and should the other Lord Haw haw Labour stooges wish to perform one decent act in their sorry lives they will at least be remembered will less distaste

fairdealphil said...

So newmania believes that the series of attacks on David Cameron in recent days by Mark Field MP, Lord Stanley Kalms, Lord Saatchi, Ali Miraj, Sir Tom Cowie and Graham Brady MP add up to:

"...a collection of irrelevant snippets we have all read and amount to nothing..."

Which one of the above is "the Lord Haw Haw Labour stooge...?"

Ed said...

The "devolution" debate is several issues wrapped up into one - and then people who like the status quo add in emotive issues such as "the break up of the Union" and "the Queen" to further spice things up.

First issue: English laws are decided by the British parliament but most Scottish and Welsh decisions are made in their own Parliaments. That means that Scottish MPs can legislate for English matters - and on things like tuition fees and student loans Scottish MPs can impose a worse solution on English voters than they get for their own constituents.

Second issue: English parliamentary constituency boundaries are so out of date that some parts of the country elect far more MPs than the same number of people elect in others. At the moment this benefits the Labour party disproportionately but whoever it benefits in a particular year it undermines our system leading to calls for ever more radical systems which yet further remove the power of the voter to remove the incumbent government whatever its flavour.

Third issue: the role of Parliament itself has been totally altered since its inception. Originally it was supposed to provide a restraint on the power of government, but now the government is formed within parliament the only restraint on government is the House of Lords which naturally is regularly ignored because it is not elected.

Newmania said...

Yes

You


?
I am trying to ignore this meta discussion but we are straying into "who is the best at lying".Brown woos normal people with a series of fake initiatives aimed at the right( The Mail). Those who supported him against Blair are silent. The Unions are silent.( In fact happy). The nonexistent Blairites do as they are told .

Now why would that be ? ......Well its because they are all colluding in misrepresenting the Party to the electorate and yes they are good at it . Conservatives value honesty , parliament and independence more and there is some open discussion here and there. Its a good thing

I know which I prefer anyway but all you seem to care about is scrambling around for pebbles to throw. You know perfectly well there is no threat to Cameron and if he wasn`t annoying a few old biffers ( the same ones again and again) he would hardly be up to the job.

Take Tom Cowie a Grammar school boy and business man . Under Labour ( see refusal to allow even setting)he would not have got the chance and if he had they would have taxed and regulated his business out of existence( believe me I know).He thinks Cameron should be more right wing ...well thats hardly support for the socialists is it . The Conservative Party unlike Labour are flush with money so a right wing man in his 80s fulminates and you think its important?
It is nothing . You know it is and you are dishonestly repeating what is not engagement its propoganda ,.
I do not see the point unless you and your masters want to undermine the forum and it is insulting to everyones intelligence in the meantime.

If you do not belive what you say and noone reading it does then I have to wonder what the point of the excercise is ...and I mean this kindly ...

David Lindsay said...

Has it ever occurred to you that there wouldn't actually be a Tory majority in an English Parliament? With top-up lists (undoubtedly), it would be permanently hung, which would probably mean a permanent Lib-Lab coalition.

Newmania said...

David it has and that is exactly the sort of thing that Brown is planning because the day is imminent.I `m not sure what you mean by top up lists but if it is some sort of PR then he has also threatened that as well as a pact with the Liberals . hed may go for it as a preemptive move if he gets a good majority this time.I belive he is planning to snuff out democracy forever

I think we would be a sort of Liberally centre right country but with vastly less socialism whatever you do.The character of the country wuld express itself as now it cannot. I think you might find altogether different groupings emerging over time but I would prefer to stick with FPTP.
The Conservative Party when the boudaries catch up would have huge advantage

Steven Uncles - English Democrats said...

Looks like Mr Field is "signed up" to the English Democrats position on this matter.

A Federal UK !

Oh! what a surprise common sense at last

David Lindsay said...

Newmania, the English are social-democratic like no one else on earth, even including the Scots. Every lobby group, without exception, ultimately exists to demand expensive State action in its members' or supporters' cause, even if that action happen to be tax breaks and government contracts for private companies.

And why not?

I trust that you saw yesterday's Telegraph, with even Simon Heffer going on at some length about how the "free" market could not help the countryside, and with Ann Winterton calling on the supermarkets to insist on British rather than Brazilian beef, even if it was more expensive? Quite right too, of course.

Even Margaret Thatcher was all in favour of enormous State subsidies, provided that they went to farmers, private schools, mortgage-holders, and nuclear power, all of which would have existed (and at least three of which would still exist) hardly, if at all, without those subsidies.

Imagine what would have become of her electorally if she had ever tried to abolish any of them. Indeed, look what DID become of her successor after he did abolish one of them.

As I said, the most social-democratic country in the world.

Anonymous said...

Wellsaid, David Lindsay. Let's get back to being a strong United Kingdom of Great Britain and NI, standing tall in the world again and drawing upon all Britons' strengths.

parci said...

as an irish republican, this is welcome news.. you couldn't get out of NI altogether though, and let the Irish go it alone.
No offence.