English Constitutional Convention is established

A letter to this morning's Telegraph announces the establishment, today, of an English Constitutional Convention (more here).  The Convention "has the aim of promoting debate and raising public awareness of England's democratic deficit".  The signatories - who include Iain Dale and John Horam MP - want "the question of the establishment of an English parliament... considered and the option placed in front of the electorate".

For the campaigners the key issues are:

• The over-representation of Scotland and Wales in the House of Commons;
• The fact that Scottish and Welsh MPs can vote on laws affecting England but MPs from England cannot vote on many Scottish laws;
• The English is unfairly served by the current formula by which public spending is distributed across the UK;
• The division of England into regional assemblies is not a solution and not popular.

A leader in The Telegraph welcomes the ECC's establishment and warns that action must be taken soon if England's place in the post-devolution settlement isn't to become a "toxic" issue.  The newspapers falls short of endorsing an English Parliament but does recommend English votes for English laws.

Christine Constable of the English Democrats Party will be part of a discussion about the virtues of an English Parliament at 9pm tonight on 18 Doughty Street Talk TV.

Related links: Portillo declines to defend The Union and Priscilla Cullen argues 'There isn't enough concern about asymmetrical devolution' on YourPlatform.

Comments

[William Norton]

Bravo! Exactly what we need: another chamber of politicians.

I would willingly pay another 10% on my income tax for this (better still: let's slap it on top of council tax and run this thing as a local authority).

I think they should have an iconic state of the art prestige brand new building by an innovative foreign architect in some run-down underdeveloped part of the country, like London - you could probably get someone to design something with a price tag as little as £50m (so it wouldn't cost you more than £500m in the end and you might even get it less than 3 yrs behind schedule).

People in this new quango would clearly deserve salaries of at least £100,000 pa plus expenses, lifetime skills learning grants, relocation allowances, free TV and office fridge, drinks allocation, in-house sauna and massage parlour and two members of staff each to answer the telephone to explain that you're in an important meeting when you're in the bar - of course they'll need at least 7 pubs in this new palace - and the BBC will have to put up the licence fee for the new bespoke digital satellite cable TV channel they'll establish to cover those all-important debates.

We'll need at least 700 members in this organisation, and a support staff of about 2,500 to make sure that things get done properly - the Presiding Officer couldn't possibly do it for less than £150,000 plus indexed earnings-related tax-free pension - you can't stint on democracy.

Of course, some people - backward, unprogressive, boring anorak types - might quibble that this is all a bit expensive and unnecessary - so as an efficiency drive why don't we abolish all the county councils (why not? just about everything else is being used as an excuse to scrap the shires these days) and make all the directly-elected mayors submit a glossy annual report and appear before some committee or other for a day's pointless questioning on TV. Much more democratic.

Alternatively, (and this is obviously a facetious idea not meant to be taken seriously) why don't we stop fiddling about with the deckchairs on this doomed boat and TRY HANDING BACK POWER TO PEOPLE FOR A CHANGE AND SACK SOME OF THE USELESS BASTARDS WE'RE ALREADY EMPLOYING

??????

[RKO]

William Norton, careful. You'll be accused of being an anti-English racist if you carry on like that!!

[Alexander Drake]

I think an English Constitutional Convention, elected at the same time as the next general election, is a great idea. I just hope this thread doesn't become full of cranky-pants English Democrats types. I literally have to wipe my screen clean from all their froth after they bombard a thread here with their comments.

[sjm]

Once again, William has said all that needs saying, and it needs saying loud, clear and direct, time after time after time after ....

[Tam Large]

Excellent idea. At last this injustice is on the way to being addressed, not just talked about.

Of course the establishent of a Convention does not mean a separate tier of government or bureaucracy: we already have a potential English Parliament at Westminster, it is our own current UK Parliament. All it needs is for a way to identify clearly any specifically english legislation to be formulated, and then the English MPs (alone) can sit, debate, and legislate on those issues. When a pan-Union issue is involved, all the MPs can gather in a stitting of the UK Parliament. Might need a different Speaker, and some specifically engish posts, such as First Minister of England, etc, but nothing radical or expensive.

[RKO]

The First Minister of England should also be given the title Sec of State for English Affairs and a seat at the Cabinet table to represent England to the UK Government, as do the Scottish, Welsh and N. Irish Secretaries of State.

[Opinicus]

We need four national parliaments and a UK parliament and to abolish the HofL especially in its proposed form. Let each national Parliament set its own taxes and pay a levy to the UK Parliament for Defence and Foreign Affairs.
Pace William Norton's intemperate remarks, this will save the cost of the Lords and the cost of the current Celtic MPs. Taxation set nationally not by the UK parliament will automatically unwind the Barnet formula and English income tax can come down 2p. The Scots can have the Oil Revenue and we will keep the City.
That's not froth its fairness and that's what really scares some people used to not being fair.

[Iain Dale]

William, I am surprised at you. I agree we dont want more politicians, so the solution is for MPs to sit at Westminster 3 weeks out of four and in their own Parliaments the other week.

[Richard]

Just how popular is devolution proving in Wales and Scotland? Would it be politically possible to reverse devolution? Or rather, would it be politically possibly to reverse devolution after Scotland loses its English subsidy?

[Denis Cooper]

Where to start? How about here:

Since the last boundary changes electors in Scotland are now only marginally over-represented at Westminster. It's the electors in Wales who are now more significantly over-represented, and I guess the constituencies will be re-drawn.

It's impossible to get it exactly right, or even give a precise account, because both the overall populations and the fraction of those populations which are of voting age are constantly changing, but these are the figures I have:

2001 census, millions: UK population = 58.8, of which Scotland = 5.1 or 8.5%.

Westminster MPs: UK total = 646, of which Scotland = 59 or 9.1%.

Meaning that Scotland should lose maybe 4 out of the present 59 seats.

2001 census, millions: UK population = 58.8, of which Wales = 2.9 or 4.9%.

Westminster MPs: UK total = 646, of which Wales = 40 or 6.2%.

Meaning that Wales should lose maybe 8 out of the present 40 seats.

Northern Ireland wasn't mentioned in the letter, but on 2001 populations the correct number of seats works out as 18.7, compared to the present 18.

[sjm]

Dear Ian - let's go just a tad further. How about MPs sitting just 3 days a month, and letting the rest of us just get on with our life without their bloody interference? (Salaries/expenses would of course be paid pro rata).

[Denis Cooper]

Rather than "the fraction of those populations which are of voting age" above I should have written "the fraction of those populations which are eligible to vote in elections to the Westminster Parliament", bearing in mind that the population of England is disproportionately swollen by foreigners who may be eligible to vote in local elections and/or European elections, but not yet in Westminster elections.

In any case the Boundary Commission for Scotland notes:

http://www.bcomm-scotland.gov.uk/

Fifth Periodical Report of the Boundary Commission for Scotland

Chapter 2 The Rules and General Principles of the Review

QUOTE

Changes to the Rules

1. Section 86 of the Scotland Act 1998 made a number of changes to the Rules, the effect of which is as follows:

1.1 Rule 1(2) was removed: there is now no guaranteed minimum number of Scottish seats at Westminster.

1.2 Rule 3A was inserted: “A constituency which includes the Orkney Islands or the Shetland Islands shall not include the whole or any part of a local government area other than the Orkney Islands or the Shetland Islands”.

1.3 Rule 5 was altered: for the first review following the Scotland Act 1998, the electoral quota for England must be used to determine the appropriate number of Scottish seats at Westminster.

1.4 Rule 7 was modified: rule 3A, regarding the Orkney Islands and the Shetland Islands, cannot be disregarded.

The Electoral Quota and the Number of Constituencies

2. As amended, Rule 1 no longer provides for a minimum of 71 Scottish seats at
Westminster. Further, under Rule 5, as amended, Rule 8 (which sets out how the electoral quota should be derived) does not apply in Scotland for this review. Rule 5 states that, for the first report of the Commission submitted under section 3(1) of the 1986 Act, ‘electoral quota’ means the number which, on the enumeration date in relation to that report, is the electoral quota for England (69,934 at June 2001, the enumeration date for our review).

3. The electorate in Scotland at the enumeration date for our review was 3,995,489. A strict division of the electorate by the electoral quota for England would provide for 57 constituencies, rather than the 72 which are presently allocated. At the start of our review, the average number of electors in existing Scottish constituencies was 55,454. On average, therefore, the electorate of constituencies in Scotland would need to increase by approximately 26 per cent to meet the requirement of using the electoral quota for England to determine the number and distribution of Scottish seats.

UNQUOTE

However contrary to what I naturally imagined to be the case a similar reduction in the number of seats is NOT being done in Wales where the electoral quota is 55,640 rather than the 69,934 for England mentioned above. Why?

http://www.official-documents.co.uk/document/hc0506/hc07/0743/0743.pdf

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2006/20061041.htm

[Penultimate Guy]

However contrary to what I naturally imagined to be the case a similar reduction in the number of seats is NOT being done in Wales where the electoral quota is 55,640 rather than the 69,934 for England mentioned above. Why?

I had the impression it's because the Welsh Assembly doesn't have the powers of the Scottish Parliament.

[onenationtory]

English votes for English laws is all well and good, but what happens if the UK Government is unable to hold a majority of English MPs? There would be two options - the UK Government could work with the English majority to pass a legislative programme in a consensual style - like the US Federal government working with an opposition Congress, say, or, alternatively, the English majority could enter into a coalition to run the English departments in return for support on UK-wide policy e.g. defence/ foreign affairs.

[Mark Wadsworth]

Yippee! I second the fine tuning suggested by Tam Large, Jonathan and sjm.

[RodS]

This is the mess that Devolution has got us into. It cannot be left as it is. The injustices to England (all 50 million of us) grow daily. Losing out on Health Care costs for the Elderly - Tuition costs for students - and most insidious of all, the Lib/Lab/Wet Tory Plan to dismember England to suit EU Regionalism.An what are Tory members of these undemocratic, unwanted Regional Assemblies doing? Drawing their attendance allowances rather than fighting to have them dismantled as 78% of the English want.

We need to reverse the growth of the full-time, career politician who knows nothing other than breeding yet more tiers of government. A 'sunset clause' on all elected councillors and MP's would be a good start.

[William Norton]

Iain Dale: William, I am surprised at you. I agree we dont want more politicians, so the solution is for MPs to sit at Westminster 3 weeks out of four and in their own Parliaments the other week.

Actually, I could live with that. Ditch the current white elephants in Cardiff and Edinburgh with their rigged electoral rules and have Scottish MPs (i.e. proper MPs) sitting together in Edinburgh to decide Scottish matters, control the Scottish executive etc etc.

You might spend slightly more on support costs for Westminster than present - but clearly less than 3 or 4 parliaments which is what we're on the hook for at present.

In fact, you could have the situation where Mr X is an opposition MP at Westminster but a govmt minister in Edinburgh - which means his critical scrutiny of legislation would carry more weight and experience, and so would be harder to shrug off through the whipped vote system. That ought to lead to better govmt at the UK level. We might even see the development of grown-up politics for a change.

What I don't want - and don't think we need - is an English Parliament on the same footing as the devolved assemblies. In some quarters there is the start of resentment about unbalanced devolution, but I don't detect any great bandwagon starting to roll in favour of More Government or More Politicians.

[Ashton]

Although Iain's idea is a basically worthwhile one, we'll still have to shell out the money for another layer of beauracracy. There's more to politics than the elected polticians.

[Simon Chapman]

Agreed that English votes for English laws doesn't really cut it, but I have no great appetite for an English Parliament either.

Iain@1108 & William@1703's solution is an interesting one. But what I would rather see is a serious & sustained commitment to localism, focussing on county councils & unitary authorities, to an extent which would make the Welsh & Scottish Assemblies look redundant.

[William Norton]

Simon Chapman: agreed. There are several hundred local authorities in the UK. if any govmt was serious about devolving power ti wouldn't have to footle around establishing new entities: Do It Now and let them get on with it.

If the cllrs are clowns, then why waste tears on the clowns who voted them in?

[Dee]

Funny, isn't it, how the Conservatives think it is worth the sacrifice of actual English and Iraqi lives, to impose democracy on Iraq, yet they argue the toss over a few pence for England's democratic rights.

Exactly how would it be more expensive for England to have its own Parliament, when it would restrict the spare MPs from neighbouring countries, from interfering in England's business? EVoEL will also need a completely new department to argue over what is and what isn't English business, especially as absolutely nothing has been devolved to England.

An English Parliament is our democratic right, so why shouldn't we have equal democratic rights in Britain?

[Jake]

An English Parliament and government would take on about 80% or so of the work done by the British parliament and goverenment . Most civil servants would simply transfer over . The British parliamentarians at Westminster ( who have shown themselves well nigh completely uninterested in defending England's intersts in the union ) would have less work to do , and only British work . So pay them less and they can sit less . Large savings to be made here !
England won't miss 'em .

[Denis Cooper]

Dee @ 18:31 - "Funny, isn't it, how the Conservatives think it is worth the sacrifice of actual English and Iraqi lives, to impose democracy on Iraq, yet they argue the toss over a few pence for England's democratic rights."

You're absolutely right about the money, and all this talk about cutting the number of MPs, or getting rid of the House of Lords just to save money, or not having an English Parliament because it would cost money is very foolish and anti-democratic. We want a system which works and which doesn't produce such bad laws and government. Given that the UK GDP is over £1200 billion, if better laws and improved government brought about a benefit of just 1% that would be £12 billion a year, and here we have people yakking on about about a few tens of millions. It really is a false economy to cut down on democratic representation.

However ... apart from the money, there's the question of potential voter fatigue.

[Mark Wadsworth]

Voter fatigue would be cut down if we had less elections for fewer layers and each had clear power and responsibility.

[Denis Cooper]

Jake @ 19:06 - "An English Parliament and government would take on about 80% or so of the work done by the British parliament and goverenment."

Complete rubbish. As I've pointed out before, the powers devolved to the Scottish Parliament are comparable to those enjoyed by county councils before the war.

People are so used to the highly centralised system which has been created since then they don't realise that almost everything which has recently been delegated to the Scottish Parliament was previously taken away from county councils in Scotland (and in England and Wales as well, of course). Arguably much of it should be devolved down further from the Parliament to counties.

Here is the same list I produced before, but this time look upon it as the list of matters on which an English Parliament would NOT be permitted to legislate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserved_matters#List_of_reserved_matters

The following is a list of reserved matters:[1]

constitutional matters
UK foreign policy
UK defence and national security
fiscal and economic policy
immigration and nationality
energy: electricity, coal, oil, gas and nuclear energy
common markets
trade and industry, including competition and customer protection
drugs law
broadcasting
Elections and the registration and funding of political parties
some aspects of transport, including aviation, railways, transport safety and regulation
employment legislation and health and safety
social security
gambling and the National Lottery
data protection
firearms, extradition and emergency powers
medicines, abortion, human fertilisation and embryology, genetics, xenotransplantation and vivisection
equal opportunities
treason and misprision of treason
regulation of time zones and Summer Time [2]

[Given Up]

Considering that @ 80 % of all laws now come from Brussels...just what is the point of any of these talking shops...they are all nearly redundant.

[Jake]

Denis ,
I think you are being rather pedantic . You might be right that the theoetical power of the Scottish parliament is on a par with that of a pre 11WW county council -

BUT

- in the eyes of the Scots and most of the rest of the world , including the English , it is the parliament of Scotland and of the Scottish nation - which gives it a level of importance vastly in excess of that of a county council . In other words it is the centre of Scottish sovereignty and carries with it all that that word implies .
If that body wishes to pool some of its sovereignty with the other countries of the British Isles as the United Kingdom then , because it is accepted as the central forum of the Scots and as the Scottish national vehicle for sovereign decisions , its collective decision will be accpeted . Thus also for Scottish independence should it so decide .

Likewise an English parliament . We need an English parliament with at least the same rights and competencies as the Scottish parliament . This is only equitable and just - and overdue . Such an English parliament might in theory have county council type powers but would be similarly regarded by the English , the Scots and the rest of the world as a sovereign parliament and would make sovereign decisions .
I would support it in electing to pool some of its sovereingty in the United Kingdom as the British , with an overarching British parliament for British external affairs .
Nevertheless , a English parliament would have a validity and weight far in excess of a mere council because it would be the central political forum of England . It is likely that it would immediately be accorded that honour by all other national parliaments throughout the world .

[Opinicus]

re [email protected]
Those are the current reserved powers but Blair's constitutional settlement does not have to be definitive. The UK parliament only needs to discuss whole UK issues of defence and foreign policy and probably trade and consumer protection, although that has mostly been surrendered to brussels.
Most of the other matters could be devolved too. The list is completely arbitrary.

Support for the idea of an English Parliament is growing by word of mouth despite the omerta of the three main Parties. Any party that adopted it could fan that support very easily. Adopting my idea of levying money on the national parliaments to pay for the UK one would make them very much more than county councils. The Prime Minister of England would have much more impact on English lives than the Prime Minister of the UK, who short of a world war would have no other role than kissing bottoms in Brussels and Washington. Britain stopped being a world power in 1940. It stopped being a sovereign nation in 1992. Providing we keep the nuclear deterrent (MAD is the only sane defence policy), power in the 21st century is going to be economic not military. An England, free of the welfare dependency of its celtic whinge, is going to be far more lithe and successful than a sclerotic Britain bound by Brussels and Labouring under celtic influence.

[TomTom]

We could achieve exactly the same effect by revoking The Act of Union 1707 and removing Scottish MPs from Westminister. We could give Scotland economic aid as a bilateral treaty matter but simply removing Scotland from the Westministrer Parliament achieves much the same as an English Parliament

[Opinicus]

No it doesnt. It means unwinding the military and duplicating the diplomatic. It means potential trade problems and risks further inflamming the detriorating respect of each country for the other.
I am not asking to split up the Union, only to rebalance it. That said if the Scots want to split up, I do not believe England should remain cowed by the threat but let them get on with it. If the Scots Nats win next May there will undoubtedly be a referendum in Scotland. Perhaps we should have one in England too.

[Andrew Ian Dodge]

How about use some of the time that MPs have off and make them sit in an English parliament (those from England). Means far less than another layer of government and those MPs might have a bit more of clue what is going on in England. Would be a good idea to make the Scottish & Welsh bodies (make the Welsh one a proper Parliament) be made of their MPs as well.

[Hal]

We need a British Constitutional Conference, made up of the good and the great, but with a minority of the political elite. A new constitution allowing four independent nations and as Andrew Dodge suggests, using the Commons MPs to legislate for each country, and the federal government as well in seperate functions. The present Scottish Welsh and N.Ireland parliaments to be abolished but their Buildings used by the national contingents from the Commons. The Lords to be abolished and the Commons reduced by one third. The civil service to be used by all but to be reduced to a fragment of it's present size.
A new written constitution and a reorganised judiciary and law enforcement agency to replace the police.
A dream really since our politicians have given over our country to the unaccountable EU.

[Denis Cooper]

Jake, I'm not being "pedantic", I'm simply being realistic about the kind of powers which have actually been delegated to the Scottish Parliament so far. I've read a great deal in recent years which has greatly exaggerated those powers, much of it from English nationalists who either don't know the position is, or who do know but don't care if they mislead the public, and some of it from the government and the media. If you followed the referendum campaign in the north east, you'll know that the same thing happened then, with the Northern Echo and Newcastle Journal and the local BBC talking about "home rule" and even "independence" for the north east. You yourself have written above with reference to the Scottish Parliament: "it is the centre of Scottish sovereignty" - no it isn't, it's no more than a creature of the Westminster Parliament through its Scotland Act 1998 - "If that body wishes to pool some of its sovereignty" - but it has no sovereignty to pool, even if such a concept had any meaning - "it is accepted ... as the Scottish national vehicle for sovereign decisions" - no it isn't, and I doubt if there are many people in Scotland who don't realise that its powers are limited and that the delegation of any further powers is in the gift of the Westminster Parliament, because both of those facts are a constant source of complaint from the SNP who believe that it should be a sovereign Parliament. I accept that the term "Parliament" may have misled some people, who assume that a "Parliament" must always be sovereign when that is not the case - a non-sovereign state within a sovereign federation can still have a state assembly which is described as a "Parliament", for example in Australia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliaments_of_the_Australian_states_and_territories

[Jake]

Denis ,
You are correct - up to a point . I think that the parliament of a country eg of Scotland is more soveriegn than you realise .
One day , possibly soon , the extent of its sovereignty - and the sovereignty of the British parliament , which is the parliament of the new country of Great Britain set up in 1707 as a result of Act of Union - will be put to the test .

I only wish that we had a corresponding parliament in England with similarly circumscibed powers .

We will in the end .

[Scottish Conservative]

Its worth noting that even if the SNP win in May they cannot ask a straight "Should Scotland be an independent country?" question as that would be outwith the powers of the Scotland Act and would be struck down.

The general view is they could get away with asking something like "Do you agree to the scottish executive opening conversations with the uk government about scottish secession from the union?" if there was a yes vote there would then be negotiations and the content of those negotiations would be voted on in the final referendum. this referendum would require to be initiated by Westminster and the wording would be set by the Electoral Commission unlike with the initial referendum. This could be important as the Quebec case shows the degree of support for the question put varies depending on how the proposal is described.ie references to "separation" may be less popular than "autonomy" "independence" etc.

The key for the scottish conservatives is not to be seen to be wishing for a bad deal in the negotiations in the hope of retaining the Union. This would rightly be seen as treacherous and so we should argue for the best possible deal at the negotiations stage. If we dont a) the Scottish Unionists will be seen as treacherous and more interested in the Union than in the country's best interests which will strengthen the Nationalist hand in the referendum or b) the centre-right will be much more peripheral in the early post-independene years than need otherwise be the case.

I realise a great many of you reading this seem to dislike scotland anyway but och well ill post it nehoo cos im no really caring wit u think.

[christine constable]

English Democracy is NOT just an administrative nicety. This seems to be something the Conservatives seem to overlook.

The Conservatives may not have been a fan of devolution, but whether you like it or not it is a reality.

Until the English Parliament Campaign, the most likely fate for England was to be chopped into 9 European Regions, for England to lose her status as a nation, and for England, as we have known her to disappear into the history books.

I did not hear howls or cries from Conservatives at that prospect, which almost became a reality in 2004, had it not been for the NO campaigning many grass roots engaged in. A 79% rejection of that was impressive by any measure, but even that resounding NO has not stopped Labour trying their latest regionalisation break-up "City Regions" which, again, if successful will see the end of England.

Lets get the facts right for a change. The people you snidely call English Nationalists are the everyday decent English people who happen to live in this country. The kind of people who work damn hard, and happen to like being English. The very same people who have been completely ignored in the devolution debate, and who, (not unsurprisingly) are fed up with being left out of the "devolution conversation".

To them, as I am one of them, I ask you this:

Why can't the English celebrate being English in England? If it is perfectly fine for the Scots and Welsh to celebrate their national identity without being accused of being a racist, xenophobe, or Nationalist Nutter, why are the English not afforded the same respect, but get cheap snide remarks from a Conservative party that laughably wants to run the country in the name of the English when they can't even bear to call us by our own name ENGLAND?

Why, if we are democracy is it so right that the Scots and Welsh have a referendum on their form of devolution, but it is out of the question that this same courtesy is afforded to the English - what are you worried about Conservatives - Democracy??

A Mr. Pritchard, stood up at the ECC, and grandly (and very pompously) declared that an English parliament was No. 30 on the priority list of his constituents. No, he declared what they are interested in is health and education, that's what his constituents wanted to sort out. Yes Mr. Pritchard - on Education why English students are the ONLY ones paying £3K for their tuition fees, when Scots and Welsh go free and on the NHS why an English life is worth less than a Scottish life, which must be the case as English patients are denied the life saving drugs the others receive. Yes Mr. Pritchard - neither of these two issues have anything to do with an English Parliament or the right for the English to decide their own priorities, just goes to prove how little the Conservatives understand about the devolution process, because if he knew the facts he wouldn't have said anything so stupid........

England is a proud and historic nation. It has 55+ people living in it. These people have the democratic right to elect people to represent them. No we have not elected Douglas Alexander to run English Transport, we have not elected John Reid to handle the Home Office, and should (God forbid) Gordon Brown become Prime Minister, the people of England would not have elected the person who is de facto England's First Minister. It doesn't matter what nationality Gordon Brown was, it isn't that the English are anti-Scots or anti-anyone, what they want is a prime minister who is elected by the people of England.

A large modern country like England, must have her own executive. If Scotland and Wales have their own, there is no argument any Conservative can put to the people of England to deny England the same. Sorry, the precedent has been set. If you try and deny England her own democracy what does that say about the Conservative? Perhaps you are more interested in personal power then you are in democracy - that I venture is closer to the truth.

Why can't I be free to describe myself as English first and British second? The Scots do and the Welsh do, why is it so wrong for me to feel that way?

Why should I have affection for a Union that tolerates treating me as a third class citizen in my own country? Why should I have any respect for politicians who seek to deny my children their English culture identity and democracy?

Haven't you noticed people aren't voting for the three parties anymore? I wonder why? Maybe we have no respect for you? Maybe you don't represent anything we want to vote for? Maybe, only you believe that the Conservatives have a vision people want to follow, but people aren't turning to you in the numbers you need - why?

Conservatives are propping up regionalisation, accepting of the anti-English discrimination, tolerant of the outrageous Barnett Formula. Conservatives refuse to debate the English question, engage sensibly with the people or accept the democratic right of the English to have parity.

The English Democrats despite their size have in four years done more for democracy than the Conservatives have done in over a century. We have taken on the elected dictatorship with a new vision, a vision that says people can get involved in politics it doesn't have to be an elite that have fallen out of Oxford that have the ideas. The Conservatives should respect that the ED's have taken the democratic path, played by the rules and have a growing following and learn a bit of humility. Afterall who are the English Demmocrats ? they are just ordinary people who were fed up with the Conservatives spending 10 years aiming at an open goal and missing everytime. A nation digusted that England wasn't even at the top table when devolution was discussed, a people sick and tired of the lies, deceit and double dealing of the three parties who passed power round like a predictable game of pass the parcel, with the voter picking up the tab.

No, Conservatives you have a long long way to go if the people of this country are ever to trust you again, and believe me your sneering, anti-English diatribes will do nothing to endear you to an English public that wants pro English leadership, not negative anti Englishness. England has rights and these rights are being ignored and the Conservatives are not lifting a finger to help - believe me sooner that you might think, the penny will drop and the electorate will turn on all three parties. Don't say we haven't tried to get you involved, to point out why you are wrong, so when it all goes pear shaped at the polls you know you only have yourselves to blame!

[Denis Cooper]

Christine,

1. You should not jump to the conclusion that if somebody refers to "English nationalists" then that's "snide". As far as I'm concerned it's no more than a plain statement of fact. I have no problem describing myself as an English nationalist, and that description is now almost as respectable as only the corresponding Scottish, Welsh and Irish versions were ten years ago. I'd like to describe myself as a British nationalist, as well, but that's still more difficult for obvious reasons.

2. You have to be clear in your mind who has been crapping on the English all this time, and the answer is not ordinary people in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, but politicians and their friends in the media - and those are politicians, mainly Labour and Liberal Democrat but also to a lesser extent Tory, who we have elected, and in the case of MPs 82% of them are elected in England. And they've not just been crapping on the English, either: in different ways they've been crapping on everybody across the UK as best suits their purposes.

[Jake]

Well said Christine - that was a epistle of note !
You sum up pretty acurately the general attitude of the British political class of which , sadly , the Conservatives are also typical . England and the English have suffered at the best , disdain and indifference , at the worst , outright racist and nationalist enmity and discrimination from the generality of British institutions and organisations - those same organisations which rush to grovel - there is no other word for it - when the Scots or Welsh are mentioned . Read Mr Cameron's recent speech in Scotland .

for an example of this bias , just ask :

Why is there no English Conservative Party ?

Why is there no English Conservative Party ?

Why is there no English Conservative Party ?

Why is there no English Conservative Party ?

Why is there no English Conservative Party ?

Why is there no English Conservative Party ?

Why is there no English Conservative Party ?

Why is there no English Conservative Party ?

[Christine Constable]

Well Jake a man after my own heart. The Conservatives do not cover themselves in glory I have had more than one Tory try and tell me that "they" would preserve Englishness so I should vote for them. I reply, tell me ONE thing you have done to preserve England in the 18 years you were in power (deathly silence) the truth is it was a big fat zero. Thatcher didn't believe in culture so that went out of the window. Major got us all tied up in Maastricht which was goodbye sovereignty by any other name and bless me, who came up with the blueprint to regionalise England - the Conservatives. Who refuses to have English Conservatives, whilst very happy to sport Welsh Conservatives and Scottish Conservatives...you guest it the Conservatives! Get my drift. WHo won't get involved in the debate on devolution - the Conservatives, who "regretted" their refusal to get involved in the Scottish Constitutional Convention and admitted that it was a "big mistake" the Conservatives.

Having said that John Horam is one of the tiny number of honourable members I actually have time for, rather than the peacock Pritchard who should engage brain in gear before insulting the intelligence of all those at the ECC event and demonstrating that you do not have to be very bright to become a Conservative MP.

I'm a very bitter ex Conservative who feels that England has been shafted royally by the Unionist cabal who cannot seem to see the wood for the trees. Am I alone, certainly not, anyone who might have seen the odd cross of St George flying over the summer is part of the heaving mass of disquiet that is finally battering at the door of Parliament. What perplexes me is do the reserved highly polite English have to knock on that door and continue to be ignored, or will rioting in the streets be the only way we can get our thicko politicians to engage with reality. We are trying very hard with the former, but don't blame me if it ends up with the latter - I am doing what I can despite a wall of indifference at Westminster. Just telling it like it is.

[Jake]

Christine - I am quite hopeful that there will be change . Apart from the dumbest politicians - and there are many of those - I suspect that other politicians of all parties are absorbing the fact that the United Kingdom is no longer an accepted , fixed part of the scenery but has become rather seriously under question .

The impending elections in Scotland - 01/052007 are going to be a stiff test for the unionist parties - the SNP is becoming really strong . In fact I think they will not gain a majority - time will tell though .
In England , there is now widespread discontent with the ALL the political parties , none of which likes England . The political class of all the parties - bar an honourable few - have more in common with each other than with the English they despise but whose votes they want .
time is very much on England's side . It is some 3 ( ? ) years before another general election . The Conservatives have made some headway - but then they should given this government of corrupt liars .
Tactically , they don't want to commit to too many detailed policies - Labour might pinch them . it is broad brush time at the moment .
Bearing in mind that whenever the subject of an EP is raised , the English tend to be , initially split on the matter

( 300 years of the Union has left many , including MP's totally confused about England's constitution - even British MP's often come out with remark that the parliament of which they are members is an English parliament and not a British parliament )

but get enthusiastic once the topic of celtic Mp's voting on English affairs is raised -
things are moving steadily in our direction .
Whichever party grabs the subject of an Englisg Parliament and runs with it will gain much support
- for the Conservatives this could easily be THE breakthrough issue of the lot .

[Denis Cooper]

Well, I could agree with almost all of that, in both of the above postings, but none of it leads me either to hate the Scots, or to want to dissolve the Anglo-Scottish Union. These are relatively minor and hopefully temporary problems.

Two specific points of disagreement:

1. "Major got us all tied up in Maastricht which was goodbye sovereignty"

No, the UK is still a sovereign state. There has been no "pooling" or "ceding" or "transfer" or "loss" of legal sovereignty. Much of the work of government has been delegated, or one could say "contracted out", to Brussels, and there has been a delegation of power, but no loss of sovereignty. How long would it take Parliament to repeal the European Communities Act 1972? Well, that's how long it would take to reclaim all the power which has been delegated to the EU.

2. ".. who came up with the blueprint to regionalise England - the Conservatives."

Yes and no, it's an EU plan which Major must have agreed to, even if he didn't realise that he had agreed to it, but Labour has tried to implement. Before doing so they sought the advice of Bruce Millan, a veteran Labour MP in Glasgow who went to Brussels in January 1989. And what was his area of responsibility on the European Commission until he stood down on January 1st 1995?

"Regional Policy, Relations with the Committee of the Regions".

[Jake]

Denis , there is nothing anti Scottish about supporting an English parliament . Most supporters of an EP take as their model the corresponding campaign for a Scottish parliament . Scots would probably support an EP by a large majority if asked to vote on this matter .
Indeed , Canon Kenyon Wright ( Scottish ) a prime mover for the Scottish parliament , ia also a prominent supporter of an EP and was vocal at the recent English Constitutional Convention .

Re preserving the Union . I wish for this also . The Union is under serious threat at present and is likely to disintegrate if nothing is done about the constitutional position of England . Unless we get a federal union
( whether it is so called is irrelevant )

and that means an English parliament within the Union , with an overarching British parliament , then English support for the Union , which is waning , will fade away a lot faster still .
Indeed one could credibly say that anyone who supports the British Union should also support an English parliament as the most effective method of defusing discontent with the Union and therefore reinforcing it .

[Christine Constable]

On the question of Sovereignty, the suggestion that the UK has "contracted out" sovereignty is a laughable analysis of the facts. Under the stewardship of the Conservatives Major (knowingly or unknowingly - both is unforgivable) lied to the people of this country when he signed Maastricht and said our sovereignty was safe.

The facts are that we are being thrust further and further into the EU machine, and that the agenda of the EU to force by stealth all nations to submit to an ever closer union is exactly what is happening, the key point being that no one in this country has ever been asked if we want to be run by Brussels. Any organisation predicated on the basis of force rather than consent is doomed to failure. All three parties are equally culpable in their betrayal of the UK, and New Labour are totally responsible for the destruction of the UK Parliament.

AS an English woman, a democrat and a libertarian I am standing up for the right to retain a democracy in England, and that starts with having a democratic system of representation which has the affection and consent of the people it seeks to represent.

The existing system is so discredited and undermined that I seriously doubt whether it will weather another general election before it collapses in a heap of recrimination; forged ballot papers;cowboy outfits and alleged bribes; geryymandering; cash for peerages; tonies cronies; tartan mafia etc etc with democracy being the victim.

the Conservatives could show leadership, the Conservatives could distance themselves from the disgusting peep show we have had to witness over recent years. The Conservatives could stand for decency, honesty, fairness and equality - but they won't and why? Because in the final analysis the Conservatives aren't really interested in democracy - they are simply interested in power and suffer from the same ailments, shortcomings and memory lapses as the lot that are currently in and that my friends is why I am an ex Conservative and why until the Conservatives give me a reason to believe they won't stuff England like the rest of them. England wants leadership and recognition for her nationhood - I am not convinced Conservatives are interested in that.

[Christine Constable]

On the question of Sovereignty, the suggestion that the UK has "contracted out" sovereignty is a laughable analysis of the facts. Under the stewardship of the Conservatives Major (knowingly or unknowingly - both is unforgivable) lied to the people of this country when he signed Maastricht and said our sovereignty was safe.

The facts are that we are being thrust further and further into the EU machine, and that the agenda of the EU to force by stealth all nations to submit to an ever closer union is exactly what is happening, the key point being that no one in this country has ever been asked if we want to be run by Brussels. Any organisation predicated on the basis of force rather than consent is doomed to failure. All three parties are equally culpable in their betrayal of the UK, and New Labour are totally responsible for the destruction of the UK Parliament.

AS an English woman, a democrat and a libertarian I am standing up for the right to retain a democracy in England, and that starts with having a democratic system of representation which has the affection and consent of the people it seeks to represent.

The existing system is so discredited and undermined that I seriously doubt whether it will weather another general election before it collapses in a heap of recrimination; forged ballot papers;cowboy outfits and alleged bribes; geryymandering; cash for peerages; tonies cronies; tartan mafia etc etc with democracy being the victim.

the Conservatives could show leadership, the Conservatives could distance themselves from the disgusting peep show we have had to witness over recent years. The Conservatives could stand for decency, honesty, fairness and equality - but they won't and why? Because in the final analysis the Conservatives aren't really interested in democracy - they are simply interested in power and suffer from the same ailments, shortcomings and memory lapses as the lot that are currently in and that my friends is why I am an ex Conservative and why until the Conservatives give me a reason to believe they won't stuff England like the rest of them. England wants leadership and recognition for her nationhood - I am not convinced Conservatives are interested in that.

[Christine Constable]

On the question of Sovereignty, the suggestion that the UK has "contracted out" sovereignty is a laughable analysis of the facts. Under the stewardship of the Conservatives Major (knowingly or unknowingly - both is unforgivable) lied to the people of this country when he signed Maastricht and said our sovereignty was safe.

The facts are that we are being thrust further and further into the EU machine, and that the agenda of the EU to force by stealth all nations to submit to an ever closer union is exactly what is happening, the key point being that no one in this country has ever been asked if we want to be run by Brussels. Any organisation predicated on the basis of force rather than consent is doomed to failure. All three parties are equally culpable in their betrayal of the UK, and New Labour are totally responsible for the destruction of the UK Parliament.

AS an English woman, a democrat and a libertarian I am standing up for the right to retain a democracy in England, and that starts with having a democratic system of representation which has the affection and consent of the people it seeks to represent.

The existing system is so discredited and undermined that I seriously doubt whether it will weather another general election before it collapses in a heap of recrimination; forged ballot papers;cowboy outfits and alleged bribes; geryymandering; cash for peerages; tonies cronies; tartan mafia etc etc with democracy being the victim.

the Conservatives could show leadership, the Conservatives could distance themselves from the disgusting peep show we have had to witness over recent years. The Conservatives could stand for decency, honesty, fairness and equality - but they won't and why? Because in the final analysis the Conservatives aren't really interested in democracy - they are simply interested in power and suffer from the same ailments, shortcomings and memory lapses as the lot that are currently in and that my friends is why I am an ex Conservative and why until the Conservatives give me a reason to believe they won't stuff England like the rest of them. England wants leadership and recognition for her nationhood - I am not convinced Conservatives are interested in that.

[Tommy]

Christine, You should run for Prime Minister, I would vote for YOU.