A summer of policy reports gets underway...

A Conservative source tells the Daily Mail's James Chapman that the Tories are planning "a genuine radical ideas blitz" over the summer months to prove that there is real substance to the Cameron project and to provide a contrast with Gordon Brown.

The Mail highlights the recommendations of Ken Clarke's democracy taskforce (highlighted in the graphic on the right) which promise to win back the public's faith in politics and restore the standing of parliament - reduced to "poodle status" under Tony Blair.

The Mail believes that David Cameron will embrace the former Chancellor's proposals.

It is not clear if Mr Clarke will make any recommendations on state funding of political parties.  Extra state funding of politics is very unpopular with grassroots Conservatives and many MPs.  Ken Clarke's 2005 campaign manager, Andrew Tyrie, was the architect of David Cameron's plans for state funding.

The next three months will see all of the major policy groups report.  Key tensions to look out for:

• Tensions between the quality of life and international development policy groups.  John Gummer's quality of life group want to reduce the environmental impact of food being flown around the world whilst Peter Lilley's international development group is more minded to open up our markets to third world farmers.
• Iain Duncan Smith's social justice policy group making recommendations on family and drugs that could potentially alarm the party's social liberals.
• An emphasis on the importance of lower taxation within John Redwood's economic competitiveness report.

Comments

[Traditional Tory]

the Tories are planning "a genuine radical ideas blitz"

Really? After two and a half years of inaction under Cameron the mountain brings forth...Ken Clarke.

I suppose this non-story is supposed to shut down Grammargate.

BTW, whatever did happen to 'Sir' Bob Geldof and whatever it was that he was supposed to be going to do to make the party look 'cool'?

[Henry Mayhew]

At least they are trying TT. Making the Office for National Statistics independent looks interesting.

[Alan S]

These are all sensible policy suggestions from Ken Clarke. Very welcome.

[CDM]

All those mesaures seem sensible. I only hope they bite the bullet and slash the number of MPs, to the extent that they can all fit on the green benches.

[TomTom]

At least they are trying TT. Making the Office for National Statistics independent looks interesting.

Posted by: Henry Mayhew | June 04, 2007 at 09:10

Does anyone still work there now it's off to Newport ?

[Edward]

Great stuff.

[Tory T]

They're all good suggestions, and especially the curtailment of the right of Scottish MPs to vote on English matters. But if we are to reduce the number of MPs, presumably each will then serve a wider area. I would be interested to see the proposals for dealing with casework if that happens - would the MP/constituency link be strained?

[Peter Hatchet]

Agree with all apart from cut in MPs.

Can see no reason for this other than Clarke feels the public don't like politicans and there should be less of them purely for that reason.

Becomes very hard to represent a constituency properly/campaign in it properly if it gets above 100,000 electors - besides, who will choose which areas lose representation? How will we maintain a diversity of talent in the HoC?

Not a good move.

[Peter Harrison]

two and a half years of inaction under Cameron

I don't agree that there has been inaction under Cameron. In any case, he has only been leader for 18 months.

As for Bob Geldof, he wasn't supposed to be doing anything to make the party look cool. He is part of the group led by Peter Lilley looking at international development.

[Curly]

All nice sensible suggestions, but hardly the stuff to fire the imaginations of those voters we need to pick up to make a majority.

It's radical initiatives and alternatives on health, education, defence, security, and taxation that we need to be bringing forward. I feel sure that the electorate (when the time comes) will not be looking for a "more of the same" rebranded extension to Blairism, and will expect the Conservative Party to be well armed with good policies and ready to form a government.

[malcolm]

At last something I can wholeheartedly agree with . The cut in MPs is a good thing in my opinion. We must do something to restore a modicum of pride in our political process.All the other points seem sensible.
Does state funding come under the area of responsibility of this policy group? If it does then I hope Clarke and his team will do the decent and sensible thing and reject it outright.
I usually can't be bothered to respond to your posts these days 'Traditional Tory' but if you could add you might realise that Cameron has led our party for a little over 18 months not two and a half years. 18 months we were still behind in the polls and now we lead consistently even after the miserable fortnight the party has endured.

[Peter Harrison]

On the proposals, I'm broadly in favour of these.

To some extent I share Peter Hatchet's concern on cutting MPs. However, if we are serious about localism, it seems an obvious consequence - the fewer decisions are made nationally, the fewer politicians you need to do it. As for choosing which areas "lose" representation, that would be down to the Boundaries Commission.

A legal right for the Cabinet to be consulted may not be easy to enforce in practise but it sends the right message.

A code of conduct to limit political spin sounds like a good idea but may be difficult to define. At what point do you draw the line between promoting government policy (legitimate) and political spin (not legitimate). There is often no agreement as to what constitutes "the facts". However, if a clear line is possible, this is a good move.

The rest all seem sensible, particularly making ONS independent.

[Ash Faulkner]

Could somebody explain how decreasing the number of representatives is good for democracy?

[David Belchamber]

Very promising. Who heads up the education policy group and when are its interim recommendations due?

[CDM]

What's so special about 100,000? India seems to get by reasonably enough, and some of their constituencies contain more than a million voters.

Larger constituences would also lessen the incentive for MPs to spend all their time obsessing over local issues, rather than debating national issues at Westminster.

[Andrew Woodman]

I can't see MP's backing a cut in their number. Turkeys voting for christmas and all that. That is unless of course, the cut comes from Scottish and inner city MP's, in which case we will benefit.

No mention of the EU I notice!

[Denis Cooper]

"Could somebody explain how decreasing the number of representatives is good for democracy?" Of course it isn't, but then Kenneth Clarke isn't a democrat.

"I look forward to the day when the Westminster Parliament is just a Council Chamber in Europe".

Kenneth Clarke, from International Currency Review. Vol.23 Autumn 1996.

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

Largely sensible, although I share the concerns already articulated on this thread about reducing the number of MPs.

[CDM]

Why the concern about cutting MPs? Most are nothing more than voting lobby fodder, whose constituents wouldn't know them from Adam (or Eve).

[Traditional Tory]

if you could add you might realise that Cameron has led our party for a little over 18 months not two and a half years

Quite right. It just seems like two and a half years.

now we lead consistently even after the miserable fortnight the party has endured.

Not for much longer I suspect.

I see 'Cllr' Lindley is back. Nice name that. Did the vicar stub his toe on the font when he baptised him.

Looks like the warm weather is bringing the 'Roon Brigade back in force

[richard]

I can't wait. How thrilling to have the latest pc rubbish, and modish garbage from Dave and his super-fit 'right-on' team. Pass the sick bag, Alice.

[Tory T]

" see 'Cllr' Lindley is back. Nice name that. Did the vicar stub his toe on the font when he baptised him"

Ed, do we really have to endure all these personal attacks from a ukip voter?

What does that add to the debate?

[TomTom]

Could somebody explain how decreasing the number of representatives is good for democracy?

Posted by: Ash Faulkner | June 04, 2007 at 09:56

Since 33% MPs are in the Government explain how it is serving their constituents to have them signed up to the Administration ?

Maybe capping the number of Junior Ministers might be an idea - lots of these jobs could be done better by Civil Servants in a less political manner

WE have too much government - too many ministers - too many MPs. Lots of things could be done by Local Government using bye-laws. Yesterday The Politics Show revealed that dogs cannot be controlled without Primary Legislation.......when a normal country would simply pass an Omnibus Bill delegating whole areas of such trivial legislation to Local Authorities for Byelaws and Referendum

[Traditional Tory]

modish garbage from Dave and his super-fit 'right-on' team

Yes. Arch-Eurofanatic Clark wheezing in a cloud of poisonous smoke with his beer belly overhanging his belt seems almost human in comparison.

The 'suggestions' listed above certainly won't set the Thames on fire. Back to Grammargate!

[Denis Cooper]

"Why the concern about cutting MPs? Most are nothing more than voting lobby fodder, whose constituents wouldn't know them from Adam (or Eve)."

Is it a good thing, or a bad thing, that most of their constituents don't know them from Adam (or Eve)?

If it's a bad thing, do we want to make that worse?

And why hasn't Clarke addressed the problem of the iniquitous whip system, which reduces MPs to lobby fodder?

I agree with TomTom that "WE have too much government - too many ministers" but not that we have too many MPs - we should have less government, needing fewer ministers, and those MPs who are not ministers should be holding the ministers to account on behalf of their constituents and the country as a whole.

If we keep expanding the number of government (and official opposition) posts, and also cut the total number of MPs, we'll end up with no backbenchers, and therefore no free spirits, in the Commons at all. Of course some people would welcome that, but it would hardly be good for democracy.

[Traditional Tory]

Ed, do we really have to endure all these personal attacks from a ukip voter?

I don't support UKIP Tory T, so I guess that counts as a personal insult. I am fortunate in having a Conservative MP who is anti-EU and (as far as I can make out) not particularly pro-Cameron.

The 'serious' point I am making is that I (and others) find the flaunting of petty titles such as 'councillor' extremely irritating.

If I ever post under my own name - I'll do that the day after Cameron resigns - I must remember to list my several qualifications in order to impress - nay gobsmack - the readership.

[malcolm]

Tory T. I don't like Traditional Torys posts anymore than you do. However you do yourself no favours by continually misrepresenting those who don't subscribe to your point of view. There are several people who write very negatively about the party but claim to support it.Traditional Tory is one of those. He has been equally insulting about UKIP.

[Editor]

I've had enough of Traditional Tory, too. One more nasty, personal comment and I'll delete all further posts that he makes.

[Ash Faulkner]

TomTom, 10:28:

"Since 33% MPs are in the Government explain how it is serving their constituents to have them signed up to the Administration ?"

Arguably it isn't, though that seems a case for a presidential system.

I agree the obvious answer is major decentralisation...though if that's happening, it needs to happen after we cut down MPs, not before.

[Henry Mayhew]

Please behave yourself Traditional Tory - don't get thrown out. I think you have been most amusing and clever in part today. I even liked the stubbed toe comment, which I thought was reasonable.

You are a decent, hard-working pirate who will need somewhere to take your parrot 'Chip' for a walk. It must be getting knackered going out 20 times a day though.

[Ash Faulkner]

*I mean before we cut down MPs, not after. Silly me :P

[Chris]

Cutting the number of MPs really isn't a good idea, as many have said above. It will put tremendous strain on the constituency link, and some constituencies are already far too big. We need a proper unbiased boundary review, which focuses on levelling out the population of constituencies, not "maintaining traditional links".

Curtailment of Scottish MP voting powers must be EVOEL, no more no less. I was shocked to read that some people think that just cutting the number of Scottish MPs is the answer... it isn't, it simply makes it less prominent, whilst disenfranchising Scottish voters on UK wide issues. No Scottish (or Welsh for that matter if we make the Assembly more powerful) MP should be ever be able to vote on a law which will not affect their constituents.

I share the editors concerns regarding more state funding for political parties, but the rest of the list sounds fine.

[Traditional Tory]

Thank you Henry.

I am about to take my parrot for a very long walk.

There's shopping to be done.

[Richard]

"John Gummer's quality of life group want to reduce the environmental impact of food being flown around the world"

How do they intend to do this without hitting consumers in the wallet?

[Edward Taylor]

Very promising proposals from Ken Clarke. Radical enough to be more than just window-dressing but not too radical that they fundamentally change our constitution. I know this issue won't win or lose elections, but it does help to allay the still-persistent image that the Conservative Party is old-fashioned and out-of-touch. Good work.

[ToMtom]

"John Gummer's quality of life group want to reduce the environmental impact of food being flown around the world"

Wot...no airsick Maine lobster ? I always enjoy those meals when BBC types put food on the table and a full wine list

[Denis Cooper]

Correct, Chris - as far as may be practicable, a British citizen in Scotland and a British citizen in England should have exactly the same level of representation in the British Parliament when it deals with matters reserved to that Parliament. It's only for matters which have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament for Scotland that the British citizen in Scotland shouldn't be allowed any say on the decisions which affect England. The cleanest way to achieve that would be to remove those England-only decisions from the British Parliament to an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish Parliament, preferably located outside London somewhere closer to the geographical centre of England. That would also put a stop to the continuing attempts by europhiles to persuade the English that they really want "Parliaments", plural, aka EU Regional Assemblies.

[Jake]

"I look forward to the day when the Westminster Parliament is just a Council Chamber in Europe".
Kenneth Clarke, from International Currency Review. Vol.23 Autumn 1996.

Not only is Clarke anti British , he is also is deeply anti English .

No mention of the gigantic democratic deficit which the English have to endure in the British state ie no parliament , no specific representation , no executive , no first minister , no budget and no English Office while at the same time having the British system rigged agianst us via the Barnett Rules ( which he conspires with Labour to keep quiet about )

He tries the usual ruse - which works with some Tories - of blabbing on about preventing Scottish MP's voting on matters which affect their own constituencies . This is just fiddling around with the British parliament ( highly divisively by the way ) and anyway , because of the Barnett Rules ALL English legislation affects Scottish consytituencies .
He does not mention tha MP's for Wales and Ulster could still vote on English matters . Why not?

It goes without saying that the number of Scottish MP's in the British parliament should go back to 45 just as the Act of Union Article 22 .

If we do the obvious , democratic and logical thing there will be an English parliament for England along the same lines as that of Scotland . Not a part time British one . In the federal British state that will result the number of MP's in the British patish parliament could then be reduced - would be a popular measure in England .

[John Irvine]

The policies we really need and not from Ken Clarke , are on Europe and how we are going to get out of the EU.

Cameron made promises on this and let us all down. Now he's U-turned on Grammar Schools its time to put the pressure on. He's obviously too weak to withstand ant real pressure.

Dump Ken Clarke and the leftists. We need real Conservatives chairing committees on how to deal with the EU and immigration - the things really care about.

[Denis Cooper]

"Very promising proposals from Ken Clarke".

God help us. This is supposedly a "democracy" task force, yet of the proposals mooted so far the one which most directly impacts on the "demos" is to cut the number of their elected representatives. Still, this is only a leak, and maybe the full document will have other proposals, for example that the "demos" should be able to requisition referenda, or to recall their representatives, or perhaps that it should be a criminal offence for anybody to apply undue pressure on an elected representative in an attempt to change the way he will vote - with only his own constituents being largely (but not entirely) exempted from that law.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Good on Ken - proves he still has a massive contrubution to make the both the Conservative Party and to Politics generally.

[clive elliot]

If Councils are going to have proper powers, and do more without central supervision, that will be a good thing. Maybe people will start voting in local elections if they think it will make a difference.

When that happens we don't need so many MPs. MPs shouldn't be social workers anyway. Much of their 'constituency work' consists of trying to 'lean' on local authorities anyway; it should be the Councillors who are responsible.

If we're to have Conservative policies of localism, then we could do with about half the number of MPs.

[Henry Mayhew]

Yes it is strange that a Democracy Taskforce does not have anything to say about the involvement of the EU and courts of justice and human rights in our democracy. I thought 50% of legislation originates in Brussels. Perhaps it is not relevant.

[Jonathan]

I do not support cutting the number of MPs either as too large an electorate cuts the constituency link and makes PR easier to justify.

I am also concerned about the specific mention of Scottish MPs being unable to vote on English matters, EVfEL requires the same restrictions on Welsh and NI MPs too. I would prefer a federal parliament, as I have posted before, which is a cleaner solution and makes the transition less threatening to the Scots. At the least, Clarke is missing a trick in not arguing for a full parliament (rather than an Assembly) for the Welsh which should be worth a few extra votes in Wales.

[Jonathan]

@Henry Mayhew
It is not that EU law is not relevant it is that, left to the FCO and the current political elite, nothing can be done about it.

[Denis Cooper]

"If we're to have Conservative policies of localism, then we could do with about half the number of MPs."

And if a subsequent government reversed those Conservative policies of localism, would it also restore the number of MPs to compensate for that? I think not.

This has nothing to do with "localism", it's to do with having fewer people with their hands anywhere near the levers of power, who would be more disconnected from the common herd, and who could be more easily (and cheaply) kept in line.

In other words, it's mainly about strengthening oligarchy, not democracy.

[TomTOm]

And if a subsequent government reversed those Conservative policies of localism, would it also restore the number of MPs to compensate for that? I think not.

They did in Northern Ireland - Heath increased representation at Westminster after imposing Direct Rule and sidelining Stormont

[Henry Mayhew]

Jonathan, can't you say that the Leader's way: 'It's delusional to think debating the EU's involvement in our democracy is practical politics. We need to stop splashing around in the shallow end of the debate, trying to bring back about a mythical time when we were a sovereign democracy.' :)

[Richard]

I agree with those who don't like the idea of a reduction in MPs but that aside I think this is a decent list of proposals.

Regarding radicalism on health and education, just how much will the electorate let us get away with? The European health model has cash issues and the American system is demonised for being ruthlessly free-market (even though it's heavily subsidised and regulated). How viable is the far-eastern model? Or is there a workable model we could produce that hasn't been tried elsewhere?

[Denis Cooper]

As I recall, Heath also argued that the total number of MPs should be halved.

[John Irvine]

Henry I like your style!

Eurofanatics like Clarke have no place in our party. Personally I would like to see him kicked out.

Unless Britain comes out of the UK it will cease to exist as a sovereign nation.

[Jake]

The English parliament pre 1707 had about 500 MP's - a figure which I suspect would be acceptable in England for an English parliament .

As for the British parliament
( when we have a proper English one and an effectively federal British state )
- that can concern itself with pan British only affairs - and will need rather few - by about 50% - than the present 620 or so members , ie 300 -250 .

Bound to be massively popular with the elctorate throughout what is still called the United Kingdom
( the Westminster villagers will fight it like mad though ) .

[TomTom]

The English parliament pre 1707 had about 500 MPs

Aye but some of them were sons of their fathers in The Lords just waiting to inherit....others were Placemen....it was hardly representative democracy nor a centralised megastate

[Jake]

of course it wasn't a representative democracy a la 21st century you pillock
( though more representative than Scotland at the time )

my point was that , as it was found to be then , the figure of 500 Mp's for an English parliament had emerged as about right

and that , despite the 10 fold rise in population since then ie 5 to 50 million , would probably be deemed to be about right now .

[Policy Dog]

Reduce the number of MP's - what, so they can be even further away from the electorate?

Wouldn't a few more seats be nice, perhaps let's say, representing geographical areas for instance, and evenly spaced with no consideration for demographics and population - you know, more in the countryside and less in the cities - now that would be good wouldn't it...

[malcolm]

Aah the odious John Irvine makes an unwelcome reappearance. You have not poisoned this blog with your bile for a long time have have you John? Coincidence that the day 'Traditional Tory' goes for a walk with his parrot you crawl out from under your stone?
'Personally I would rather he was kicked out of the party'. You really haven't got a clue have you? Much as I disagree with him about the EU he is still popular with the electorate and probably the best person we have in pricking the Labour bubble. Like it or not without him and people like him the Conservative party is highly unlikely to win an election if we kick him and people like him out of the party.

[Adam Tugwell]

Apart from the number of MP's suggestion, a few nice ideas with Clarke's paw print on. I wonder how he would have done the Grammar thing...

[William Norton]

Adam Tugwell:a few nice ideas with Clarke's paw print on. I wonder how he would have done the Grammar thing...
More bicycle sheds for crafty cigarette breaks?

[Traditional Tory]

Aah the odious John Irvine makes an unwelcome reappearance. You have not poisoned this blog with your bile for a long time have have you John? Coincidence that the day 'Traditional Tory' goes for a walk with his parrot you crawl out from under your stone?

I have not disappeared, Malcolm, nor have I reappeared under some other guise, as you seen to be implying.

Is this your response to the Editor's request that we avoid unpleasant personal attacks?

[Peter Harrison]

Unless Britain comes out of the UK it will cease to exist as a sovereign nation.

Getting Britain out of the UK would be a neat trick if you can do it!

[Denis Cooper]

But none of them are radical, and most of them are not even new, and some
of them may look good on paper but be impossible to achieve in practice.

For example, take:

"A legal right for the Cabinet to be consulted on all major policy decisions".

Does the Cabinet have sufficient legal status, to be granted a legal right?

How would a "major" policy decision would be defined in law?

Even when it is required by law, a "public consultation" is often pretty meaningless, so why should a "Cabinet consultation" be any better?

In the event of a perceived failure to consult properly, how would the Cabinet enforce its "legal right" to be consulted?

And would that action be initiated by the Cabinet collectively, or could a single Cabinet minister who feels that he was not properly consulted launch his own court action against the Prime Minister?

Either you have a Prime Minister who wants to consult the colleagues he has appointed to ministerial positions currently enjoying "Cabinet" status, or you
have a Prime Minister who prefers to disregard the views of his colleagues,
and if it's the latter it's down to those colleagues to decide whether to put up
with it (they usually do) or to insist on being consulted. Asking a judge to tell
him off isn't going to get them anywhere.

[Andrew Lilico]

A mix of a couple of half-decent ideas, and lots of daft suggestions. On the good-ish side:

- A Civil Service Act preventing political interference
- Independence of the ONS
- A code of conduct on spin in government publications

On the dotty side:

- Requiring Parliament to approve going to war.
- Preventing Scottish MPs voting on matters that don't affect their constituencies (i.e. abolishing the Union).
- A legal right for the Cabinet to be consulted.

Do the bloggers on this site really regard these as "a few nice ideas" or things that are "sensible"?

[malcolm]

Yes Andrew.

[TomTom]

Requiring Parliament to approve going to war.

May as well abolish The Privy Council then if we take away The Royal Prerogative - even the USA reserves the right to go to war to the Executive.

Only Germany has to go to the Bundestag because it got such a bad reputation in 1914....it would not have had any effect in 1939 because the Constitution was suspended by its own Article 48 and Article 47 gave Executive Powers to go to War surprisingly to The Executive.

If anyone wants to give such power to Parliament I want Annual Parliaments as the Chartists demanded, with annual elections and the power of Recall to remove MPs by petition

[ToMTom]

"A legal right for the Cabinet to be consulted on all major policy decisions".

I prefer to have strong enough characters to hold Cabinet to account - Blair was fortunate in having rank opportunits in his Cabinet so they never challenged him - presumably for fear of Rottweiler Gordo chewing the carpet in the corner..........and Thatcher famously had vegetables in her Cabinets

Strong departmental Ministers make Cabinet work - but it is a long time since we had some

[malcolm]

You'd prefer to rely on the bent words of a corrupt PM like Blair (or Eden)then Tomtom?
Very sensible.

[Traditional Tory]

You'd prefer to rely on the bent words of a corrupt PM like Blair (or Eden)

Eden was a thoroughly decent Tory who was neither 'bent' nor 'corrupt'

I think you should reconsider that statement.

[William Norton]

Andrew Lilico: I've no real objections to giving Parliament a veto over any declaration of war. There's an arguable case that under the UN Charter, member states can't declare war on other member states any more. (The UK hasn't fought any wars in the technical sense since 1945: Korea and Iraq I and Iraq II were enforcement actions on behalf of the UN Security Council; the Falklands was a response to an armed attack on British territory to evict an illegal occupier; Suez was allegedly a joint voluntary act to separate combatants, and was probably an illegal act of aggression; Kosovo was allegedly an enforcement action under the NATO Charter.)

Such a new rule would not rule out a state of war which arose because someone else attacked us first, and probably wouldn't extend to a pre-emptive use of the right to resist armed attack under the UN Charter. In other words, it would be a pointless gimmick.

[Jake]

"- Preventing Scottish MPs voting on matters that don't affect their constituencies (i.e. abolishing the Union). "

so , Andrew , bearing in mind that MP's for English constituencies in the British parliament have already had their right to vote on matters affecting the internal affairs of Scotland abolished by the Scotland Act 1998 ,
I understand that you are saying the that The Union is already abolished .

Why the h-ll can't we have an English parliament then ?

[Chris]

TomTom,
According to the US constitution Congress is the only body formally allowed to declare war on behalf of the US, but it has not done so since WW2. US Presidents have often ignored the spirit of the law over the years.

The War Powers Act 1973 gave the US President authority to attack a foreign power (but not declare war!), but has to seek the approval of congress within 90 days of the orders being given.

The UK does have a real separation of powers, and consequently comparing to the royal perogactive to the President's executive powers is not really a fair comparsion.

[Occasional Visitor]

The highlights look good and the party has inklings of becoming attractive again to this floaty voter. ('Tis a pity that the wholly unnecessary grammar school thingy was allowed, inexplicably, to pre-empt whatever is to come out of another taskforce on the subject of education.)

However, a clear commitment to regain sovereign powers from Europe is still required.

As to Andrew Lilico's concern that preventing Scottish MPs voting on matters that don't affect their constituencies amounts to abolition of the Union, restoration of Union means abolition of devolution (Act of Union specified one parliament and one only for Great Britain. We have reverted to a Union of Crowns)). Otherwise follow through the logic and give us an English Parliament in its historic Westminster home, with a somewhat smaller federal UK parliament located geographically more central.

Restore sovereign powers to UK.
Home rule for England.

Democracy might then start to be meaningful again.

[Chris]

William Norton,
That's where the flaw in the US constitution lies. No American President declares war, they just invade ignoring the spirit of the law. The Framers didn't intend for Presidents to run off into Vietnam and Korea without consulting congress.

[Ted]

William Norton
Agree it's pretty pointless positioning rather than anything concrete. Did we Declare War on Iraq? If not when did the UK last actualy make a Declaration of War?
It's not as if any of the conflicts we have entered in last two centuries were unexpected - and if Parliament wasn't supportive the Government would fall pretty quickly.

[601]

"The rights of Scottish MPs to force through legislation that does not apply in their own constituencies now Scotland has its own Parliament will also be curtailed. "

How would you decide "English only issues", when funding for public services is linked.

[Chelloveck]

"A cut in the number of MP's"
= less chance of 'off-message' MP's like Graham Brady or Eric Forth.

It's a clever democracy reducing trick. Politicians are generally unpopular, and talk of cutting their numbers will on the street no doubt be popular, but the reality is more power in fewer hands.

More power in fewer hands is not a recipe for greater authoritarianism, not democracy.

[Chelloveck]

"A cut in the number of MP's"
= less chance of 'off-message' MP's like Graham Brady or Eric Forth.

It's a clever democracy reducing trick. Politicians are generally unpopular, and talk of cutting their numbers will on the street no doubt be popular, but the reality is more power in fewer hands.

More power in fewer hands is a recipe for greater authoritarianism, not democracy.

[Denis Cooper]

"Act of Union specified one parliament and one only for Great Britain."

Well, Article III of the Treaty of Union stated:

"That the United Kingdom of Great Britain be Represented by one and the same Parliament, to be stiled the Parliament of Great Britain."

And so it still is, the one and the same Parliament being that at Westminster;
its creature, the Parliament at Holyrood, only represents Scotland, and only for matters which Westminster has devolved to it.

If it had been called an Assembly or a Council this confusion would not have arisen, but as I understand Donald Dewar insisted on the name "Parliament".

[Denis Cooper]

How would you decide [ie, presumably, define] "English only issues"?

The same way as "Scottish only issues" are decided now.

If a decision in respect of Scotland would be taken by the Scottish Parliament, then the corresponding decision in respect of England would be taken by the English Parliament.

[Richard]

"How would you decide "English only issues", when funding for public services is linked."

All money raised in Scotland is spent in Scotland. All money raised in England is spent in England.

[TomTom]

I prefer to leave Westminster as The English Parliament in the current form as in The Act of Union but.......to have Scottish MPs indirectly elected to Westminster through the Scottish Assembly and given Observer status only. They can speak but not vote.

The Secretary of State for Scotland would also leave Cabinet and in place we would have a Cabinet Post of Intelligence & Security Coordinator & Border Guards/Coast Guard with its own fast patrol boat fleet

[Jake]

er no ,
What you meant was ,

All money raised in Scotland is spent in Scotland .

All money raised in England is spent in ,
well - in Scotland , Wales and Ulster of course

and any left over is also spent in Scotland .

Of course .

[Richard]

What I meant was that is the arrangement we should introduce.

[John]

Does anyone really think that David Cameron (or any other potential British Prime Minister for that matter) would support the creation of an English Parliament?

Firstly, with Cameron specifically in mind, an English Parliament would likely have responsibility for his pet sociocentric policies (Environment, Education, Health). Can you see him handing them over to a lower tier of government?

Secondly, I suspect this proposal has been designed to save the Exchequer money. The creation of an English Parliament would cost the Exchequer a large sum.

Thirdly, and most importantly it is one thing for the British Prime Minister to face difficulties from a parliament representing the minority interests (in terms of overall UK population) of Scotland or Wales. It is a completely different situation if they are opposed by a majority supported English Parliament. Could an English Parliament bring down the higher tier of government?

Therefore, there are only four ways forward for the Conservatives.

1) Do nothing
2) Repeal the current devolution legislation
3) Break up the union
4) Fudge it and make it even messier.

Doing nothing would infer the Conservatives don't care about the inequalities that exist.

Doing option two would cause uproar, but it is the real way to save the Union.

Doing option three would cause divisions in the party and in anycase is not really in the interests of this island or its people Furthermore, it does not seems to have much support anywhere.

So I suspect they have chosen option four in the hope that it will quell the growing noise about an English Parliament.

I don't think it will, but it may slow it down long enough for someone to come up with a better plan.

In summary, I think these proposals are more a case of tinkering with the Golf Club Rule Book than addressing the democratic needs of 21st Century Britain. Quite disappointing really.

[malcolm]

I'll reconsider nothing Traditional Tory.Eden may have had an honourable career until 1956 but over Suez, he lied to his cabinet, to parliament and to the country.
You might think that decent behaviour ,I do not.

[richard]

Do you think Dave had anything to do with designing the Olympic logo? As it is both modish and useless there's a fair chance.

[Opinicus]

@601
How would you decide "English only issues", when funding for public services is linked.

Unlink it by abolishing the Barnett formula

There that wasn't difficult was it.

@John
Your mind is closed to possibilities.
Under a federal parliament the four national parliaments could send representatives to the UK parliament based in the House of Lords chamber or in York or Chester or anywhere really. The Prime Minister of England could be the same person as the Prime Minister of the UK or someone else entirely. Given that the only role of the UK PM would be to replace Trident and go on foreign junckets it would'nt matter much who he was. Real political power would rest over the lives of Englishmen with the English PM.

As to the question of cost; a federal parliament would be infinitely cheaper (for England) because we would save
1)the Barnett formula
2)the cost of the House of Lords
3)the cost of the current Celtic MPs
4)the cost of the Scottish Welsh and NI offices
5)the cost of a Labour government for the forseeable future

Against which the costs even of a Palace for the UK parliament in Chester including 12% for Norman Foster would be peanuts in comparison.

[Chris]

Jonathan,
A federal UK would benefit us, but the centralised nature of systems such as the NHS would make the union ever more fragile. You could end up with a Scottish NHS funded by tax, an English NHS by compulsory insurance and the Welsh could abolish state healthcare. 3 very different systems, but all within the same "country".

[Opinicus]

@Malcolm
Eden's attack on Nasser was an inspired rearguard action which could have have rendered the last half of the 20th century entirely different. It was a brave but unlucky throw of the dice. The villains were Macmillan who put personal ambition ahead of country and the Americans, who behaved like sh*ts, not allies, in pursuit of a deliberate and shortsighted policy to destroy the British Empire for their own immediate commercial gain. If Nasser had lost, the present middle east disasters and Islamic fascism would, very likely, have been nightmares, not reality.

To describe it as "not decent behaviour" is so serious a misunderstanding of the realities of politics at that level, that you must be a source of embarrassment even to your own Sunday School pupils.

[Opinicus]

@Chris
England is sick, politically and economically and needs to start taking decisions in our own best interests. If those decisions weaken the Union then that may have to be. I have no doubt that the Union is in the best interests of all its constituent countries still but I personally, am no longer prepared to pay any price to preserve it. I am not prepared to pay anything at all. If the Scots and the Welsh cannot see the value of it too, then it is better we part than that we struggle on with our illusions.

That the NHS should be funded 3 ways within a country is irrelevant and a matter for the local residents. The NHS consists of medical care funded out of taxation, free at the point of use. If it is funded from North Sea Oil in Scotland, share stamp duty in England and a water tax in Wales, so what?

[Chris]

Jonathan,
I too have no issue with ending the union, i merely consider it as an argument because many people would consider it unthinkable for the Tory party to support an independent England.

[Yet Another Anon]

If Nasser had lost, the present middle east disasters and Islamic fascism would, very likely, have been nightmares, not reality.
If Nasser had lost then Anthony Eden would have been seen as a hero and maybe Harold Macmillan would never have been PM, no doubt Harold Wilson would have renounced Britain's share in the Suez Canal though and it would have returned to Egypt anyway, Nasser would have been overthrown, it might have meant a France more strident in international policy for a bit, but in the longer term it probably wouldn't have had much lasting effect, although there was no way to know this at the time.

[ToMTom]

If Nasser had lost then Anthony Eden would have been seen as a hero

Nasser couldn't lose - he was tacitly backed by the US and John Foster Dulles who wanted Britain and France out of the Middle East.

[Traditional Tory]

These are facts we should recall every time some 51st stater yaps about the 'Anglosphere', 'Special Relationship' etc. etc.

[Denis Cooper]

England would be in a much weaker strategic position with an independent sovereign state controlling the northern third of the home island. That is why
the English political elite wanted more than the existing Union of the Crowns,
and insisted on a Union of the Parliaments, in 1707. Not for the economic exploitation of Scotland, but for the security of England.

England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should each have a devolved Parliament, with the over-arching federal UK Parliament dealing with matters which affect the UK as a whole. That would include defence and foreign affairs, and since we're increasingly governed by international treaty there would be no shortage of work for Westminster MPs. They already have more than they can cope with - so they don't do it, they just ignore it.

New South Wales has its own Parliament, and nobody is worrying about the Commonwealth of Australia falling apart, so why shouldn't the original Wales
also have its own Parliament within a federal United Kingdom?

As for the cost - remember the old saying "penny wise, pound foolish". The
costs involved in not having the United Kingdom would far exceed the costs
of keeping it together with a federal structure, and those costs would have to
be borne indefinitely into the future.

[John Irvine]

My attention has been drawn to the extremely unpleasant and pesonal comments made against me by the person who calls himself only "Malcolm"

If this anonymous coward is representative in any way of the modern conservative party I would say it has very little future left.

I think his aim is to terrorise off the website anybody who doesnt agree with him

[ToMTOm]

TomTom,
According to the US constitution Congress is the only body formally allowed to declare war on behalf of the US, but it has not done so since WW2. US Presidents have often ignored the spirit of the law over the years.

The War Powers Act 1973 gave the US President authority to attack a foreign power (but not declare war!), but has to seek the approval of congress within 90 days of the orders being given.

The UK does have a real separation of powers, and consequently comparing to the royal perogactive to the President's executive powers is not really a fair comparsion.

the Constitution of the United States is modelled on the Hanoverian Monarchy of George III as interpreted by Montesquieu who thought England had separation of powers but it only has separation of Shared Powers

The position of The US President is akin to that of an elected George III with his Vice President being akin to the Prince of Wales - like the PoW the Veep is a member of the Senate analogous to the PoW in the House of Lords

It is true that Congress has the power to "declare war" but Teddy Roosevelt proved the Executive Power with The Great White Fleet and delimiting Congressional Power to funding it not to commanding it.

The War Powers Act is a joke which makes US forces contingent allies for 60 days. Noone in his right mind would be an ally of the USA on such a basis, which is why wars are rarely declared nowadays, simply fought

[Jake]

" You could end up with a Scottish NHS funded by tax, an English NHS by compulsory insurance and the Welsh could abolish state healthcare. 3 very different systems, but all within the same "country". "

um , we already have just that .

The British governemnt bangs on endlessly about "the NHS" and the media lap it up but the split along national lines happened in 1998 . The Scottish governemnt ( ie executive , for those who don't want to face reality ) controls the Scottish NHS and makes sure that it is lavished with plenty of money -English money , that is .

The Welsh NHS , now almost as separate as the Scottish NHS is controlled by the Welsh Assembly - ditto with plenty of English money .

Ulster has as separate system too .

Everyone in Scotland and Wales knows this . It is only the politically naive English who don't .

A federal British state will work perfectly well . The English NHS could then consciously carve its own path and not be mentally clutterd with "celtic" health
or the cost .

[Steve]

Surely the restoration of parliamentary supremecy should be announced closer to the GE to compliment these otherwise excellent ideas.

They cannot hide over EU forever.

[Matt Wright]

The way forward is very clear. We need to push decision making as close as feasible to ordinary people. We need to re-visit the whole devolution settlement to have real local devolution. Some powers will stay at Westminster (foreign policy, economics etc), some powers will remain in Edinburgh and Cardiff but many powers will go further down to counties and indeed to community council levels.

Matt

[Occasional Visitor]

Matt Wright:
I agree powers should be divested from the centre to counties - but including individual Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish ones. Devolution to Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh should then be scrapped, or else give us an English Parliament.

Home Rule for my country! (whether that be a restored UK or my nation)