First blood to Cameron in Commons blast at Brown

Gordon Brown has told the Commons that he wants to deliver a new "constitutional settlement" for the British people:

• He promised twelve transfer of powers from the Prime Minister and the Executive to Parliament - including the Executive's powers to declare war, request the dissolution of Parliament and key public appointments (including the Governor of the Bank of England and Church of England bishops).
• He promised the creation of a National Security Council - an idea already proposed by Pauline Neville-Jones some months ago (he went on to nick at least two other Tory ideas).
• He promised a new ministerial code overseen by an independent adjudicator.
• He also called for a cross-party debate on a new written Constitution and floated ideas such as weekend voting and a lower voting age.
• In his only clear nod to the LibDems on PR he promised a full report on the success of the new voting methods used since Labour came to power.
• Some civil libertarians would be pleased with his announcement that the restrictions on protests in Parliament Square could be lifted.

David Cameron then had an opportunity to respond - in his first parliamentary clash with Gordon Brown as the new Prime Minister - and his response was very impressive.  In a key passage he said:

"Constitutional change is not the solution because the constitution is not the cause: the cause is broken promises. People will ask how the person who broke this trust can be the person to mend it."

British life is too centralised, the Leader of the Opposition said, and Gordon Brown had been the great centraliser of the last ten years.

The new Prime Minister wants more openness and honesty but as Chancellor, Gordon Brown had levied taxation stealthily and failed to answer questions on the tax credit chaos.

He challenged Gordon Brown to reverse the transfer of power from democratically elected local councils to unelected regional assemblies.

What was the new Prime Minister going to do about the fact that there were two classes of MP in Britain?  MPs for English seats who had no influence on Scottish matters and Scottish MPs like Gordon Brown who could decide how English hospitals and schools were run.

He ended with an attack on Gordon Brown's failure to grant a referendum on the draft European Treaty.  It was, David Cameron said, yet another broken Labour promise.

The Prime Minister responded by joking that he thought David Cameron had wanted to end Punch and Judy politics.  He quoted Ken Clarke two or three times to back up his positions and embarrass David Cameron but this was definitely an exchange won by the Conservative leader.  He will have raised morale on the Tory benches.  It's the first Brown-Cameron PMQs tomorrow.  ConservativeHome will be live blogging it.

Comments

[James Hill]

Good thing the statement was today. Without the experience of Oliver Heald to cover the reform proposals Cameron may he have be truly stuck. Bit idiotic of Cameron to fire the person who has covered the constitution for over 3 years with great competence and replace him with a non-lawyer child. I expect that Heald will have quite a few begging phone calls from Cameron and Herbert's offices over the coming months!

[ACT]

This was in no sense 'won' by Cameron - Brown brushed him off with the greatest of ease, and the opposition leader landed not one serious blow on him. But there is a *far* more important issue at stake here. Most of these proposed changes are profoundly bad ones. They are profoundly UnTory, and the Tory Party ought to be resisting them. Cameron escaped real damage being verbally done to him by Brown by the simple expedient of welcoming 'most' of what Brown proposed. This isn't opposition, let alone Conservatism, it's surrender.

[GS]

A excellent performance from Cameron - a much-needed boost for Tory morale.

[Raj]

ACT, are you a Labour mole? Because you seem to do everything to put Cameron down, even when he does a reasonable job.

[michael]

I agree with GS

Cameron must hammer hard the message " Engligh votes for English issues"

It is an outrage and insult to every one living in England that we are effectively at the mercy of 3 other countries. I am not anti Scot/Irish or Welsh but the West Lothian question is something that offends any question of us being " one Nation"

[Tory T]

Cameron absolutely demolished Brown.

I am stunned that Brown would so blatantly say "no English votes for English laws" and "no referendum".

Brown brought up gimmicks like citizen juries and Cameron said "we need a jury of the citizens" instead on the referendum.

Even Ming supported Cameron on the West Lothian Question.

Brown looked completely out of his depth if you ask me, quoting Ken Clarke over and over again looks a bit desperate, Cameron didn't quote Frank Field

[Bruce Bould]

I know this is a partisan website, but even so I nearly choked on my coffee when I read your headline "First blood to Cameron in Commons blast at Brown".

I watched the whole thing on BBC Parliament, and my overwhelming feeling was that not only did Brown look very impressive, Cameron did himself no good by jumping in with pretty quickly with partisan jibes. He made himself look petty while Brown was clearly seeking consensus.

I'm not saying Cameron gave a poor performance, it was perfectly confident and decently delivered. But he wasn't the winner here.

On the contrary, I think this bodes very ill for your leader - I don't pretend to be a Tory member (or Labour or LibDem come to that) - but from where I'm sitting Brown is coming over very well indeed. That whole statement, and his answers in the debate which followed, was one of the most impressive Commons performances I've seen or heard from any Prime Minister in modern times.

[ACT]

Raj, I'm such a stupid Tory that, unlike Dave's (very expensive) mate Steve Hilton, I've actually always voted Tory. Cameron did not 'win' this debate, and I will be very surprised if anyone in the paid for press agrees with that very strange assertion. Brown certainly didn't 'demolish' Cameron, but as I say, that's only because Cameron ran away from the fight by agreeing with 'most' of what Brown proposed to do.

[Tory T]

Bruce, LibDem Mike Smithson's verdict from political betting

"The occasion was Brown’s announcement on the constitutional changes and they gave the Tory leader the opening to raise the “English Votes for English Laws” issue as well as an EU referendum.

After being out of the limelight for so long the exchanges gave him a platform for two seemingly populist policies which might provide the means for him to impede the Brown bandwagon.

Gordon seemed hesitant and nervous and stammered a bit. But being fair to him he has very little experience of this sort of thing and it shows....

I don’t think the Prime Minister foresaw the openings that statement itself would give to the Tory leader. Cameron will be relieved to have done pretty well after the poor poll performances. There are enough sound-bites there for him to get good bulletin coverage. Cameron looks a lot better against Brown than Blair.

It was all a good taster for tomorrow’s PMQs."

[malcolm]

I'm as partisan as hell I admit but I haven't seen the TV today.Was Brown impressive when he refused a referendum on the EU or was it when he said no English only votes on English matters Bruce? Or was it both?

[Michael Davidson]

How anyone could have possibly thought today was a Cameron victory is beyond me.

Cameron made petty jibes all the way throughout which didn't help his case, and he very little substance against Brown - he simply dragged up the past rather than talking about today's proposals.

To say it was a Cameron victory is simply pure spin I'm afraid.

[Ed]

I have been convinced of the need for constitutional reform, localism and even possibly a written constitution, but we can't allow it to be written by one man. Cameron must be constructively critical of each and every proposal - otherwise Labour will just ram it through parliament with no proper debate.

From what I've read DC made a good start today.

[Editor]

It is a partisan website Bruce but I am not uncritical of David Cameron when I think things need to be said (much to the annoyance of many more loyal commenters!). I think Cameron won because he pinpointed the hypocrisy of Brown. He also talked about issues like the EU Treaty, like stealthy taxation, regional assemblies and English votes for English laws. Bread and butter stuff that will connect with voters.

[Andrew Woodman]

'He made himself look petty while Brown was clearly seeking consensus.'

If he's seeking consensus on Scottish MP's voting on English matters, and no vote on the EU referendum, then we can't give it. I don't see how the man can talk about democracy and accountabilty when firstly he's unelected, and secondly he's broken a promise on the EU vote. It's OK Brown quoting Ken Clarke on that issue, but Cameron could quote several of Brown's MP's on it. We are there to oppose, and seeing as Brown is an anti democrat, oppse we must. Well Done Cameron.

[Bruce Bould]

I have to say I think this whole talk about winning and losing exchanges is unattractive to most un-committed voters.

I'm not saying Brown smashed Cameron with a big clunking fist, or that he deployed devastating oratory to outwit him. Indeed, his delivery was quiet and undemonstrative. My point is that the meat of Brown's statement was revolutionary. If he achieves even half of what he's proposing he could go down as the greatest reforming Prime Minister since Asquith.

As I said, Cameron's performance was OK, but he did appear to have prepared a ready made response which broke the mood of consensus, while not really addressing the details of the proposals. That just doesn't look good to an outsider.

Cameron looks a lot better against Brown than Blair says Tory T - I disagree. Blair and Cameron were well matched, both looked like actors playing political leaders in a Hollywood film, but Brown seems a throwback to a more heavyweight age. I think that's a good thing generally, but Cameron probably isn't the right leader to face him for the opposition.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

I never saw the programme, but if Cameron raised the English only votes for matters affecting only England and a referendum on the EU then he has made a small start for his resurrection. He has a mountain to climb. It will depend on his passion and conviction in pursuing those policies and other core vote concerns (right wing = common ground = centre = winning). Members of the jury have just taken their seats - it will be a long trial. Will justice for the British be achieved or will Judge and jury doze off.

[Tory T]

Bruce, I was quoting a leading LibDem blogger who said that.

[tapestry]

Brown's created a trap for himself. Even his own side wants a referendum. How he thinks he can ignore the House of Commons, 85% of the British electorate and his own promises, is almost incredible - the supreme arrogance it betrays. He's digging a very big hole. With the media backing him, he thinks he's invulnerable as he prepares to rig the electoral system.

His vulnerablility will be his own MPs.

He is taking them totally for granted. If they rebel, he'll be out of a job quicker than he can say 'what happened?'

[Ken Stevens]

Quite right for Mr C to agree with some of the concepts proposed. Shouldn't oppose for opposing's sake.

If the Tories become consistent in standing firmly both for an equitable resolution of the West Lothian Question and a general referendum on EU, then you're starting to get my vote back.

All other issues are secondary, as long as it is a national parliament that resolves them one way or the other and not an extra-territorial unelected body.

If you think I'm just a minority swivel-eyed nutter, go and look at all the others on the Daily Telegraph threads!

[malcolm]

Do you think we don't deserve a referundum on the EU constitution or that the West Lothian doesn't need answering. If he doesn't get those right he's far from being a reformer in the Asquith mould or indeed any other PM.

[601]

"He also called for a cross-party debate on a new written Constitution"

No way! Situations change all the time,just look at the terrorism we face today compared to the different threats we faced in the past.

His government should try a lot harder to stick to our unwritten constitution.

[Bruce Bould]

Bruce, I was quoting a leading LibDem blogger who said that
My apologies for misquoting you, it was unintentional - though would I be right in thinking you agree with the sentiments?

Yes, I've just been taking a look at the blog site you mentioned. Quite a few comments now which back up my original point. But it's all opinion, I don't say mine is any more correct than anyone else's.

I've admired a lot of what Cameron has said and done, and a few months ago I was contemplating the idea of voting Conservative next time for the first time in many a long year. But Blair going seems to have got him on the wrong foot - he was impressive against Blair because they were fighting on the same level, but now he seems to be a bit "last season", while the change of style at the top with Brown - dour, yes, but solid, heavyweight, grown-up - is both refreshing and, for me, most welcome.

[powellite]

Just watched the statement - Brown simply rolls right on. Is it me, or is he one of the most boring speakers in Parliament? I can barely remember anything which he said - whatever you think of Cameron, at least he puts some effort in and cracks some gags. I'd sooner gouge my eyes out with a blunt spoon than be forced to listen to the dour one...

[Old Hack]

Cameron won on points but did he draw much blood? Sorry but I don't think so.

What was interesting is the way this exchange framed the battleground for the future. Cameron citing Brown's record and Brown retorting by quoting the likes of Clarke. Shades of things to come?

What I did find encouraging was the more statesmanlike tone that Cameron was able to strike compared with Brown. It was credible, authorative and had presence. That needs to be used to best effect and not squandered with tactical blunders.

For instance, the big danger of harking back to the past is that Brown is turning over new leaves. This constitutional statement says it all, Brown is attempting to play a new tune which voters will listen to. His record as Chancellor cannot be relied upon to score points.

Brown is still a formidable adversary for Cameron and will need to be confronted for what is happening in the here and now as much as the past.

Let's see what happens tomorrow.

[Traditional Tory]

I haven't seen this yet but although what Cameron said looks well enough in print I would be surprised if he 'demolished' Brown. Sounds like wishful thinking to me.

Anyway, what if he did? Hague used to run rings round Blair and the better he did the less the public liked him. There is nothing the man in the street likes less than the feeling that he is being asked to subsidise smartarse point-scoring in a glorified sixth-form debating society.

I thought Cameron told us he was going to end 'Punch and Judy Politics'. That promise was broken quicker than his pledge to leave the EPP.

[Graham D'Amiral]

The problem for Brown is he wanted to be seen as the great democrat restoring the power of parliament by surrendering executive power, but it is hard to square that message with saying English votes for English MP's was an issue not up for discussion. As the Prime Minister is so keen to quote Ken Clarke he might like to use a bit of the radio interview Mr Clarke just gave where he said he was surprised Gordon Brown managed to keep a straight face when he said English votes for English MPs would create two classes of MP. Mr Clarke went on to say the Prime Minister would find it difficult to stick to such an absurd position.

I didn't hear all of the debate so couldn't say who won or lost,but clearly David Cameron did make the right arguments and ask the right questions. Let's be honest none of these issues are going to excite the public much.

[Raj]

Anyway, what if he did? Hague used to run rings round Blair and the better he did the less the public liked him.

That's nonsense. First of all, Blair held his own well enough against Hague when necessary. Generally WH did do better, but he didn't make the PM look weak and confused. Brown did far worse today than Blair.

Second, Hague was not disliked because he was a good orator. He was unpopular because:

1. His leadership campaign was launched terribly and the one image always in the public mind was that of him wearing the "Hague caps".

2. His general image was never quite refined enough. He tried to change it, but he wasn't a good enough foil to Blair.

3. More generally he was the wrong man at the wrong time. What the Tories needed was someone like Howard or Clarke, an old hand with lots of experience. Hague would have done better if he'd followed the first Opposition Tory leader.

4. Hague failed to reform the Tory Party to make it look like a credible alternative to Labour. When it came to the election, he panicked when the only thing that stimulated voters was the Europe/£££ issue and focused too much on that.

One reason Blair got a landslide in 1997 was that he made Major look weak in the Commons, even if JM did try his best. Being good at debating isn't enough, but when combined with other factors it can prove a very useful weapon. Cameron does well on the "touchy-feely" perceptions - if he can improve his standing as being "strong" it will help him come across as a good potential PM.

[Raj]

It's worth remembering that Blair had years of experience as Labour leader before coming PM - Brown has had none, so he's more vulnerable to being challenged in Parliament.

[Adam]

Now do we see the danger? 10 years of calling to the core vote, rather than taking back the centre/common ground of politics has led to this. Gordon Brown is PM and about to impose a written Constitution, subject CofE Bishops to a Commons vote, hand over declaration of war to Parliament, etc. etc.. Hopefully now, Conservatives everywhere will fall into step behind Cameron to drive this Labour government from power before it's all too late.

[Bruce Bould]

It's worth remembering that Blair had years of experience as Labour leader before coming PM - Brown has had none, so he's more vulnerable to being challenged in Parliament.

Well, apart from delivering 11 budgets, leading the budget debates, and leading Treasury Questions for 10 years, and apart from 10 years in the shadow cabinet before that - yes, apart from all that, Brown is pretty inexperienced.

I really don't think that playing the experience card would work for Cameron, Osborne and team.

Cameron has strengths and weaknesses. Deluding yourselves about the latter isn't going to help you get back into power.

[601]

Editor where can we see a video of Camerons response, I went to the BBC but they only showed Brown.

[ToMTom]

Why doesn't Brown simply announce the date of the next General Election and then we can fix the date of every future GE at 5 year intervals unless a Confidence Motion is lost in the interval ?

It is time The Royal Prerogative on dissolving The House of Commons was abolished.........if Brown really believed in such matters he would have allowed the MPC Members to be approved by the Treasury Select Committee

[ToMTom]

Editor where can we see a video of Camerons response, I went to the BBC but they only showed Brown.

Anything here ?

http://www.parliamentlive.tv/

[Jane]

Brown should abide by existing laws rather than waste time on a new Constitution. There are many ancient laws to protect us such as the following:

The Act of Supremacy 1559 declares;

That no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, within this realm.

So any powers handed over to Brussels is illegal.

The Magna Carta, 1215 declares;

For a trivial offence, a free man shall be fined only in proportion to the degree of his offence, and for a serious offence correspondingly, but not so heavily as to deprive him of his livelihood1.... None of these fines shall be imposed except by the assessment on oath of reputable men of the neighbourhood2.

1 So fishing boats being impounded is illegal.

2 Every fine issued without the person being tried by jury is illegal.

We need to fight for the laws we have and hold them to book.

[Raj]

Bruce

I said as Labour leader - Brown will not be giving those budget speeches, etc. It's also a lot easier to focus on just the Treasury than the whole range of issues a PM does, especially when the economy was not exactly crumbling.

Yes, of course Cameron has his weaknesses. But certain commentators on the blog will say he has no real strengths.

[Alex Swanson]

'Brown was clearly seeking consensus'

When a socialist seeks "consensus" what he means is that he wants everyone else to meekly accept his ideas.

What frightens me is that even though the shadow foreign secretary is a history buff, the current Tory leadership have appeared in the past to have very little understanding of the mentality of the people they're facing. If they're going on the attack that's great.

[Bullingdon Bertie]

"First blood to Cameron in Commons blast at Brown""

Ho ho. I just watched it all back from the link on the BBC Parliament site, and it was so uncomfortable for Cameron, I couldn't resist watching it twice.

Still, I can understand why you are clutching at straws and need to find some good news even where it doesn't exist!

[Louise]

Why is Cameron demolishing Brown? why can't he behave himself and save the demolition job for PMQs? Brown has shown himself a real asset to the Labour Party and a skilled politician in knowing when to criticise his opponents and when not to mention them at all. Wrong day, Dave. Let's see how you do tomorrow at PMQs - that will be the big test.

[John]

Brown's speech is no different to his budgets previously. I doubt if he will cede any real power.

Lets take his statement to give up

* the power of the executive to declare war;

When was the last time a British Prime Minister declared war? To my knowledge it was 1939?

Will he also be stopped from sending the troops into any action without parliament's approval when there is no declaration of war ?

I may be wrong but it sounds like the same old weasel words from Lurch........

[Traditional Tory]

Response to ‘Raj’

TT - Hague used to run rings round Blair and the better he did the less the public liked him. Raj - that's nonsense

It is the general perception and that’s arguably what counts.

Generally WH did do better, but he didn't make the PM look weak and confused. Brown did far worse today than Blair.

Since a number of people who are not noted for their hostility to Cameron say that Cameron did not make Brown look weak, I am inclined to believe them.

More generally he was the wrong man at the wrong time. What the Tories needed was someone like Howard or Clarke.

The Eurofanatic Clarke would have split the party down the middle. If you don’t appreciate that you can’t have been on the scene very long.

Hague failed to reform the Tory Party to make it look like a credible alternative to Labour.

Hague carried out a number of major reforms to the party, not all of which were in my opinion well-advised. What has Cameron done? The disgraceful ‘A List’ was not a permanent reform, indeed has it not now been dropped?

When it came to the election, he panicked

Hague didn’t panic. What utter drivel.

One reason Blair got a landslide in 1997 was that he made Major look weak in the Commons

Major looked weak because Major was weak, period, right across the board. He was probably the most wretched apology for a Prime Minister this country has suffered for at least two centuries and probably longer.

Being good at debating isn't enough, but when combined with other factors it can prove a very useful weapon.

Cameron is capable of being both adequate and downright pathetic. Remember the great ‘flip-flop’ debate? (engineered by Brown!) It’s at times like those that we are reminded just how utterly inexperienced the man is under the PR flim-flam veneer.

Cameron does well on the "touchy-feely" perceptions

That was last year’s gimmick and it made him look like a wuss.. He’ll have to come up with something better than pushbikes and windmills against the Clunking Fist.

[Traditional Tory]

Response to ‘Raj’

TT - Hague used to run rings round Blair and the better he did the less the public liked him. Raj - that's nonsense

It is the general perception and that’s arguably what counts.

Generally WH did do better, but he didn't make the PM look weak and confused. Brown did far worse today than Blair.

Since a number of people who are not noted for their hostility to Cameron say that Cameron did not make Brown look weak, I am inclined to believe them.

More generally he was the wrong man at the wrong time. What the Tories needed was someone like Howard or Clarke.

The Eurofanatic Clarke would have split the party down the middle. If you don’t appreciate that you can’t have been on the scene very long.

Hague failed to reform the Tory Party to make it look like a credible alternative to Labour.

Hague carried out a number of major reforms to the party, not all of which were in my opinion well-advised. What has Cameron done? The disgraceful ‘A List’ was not a permanent reform, indeed has it not now been dropped?

When it came to the election, he panicked

Hague didn’t panic. What utter drivel.

One reason Blair got a landslide in 1997 was that he made Major look weak in the Commons

Major looked weak because Major was weak, period, right across the board. He was probably the most wretched apology for a Prime Minister this country has suffered for at least two centuries and probably longer.

Being good at debating isn't enough, but when combined with other factors it can prove a very useful weapon.

Cameron is capable of being both adequate and downright pathetic. Remember the great ‘flip-flop’ debate? (engineered by Brown!) It’s at times like those that we are reminded just how utterly inexperienced the man is under the PR flim-flam veneer.

Cameron does well on the "touchy-feely" perceptions

That was last year’s gimmick and it made him look like a wuss.. He’ll have to come up with something better than pushbikes and windmills against the Clunking Fist.

[Bullingdon Bertie]

Cameron today: "It's broken promises that are the cause of broken trust."

[Everyone who voted for Cameron because of his unequivocal (according to Helmer, Hannan etc) pledge to be out of the EPP before Christmas 2005 nods at this comment whilst scowling at Cameron]

[Tory T]

"Why is Cameron demolishing Brown? why can't he behave himself and save the demolition job for PMQs?"

I think you'll find he can do both.

[olivepeel]

Very classy performance by DC. The difference with GB was very clear.

[fr]

Cameron was excellent. Very encouraging. Gordon did not take advantage of his response privilege which Blair aleays used so effectively. Brown cannot think as quickly as the past master. Radio 5 Live is using only one sound bite - Cameron's, not Brown's. When did that happen in Blair's reign ?

[Ash Faulkner]

I am severely worried about these ripples on the ocean for a written constitution. Not good at all.

The rest of it really is gimmickry. If a government thinks war is necessary I find it incredibly unlikely that a parliament would say no. Appointments might be a good thing, but it's hardly ground breaking.

Cameron is absolutely right when he says changing the constitution: excellent quote by him there.

I look forward to PMQs tomorrow!

[William MacDougall]

It would be interesting if he did make some moves towards PR. I have always thought that conservatives were too frightened of that. While it is true that conservatism under Thatcher benefited greatly from first-past-the-post, that had a lot to do with good luck.

It is less easy to point to other periods were conservatism was a clear beneficiary, and is certainly not the case at the moment with the three largest parties all being centre-left.

Many of the arguments traditionally produced against PR do not really hold up. For example, for much of the last two hundred years Britain has had coalition governments (eg national governments, or with Irish parties); it is simply not true that the current system always produces clear winners and strong government.

Contrary to claims about list systems, in fact the current system gives the most power to Whips and central leadership, as it is very difficult to be elected except with the approval of the leadership of one of the two largest parties.

Conservatives have also benefited in Scotland and Wales from PR. We should be more open to PR.

[ToMTom]

subject CofE Bishops to a Commons vote

Not so.

The selection of Bishops to remain with Synod and not be passed to the Prime Minister to refer to The Queen....however it is the Prime Minister who should exit the loop not The Queen.

I also think The Head of The Civil Service should be answerable to Parliament and not merely the Prime Minister and that Civil Servants should be subpoenaed by Select Committees under penalty of being removed from their posts by Order of The House

[CCHQ says...]

oh dear Tim what's happened? why all of this pro-cameron rubbish lately?

there is no way he won today's exchange...more of the same nonsense from Dave *sigh*

[Barry]

Cameron victory ! LOL !

[Jack Cade]

DC did very well but it's important to understand 2 things from Gordoon's statement in the Commons: his proposals are largely already Tory ideas, and they are purely forms of misdirection from the real issue raised in the Miliband Radio4 interview at 1815 to the effect that there is no intention to allow a referendum on the constitution that dare not speak its name.

[Martin Bristow]

Looked like a draw to me.On hopeful note Brown looks ponderous and very poor to me

[Edison Smith]

"That whole statement, and his answers in the debate which followed, was one of the most impressive Commons performances I've seen or heard from any Prime Minister in modern times."

Sorry Bruce, you MUST be a Labour activist.

[Joseph]

Today was the start of the Brown government. Now I would have thought that it would be quite apparent to anybody to try the water out first before jumping in with both feet.
Not only did I watch the WHOLE of the Constitution Debate, I also taped it.
Having seen it first hand then watching the recording of it, I do not know how anybody can form an opinion that Cameron Scored "First Blood"
Today was NOT the day for "Punch and Judy" politics. Mr Brown has the good will of quite a bit of the electorate behind him for now and all Mr Cameron done was to make himself not only look like a political lightweight, his politicall immaturity was there for all to see, he came over as petty minded and foolish.
The electorate are sick of this sort of playground antics, whilst Mr Brown tried his level best to raise the tone and debate in parliament. Mr Cameron wanted to play at Party Political point scoring.
Wrong Time, Wrong Place and definately the Wrong Day to try it on.
Why is Mr Cameron paying advisors the sums of money he is reported to be doing. The advice he is recieving is dreadful.
Tony Blair has gone only Mr Cameron and his advisors have not realised it yet.
Mr Brown is a different political animal.
Has Mr Hague never learned from his own electorial debacle?
He is another who is supposed to be advising Mr Cameron. It is like watching Lemmings, Hague is never going to learn and he is dragging Cameron down into the same ill-advised quagmire by behaving like a schoolboy prankster than a serious politician.
Tommorows Press will tell who is right on this thread and who is wrong.

[malcolm]

Well Joseph, you must bew the only person in Britain who thought Brown did well in the pensions debate so I'm not suprised you thought he did well today.
His absolute failure to even try to answer the West Lothian question today will prove to be one of his greatest weaknesses.
Brown failure is less to do with style (which is ponderous and displays none of the self depracation Blair was a master at) and much more to do with policy.
Sooner or later the EU question and the lack of democracy that has prevailed there will be successfully exploited by the Tories. If today is any guide Brown has no answers.

[Denis Cooper]

On the West Lothian Question, the choice is between having several classes of MPs at Westminster, or having several classes of British citizens. At present the ranking order among British citizens is: at the top, those living in Scotland; in the middle, those living in Wales; at the bottom, those living in England. I'm not quite sure where those living in Northern Ireland fit in at the moment, but if all goes to plan they will definitely be in a class above those living in England.

[Traditional Tory]

Not only did I watch the WHOLE of the Constitution Debate, I also taped it.
Having seen it first hand then watching the recording of it, I do not know how anybody can form an opinion that Cameron Scored "First Blood"

Interesting point Joseph, but of course most people will not see it at all. All they know is that Brown is looking experienced and forceful; a safe pair of hands at a time of crisis.

Basically that's what that Tory Association Chairman said when she came on R4 news this lunchtime. A lot of other Tories will be thinking the same.

Many Conservative are now beginning to think; 'If only we had a Tory version of Brown - solid, experienced and reassuring - like an old-time bank manager'

Instead we've ended up with a gadfly...but for how long?

[ArthurWaik]

I've watched the Brown speech, the Cameron response, and the Brown response and although Brown did his usual steady act during the speech he was rubbish in his response - which presumably he wouldn't have been able to spend hours writing beforehand. He stuttered constantly and his only answers were to make childish jibs at Cameron by quoting from Tory MPs. Cameron on the other hand was calm and statesmanlike and yes, he did say how can Brown restore trust when he has been so underhand for the last 10 years as chancellor but really that's just stating the bleeding obvious and had to be said - hardly 'Punch and Judy' politics.

So my verdict is that Cameron came across as much more politically mature here which is, hopefully, what the electorate want.

[Denis Cooper]

Was there any reference to the fact that this more powerful Parliament will still only decide about 20% of our new laws, the rest being pre-ordained by the EU, and many of those by-passing Parliament altogether?

[Joseph]

Malcolm, have you watched the debate in full?
Have you read and digested what other bloggers have had to say on this subject?
I also said that Cameron had worked for David Mellor which you so hotly disputed only to be proved wrong.
The Pensions debate has now died down so Mr Brown probably has probably managed to convince quite a number of people. I may be proven wrong on this one, only time will tell
As for the West Lothian question I suggest you listen to what William Hague had to say on the same subject, not to mention Mr Rifkind, it may come as quite an eye opener to you.
Before you like your leader jump in with both feet once more, I would suggest you check carefully, then comment.

[JamesB]

What is this 'English votes for English issues' nonsense?

Are we not a Uninonist party any more?

[Bruce Bould]

Sorry Bruce, you MUST be a Labour activist.

I most certainly am not!

I've been impressed with Cameron in many ways. However, I merely stated my opinion that, based on the Commons today and watching them both recently, Mr Brown is currently coming across as statesmanlike and generally having more gravitas than Mr Cameron.

This is not really surprising, given that Mr B has 24 years in parliament and 10 years in government behind him, whereas Mr C's frontbench experience stretches way back to... er, 2005. Cameron could potentially use this to his advantage, as Blair did in 1994, but he's not doing so at the moment. And Brown is a rather tougher opponent than John Major.

Anyway, this is only my opinion from outside, not as an activist for any party thank you. If your kneejerk response to the slightest criticism is to accuse people of being Labour activists, that's not a good reflection of your level of debate.

[Joseph]

Traditional Tory, Re:
Brown - solid, experienced and reassuring - like an old-time bank manager'

Now this is exactly how I see this guy,
He is not interested in "Punch and Judy" politics although he is more than capable of mixing it with the next.
He wants Parliament to reign supreme, he has started off I think in the way he has always envisaged a PM to conduct himself. He was present at yesterdays Home Office statement to Parliament, this has practically been unheard of for a PM to attend Parliament for these statements for many a year.
I think he wants to raise the standards and tone of the chamber and I do not think he has much patience with kindergarden politics or politicians.
Mr Cameron has got to rise above this level of "Punch and Judy" politics or he is not only going to get squashed he is going to take an honourable party down with him.

[Afleitch]

Solid performance by Cameron and played well on the evening news. Having said that Cameron could produce a dancing rabbit from the dispatch box and it wouldn't impress the usual crowd on here.

[Richard Tyndall]

Joseph,

if Brown considers Parliament so important then why does he wish to relegate to destroy its supremecy by signing up to the EU constitution?

And yes I call it by its real name. As many of the EU leaders have boasted, it is the Constitution simply rebranded to try and fool the public. At least those EU leaders are honest about this unlike Brown.

[Traditional Tory]

Cameron could produce a dancing rabbit from the dispatch box and it wouldn't impress the usual crowd on here

He's done it. They're called the 'A List'

And you're right. Nobody was impressed.

[Afleitch]

Well at least you admit that no matter what Cameron does you won't approve. The rest of us got the message quite a while ago. It would be better to forumlate those ideas in a blog so that those who wish to listen and take heed can, and those who wish to engage in sensible debate can just ignore the wind.

[Joseph]

Richard probably for the same reasons that every other country with the exception of Ireland do not feel it neccessary to hold a referendum.
I do believe that only ONE country said that it is the Constitution simply rebranded.
Listen to the reply that Mr Brown gave to Mr Cameron he stated it more eloquently than I ever could.
I am not a political expert I like you only have my own opinion. Like our respective vote they are of equal value.
Holding an opinion does not make a person honest or dishonest it means just that, holding an opinion nothing else, it debases debate when one resorts to calling another dishonest because his opinion does not conforn to your, Mr Brown is calling it as he himself sees it.

[Traditional Tory]

Well at least you admit that no matter what Cameron does you won't approve.

No. He said something about the EU (I think)that I agreed with and I said so. Tory T will remember it.

One of your buddies claimed that 90% of the posters here were Camerosceptics and while that's a gross exaggeration I suspect the 'Roons are now in a minority.

There could be a reason for that.

[Tory T]

Today, TT, Cameron made two points several times.

1. That Brown must give us a referendum on the Constitution instead of cheap focus group gimmicks

"Forget citizens' juries, let's have a jury of the citizens".

2. That Brown must remedy the West Lothian Question and allow English votes on English laws -pointing out by way of illustration that he could not vote on matters affecting Brown's constituents, but Brown could vote on his.

Now if you are in any sense a genuine Conservative, you will cheer both those things and Cameron's dogged hammering on them.

[Jake]

Has it occurred to anyone that when Brown refuses to coutenance EVOEM he is carefully leaving the door open for an English parliament , which so far as I know , he has not ruled out .
Blair did ,yes , but not Brown .

The Conservatives are still wide open to being outflanked by Brown on this one and if Brown does suddenly , from out of the blue declare for an EP , then Cameron rabbiting on about the defective ,half parliament of EVOEM is going to look pretty wet .

[Martin Bristow]

Joseph let us not forget we must judge Brown on his record and what he actually does rather than how he looks.This man has controlled a domestic agenda for the past 10 years which has delivered a totally top down controlling approach.He created almost single handedly a client state which crowds out enterprise and initiative.In short this man ought to find now plaudits on this site.

We may have issues with our leadership,I certainly do,but I unreservedly detest all that Brown stands for.We should take him and this terrible government on dealing with the substantive issues and not be preoccupied with spin and perception.If Brown reaaly does have a list of bold new initaives why on earth has he hidden them for so long.Or has he thought them throughin the last week.

The truth is this man is a control freak who is uncollegiate and wedded to big government.It is our job to provide the electorate with an alternative.

[Traditional Tory]

Today, TT, Cameron made two points several times.

Yes I agree with both those propositions but I fear neither will set the Thames on fire.

Of course the British people should rise up as one against the revived EU constitution, but they won't.

Until the Tory Party takes a firm and unequivocal stand against the EU ratchet it will continue without pause.

[Richard Tyndall]

The you should do a bit more research Joseph,

so far Finland, Ireland, Spain, Luxembourg and the man who wrote the thing in the first place Giscard D'estang have all said it is the same document with a few cosmetic changes. This is backed up by German lawyers and opposition groups in Poland, Holland and the UK.

Brown knows exactly what this constitution means and he is being dishonest both in lying about what it is and in going back on his word that there would be a referendum on it.

The point is clear and unequivoocal. He is lying.

[Pete]

Cameron needs to really hammer on about the EU constitution, and dismiss Brown's phoney concern with so-called reform of the British Constition.

[Richard Tyndall]

Oh Joseph,

And in passing I should ask if in your proclaimed ignorance you have actually read the original constitution so as to know whether or not there are significant differences? If not then you are right on one thing, You are certainly not in a position to judge anything.

[Marty Pelago]

Someone above was right about Heald - he's had a low profile but Nick Herbert? Bright guy but no gravitas. Why was Grieve not promoted? Senseless.

[Marty Pelago]

Someone above was right about Heald - he's had a low profile but Nick Herbert? Bright guy but no gravitas. Why was Grieve not promoted? Senseless.

[Andrew Lilico]

"English votes for English issues" is straightforward nationalism. I am a Unionist. If I were an English Nationalist I would probably join another party. I find it beyond ridiculous that the Conservative Party continues to be tempted by this nonsense.

Next, Gordon Brown's proposals seem pretty clearly to amount to almost total disestablishment of the Church of England, and something like halfway (or perhaps a little further) to abolishing the Constitutional Monarchy.

Now I am not in favour of disestablishment, but since I am a committed Anglican Christian who regards establishment as a gift of the Church to the nation, I feel on slightly weak ground commenting, since I am aware that my view from the secular side may well be significantly coloured by my view from the Christian side (from the Christian side it seems to me to be clear that we should aspire to mould political life if we can). If the secular state no longer wants the gift of Establishment, I feel loath to try to inflict it upon them. So if no secular persons want to defend Establishment - and my guess is that they will not - then Establishment will fall. I pity you.

On the Constitutional Monarchy, I wonder how many Conservatives really understand why the Constitutional Monarchy is supposed to be a good idea, and of those how many actually believe in it? My guess is almost none. Of course it was always not many, but the difference between not many (but the few being significant persons respected by others) and almost none (those persons being regarded as amusing nutters) is a large one - and probably decisive. My guess is that Brown will abolish the Constitutional Monarchy and, of contributors to this site, only I and one or two others will really care. So be it. sic transit gloria mundi.

[Den]

If any of you actually think that people in the real world give a toss about a House of Commons debate over constitutional affairs; you are seriously deluded. Please - take it from someone who isn't party political and doesn't spend his every waking hour monitoring the latest political developments but does have a brain between his ears and a bit of working-class savy. Gordon Brown will win the next general election with a convincing majority. There is no real mood for change, just a weary indifference amongst the general public. Voter turnout will be higher, due to to the perceived closeness of the competition among Fleet Street journalists - whenever it comes. But the voting patterns witnessed in the last 3 elections will be repeated again, give or take 2 or 3 points. The Cameron project will implode - he will never connect with the working-class voters who propelled both Margaret Thatcher and John Major into office - the very people he needs to carry in order to win and win convincingly too. The whole environmental thing is a joke - the bike riding, the "hug a hoodie" speech, the continued surrender of Conservative principles to the liberal agenda, he's inability to be taken seriously in the Midlands and Northern England. It all amounts to defeat and Tories up and down the country know it. He will push the Right over the edge. Division and in-fighting will once again become the staple-piece of the Conservative Party. Brown's honeymoon with the media will wane but he will have the support of The Sun and The Mail (yes, The Mail) at the next general election. I'm conservative. I voted Conservative in 2005 - it was the first time I was able to vote. I would like to vote Conservative again. But so long as David Cameron remains leader and so long as the gradual dismantling of the Conservative Party continues, I like millions of others, will opt for Brown. He is Scottish, boring and pragmatic. But that's so much better than a vacuous toff, all spin and shiny PR without a single policy and without the support of half his party. To anybody directly involved with the Conservative Party; dump him now. Replace him with a Conservative and limit the scale of the defeat you'll face at the next general election. You want to know what real people think of David Cameron. One word. Wanker. They may not think much of Brown but they respect him and they trust him to run things properly. That's what it comes down to in the real world. and it's what ultimately how elections are decided by those who affect them most.

[Derek L. Piper]

First off, it seems to me that the majority of people here criticising DC's performance today in the Commons simply do not want him - or his party - to succeed.

Now, my main point is a question... I'm not from the UK (or any part of the Commonwealth) and I have searched in vain on the conservative blogs for an explanation of the implications of Brown's proposed 'reforms'.

I'll guess I'm not the only who reads this site who has been left wondering, so could somebody please spell out responses to my three questions below:

1. Why are the PM's proposals inherently anti-Tory? (as stated above early on)

2. How exactly do they threaten the Monarchy?

3. Are they a threat to the C of E? (and how)

Thanks. Apologies in advance from the simpleton....

[Bullingdon Bertie]

"The point is clear and unequivoocal. He [Brown]is lying."

Which makes it all the more depressing that we do not have a truthworthy opposition leader on this subject.

Look at Cameron's sudden 'passion' for the environment when he wanted to become leader (check for mentions in past speeches - yes a lot less than Brown, barely a mention from Cameron) and his (if your MEP's are telling the truth) bare-faced lie over his EPP pledge.

Considering the EPP pledge was a cast-iron one given directly to his closest colleaues, why would anyone believe a word Cameron says on the EU?

He can promise all he likes. He has broken one clear EU-related promise, and can just as easily do the same again or 'delay' for x years after his pledge etc etc.

[TomTom]

Richard probably for the same reasons that every other country with the exception of Ireland do not feel it neccessary to hold a referendum.

Constitution of the Irish Republic

AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION

Article 46

2. Every proposal for an amendment of this Constitution shall be initiated in Dáil Éireann as a Bill, and shall upon having been passed or deemed to have been passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas, be submitted by Referendum to the decision of the people in accordance with the law for the time being in force relating to the Referendum.

3. Every such Bill shall be expressed to be "An Act to amend the Constitution".

4. A Bill containing a proposal or proposals for the amendment of this Constitution shall not contain any other proposal.

THE REFERENDUM

Article 47

1. Every proposal for an amendment of this Constitution which is submitted by Referendum to the decision of the people shall, for the purpose of Article 46 of this Constitution, be held to have been approved by the people, if, upon having been so submitted, a majority of the votes cast at such Referendum shall have been cast in favour of its enactment into law.

2. 1° Every proposal, other than a proposal to amend the Constitution, which is submitted by Referendum to the decision of the people shall be held to have been vetoed by the people if a majority of the votes cast at such Referendum shall have been cast against its enactment into law and if the votes so cast against its enactment into law shall have amounted to not less than thirty-three and one-third per cent. of the voters on the register.

2° Every proposal, other than a proposal to amend the Constitution, which is submitted by Referendum to the decision of the people shall for the purposes of Article 27 hereof be held to have been approved by the people unless vetoed by them in accordance with the provisions of the foregoing sub-section of this section.

3. Every citizen who has the right to vote at an election for members of Dáil Éireann shall have the right to vote at a Referendum.

4. Subject as aforesaid, the Referendum shall be regulated by law.

[tapestry]

Ken Clarke is now the official leader of the opposition to Cameron. What a pity his constituents didn't shuffle him away and find someone else. He'll be a thorn in the side of the Conservative Party until he's gone.

He's in love with the European Union.

Even when the Euro has collapsed, and the EU game is over, he'll be standing on a soap box in Hyde Park saying what a good idea it is and Britain must be at the heart etc etc.

He has an unrivalled gift for speech without the ability to think. Is it an illness?

[Traditional Tory]

Ken Clarke is now the official leader of the opposition to Cameron.

Agreed Tapestry. How can the Conservastive Party possibly be united against EU tyranny when we have a fifth column operating within our gates?

One of the finest things William Hague did was to strike down a group of anti-British activists within this party. The removal of the Fenian sympathiser Temple-Morris was long overdue, and he was one of several malignants to have the whip withdrawn.

If Cameron is genuine in standing for British interests against EU tyranny he will move against Clarke without further delay.

[ToMTom]

He has an unrivalled gift for speech without the ability to think. Is it an illness?

Trademark of the barrister in politics

[Oberon Houston]

The real test is today at PMQs. I will be watching with intense interest. I think this is one of Cameron's strongest areas, and Brown weakest.
Brown resorts to doggedly repeating slogans (some above seem impressed by that, but there you go). Cameron is more sophisticated and I think (hope) has the measure of him. PMQs is a bit of a show, but it's very important for party moral on both sides. f Cameron can rough Brown up over the next few weaks hewill significantly deflate the bounce. Fingers crossed.

[Ken Stevens]

JamesB | July 03, 20:50

"What is this 'English votes for English issues' nonsense? Are we not a Unionist party any more?"

Ain't no Union any more to be a party about.
English parliament or scrap devolution!

[Alex Swanson]

1. Why are the PM's proposals inherently anti-Tory? (as stated above early on)

2. How exactly do they threaten the Monarchy?

3. Are they a threat to the C of E? (and how)

(1) Can't tell until more detail emerges. That's the way it works: something sounds reasonable on the face of it, and many people are seduced into at least preliminary agreement. Then, once a positive response and some momentum is achieved, the trap is sprung and the angle emerges. Anyone who then objects is accused of backtracking, being in a minority, anti-democratic, etc.

(2) Transferring power from the executive to the legislature is formally removing it from the monarch. In practice it makes no difference because Labour MPs will always do whatever Brown tells them to.

(3) Removing the power to appoint bishops from the PM is a step towards disestablishment, which would reduce the C of E to just another Protestant demonination rather than the official state religion (which it nominally still is)

[TomTom]

"What is this 'English votes for English issues' nonsense? Are we not a Unionist party any more?"

Noone in Scotland seems to think it worth voting Conservative for "The Union" and I doubt many English voters do. Just because Joseph Chamberlain brought his Liberal Unionists to the Conservatives a century ago does not mean that those who defected from the Liberals should forever condition voters' options.

I don't think even Joe Chamberlain thought of sacrificing England for Scotland's Glory, and it is an amazing situation that during 18 years the Conservatives were too weak to tackle the Barnett Formula which was only 2 years old when Thatcher came to power.

Or was she frightened of Scottish Nationalists after the 1978 Scotland Act which did not even muster 40% turnout in the referendum ?

[TomTom]

3. Are they a threat to the C of E? (and how)

Because The Monarch is Supreme Governor of the Church of England - sometime around 80 years ago Prime Ministers started interfering in selections of Bishops which are really the role of The Monarch not a politician.

Synod is a recent innovation set up by Geoffrey Fisher postwar in his Church Bureaucracy Campaign....

THe original ideas Brown's little gremlins had was to play with The Act of Settlement 1701 which lays down the Succession to the Throne through descendants of Electress Sophia of Hannover.......this is the reason for the Act of Union with Scotland 1707....

Had they played with this the whole structure would have unravelled with the provisions that Parliament has a say in who succeeds to the Throne leading to an elected Monarchy as Poland used to have....or open up the issue of a Republic.

This would be just super for Brown - Muslim terrorists - EU Constitution - and stating to dismember The English Realm.

Having introduced Regional Ministers into England; refused a Referendum on the EU Constitution; shown the dire state of internal and external security; to start as a Scotsman to take apart the basis of the English Realm established in 1215, 1649, 1689, 1701, 1707.....would be an invitation to Civil War as it would completely dismantle the English Realm to which all the Celtic statelets are appended to produce the United Kingdom

[Traditional Tory]

If Cameron can rough Brown up over the next few weaks hewill significantly deflate the bounce. Fingers crossed.

You are deluding yourself. Few voters watch these exchanges other than in an edited version and many not even then. I anticipate that vast numbers of the totally-unreliable floating voters for whom Cameron made his (now flagging) big pitch seldom open a newspaper and barely ever watch TV news.

Above all, the Hague v Blair experience proved that debating ability can backfire.

Not, of course, that Cameron's oratorical skills remotely match those of Hague. My abiding memory of parliamentary 'Dave' is his performance in the great flip-flop debate. It reinforced the impression of effete aristocratic weakness which, for many of us, is the Cameron hallmark.

Now if the general public had been watching that debate...

[Evan Price]

I am Conservative, Unionist and Welsh (not necessarily in that order - and not always in a fixed order in any event). I am also a Barrister.

The cynic is me thinks that an interesting thing about devolution as created by the Labour Government, is that it was intended to ensure that, at least in Scotland and Wales, the Labour Party would retain dominance whether or not they were in power in England ... The reason for the calls for devolution was the failure of our party to recognise that they could not 'impose' solutions on parts of the Union and the decision to try out the community charge or poll tax on Scotland. The resentment caused created a mood for change. Labour promised change under John Smith and Tony Blair went ahead with it. The attempts to gerrymander the electoral systems to ensure Labour hegemony were disgraceful.

The constitutional problem created by devolution is a representational one. It is a question that goes beyond mere fairness; it is a genuine issue that only arises because Scotland has primary legislative power (and if the Richard Commission recommendations are accepted, as it appears that they will be), the problem will be repeated with an identical question about MPs for Welsh constituencies. If the regional assemblies merely had secondary power, then the constitutional question would be a false one - it would be the equivalent to querying powers about refuse collection.

The reason that it needs to be answered is because there are now two classes of MP in Parliament; the first are those who have influence over certain issues affecting their own constituents and the second are those who over those same issues only have influence over the constituents of other MPs. If the question is not answered, it will create resentment ... and the pressure that builds as a result of such resentment is unpredictable and the results will not be what Unionists want.

For this reason, creating a Parliamentary convention that says that, where there is a debate about issues affecting solely English constituencies, then MPs for Scottish and Welsh constituencies cannot vote (nothing would, or in my view, should stop them from participating in the debate) would be a neat and simple solution. A variation to permit members of the Government to vote in any event would almost certainly be accepted and in my view would be acceptable.

As a result, it appears to me that the question which is rather simplistically described as concerning 'English votes for English issues' or the 'West Lothian question' is one that we, as Unionists, ought to consider and tackle; in the interests of the Union that we wish to preserve. It is undoubtedly true that we will have to use the debate carefully and think of other methods to ensure that the Union is strengthened; but that is a debate for another time.

I will be looking at the Government's green paper and will be posting about the constitution on my blog in the future. If anyone wants to discuss these issues with me, I will be happy to discuss them - but I remind everyone that I need to earn a living too, so I won't always respond very quickly!

[Ken Stevens]

Andrew Lilico | July 04, 00:14

I cannot defend the logic of establishment in this day & age. Whether a bishop is appointed by the PM or Parliament is irrelevant; it still entails a religious appointment being made by a secular body (whether or not members of that body are adherents). Religious appointments should be made by eminent religious folk.

It is also odd that the Sovereign is automatically head of C of E. This is not a practical problem with Her Majesty but what about the future? The heir to the throne is divorcee who had to pop up to another religious jurisdiction to remarry. No personal criticism of him in that respect but in hopefully long distant due course he will become head of the Church despite that little discrepancy in adherence to its tenets. Anyway it is wrong that an heir to the throne has a particular brand of religion forced upon him/her.

None of this is antagonistic towards religion in general or the C of E in particular. The latter has a special place in our history and current affairs and should continue to be afforded particular privileges such as Lords seats. It should remain very much part of "The Establishment" but in a revised format.

I'm not so much a Disestablishmentarian as Re-establishmentarian. I am also a commited Monarchist and the trundle towards a Eurostate threatens that, quite apart from it already having purloined most of our national lawmaking responsibilities. If there is to be a European Head of State that is incompatible with retention of a British Monarchy. I will not accept that change.

[malcolm]

Well put Evan. I agree with every word you've written. I do think that you're making a bit of a mistake thinking that some of the people who blog on this site actually want to debate the West Lothian question.Many simply want to use this (and every ) thread to bash David Cameron.

[TomTom]

Whether a bishop is appointed by the PM or Parliament is irrelevant; it still entails a religious appointment being made by a secular body

No it is NOT irrelevant. The Bishop is NOT apppointed by the Prime Minister only Deans are. The Synod picks the shortlist which is sent with two names to the Prime Minister who then selects ONE for the Monarch to approve.

In fact the Monarch should get BOTH and discuss matters with the Archbishop WITHOUT politicians.

The Church of England is an Erastia Church - look up what that means

Westminster should contain ONLY English MPs with the elected Upper House representing ALLthe regions of the United Kingdom

[ToMTom]

ERASTIAN

[Carlisle Mack]

So, the PM's first set of headline catching "initiatives"; I wonder how many will actually come to fruition? For Brown to say: "we do not accept the proposal for English votes for English laws, which would create two classes of MPs - some entitled to vote on all issues, some invited to vote only on some.... We will do nothing to put at risk the Union." is risible. What did he think that he and Tone did when they introduced Devolution?

Methinks Scotland wants to have its cake and eat it; enjoy all the benefits of semi-independence whilst retaining the comfort blanket of the so-called Union.

It's time, for David Cameron to start campaigning for English Indepence; north of the Border the party is a busted flush anyway supported only by PR. If he were to promote what many English want then perhaps the Tories would stop flatlining, or worse, in the polls.

[Ken Stevens]

Googling "Erastian" produces first names, sexual proclivities,zoological usages and religious pages accessible only to subscribers. Only specific reference was a comment by some bloke called Tom Tom on Times thread, who said, inter alia,: "..without the Erastian Church a new and more resolute Protestantism may emerge from the fudged compromise of Anglicanism and have interesting political implications for the materialist political parties held in such contempt by voters"

Had to revert to good old-fashioned Times dictionary:
Erastianism - the theory that the State should have authority over the church in ecclesiastical matters. Named after Thomas Erastus (1524-83) a Swiss theologian to whom such views were attributed.

[ACT]

Right, well having read the 4 qualities this morning (and the Mail), I can't see any support for the claim that Cameron 'won' this exchange. And that's because, er, he didn't. It makes me shudder to read Hansard this morning, after listening to all of the debate yesterday, to see just how little Cameron actually opposes Brown's avowed intent to write Britain a Charter88-style constitution. We're Tories for pity's sake - if we're not for *our* constitutional settlement, what are we for? A society formed for the mutual career advancement of Dave and his select handful of mates? Thanks but no thanks.