Cameron likely to accept Clarke answer to West Lothian Question

More than two months ago we reported that Ken Clarke was set to recommend that MPs from all parts of the UK should retain the final say on laws only affecting English constituencies.  Mr Clarke confirmed that that was his Democracy Taskforce's conclusion during a 7.35am interview for this morning's Today programme.  We understand that David Cameron is minded to accept it.

Mr Clarke does, however, propose that only MPs from English seats will be able to amend legislation that is introduced in the normal way by the UK government.  There will then be a Convention that at the final stage of Commons scrutiny all MPs will either endorse or reject the amended legislation as a whole rather than picking and choosing the amendments made by MPs from English constituencies.

Mr Clarke confirmed his view that the Conservatives were wrong to oppose devolution in 1997 and that this diluted (our word) version of 'English votes for English laws' was a necessary step to prevent a crisis in the Union that could be caused if MPs from outside of England sided with a minority of English MPs to impose legislation unwanted by the majority.

Mr Clarke's proposals do seem to meet the principal concerns of Sir Malcolm Rifkind.  Sir Malcolm had proposed a more radical answer to Tam Dalyell's West Lothian Question but had said that two things were needed for Mr Clarke's idea to be acceptable: (1) At Committee and Report stages MPs from English seats would need to be represented in proportion to all MPs from English seats and (2) 'English amendments' could not be undone at the final stage of Commons voting.

Mr Clarke's recommendations come at a time when the heavily Scottish identity of the Labour Government has been questioned by its own MPs.  Stephen Ladyman has called for more 'English voices' in Government and Frank Field has discussed the "fiscal discriminations" facing the English.  The Barnett formula - that lies behind the "fiscal discriminations" - is overwhelmingly opposed by the next generation of Conservative MPs.  A survey by ConservativeHome found that 83% of adopted candidates want it to be substantially reformed.

Comments

[Iain]

Useless, so English people can't look to the Conservatives to sort out this constitutional mess, and the constitutional second class status Labour have put them in. They have fluncked it at the first hurdle. It will be interesting to hear the Conservative message on this..... 'Vote for us we will sort out the constitutional mess by allowing MP's to fiddle about with the middle bit of legislation'.....WOW a real headline grabber of a policy ! NOT!

[bluepatriot]

I like this solution.
English MPs have the capacity to control amendments and vote down the law at Report stage but all MPs will decide ultimately.
This avoids a parliament within a parliament.

[wtf]

Sounds good to me. The English Democrats got less than 1% of the vote in the Henley, Sedgefield and Crewe by-elections, proving there is no demand at all for an English Parliament.

Hopefully the shrill and divisive people who do call for such lunacy will leave our party for pastures new.

[Alan S]

Nobody talks about this issue on the doorstep. The subsidy of the rest of the UK is the real wedge issue. Cameron must address that.

[Chris]

Totally unacceptable, a fudge worthy of New Labour which will do little to change the existing situation. The union is already weakened through the fact that England doesn't have it's own parliament - lot's of people this side of the border now want Scotland to become an independent nation!

Ultimately a federal solution will be the only route that can retain the union without England being screwed over.

[Iain]

"I like this solution."

Its no solution at all. This week we have had the member from Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath bring forward legislation to remove English people from having a say in major planning proposals in their area and given over to a quango. What is the point of having our whipped lobby fodder MP's pawing over the detail, if they can be bothered, if the matter gets voted through by the lobby fodder at the behest of the member of Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath? There isn't, the feebleness of our MP's who defer to their party rather than act as our representatives have made the need for English Executive that English people can vote in or sack.

[ChrisD]

"The subsidy of the rest of the UK is the real wedge issue. Cameron must address that."

Sorry, but I don't buy the subsidy figures anymore.

[David Kelly]

Clarke was completely the wrong person to head this review in the first place, and now we see why.

A equitable settlement for the English was never going to be on his radar, especially as he has been hell-bent on transferring our decision-making powers to Brussels for all of his parliamentary career.

A wasted opportunity. Shame on Cameron for accepting the conclusions - if that is what he intends to do.

[ChrisD]

"Mr Clarke's recommendations come at a time when the heavily Scottish identity of the Labour Government has been questioned by its own MPs."

Sorry, I also dislike the inference about the supposed heavily Scottish identity of the government. That says more about the people that continual raise it than anything else!

[doriangrape]

What an exquisite illustration of politicians not getting it. I understand the parliamentary process and have a degree in political science but remain entirely bewildered as to how this overly technical proposal will provide a satisfactory solution. It will antagonise the Scots and patronise the English.

It’s Ken’s constitutional Hokey Cokey:

You put your Scotsman in
You take your Scotsman out
In, out, in, out,
Shake it all about.
You do the Parliamentary Convention subsequent to English amendment at committee stage and you turn around
That’s what it’s all about…

Sorry, run that past me again Ken?

[Sammy Finn]

This is a timid response and a worrying sign about the whole Cameron project. On no big issue have we seen solutions that match the scale of problem. That includes crime, economic competitiveness, militant Islam and family collapse.

[Felixstowe Fiddler]

No, no, no
I will just about accept an English Grand Committee, but not this weak-as-water dogs breakfast that Clarke has come up with.
The only way to save the UK is full devolution to the 4 home nations, and a federal Westminster, I'm fed up with Scots, Welsh and Ulster MPs voting on issues that do not affect them or their constituents. No other country would be so barking mad to accept such lunacy.

[Iain]

"Clarke was completely the wrong person to head this review in the first place, and now we see why."

As you select the person to do a review in order to get the answer you are looking for, one can only asume Cameron got the answer he wanted. In other words do nothing about English constitutional issues.

[John W]

An ever more imperfect union.

Unless radical action is taken Scotland will cease to be part of the union, I think unfair voting is a price we should be willing to pay to keep them in.

[Ken Stevens]

So much of a much-trailered non-surprise that I can't even bother to bluster with indignation.

As to a previous comment about English Democrats, I don't think the paucity of voting is terribly indicative of overall sentiment. It's a small, new party, as was SNP a few decades ago. Also consider the example of BNP, only now making inroads on its pet theme. Mind you, the Monster Raving Loonies are showing a worrying electoral upsurge!

I suspect that the topic will accelerate for reasons beyond the current noble efforts of the EngDems. After all, the fact that the Tories are attempting to address the matter at all suggests that soundings have indicated a need to do so, rather than that 1% Engdem voting in some rather unusual by-elections has been seen as an electoral threat to be staved off.

I suspect that there will little practical benefit from this measure, either in itself or as a sop to English sentiment. It will however provide ammo for Scottish separatists, even though the Scottish public might view it as fair enough.

Mr Clarke believes that the Conservatives were wrong to oppose devolution in 1997. To paraphrase a previous Parliamentarian,
I beseech him, in the bowels of Cameron, think it possible he may be mistaken now. Just as you were wrong to have been resistant then, might you not also be wrong now in resisting an English parliament?

Don't care if I'm swivel-eyed on this subject. If Ian Dale is for it, then I can bask in a tiny ray of his reflected glory :-)

[Iain]

John W , when did English people become such craven wimps? In no walk of life do you get anywhere by kowtowing to blackmail nor paying a ransom. We have been paying Celtgeld to keep them quiet, but that hasn't worked, now they want, no their demands have beggared English peoples constitutional rights, and this Englishman has had his fill of it, we have gone too far in acceding to their demands. If they want to remain part of the Union then they should as equals, not with English people as constitutionally second class citizens.

Its long past the time for a bit of constitutionally honesty in this dis-United Kingdom.

[Robert McIlveen]

While an entirely separate English Parliament is unnecessary and would add another layer of sub-prime MPs below Westminster, this proposal looks like an effort to do just enough to bury the issue, without really satisfying anyone.

English Votes on English Laws should be workable - and it would be incumbent on the government to write its legislation in such a way as to make it work. It's also simple, elegant and solves the problem mroe completely than this fudge.

[Rev Smurf]

Just like with Europe, the Tory's haven't got the bottle to take this issue on. I am disillusioned by the next Tory government and they haven't even got in yet. I get the impression that the English are being punished for having formed the union in the first place. As it the Welsh and Scottish "Assemblies" are just an exercise in creating Jobs for the political class. I suppose if we are to have devolution then it should be full blooded with an English assemble as well. We are being taken for fools by shites who are more interested in their own expense accounts than in good governance. This will only become an issue if we make it one. So I believe we should pester the politicians until they realize we are onto their little game. I don't care if people think I am a raving loon devolution has gone far enough.

[RichardJ]

All money raised in Scotland should be spent in Scotland. All money raised in England should be spent in England.

[Ken Stevens]

Robert McIlveen @09:39
"..an entirely separate English Parliament is unnecessary and would add another layer.."

Not necessarily. What if one did away with a layer, i.e. AMs and MSPs?
600+ MPs did the job before devolution. Why not so again, only with part of the time in their national parliaments and other times as UK parliament?

[marian]

"Unless radical action is taken Scotland will cease to be part of the union, I think unfair voting is a price we should be willing to pay to keep them in."

Utter hogwash ! See how their little game has even got sensible people talking nonsense. The Scottish "taking shop" should be closed and the SNP leaders should be treated like the traitors that they are. Lets have an end to this ridiculous experiment in Job creation.
The Last thing we need is more politicians milking the system. We need to make cuts, the Assemblies are the obvious first place to start.

[Old Hack]

Every Englishman and woman who feels frustrated by the autonomy of Scotland and imposition of policy on England by Scots MPs will feel that what is proposed is not a proper answer.

Yet, yet, there is good reason to be cautious.

Perhaps the lesson of Labour's mistakes is that a radical reworking of the ancient and rusty wiring of our constitution is highly risky.

For that reason, I'd accept what is being proposed as a first step. It tempers the power of the Scots and Welsh over England but does not give too much momentum to the argument for Scottish Independence?

But only as a first step. The genie of devolution is out of the bottle and what is proposed will not put it back in.

We must watch what is happening with the Salmond Government and see how it plays out. There may be consequences for England that are beyond the current reckoning of Clarke's proposal and which will make what is proposed seem irrelevant.

We are, lest we forget, the Conservative and Unionist Party and we support the Union, imperfections and all. Don't we?

Now, on to the Lords. That's really where we need a better and more democratic proposal rather than a feeble fudge.

[Iain]

"There may be consequences for England"

And who in Westminster will speak up for England and English people? NOBODY

"we support the Union, imperfections and all. Don't we?"

Not when it discriminates against our young, sick, old and makes us all constitutionally second class!

[johnC]

There is only one fair and equitable solution and that is to treat the four constituent parts of the United Kingdon equally.
If this is the solution proposed for England, then let the same system be applied to Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish legislation: the committee stage only to be held in their own parliament or assembly, and the final vote on the legislation to be taken at Westminster.
If this is good enough for the English, why not the rest ?

[Man in a Shed]

This is useless.

It won't be needed by the next Conservative government - which will govern byt support from England.

And it will be abolished by the next Labour government in their first week.

But then Clarke and Cameron must know this ....

[anthony scholefield]

I think most commentators do not realise that the most important part of devolution is not the Scottish Parliament but the devolution of the Executive. The Parliament is a secondary issue.

[Iain]

"I think most commentators do not realise that the most important part of devolution is not the Scottish Parliament but the devolution of the Executive."

Yes that is how I see it. Our MP's are no more than lobby fodder to their party, thus the key issue is who is yanking their leash. At the moment its the member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath and even though he is the defacto First Minister of England no English person has ever voted for him. Thus the only equitable solution is to have an English Executive, who English people can vote in or sack, and that means having an English Parliament.

[Nigel]

The basic problem for the political class is that if Scots/Welsh/Ulster MPs are only allowed to vote on pan-UK legislation it may leave them little to do, thereby making people ask what they are there for.

A simple solution would be to give them the power to be a revising chamber to their domestic parliaments/assemblies, therby removing one of the major weaknesses of Labours botched constitutional reform - that there is no revising chamber to their parliaments, and also removing Scots/welsh/ulster politicians from voting on matters that have no bearing on their constituents. It wouldn't need referenda either as westminster has primacy

[Deborah]

"English MPs have the capacity to control amendments and vote down the law at Report stage but all MPs will decide ultimately." - bluepatriot

In other words, the govt. (mainly Scottish MPs) bring forward proposed legislation, English MPs get to talk about it for a while and suggest a few amendments, then the scottish MPS vote it through anyway.

Doesn't sound like a solution to me.

This cynical government has developed the "have your say" deception into an art form. They announce a consultation and pretend that the results will be listened to - then they go ahead with their plans, regardless.

I had hoped for better of the Conservatives.

[Adam in London]

Sound answer from Clarke.

EVoEL is asking for constitutional trouble as it becomes ever more likely that Labour will one day end up having a majority of UK MPs but a minority of English MPs. At that point they will be the UK government responsible for health policy, education policy, environmental policy etc. in England but with no ability to do the job in practice or in theory.

The alternative of course is to bite the bullet and go for an English Parliament in the name of symmetrical devolution across the UK. This has it's attractions but let's be honest - at least half the party would be apoplectic with rage.

As for making the whole thing part-time, it strikes me as nonsensical to vote for someone to attend two bodies, and you still end up with the farce of health policy in England being run not by the Health Secretary but the Shadow Health Secretary.

Clarke's solution is the best one on the table as long as we remain hostile to English devolution.

[johnC]

'at least half the party would be apoplectic with rage.'

What possible basis do you have for saying that ? The cost ?

Why is it perfectly affordable to set up a Scottish Parliament, a Welsh Assembly, Stormont, the London Mayor, Regional Assemblies and Development Agencies, and contribute to the cost of the European Parliament and UN Assembly, but suggest an English Parliament and it suddenly becomes prohibitively expensive ?

[John Moss]

If Councils had to raise 50% of their spending from local taxation of whatever sort they wanted - and the national tax burden was reduced accordingly - there would be far less of an issue here.

That would be real devolution and better still if big budget items like health and education were to go to individuals through voucherised contributions to social insurance and schools. That would remove most of the things which create the Barnett Distortions.

[Londoner]

Not only a fudge, but a muddle.

We have waited so long to find a useful function for Ken Clarke. He is now in danger of demonstrating that he is no use for anything.

On a technical point: if amendments come back from the Lords, do they go back to Commons committee or to the report stage? If the latter (as I think it is), you could have a situation where "English" amendments in committee in the Commons are reversed by the Govt in the Lords and then it is not possible for the English majority to reinstate it at Report stage. You could not expect the Lords to respect a Commons convention re English amendments as it would remove their revising power. Similarly if a Lords amendment that the English would have favoured (but perhaps did not think of, or did not have time to debate, at committee stage) comes back to report stage, the full Commons could vote it down as it was not technically an "English" amendment.

Is it workable? No
Is it clear? No
Is it acceptable? No

Cameron should thank him politely, wait six months, and then announce something both more radical and more workable. If he has to bring in Rifkind at Constitutional Affairs (i.e Shadow Lord Chancellor - not a bad idea anyway) to do it, so be it. Neutralise one "big beast" with another.

Who is our Constitutional Affairs Shadow anyway? They must be pretty useless as we never hear from them.

[Yet Another Anon]

The English Democrats got less than 1% of the vote in the Henley, Sedgefield and Crewe by-elections, proving there is no demand at all for an English Parliament
The English Democrats though are an English Nationalist Party, they want the Union broken up - many Conservatives and members of other parties support devolution inside England whether to an English Parliament, or Local Government, or some kind of Regional equivalents of the Scottish Parliament. Unionists thought are split over the issues, the English Democrats as well are not as a party Conservative - they orient themselves between on the one hand Labour\Liberal Democrat\Green and Conservative.

[Yet Another Anon]

The English Democrats got less than 1% of the vote in the Henley, Sedgefield and Crewe by-elections, proving there is no demand at all for an English Parliament
That bit was supposed to be in italics as I was quoting.

[Editor]

Nick Herbert MP's statement at the launch of the report:

“I would like to thank Ken Clarke and the other members of the Democracy Task Force for coming up with a thoughtful and persuasive answer to the West Lothian Question, one which seeks to ensure that legislation affecting England alone should have the consent of England’s representatives.

“David Cameron has made clear that the next Conservative Government will address the West Lothian Question. When the Shadow Cabinet comes to consider the precise formulation of the answer in our Manifesto, there are a number of key principles which we should apply.

“First, our starting point will be to maintain the Union. We will do nothing to put the Union at risk, and everything in our power to strengthen it. As David Cameron said in Edinburgh last year, if it should ever come to a choice between constitutional perfection and the preservation of our nation, this Party will choose our United Kingdom.

“But what is putting the Union most at risk is Labour’s unbalanced devolution settlement. People fairly ask why Scottish MPs should continue to vote on issues that affect only England and Wales but have been devolved in Scotland. But we should not allow the agenda to be stolen by those who want to cultivate grievances in order to tear the Union apart or foster a narrow nationalism.

“Second, a common thread running through our reforms is the principle of accountability. The people’s elected representatives should be accountable to their constituents for the decisions they take.

“But as a result of devolution, Many MPs are in the paradoxical position of legislating for those to whom they are not accountable, while being unable to legislate for those to whom they are accountable. The West Lothian Question highlights the exercise of power without accountability.

“Just as most of Scotland’s laws are now passed with the consent of the Scottish people, expressed through their elected representatives, so it is right to require English consent for laws affecting only England – or English and Welsh consent for laws affecting only England and Wales.

“The third principle is fairness. But fairness means ensuring that the constituent parts of the Union have arrangements appropriate to their needs. It does not mean that every part of the Union has the same arrangements. The United Kingdom has never been a symmetrical union.

“England, with 84 per cent of the population, is distinct. Scotland, with its own legal and educational systems, is distinct. Wales is distinct: not least because of the survival – indeed the revival – of the Welsh language, about which my Party can be enormously proud. And of course Northern Ireland has very particular circumstances and needs.

“Even before devolution, government decisions affecting Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland could be taken in very different ways. What matters when we consider the right way to make legislation for England alone – or for England and Wales – is not strict symmetry with Scotland, but good governance and fairness.

“That is one reason why we reject an English Parliament, which, while superficially addressing the problem of imbalance, would create an unnecessary and expensive additional layer of politicians, and a lop-sided federalism in which the power of an English Parliament would put both Westminster and the Union at risk.

“By contrast, the Democracy Task Force’s proposals would allow governments to govern – with consent and, where necessary, compromise. They address the need to strengthen the Union, enhance accountability and introduce greater fairness.

“It was a sense of unfairness and lack of accountability that led to the process of devolution in the first place. The tragedy is that Labour have created new grievances in England, while their treatment of Scotland and Wales has fuelled nationalism in those countries.

“And while not wanting to intrude on this week’s private grief, I cannot help but note the irony that devolution has failed to provide Labour with the safe political havens it cynically expected. I would like to repeat my thanks to Ken and his team for their proposals. It must be right to act now to address a Question which, if left unanswered, will allow English resentment to ferment.

“This Thursday will be the anniversary of Gordon Brown’s first statement to Parliament, on constitutional renewal, in which he refused to answer the West Lothian Question. It is striking that on this major constitutional issue, one on which the future of the United Kingdom rests, it is the Conservatives who are grasping the thistle of reform and setting the agenda.”

[Editor]

Commenting on the publication of the report of the Democracy Task Force, David Mundell MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, said:

"I welcome the report by Ken Clarke and his team. It is right that we, as a party, consider its recommendations carefully in preparing our manifesto. We have to find a fairer way forward.

"As the Scottish Conservatives have consistently said, by leaving the West Lothian Question unanswered within the devolution settlement, Labour not only stood in the way of fully accountable and fair government for the other parts of the UK but also handed a gift to those on both sides of the border who wish to see Scotland wrenched out of the Union.

"Throughout all this, I have pointed out that we Scots are a fair-minded people. The Scottish population simply have no wish for their elected representatives to have the decisive say in the drafting of England-only, or England and Wales-only, legislation. This legislation ought to be shaped by only those who are directly accountable to constituents who are affected by it. This simple but essential principle has already been accepted for devolved Scottish legislation, by means of the Scottish Parliament.

"Hardly anyone believes that Labour’s devolution settlement of 1998 is perfect. Even Labour has conceded as much with its support for the Commission on Scottish Devolution. It is time for them to accept that the settlement leaves something to be desired regarding the governance of England and Wales too. Proposals of the type set out by our Task Force will address not only that but will also remove one of the main sources of friction in the Union and so help safeguard for Scotland the enhanced prosperity, quality of life and international influence that the Union brings.

"Pretending that the answer to the West Lothian Question is ‘not to ask it’ is bad for Scotland and bad for Britain. Labour has already tried to put its own party political interests ahead of the Union in Wendy Alexander’s ill-fated calls for a referendum. Even faced with its disappearing majority, for the sake of all Scots, it must resist the temptation to do so again. It's time for Labour to realize that the Conservatives are setting the agenda."

[Londoner]

Re the question at the end of my post: I suppose it must be Nick Herbert at Justice who is supposed to be in charge of constitutional matters. A "great white hope" who seems to have sunk without trace since his (premature?) promotion to the Shadow Cabinet some months ago. How can he be a match for wily old Jack Straw, and does he really have the "bottom" (traditional usage) to look like a quasi Lord Chancellor?

[Ken Stevens]

Yet Another Anon

"The English Democrats though are an English Nationalist Party, they want the Union broken up."

That is the absolute opposite of the truth.
Quoting from their website:
"Unlike the SNP and Plaid Cymru we are not seeking independence for England and we are not anti the Union. We are simply pro English. We would like to see a continuation of the Union of Great Britain, but with willing participants, and a new post devolutionary agreement. We would govern in the name of England, and would work with political parties in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland for the good and stability of the union."

As for other policies, having established that they're not racist or extremist, I'm not particularly concerned as to whether they are fractionally this side or that side within a centrist approach. They're not poised for government tomorrow or the next day and, anyway, such matters would be for an English parliament to resolve within the normal political process.

[Jake]

Having got Labour into a corner, the Conservatives need to maintain and consolidate their lead. This is the problem. It could easily wither away over the next two (possible) years of Labour government and this timid,confused and ignorant exercise in fudge is precisely the sort of thing that could become hostage to fortune.

The Labour party hates the English, thats for sure. Nevertheless, it is not past the bounds of possibility that in an act of desperation they could declare for an English parliament and self government, just like that they did for Scotland.

Blair let slip out that they had already considered this at cabinet level. He also said that if there were to be a referendum in England on an English Parliament then it would be supported "overwhelmingly" . His word.

Labour is on the defensive but they are sly and smart at times. They aint dead yet.

Rather than be lead by the nose by Clarke, Cameron had better get up to speed with the constitutional situation pronto and start reaching out to the English, where the votes are, rather than blindly kidding himself that the old United Kingdom still exists.

It doesn't. Face facts, it was ended with the Scotland Act 1998. The United Kingdom can still go on but not with the sort of typical Westminster village playing-around fudge that he appears to be passively "minded to accept" from Clarke's poisonous plate.

[johnC]

'That is one reason why we reject an English Parliament, which, while superficially addressing the problem of imbalance,'

It doesn't 'superficially' address it, it addresses it.

'would create an unnecessary and expensive additional layer of politicians,'

No more unnecessary and expensive than the existing members of the Scottish Parliament and Welsh and Northern Irish assemblies. And we could always have a dual mandate system, which would reduce the number and cost of elected representatives.

'and a lop-sided federalism'

The only federalism which isn't 'lop-sided'
would be if each part of the UK had exactly the same population which is a slightly unrealistic expectation

'in which the power of an English Parliament would put both Westminster and the Union at risk.'

Why ? As a fair and equitable solution to the botched devolution settlement it would strengthen the Union and resolve the current problem at Westminster of MPs with unequal voting rights.

The party will have to think a bit more clearly if it wants to convince anyone over this.

[brian]

Someone said "...we are the conservative and unionist party..."

That may well be true, but it takes two to tango and whilst the party may be unionist, can the same be said of the scots?

I think Jake @11:53 is right, the UK "...was ended with the Scotland Act 1998."

The Labour wreckers have struck again. They waved the "devolution" flag at scotland and wales to ensure that they got in in '97. Nothing else was important, consequences be d*mned. Now 11 years later it is all going wrong but what does that matter? They got in, made their reputations, established "connections" and are now in line for big money and choice sinecures for the rest of their lives - and that's what was REALLY important.

[Michael Huntsman]

This is a weak proposal which is no more than a fudge. Malcolm Rifkind's proposal was both elegant and practical and would have provided a distinctively English body in Parliament to decide English laws without having to go to the lengths of having another tier of politicians forced upon us.

As it is we shall have something with all the moral authority of a jelly fish that will not deter an ideologically determined government for a second.

see: http://tinyurl.com/3ddk5x

[E Justice]

I thought England had some hope with the Conservatives,
To make things right, nothing less than an English Parliament will be the answer.
This solution is just a betrayal.
It makes one think they are frightened of something!

[Dale]

"As for making the whole thing part-time, it strikes me as nonsensical to vote for someone to attend two bodies, and you still end up with the farce of health policy in England being run not by the Health Secretary but the Shadow Health Secretary."

It seems to work in germany.

[Dave]

As Robert McIlveen said, English Votes for English Laws is the only solution that will work. Let's hope that this current policy is a bridge towards that.

If it isn't, even the most unionist minded of Englishmen are going to start supporting Scottish Independance.

[Ken Stevens]

Jake
"..not past the bounds of possibility that in an act of desperation they [Labour] could declare for an English parliament and self government..."

Agreed. They could say that they had been giving mature reflection to Frank Field's views all along and had just concluded that the time was right!

Anyone recall the documentary showing a starving meerkat eating a repulsive scorpion out of necessity? I wonder how many people might vote Labour for an English parliament, deferring the good times till a little later!

[James G]

We need more decentralisation from Westminister, including perhaps an English parliament and more regional and local democracy. The British state has to be one of the most centralised in the world, certainly when it comes to England.

But you're not going to get turkeys voting for christmas, are you?

[Iain]

"and you still end up with the farce of health policy in England being run not by the Health Secretary but the Shadow Health Secretary."

Why? There wouldn't be a conflict as there would be no conflict to have, for with all health policy devolved the the various Parliaments, the British state would have no role there. So no role, no British Parliament Health Secretary, no conflict!

[Terry]

Labour have made me a second class citizen and the Conservatives are happy to let it be that way. This is an absolute disgrace and it solves nothing!

Why is giving England civic and financial equity with our fellow Britons such a difficult thing to work out?? Why are the Conservative and UNIONIST Party so happy to put an such intolerable strain on the Union??

[Iain]

"If it isn't, even the most unionist minded of Englishmen are going to start supporting Scottish Independance."

I think you are too late there, for polls show more English people are in favour of Scottish independence than Scots!

[NorthLondoner]

This a dreadful idea put forward by Ken Clarke.

Scottish MPs will still be able to vote on issues that only affect England. The West Lothian Question is therefore here to stay.

Yes, the issue of the Barnett formula is most important of these issues, but who will fight England's corner? Scotland has a First Minister and Scottish Parliament, Wales and NI have First Ministers and National Assemblies. They fight their own corners.

No-one speaks for England. And so we continue to pay for everyone else's freebies.

We need an English Parliament to fight for England- Clarke proves that the so-called "English Party" will do no such thing.

I have been a Conservative Party member for 4 years.

[Ian Miller]

Surely we all realise that Devolution cannot be anything other than a pre-cursor to separation and ultimately the break up of the United Kingdom, - We just need to stop kidding ourselves the truth is otherwise!

No BUTS: Why can't we just BE HONEST ? It would be refreshing.

Since Devolution has given us nothing other than headaches, - that we wouldn't have had before, we should Dismantle the entire corrupt stupid DEVOLUTION system and go back to the original, which served us so very, very, well in the past. After all, is this not what most of us all want ?! - or would that be just too straightforward for our parasitic Politicians (who make me sick) to implement ?

[Ken Stevens]

"and you still end up with the farce of health policy in England being run not by the Health Secretary but the Shadow Health Secretary."

Or, as with the example of John Reid a while ago, an England/Wales Health Secretary being an MP of a Scottish seat.

Look, if all you're offering is a presentational sop then at least make it a little more presentational. E.g.
# The post of Deputy Prime Minister reserved unto someone of an English seat, as a sort of Super Sec of State for England.
# Political appointments in a ministry debarred to anyone not elected in a nation significantly covered by that ministry.
# Abandon patronising measures such as giving each devolved area a place on the British-Irish Council. Expertise for the specialist topics covered by the council should be drawn from wherever in the UK it is located. That example is small beer in the overall scheme of things but is highly symbolic of the differing status of England v the others.

[John Leonard]

Its been on the cards for a while that the Conservative leadership would lose their bottle over this.

They've dithered enough over this issue to ensure that whatever was proposed would be a hollow, meaningless flawed gesture no matter what disingenuous spin the likes of Mundell and Herbert put on it.

Clarke has obviously taken the leaf out of his old mate Giscard D'Estaing's book because this proposal is to the Devolution Issue what the Lisbon Treaty is to the European Constitution and like the latter it has nothing to do with Democracy but has much to do with centralist autocrats (Clarke's ruling political class) keeping as much power as possible.

It makes a farce out of the concept that the Conservatives are a 'localist' party.

I've heard Cameron doesn't want to be English PM. Well if he is this weak over this issue then Salmond will run rings around him, the Union will be lost and Cameron will be forced to be what he doesn't want to be. But not for long, I suspect, because he will held to account at the English ballot box if he allows the Union to fall through cowardice.

[Dale]

"We need more decentralisation from Westminister, including perhaps an English parliament and more regional and local democracy."

Why do people go on about these mythical regions?

Nobody cares about regions, people on the doorstep don't say 'We want more powers devolved to the regions'.

Regions aren't states, they're not provinces, they're not anythng. They don't have judiciaries, they don't have flags, they don't have legislatures. Nobody feels any affinity for their regions. They are completely artificial.

We need localism, at borough not county level, and Direct Democracy.

[Terry]

"Mr Clarke confirmed his view that the Conservatives were wrong to oppose devolution in 1997..."

and the Conservatives are wrong to oppose devolution for England, because we are not equal until we get it!

[tally]

okay put all this including the option for an English Parliament to the English public and then have a referendum.otherwise it's all bollocks.

[Jake]

"The alternative of course is to bite the bullet and go for an English Parliament in the name of symmetrical devolution across the UK. This has it's attractions but let's be honest - at least half the party would be apoplectic with rage. "

They were apoplectic over:

Votes for Women

Indian Independence

Equality for homosexuals

Parliaments and self rule for Wales and Scotland

and a lot else

all of which happened, became part of the scenery and which they now support. The world has not ended.

I know we are the Conservative Party but why oh why does it have to be so moronically, unimaginatively, self-defeatingly, dunderheaded. After 11 miserable Labour years one would have thought the leadership could have shaken off the usual buggins turn mentality and roused themselves to just a little bit of new thinking instead of having it forced upon them in the usual way.

[Iain]

"Mr Clarke confirmed his view that the Conservatives were wrong to oppose devolution in 1997..."

Our MP's will accommodate anything if means they keep their pecking order at the tax payer funded trough. All it needs is for English people to threaten to take away the trough and we will suddenly find all the 'insurmountable' problems of having an English Parliament will melt away. You can guarantee NO politician will go down fighting this proposal if it means they will lose their seat. And in a few years time we will have Ken Clarke saying that the Conservatives were wrong to oppose this. The only question is why do they have to be dragged into accepting this ? Why for once can’t they get ahead of the game?

[Ken Stevens]

Jake
"..one would have thought the leadership could have shaken off the usual buggins turn mentality and roused themselves to just a little bit of new thinking.."

I presume you're referring to the buggins turn of each Tory leader (- though maybe not IDS) rolling this old chestnut out ever since William Hague first did so in 1999?

;-)

[Helen]

I feel sick. All these years and England is still an after-thought.
All the main parties admit that they will do anything NOT to allow England equal democratic rights (and our own Parliament, equal to Scotland's) within the UK.

The best scenario now for all supporters of democracy, is for Gordon Brown to give us our own Parliament. If he is pushed far enough, he will do it. He is learning now that he needs English votes, especially as the Labour Party is sinking in Scotland.

If Brown gives us our own Parliament, he can recover from his plummet in the ratings and wrong-foot the Tories at the same time. In a democracy, voters do not elect a government, they vote against one. Cameron is not high and dry yet.

Everyone knows the Tories were against a Scottish Parliament and they are all but wiped out in Scotland. Brown can do the same to them in England if he plays his cards right. Do not assume England is a Tory nation. I forsee another 4 years in the wilderness if Cameron stabs us in the back over this.

[John Leonard]

From the Guardian Article on this issue:

"It's no good waiting until the English get resentful," Clarke added.

To late for that Ken, I think. Clearly Clarke doesn't read Conhome whilst he is relaxing in his ivory tower in Westminster.

[Helen]

I've just had a thought - imagine if Gordon Brown condemned the Conservatives policy on England and said it's time England was treated with respect and given their own Parliament, to preserve good-will and the Union?

Cameron couldn't argue against that. He would look ridiculous and I'd certainly vote Labour at the next elections for that one policy!! I know plenty of others who would, too.

[Ken Stevens]

Helen @ 13:53

Tories are indeed hostage to fortune up to the next General Election.

All it needs is for G Brown Esq to time an election with that as a major policy, at a moment when Tories have trundled into a controversial hole of some sort or another.

[Iain]

"Tories are indeed hostage to fortune up to the next General Election."

Only if they come up with rubbish indefensible policies like this.

[London Tory]

The delightful irony to this whole matter is that in just 3 weeks time, Brown's premiership is likely to be ended by the voters of Glasgow East.

Hoist by his own, tinkering petard.

[Stephen Gash]

So Dave "I'm a Scot" Cameron puts Kenn Clarke, the biggest Europhile in Westminster, in charge of sorting out the English question.

Fat chance of strengthening the voice of the most Eurosceptic country by giving it a parliament then!?

The Con Party has always sold England down the river, and is doing so again. If Cameron achieves power the one thing he won't do is get rid of the reviled Euro-regions.

The Tory ruse of talking big on standing up to the EU has been rumbled. They have caused 90% of England's woes and signed away most of England's sovereignty to the EU. They even gave away an English county to Wales for God's sake!

"Talk big!" - cave in politics.

Bellow "no no no!" - sign yes yes yes.

The Con Party.

[Helen]

Labour will always have some support in Scotland and far more than the conservatives. If Cameron thinks he can get in power with the English vote, then so too can Labour.

All the Labour Party needs to do is get the English onside by wrong-footing Cameron on this one major policy. It won't take much more than that to turn us against Cameron. He hasn't got any substance and isn't popular above Watford Gap. As I said previously, in a democracy we vote against a party; not for one. And the incumbent Party always finds it easier to gain the upper hand. This would do it. Easily.

[London Tory]

@ Helen

# Cameron is not popular above the Watford Gap #

Well, that is where Crewe and Nantwich was, last time I looked.

[Dave J]

It's not a "solution." It's not a "settlement." It fundamentally fails to create a stable and legitimate endpoint for the slow-boiling crisis set up by the present assymetric devolution. It's a haphazard jury-rigged fudge. There will a federal UK or no UK, and that's just the reality you have to confront if you WANT to save the Union.

[wendreda]

Come on Tory apparatchiks, where are your comments defending Clarke's proposals and telling us how magnificently they will remedy the democratic deficit that England suffers? How they will give England her own voice on an equal basis with the other devolved administrations?

[Helen]

London Tory - "not popular" doesn't mean the tories don't hold a few seats. It means they don't hold many. You didn't appear to understand what it meant. That's okay, we in the north understand that Londoners don't know that the population of England isn't entirely located in London. In fact, most of it isn't.

[Alan.S]

I am a local Coincillor and have picked up on the point that Councils should raise 50% of their taxes locally. I will happily support this only when 50% of what the Councils do are statutary requirements instead of most of what we do.
This would really allow local people to control the Council direction.
The current system is that the government dictates the services we provide and therfore the government should pay for them

[Helen]

wendreda - Clearly you do not understand what equality means, or the problems devolution has created for our democratic rights in England. You cannot defend this policy without understanding the further problems it causes. It does not answer the problems. It creates further ones.
Silly girl.

[alan]

Typical nonsense from Clarke.

Remember this man wants greater EU involvement. He wants regional government so he has no love for 'England'

If Cameron supports this he will show that he has no leadership qualities whatsoever. I would like him to stand up and say. We, the Tories, did not support devolvement. It is now upon us and we must accept it. It is obvious that we must now have an English Parliament. That said the Welsh must have their Assembly changed into a Parliament as should the Irish! Then each component part of the United Kingdom could send a delegation of equal numbers to a Grand Committee to work together on joint matters, such as defence etc.

A Parliament for the English is the only way forward.

Eventually, that is the only logical step!

[doriangrape]

Talking Crewe and Nantwich.

In terms of electoral success for us Crewe and Nantwich was full of potential, Henley was victory by default but what potential Glasgow East?

None. Nada. Zilch. Not in a thousand years. When hell freezes over.

We are the English party. It must be true because the Guardian says so:

‘Clarke's proposals tell us this about the modern Conservative party. It is an English party and one in which Tory MPs from Wales and Scotland are prepared to forgo speaking up for their constituents in parliament in the interests of short-term political expediency. What price the Conservative and unionist party now?’ Ian Lucas MP

Why is the Conservative party led by donkeys while the three lions pay the price?

Why is England, arguably the oldest nation state in Europe the only nation without a parliament? Why should other nations within the UK pursue blatant self-interest, note 42 days and Unionist votes bought with English gold, whilst England not only has no voice but is patronised and sneered at for wanting equivalence, justice and to use that glib but pertinent phrase, FAIR PLAY?

[Roy lewis]

This is 'total Crap'

[Ian Campbell]

The Conservative party may be an English party in terms of its representation but in practice is an anti-English party. Clarke's proposals are the absolute minimum he believes he can get away offering to the people of England. No-one in Scotland understands why the English don't get on with governing themselves properly through their own devolved Parliament or at the very least the exclusion of MPs from non-English constituencies from all stages of English business. I can only think that the Conservative party regards the Union as a sort of 'Greater England' which has allowed limited self-government for the subordinate nations but sees no reason for 'real' England to exist at all. If Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland all seceded from the Union, the Conservative party would still try to call England The United Kingdom - then David Cameron would not have to be PM of England.

[Patrick Harris]

Another tosspot solution from a tosspot member of a tosspot political party. What a slap in the face of the English electorate, in effect Clarke is saying, for the Scots - a Parliament of their very own, for the Welsh - an Assembly of their very own, for the Northern Irish - an Assembly of their very own. For the English - nothing, they will carry on being discriminated against in health, social services, law, education and transport. No Mr. Clarke I will not put up with this ramshackle attempt to right the wrongs of the United (ha ha) Kingdom. I want an English Prliament and will not settle for less.

[thedoc]

My word , I did not think that the present incompetents leading the Party could lose the next General Election . However after seeing Ken Clarke's fudge I have have to ask why should I vote Tory when they will not support an English parliament for the English . Many other reasonably intelligent voters will be asking the same question , but , of course , our political masters ( of any party ) do not believe that the "great unwashed" have any intelligence .

[Stephen Gash]

@ London Tory # Cameron is not popular above the Watford Gap #

Well, that is where Crewe and Nantwich was, last time I looked.

Don't confuse Labour's unpopularity with Cameron and the Tories being popular. They ain't! This is the danger for the Tories, they think they are at last resonating with the electorate, so they will take the English for granted - yet again.

They now have to start talking about England and delivering what the English want. They obviously won't do this as shown by Clarke's pathetic "solution" to the English question.

Labour and the Tories will both disappear from sight, especially as the economy goes down the tube and people are left financially damaged.

When the English abondon the Tories it will be for good. An English nationalist party with good financial backing will cause the Tories alot of problems.

[wtf]

When the English abondon the Tories it will be for good. An English nationalist party with good financial backing will cause the Tories alot of problems.

Posted by: Stephen Gash | July 01, 2008 at 19:49

You mean like the English Democrats, right?

Less than 1% in Sedgefield (that was you!)
Less than 1% in Crewe and Nantwich
Less than 1% in Henley - and beaten by the Monster Raving Loony Party!

Stephen, keep telling yourself that "the English people will never vote for David Donald 'I've got Scottish blood in my veins' MacCameron" and someone might believe it, but I can tell you, the majority of English people think your party is insane.

[A Ellis]

It's time the Conservative party remembered that it serves and does not rule. We do not elect dictators. The decision rests with the English nation, sovereignty is ours and we will decide.
The fact that this policy has been proposed at all shows a deep disregard for our democratic rights, and makes me worry about the future stability of our country, England. Without democracy there will be conflict and eventually rebellion. The fact that a devout Europhile traitor was chosen to head up this review, casts a shadow over Camerons supposed EU scepticism.

[Iain]

"The decision rests with the English nation,"

Yes, as the British politicial establishment cannot come up with an equitable solution to the West Lothian question after eleven years, then they have marginalised thelseves and no longer have a role to play here. The various choices should be put to the English electorate to decide what they want, after all its our sovereignty, not theirs.

[Ken Stevens]

Extracts from wtf postings today

Specimen (A)
Deep & incontrovertible insight into the feelings of the whole electorate of England:

"..proving there is no demand at all for an English Parliament..."
"..the majority of English people think your party is insane..."
"..People are happy with the Conservatives' position on this matter.."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Specimen (B)
Tolerance of the differing views of others within the broad church of conservatism ... oh, and the race card (always a useful one, that, and so versatile in its application):

"..you're a narrow-minded, inward looking, backward little Englander and a racist who hates anyone that is in any way different from you.."

"...in case you hadn't got the message, people like you are NOT WANTED!.."
[N.B. This statement should not of course be correlated to the final ten words of the preceding statement]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And all any of us want is democratic parity :-(

[wtf]

Ken Stevens, as a Conservative I speak for more English peole than the English Democrats will ever speak for. Want proof? Here's your proof:

Henley by-election. Conservatives 57%, English Democrats 0.6%.

As for "playing the race card", how many times has your joke of a party howled "racial discrimination" about every perceived or made up slight against the English?

Come back when you have hundreds of MPs and thousands of Councillors. Then we'll talk about an "English Parliament".

0.6% GET OVER IT!!!!

[Ken Stevens]

wtf

Good night
Sleep tight

[gadgie]

This is a strange proposal from Clarke considering Frank Field and a number of New Labour MP's are proposing an English Parliament. Will the next election be about who can do a Morris dance the best?

[Lifelongtory]

Clarke's proposal would still leave the possibility of a Labour GOVERNMENT of England dependant on Scottish and Welsh votes. This government would necessarily have the initiative on legislation and control of the civil service. The proposal no way near addresses the constitutional nonsense created by the Blair devolution.

We might as well face it, there are only two possible ways to tackle this:-
(1) repeal the Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland Acts and revert to a unitary UK. One doubts whether this is practicable now.

(2) Bite the bullet and go for a federal structure with a parliament and Executive for England on the same terms as for Scotland etc. and a UK Parliament to deal with matters not vested in the devolved Administrations.

This latter might just keep the UK together on the basis of the equality of its constituent parts.

[doriangrape]

'Ken Stevens, as a Conservative I speak for more English peole than the English Democrats will ever speak for. Want proof? Here's your proof:'

Hi, Dorian here.

I'm a Conservative, tooth and claw. I was just wondering whether pro-life Tories or eurosceptics or pro-death penalty or 42 Days is cool Conservatives should leave the party and join a single-issue grouping or does your position relate only to pro-English Conservatives?

Try Googling 'change system from within' The the is too common to count as a key word.

Oh, and I don't buy man made global warming either -should I join something?

WTF wtf.

[Ken Stevens]

Lifelongtory
"..two possible ways ...:-
(1) ...revert to a unitary UK. One doubts whether this is practicable now.

(2)...federal structure ..."

-- or a third way of regional (not whole nation-based) devolution throughout Britain, as inspired by Walter West on the Rifkind thread.

[Don Beadle]

Anthony Scholefield comment July 1 hits the nail on the head. Any solution to the English Question that asks "who governs England" requires an English Executive with devolved powers similar to those accorded to Scotland.
The West Lothian question concerns only parliamentary procedure for discussing and voting on legislation concerning England that is formulated and administered by the UK government that should not and does not have responsibility just for English interests. Fiddling around with parliamentary procedure is a pathetic response making our Conservative party almost a laughing stock and unable or unwilling to face up to the unfair way in which England is being governed with the consequent threat to the Union.
In the last ten years since devolution to Scotland and Wales made a nonsense of our constitution, the English have not appeared to be much concerned but this was a decade of economic prosperity. Now that we are in the beginning of economic hardship people in England are asking who is governing us and the real risk is that it opens the way for more extreme elements who wish to break up the Union.
While some argue that an English Parliament would be too powerful and risk breaking up the union the greater risk is doing nothing effective and watch the Union disintegrate.
The argument against having another tier of politicians is recognised but was not raised as being over-riding when such tiers were set up in Scotland and Wales and the people of England have never been consulted about it.
Many are now advocating a compromise Westminster solution put forward ten years ago by Lord Baker. Present English MPs would form an English Parliament or English Grand Committee (call it what you will) and be able to elect an English Executive to whom the UK government would devolve the same powers as those accorded to Scotland.

Failure to take some positive action like this will mean that the Conservative and Unionist party will be sitting on the sidelines watching the Union disintegrate. David Cameron should consign the Clarke report to the wastebin and grasp this vital problem. He should stop blaming "Little Englanders" and trying to appease the Scots by reference to his own name but take a real statesman-like attitude, stand up for England and save the Union by findind a fair solution.
To start with he should see that the Conservatives join in the debate in the forum provided by the English Constitutional Convention that has been set up by the Campaign for an English Parliament and the English Democratic Party. This is too important a subject for party politics and many MPs of all parties would wish to have his leadership (EG John Redwood; Simon Hushes; Frank Field - to name just a few who are beginning to speak out).
The Union is in real danger. The Clarke report will not save it. Get back to the drawing board!

[Don Beadle]

Sorry, I may have quoted the wrong commentator in my first line and mistyped Simon Hughes in my penultimate sentence.But it does not affect my main points.