Tuesday, July 04, 2006

The West Oxfordshire Question and Tory Hypocrisy

Right, first of all the partizan silliness, courtesy of Alex Wilcock:
So, let’s recap: it’s wrong for Liberal Democrats to point out Four Jobs Bob isn’t local to Bromley because he lives somewhere completely different – which is a statement of fact. But it’s all right for the Conservatives to say the leader of a country that’s a union of different nations can only come from the bit that the Tories have all their votes in, ruling out Scots not because of their ability or their ideas but simply because of where they live. Which is a wholly negative opinion that Scots should be second-class citizens in the Britain made up of all of us, based on their being not ‘local’ to England.
Yup, to run for election as an MP while not being local is acceptable, but to run for election as British Prime Minister while living in Britain, being British and married to an English wife isn't if you're not local to most Tory MPs (ie, Southern England).

But, the more important link. Ministry of Truth:
If, by excluding Scottish MPs from voting on English bills, parliament is left with left with a government that lacks a Common’s majority on English issues, how is fair that that government retains control of the legislative programme and timetable for England.
This is of course all linked to the Conservatives desire to not appear to be "too radical" and instead implement something that sounds right, and simple. Except of course, it isn't right, it isn't simple, and it's a lot more radical than either of the three other main solutions. Gareth outlined a list of objections and questions back in March. While I disagree with Gareth's proposed solution, his is at least both honest and intellectually coherent. EVOEM is neither.
English Votes on English Matters is so unworkable and prejudiced towards Scotland that it will inevitably lead to a constitutional impasse so great that an English parliament will be the only solution. But at what cost? The alienation of Scotland; the break-up of the Union; an end to the principles of parliamentary democracy? Can we have a union in which MPs are barred from the top-jobs because they represent a non-English constituency?
Like I say, I disagree with the solution he proposes. England has to be represented, but given that England and Wales share a law code, you need a Welsh element at times. The Westcountry has different needs to the Home Counties, both are different to Yorkshire.

I'd like to see some sort of Provincial arrangement, each province being approximately 4 counties or so, big enough to have "clout" and to make cross border planning, but small and local enough to reflect local needs (Foot and Mouth and the failure of Whitehall and the absolute need for a Kingskerswell bypass are too issues that Westminster messed up). You'd need a method of having England taken into account, perhaps a monthly meeting in Westminster hall of Provincial AMs, maybe with English MPs in attendance?

Whatever we come up with, it'll be a fudge. The UK constitution, on paper, simply doesn't work, it makes no sense. But in reality, we know it has worked for centuries. Squaring the circle of competing demands is difficult. Trying to brush it under the carpet as the Tories are doing isn't the way to deal with it. Cicero:
Dangerous nonsense!

Liberals and Liberal Democrats always supported home rule for Scotland and Wales on the basis that the result would be a Federal Britain. Only Federalism answers the so-called West Lothian question. What is now needed is a full constitutional settlement- which means restoring the lost powers of local government and making the current Scottish and Welsh systems self sustaining.

If England chooses a Parliament of its own or chooses regional assemblies, or makes the existing Counties more powerful (after all many of them are larger than several member states of the EU) then that is a matter for them.

What they can NOT do is to minimize or exclude Scottish or Welsh members from the only body that unites us: The national Parliament in Westminster.
The rest of that post gives a very strong reason for why I'm actually fairly happy within the Lib Dems; they actually address the issues and don't hide from policy or constitutional impact. Y'see, while I've long been convinced the current "settlement" is anything but, I'm pretty sure the Tories are only really coming on board because
  1. They can see some votes in it
  2. They haven't got many Scottish MPs
Yet why haven't they got many Scots MPs? Is it because they don't get many votes? Nope, they normally get more votes up there than the Lib Dems, but the Lib Dems get a fair few MPs up there. If the Tories would just wake up, they'd see the solution to their problem would be solved by supporting a decent electoral system. Of course, they don't see that being a predominantly Home Counties shire set party is a problem, and they don't seem to mind not having any MPs in our main provincial cities, despite getting a fair few votes there.

Petty partizanship is all I can really see in the Tories EVOEM proposals. That and the break up of the Union. For the Conservative and Unionist party to come up with a policy that will, inevitably, create a constitutional crisis, means they have utterly forgotten what they're supposed to stand for.

Let's have a real debate, acknowledge what the problem is, and call together a convention to resolve it.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

If, by excluding Scottish MPs from voting on English bills, parliament is left with left with a government that lacks a Common’s majority on English issues, how is fair that that government retains control of the legislative programme and timetable for England. 

Mat, I thought that you supported some kind of electoral reform, which will probably include some kind of proportional representation. This almost always leads to a coalition -- which is effectively what the above describes.

So where is the problem?

DK 

Posted by Devil's Kitchen

Anonymous said...

?

If the Govt, made up of British MPs, has support across Britain but not the majority of English MPs, it'd be a disaster regardless of whether it's a coalition or not. I do support electoral reform, but if there were, for example, a Lib Dem/Labour coalition at Westminster (which, let's face it, with Brown planning 90 days gets less likely all the time), it may have a majority of UK MPs but not English MPs, regardless of electoral system used.

It would actually be possible for it to be impossible to form a Govt with a majority of both English and UK MPs, if the votes fall weirdly. That's unlikely, but possible.

Not related to coalitions at all, unless we perpetually give one party a hold over, which I object to in any system. 

Posted by MatGB

Anonymous said...

With respect, I would suggest that we already have a constitutional crisis, a crisis that has been created by the piecemeal devolution/regionalisation of the UK conducted by The Labour Government.

Firstly they introduced West Lothian problem, then they have left it unanswered, this is the question the Conservatives are attempting to answer, but I quite agree EVOEM is a half assed idea and is typical of the recent Conservative think tank output.


I am afraid that the various arguments advanced in this post against EVOEM and the Conservatives really do fall short in answering the problem or offering a way forward, I also find them particularly partisan whilst at the same accusing the Conservatives of that transgression.

“a wholly negative opinion that Scots should be second-class citizens” 

The devolution agreement has already produced second class members of parliament, those whose votes directly affect their own electorate, and those who are free to vote knowing that what ever they vote for will not be felt by the people in heir own constituencies; because those people have a separate parliament which will decide those matters. The fact that Mr Brown “as British Prime Minister while living in Britain, being British and married to an English wife” is not local to England, is not the issue, but the fact that many of the policies he may introduce will not affect his own voters in his own constituency is important. If Mr Brown were representing an English constituency then the question would not arise.

“excluding Scottish MPs from voting on English bills, parliament is left with left with a government that lacks a Common’s majority on English issues”

The opposite is to have a faction of unaccountable MP`s supporting policies which do not affect their own community, which is the present situation. So why should any government have to rely on votes of those who will not be directly affected to force thought its legislation for just one part of Britain.

“English Votes on English Matters is so unworkable and prejudiced towards Scotland that it will inevitably lead to a constitutional impasse so great that an English parliament will be the only solution.”

The present situation is prejudiced against England, I do not see by preventing Scotish MP`s from voting on matters which do not concern their own voters is being prejudiced, it is merely restoring to a certain extent accountability. Scotish MP`s will still be able to vote on matters which do concern their own voters.

There are other and better arguments against EVOEM without resorting to such partisan suggestions which are equally as half baked as EVOEM.
 

Posted by Ken

Anonymous said...

I would suggest that we already have a constitutional crisis, a crisis that has been created by the piecemeal devolution/regionalisation of the UK conducted by The Labour Government.  

Yes Ken, I know, and agree. Read the previous posts outlining this that I link to above. It's one of the principle topics I write about.

fall short in answering the problem or offering a way forward

What, calling for a full convention and refusing to have the arrogance to assume my prefered option (as summarised above) is the only valid solution?

I also find them particularly partisan

On this point, no, I disagree. The Conservative proposal has been rejected across the board by all serious constitutional theorists I'm aware of, and completely debunked on a number of occasions here and elsewhere (as linked).

As for the rest? Read what I wrote, and linked to. You're working on the assumption I support the status quo.

I do not 

I have not proposed a single partizan solution. Name one, tell me why localism, devolution to provinces or an English Parliament is partizan. It isn't.

I do not have the arrogance, even at my level of education on this specific subject, to assume I have all the answers. But I propose possible solutions and call for a proper debate. I also debink, and quote others who debunk, the whole issue. I link to a Labour supporter, a Lib Dem and I could easily link to a Tory, all of whom agree that EVOEM is not a solution and would be a disasted.

That isn't partizan, it's reasoned analysis.

I reject the status quo. But EVOEM would be worse.
 

Posted by MatGB

Anonymous said...

Here's said Tory - EVoEM is a nonsense.

There are only three solutions that are actually fair:
1. An English Parliament
2. English Regions
3. Reversal of devolution

Two will never get support as it is an artificial and, presumably, an EU construct. Three will not happen without causing Scottish independence. Gareth's solution remains! 

Posted by Gavin Ayling

Anonymous said...

Well, 2 as promoted by Prescott wouldn't, ever. Incidentally, all the propaganda about "EU regions"? Absolute bollocks. Haven't blogged it yet as I can't find an online source, but the treasury drew the maps in the early 50s for economic planning, before the ECSC was set up, let alone before we joined the EEC.

As I've said, I'm in favour of, well, a mix of 1&2, but mostly 2, but with different (better) borders and with an "English" aspect to it.

Heh; while I was specifically thinking of you, there are a fair few other Tories I've read or are in Witanagemot that are opposed to the fudge. Really have tog et around to meeting up with Gareth for that drink at some point; he lives just up the coast from me now... 

Posted by MatGB

Anonymous said...

The latest polling indicates that only 8% support regionalisation.

Give it up Mat, it's a dead duck.

Regionalists had their chance and they blew it by too closely associating themselves with Labour and Europe and allowing themselves to be bankrolled and dictated to.

We always knew that there was no support for regionalisation despite the fact that the Campaign for English Regions described itself as a 'grassroots' organisation. If it was grassroots where is it now? I'll tell you where - it's finished; the Government, Quango and EU funding has disappeared.

Contrast that with the people campaigning for an English parliament. People passionate about their cause who have received absolutely no backing from government. They go from strength to strength because they really are grassroots, entirely funded by their membership. 

Posted by Toque

Anonymous said...

Regionalists had their chance and they blew it by too closely associating themselves with Labour and Europe and allowing themselves to be bankrolled and dictated to. 

Agree, actually. Said so somewhere (maybe on a PRescott post?) as well. However, having said that, I've met a fair few non-involved who've expressed an interest in the idea, and if you think it hasn't got support anywhere, have a quick go down to Kernow.

I even told the organisers of the first SW constitutional convention that they were doomed if they meekly accepted the Govt model. Oh, look, I was right. That was 2001.

That's also why I'm looking for a new model, one that isn't pure regional devolution, but also not an EP as you proscribe, I genuinely believe an EP is just pointless from a governance point of view, unless you take Gav's route and advocate break up of Union, which I don't, at all. 

Posted by MatGB