Read my latest article for the Daily Telegraph (in today's print edition too, p21) on a Conservative approach to devolution HERE.
Read my latest article for the Daily Telegraph (in today's print edition too, p21) on a Conservative approach to devolution HERE.
29 comments:
Until England has its own parliament the Welsh and Scots will always consider Westminster to be an English parliament (ie for Britain see "England").
I thought I was going to read an article on English Devolution instead we got a hatchet job on the Scottish Conservatives and their chances while they are in the middle of campaigning for the May elections!!
They have been running a good campaign and I was gobsmacked at your view from DOWN SOUTH that they were almost extinct and on about 12% of the vote, which proven reliable poll did you get that from?
Very disappointed that you and ConHom have decided that the Scottish Tories should be cut adrift from the main party. I joined the Conservative party in Scotland but I can't say that either of you make us very welcome.
Having campaigned for the party at local, Holyrood and Westminster elections during the last 10 years this attitude is a real slap in the face from fellow conservatives!
A very short sighted and arrogant view which will only compound Labour's mistakes.
It’s great to see the Conservative Party rushing towards a break-up, but more interesting to note that none of you have asked: ‘would we be doing this if there was any chance we could win a Scottish election?’
The answer to that question is obviously ‘no’. And that tells us that this is not a principled decision to do what is right, but the amputation of a gangrenous limb.
Many of us are looking forward to subsequent operations in the north of England.
A good analogy to devlolution is the processs of annealing - used in metallurgy (or neural networks).
In annealing the internal structure of a thing is altered - by increasing heat (or noise) and then left to cool. The internal-structure then falls into various equlibriums - known as local minima.
Back to devolution - the Union and Grand Committee are both local minima - that can be persisted, but are both inheriently unstable states. The instability is realised when the benefits are not realised. The Labour Government have naively brought the Union to state of instablity.
The instablity in the Union can only be diminished by either reversing the changes or pressing on. The longer the instablity continues the less likely the reversal or Grand Committee compromise becomes and the more likely a sharply defined crisis becomes.
Interesting stuff Iain. I've been saying on my own blog that, much as I hate the idea of more devolved Government being brought in (i.e. an English Parliament) with its inevitable huge costs and more career politicans, such a development may be inevitable given that the genie is now out of the bottle. Indeed, I have been arguing that perhaps some sort of federal system may now be the best thing for the UK. I take it, by your reference to Bavarian politics, that you be thinking along the same lines too.
I don't see the need for an English Parliament.
Earlier this week, my regular newsletter from Direct Democracy, offered what I think is the most attractive solution to 'the west lothian question'.
"the best solution, as we have said before, is to devolve to a local level in England all the powers exercised by the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assemblies, so that all MPs in Westminster are on a level playing field, and each local area can be governed according to the wishes of its inhabitants."
Give the county councils in England the same level of autonomy from Westminster as the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. Then look at devolving MORE decision making power from Westminster to local gov't.
Interesting article Iain, and I think on balance about right. When I msn'd (is that the term) your show last night and said that nationalists could be characterised as amateurs vs. professionals in the political stakes I equated them to the Greens (who in Scotland like most everywhere else in the UK are being squeezed by the majors). As soon as the major parties wake up to the fact that nationalism is not a dirty word the faster politicians might get back to their day jobs.
I'm in Scotland and already this election is all about the wrong things. The real issues are being marginalised by the independence debate
I still rate your second piece as marginally the best and its hard for me to tell how fresh this material is myself. Nonetheless immensely well written as ever
An English Parliament in Westminster sounds like a better idea to me than some god awful moderne statement in Birmingham with attendant parasites but I am unclear how this is essentially different to English votes unless it is a symbol and signposts to full independence. No matter how daintily the tea and scones are arranged the questions of whose money pays for what will still sit like the proverbial elephant waiting for mummy I `m, not sure how an English Parliament will address this .
While the democratic deficit is an open wound the fiscal absurdity of free prescriptions over the border paid for by English Taxes is somewhat more to the point So just for a change , to express genuine puzzlement , does anyone see how any voting arrangement can rectify the iniquities of the Barnett Formula and the Welsh Bonus and the far greater N Ireland hand- out ? Defeats me . Without the reality beneath the political fiddling I cannot see any other end but Independence for England which I , and many more , would welcome .
Perhaps it is time to start making the positive cultural case for the English and reclaim it from the cartoonish parody of bigotry by which the Left express their diastase for the English Working Classes. What sort of a country would England be , what can we , the English reclaim of our glittering heritage of Literature , of amiable individuality and cussedness in the face of state bullying .
This is the part of the English Nationalist case that is missing thus far but as we move on I expect to see an exciting Conservative revolution in defining what we are and what we can be . Let us hope the English seize the day .
And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day. !!
Who’s with me ?!!!!!
Iain, the solution to the problems caused by devolution are not from devolution itself but from an over-centralised state.
Replicating this problem for England will not solve anything.
Instead we must become a party of true devolution and (horrible word) subsidiarity. It is ridiculous for us to be arguing for this in Europe but not at home.
Subsidiarity means solving problems at the lowest level possible. This doesn't just mean London. It means that schools and hospitals should be returned to the people that built most of them in the first place: locals. It is unfair, for example, that a fire station is under threat of closure because central government has shifted resources to a depopulating north of England and Scotland. The people who should decide whether Windsor has a fire station or an A&E hospital (which it used to have) should be the decision of them alone and they should also be paying for it. This is exactly the same in principle as the West Lothian question, which asks why a Scottish voter should have a say in, say, the demolition of Liverpool housing.
True devolution then would be giving power back to the boroughs of England, where it has always belonged. Local councils should be responsible for 100% of their budgets, not 5% as at present. And tax should be raised locally and sent to London rather than the other way around.
If these reforms were enacted they would dissolve the current tensions between England and Scotland as for the first time since the Great War centralised power at Whitehall, local people would be able run their own affairs again.
It would also not be a great political maneouver as it would build on the Tories' strength at local level, as well as the generally higher quality of councillors. It would leapfrog Labour and even the SNP.
The Conservative party would become a franchise and the most important person after the leader, would be the Franchise Director, who would set common standards and best practice across Tory councils. He would NOT, even when in Government, tell Labour councils what to do, because they had voted to do things differently.
The Conservative Party has still to get its head around this. It recently petitioned the Government to stop Ken Livingston setting up 'Embassies' abroad and wasting taxpayers money: the point about devolution is that you let people make mistakes if that's what they want to do. Mrs Thatcher's most disasterous policy long term was rate capping. I can understand the short term motivation for it in the middle of the financial crisis of the early 80s but it should have been repealled soon after. The problem with central Government, much like Europe, is that once it acquires a power it is loath to give it back.
We Conservatives now need to be in the vanguard of returning Britain to its local roots.
DAVE BARTLETT- England is a country .Your detestable Nu-Lab desire to break it up for scrap would be one way to solve the problem but prohibition of the English by those who hate us will be resisted.
Forget it old son,
not happening
Two of the above commentators talk of the benefits of federation, and Geoffrey Wheatcroft has also been banging on about it.
But Brits are quite unable to grasp the concept because it's completely alien to them, and I speak from the experience of having lived in Britain, then in Canada, and now back here.
I seriously suggest, Iain, that you hi yourself over to Ottawa (federal capital/Manchester), to Quebec City (Scotland/Edinburgh), to Toronto (England/London) and to Victoria (Wales/Cardiff) for a month to see how it works in practice.
You can write your blog from there and show the UK's chattering political class that since federal waters are lovely why don't they come in.
STEPHEN NEWTON- the amputation of a gangrenous limb.
Bit harsh on Scotland isn’t it , and hardly what has happened . The Conservative Party rebelled over the amendment to make the original vote on Devolution for all the UK and remain Unionist in some quarters as Iain points out . The Labour Party were the ones cynically acting to shore up there Celtic vote but despite endless Bribes the Scots are determined to have their own country The real catalyst is Scottish nationalism which has grown like a hardy weed since the 50s through Thatcher and now Blair . The left (and you perhaps half seriously) see no distinction between this and breaking up England. They never understand nationalism , how can they. They think people are no more than economic units. They also think Socialism works which , in Scotland , we see is false.
English Nationalism has grown outside the Conservative Party who have acted against their own electoral interests for decades and only now are beginning to incorporate this new awareness into policy. You point is most unfair and the world you posit is an impossible supposing if you want to retain anything recognisably real at all.
I would like to hear David Cameron speak out about the medical apartheid that seems to be being practised by the NHS against the English.
Yet another incident in the Press yesterday about an 84 yr old gentleman who was a WW2 bomber pilot who is likely to go blind because his Somerset Health Trust won't pay for the drug he needs. One might have thought that having paid for the NHS throughout his working life, and having fought for his country's freedom, would entitle him to some help when he needs it, but apparently not.
Naturally this drug is available in Scotland, as are a number of cancer drugs which can't be prescribed in England because they're "too expensive". English lives aren't worth saving, seems to be the Government's view.
I'm not trying to turn this into an anti-Scots rant because that isn't my intention. England is larger and has a greater population than Scotland or Wales - eg more tax money is coming in from England. If the only benefit of paying this tax is that the English can't have the drugs they are paying for but the Scots can, the benefits of the Union seem to be somewhat one-sided.
England is getting more and more angry about this - and since NuLab won't address this matter because they don't care a toss about anyone but themselves (another £10,000 a year communications allowance? That'll do nicely) David Cameron needs to be ahead of the game and not behind it.
It's not much good trying to curry favour with the Scots and the Welsh and failing to get elected in England, is it?
Good article; but I dont think an English parliament is a solution. One of the reasons why the Scots and Welsh wanted their own parliament is becuase they feel remote from London decision making. But surely someone in Carlise feels just as remote as someone in Gretna?
What is needed is the powers moved away from westminister to the regions, or as Dave Bartlett (above) pointed out to the County coucils. By moving them to councils the structures are already in place and will not need the creation of more parliament buildings.
Many in this country have been banging on for years about the amount of power being moved to Brussels; it would be a crediable argument if it were not for the massive centralisation of power in Westminister.
Perhaps the thinking of "power-hungry" MPs who want ever decision being made in Westminister is best summed-up by what Tony Blair said some years back... "Sovereignty lies in Westminister" er no it lies in the hands of the people who elect you to office and pay your wages.
If the "english" MPs sit for 2/3 days a week for english matters; does this mean if a bill, say regarding the Thames barrier, is proposed only those MPs whose constituency the Thames flows through can attend?
We must have a UK parliament deciding UK matters - which will mean a dramatic reduction in the numbers of MPs - a good think. Give local coucils the powers they need to do what they are elected for. If they raise taxes too much; people can kick them out at the next election. Yes public spending can be capped if local councils want to raise more funds they can use Bond issues etc - it already works in other countries.
By giving local people powers will reduce the strangle-hold which London has on the country and will strengthen local media; local interests etc.
To be honest sending an MP off to London for five years to do pretty well what he/she chooses for that time isn't my idea of a democracy.
I think you are correct if by arguing for an English parliament you mean the creation of an English Grand Committee within the House of Commons. That is a more sensible solution to the problem than the creation of another Parliament and all the costs and confusion that would come with it.
We Conservatives now need to be in the vanguard of returning Britain to its local roots.
SCARY Biscuits ..sounds good but. Remember Enver Hodge ..Derek Hatton...Subsidiarity in Europe is a ruse to reclaim national sovereignty subsidiarity at regional level is a ploy to break up the country and destroy it .
I agree that some powers should be returned to Boroughs but you have evidently forgotten what they can be like. The other problem is that a 'Franchise' cannot act nationally and most problems especially Urban ones are national.
So all in all your thought provoking idea strikes me as unworkable and not a lot to do with the national problem we have with Scotland .
IMHO...at the moment ..I think
To me it is simple. MPs disperse to their devolved Parliaments for 1 in 4 weeks, say, and return to Westminster for the UK-wide stuff. English MPs remain in Westminster.
Cull all MSPs, AMs etc. or have them fight it out with the MPs. No need for a new ugly, expensive English building and parasites.
Less bodies, less mouths, less troughing and less hot air!
Might make them think twice before introducing yet more windy regulations and fussy useless "law".
Clearly there is an imbalance in the constitution, but as your other correspondents correct note an 'English' legislature is not the solution. Its unworkable being little more than 'English votes for English laws' inflated into some bureaucratic leviathan. Another grandiose pile to be funded by the hard pressed tax payer. Not a serious policy and DC is correct not to be suckered by it.
Proper devolution to the regions of England offers a better solution. That is not the watered down pap offered by Prescott but a scheme similar in principle to Scottish devolution. Some matters are clearly handled best by the Union Parliament but others can be dealt with by regional/national legislatures and executives. I would cull the Union Parliament too. No need for some many MPs or members of the upper house.
Chances of anything happening? Given that the Parliament Act 1911 talks of it being a stop gap until the House can constituted on a popular basis, and we are still here nearly one hundred years later still debating what to do, the answer has to be close to nought. We may have exported constitutions around the world, but we are incapable of properly reforming our own.
Sometimes I think the Tory party would indulge in intellectual masturbation on the opposition benches in the Commons rather than come up with some decent proposals on the constitution which they intend to implement when in office.
Under other circumstances it would not be necessary to have a separate English Parliament. Given that 82% of the Westminster MPs are elected in England it would merely require the MPs elected outside England to behave honourably and abstain from voting on matters which only affect England, plus appropriate re-organisation of the ministerial and budgetary structure. However it's clear that the EU and its fellow travellers in this country won't give up on their attempts to break up England into European Regions with Regional Assemblies, and the only way to stop them is to create a single Parliament for the whole of England. It should be entirely separate from the British Parliament, and while its jurisdiction should include London, as part of England, it should be located more centrally - for example, near Derby. If Cameron had any sense then rather than waving aside the suggestion of an English Parliament he would promise voters in England a referendum on the issue. One England, no EU Regions, and a referendum on whether the English want their own English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish Parliament.
Interesting read Iain, but I don't think it's accurate to say the party was opposed to devolution until DC was elected leader; the stance changed (indeed, had to change) following the referendum result in autumn 1997. Since then, as far as I can remember, the line was that the majority of Scots wanted devolution, which later became 'making devolution work' etc, and long before 2005.
There are too many politicians.
Too many MPs MEPs AMs etc.
Solution easy.
One MP per 10Million populace in each of the four countries making up Great Britain.
Enough said!
There are two motors driving devolution.
1. The accretion of competances in Whitehall which should be locally provided and funded, such as health, education, law and order, welfare.
2. The decline of the UK as a strategic and economic world power.
What happened? Socialism happened.
Nationalisation of Industry, Health Services, and Education; Rip-roaring immigration, Superior rights for Aliens and non-indigenous peoples, the deprecation of patriotic institutions such as the armed forces followed.
To the euro-regionalist contributors above: when will you understand that THE ENGLISH DO NOT WANT ENGLAND DIVIDED INTO REGIONS, and even if they were dressed up as a collection of "English parliaments" we still wouldn't want Regional Assemblies. ONE ENGLAND, NO REGIONS, and as it seems to be the only way to stop the EU persisting in its efforts to break up England, ONE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT.
Iain Dale you are a legend.
I sincerely hope Mr. Cameron reads your article, following as it does his own article in the Telegraph earlier in the week. You are absolutely right- he cannot ignore the evidence: 60%+ in favour of an English Parliament.
Keep up the good work, Iain.
Tom Waterhouse
Campaign for an English Parliament
www.cepoxfordshire.blogspot.com
Iain
I've been writing about this for years. England was not consulted on devoution for Scotland and Wales but we can't go back to 1999, we have to deal with the situation we face now.
English and Welsh parliaments with the same powers as Scotland (except policing) would leave the UK parliament to deal with foreign affairs, defence, immigration, border controls, strategic transport (we have a national rail network), fiscal, revenue, customs and excise duties, and national taxation. It should also be responsbile for policing the UK.
What is certain is that the UK will unravel by default if the 85% majority English population starts to understand that it is being taken for a ride.
I have no objection to a Scottish PM for the UK, but I do to having a Secretary of State for Health taking decisions which do affect his/her constituents.
I agree Cameron should bite the bullet and adopt a robust policy on devolution.
Iain
I've been writing about this for years. England was not consulted on devoution for Scotland and Wales but we can't go back to 1999, we have to deal with the situation we face now.
English and Welsh parliaments with the same powers as Scotland (except policing) would leave the UK parliament to deal with foreign affairs, defence, immigration, border controls, strategic transport (we have a national rail network), fiscal, revenue, customs and excise duties, and national taxation. It should also be responsbile for policing the UK.
What is certain is that the UK will unravel by default if the 85% majority English population starts to understand that it is being taken for a ride.
I have no objection to a Scottish PM for the UK, but I do to having a Secretary of State for Health taking decisions which do affect his/her constituents.
I agree Cameron should bite the bullet and adopt a robust policy on devolution.
Proud of you Iain,Lets hope Cameron starts being a bit patriotic about England,and reads your article.
I am with you newmania,brothers and sisters in arms!!
@Newmania
How on Earth do you manage to conflate devolving decision making power from Westminster to local councils with a "detestable Nu-Lab desire to break [England] up for scrap" ?
Take a pill mate.
Spot on, JAafo! Prescription charges have been abolished in Wales but increased in the rest of the United Kingdom, both on the very same day. This is monstrous, and would be so however the funding of the thing were arranged.
Health care through the National Health Service is nothing less than the citizen's right to freedom from ill health, just as the citizen has the right to freedom from poverty, to freedom from unemployment, to freedom from ignorance, to freedom from homelessness and squalor, and so forth. And equal citizenship is the basis of the United Kingdom, my country, which no one has the right to take away from me.
If Wales can afford freedom from prescription charges, then why can't the rest of us? If Britain can afford the Iraq War, or the "renewal" of Trident, then why can't she afford to abolish prescription charges, a cruel tax on the sick? And when did I become less British than people living in Wales?
Oh, and on the matter of regionalisation, the demented scheme to make Durham and Northumberland County Councils unitary authorities has just been revived. Funny, that.
Post a Comment