This is my reply to Peter Davidson’s comment on Our Kingdom’s Time for a review of English governance post.
Posting my reply here as it’s easier to lay out. Personally I think that OK should introduce a forum to manage the comments.
@Wyrdtimes: “An English Parliament based on Westminster and filled with the same sorts (with few exceptions) would be a disaster.”
I agree and that’s a primary factor in my opposition to an English Parliament
We don’t really agree there Peter – you just didn’t get my point.
In any federal arrangement, England as a single element would simply dominate all of the other partners, fatally unbalancing its operation and ulitmately leading to its disintergration.
Let’s face it the UK is looking very tired these days. Its arguments are stale, unimaginative and fearful.
Scotland seems to be doing alright looking after its own interests – I don’t feel threatened by that – I welcome that. I just want the same for England.
I am also utterly convinced that if an EP was ever established (I’d be out of here very quickly by the way!) it would (as a body exercising power) also instinctively resist any form of meaningful form of devolution because this would dilute its capacity to influence. Historical precedent indicates that this fear on my part is well founded.
If you wanted to move on – you’d be free to do so.
Apart from the fact that England already has a structure of devolved governance called the Shires. What you’re saying is that a “country” the size of the UK can devolve power ok, but a slightly smaller nation like England can’t or wouldn’t devolve power if it had an EP?
This is pure speculation on your part. It’s possible, although highly unlikely that an English Parliament could decide to keep the unelected regional tiers of government (development agencies or whatever they’re called today), or it might decide to create elected and representative regional government. Or it might even decide to revamp the shires system.
These sort of decisions should be made In accordance with the wishes of the English people.
Like many others within Unlock Democracy and similar like minded democratic renewal campaign groups I believe that any English Parliament (if it were ever to come about) would eventually signal the break-up of the UK. England as a stand alone independent entity would mean that the EP institution was certain to be located in London and that it would merely entrench the same form of centralisation we endure now in the current UK form. The peripheries of England would be marginalised and suffer from the same gross social and economic disparities we bear witness to now.
Simply not true. It’s not certain that an EP would be in London. These things are not written. You do not know the future. You cannot say what an English Parliament would or would not do.
Your lack of imagination is not a limit on mine.
In short changing the name over the doorway of the Westminster Parliament from United Kingdom to England would solve nothing and very probably make matters worse for those residing in the peripheral English Regions!
No. The “regions” of England will be much better off when English taxes are spent on England rather than… where a lot of them go at the moment.
@Wyrdtimes: “We should take this opportunity to build a new democracy. Banning political parties and quartering the number of MPs look like a good place to start. Enshrining referenda on big issues would be a bonus.”
I think we need to be both realistic and pragmatic.
No. We need to start exploring new methods of representation and governance because the current system and I’m sure most people on OK would agree – is shit.
I maintain that removing political parties and slashing the number of MPs would make governance a whole load better.
It’s only unrealistic in that turkeys don’t vote for Christmas.
Political parties are a fact of life. Banning them is a utopian dream that is simply not going to happen. Even if you were able to ban the existing versions of them (and that would be illegal under numerous elements of Human Rights Legislation and probably English Common Law as well), they would eventually emerge over time with different names but representing the same kind of ideologies
You are such a pessimist. How do you get out of bed in the morning?
Once upon a time, the divine right of kings was a fact of life. To suggest that things have to stay the same as they are now is… laughable and scary.
Building an English Parliament is the greatest opportunity the people of England ever had. that’s everyone left or right, gay or straight, muslim, jew, pagan, christian, white, black, pink whatever – it would be there for all of us.
Can’t you see?
No I can’t see it Wyrdtimes and you have simply sidestepped or ignored the serious points raised in my response.
You cannot simply ignore the law as it stands at present. You can change it but to do that you will need overwhelming public support at the ballot box and you simply cannot claim that at present.
The incumbent FPTP system will effectively frustrate the potential influence of the English Nationalist cause upon mainstream political discourse. You can delude yourself about the level of support enjoyed by your campaigns but you’re not fooling me for a second.
Please explain to me where else, other than London, you think an EP might be located and more crucially, why?
Peter, your main argument seems to be that an English Parliament would be as bad as the existing UK parliament. That is hardly an argument against it, any more than it is an argument for the status quo.
You are rightly pessimistic about the chance of the English being given a say under the current system. Our best hope is for Scotland and Wales to do the right thing and declare independence. This would, by default entrench the current system in Westminster minus Scottish and Welsh MPs.
Whereas establishing a new English parliament (maybe reforming the Lords into a UK body) is clearly a chance to introduce PR as in Scotland. But yes, our political masters would never allow it.
Just why is the preservation of the UK so important? It is taken as a given that anything leading to the break up of the UK is bad (however democratic) but the case for the UK is never made.
Peter, I don’t think that the approach of English nationalists is that a Parliament will be won through electoral means (that’s to say, getting a single issue party elected) because everyone knows how the electoral system is biased against smaller parties.
It is actually the case that the mainstream media reportage of the inequalities which exist because of the lack of devolution in England do more to publicise the necessity of an English parliament than any campaign group – the reality is that there’s an imbalance and the only realistic solution is for England (and Cornwall!) to have what has been granted to Scotland and Wales.
We know that devolution cannot be reversed because of the strength of the Scottish and Welsh nationalist parties. So, like The Secret Person says, realistically it will take further devolution to Wales and the establishment of an independent Scotland to bring about an English parliament. It may be that introducing an English parliament now will actually save the union – allowing for the creation of a federal set-up. What do you think of this?
Wyrdtimes / Secret Person / Charlie Marks
You already know that I favour a federal system.
You already know that I support the concept of the United Kingdom, at least in terms of a timescale involving the next 50 years.
I also firmly believe that the current constituent elements (even though we disagree about the nature and role of those elements) of the United Kingdom will retain an intimate relationship for the foreseeable future (the 50 year timescale mentioned above)
Given this geo-political scenario, I also believe that said federal arrangement will only function effectively as a partnership amongst equals (and I don’t mean Nations!).
Facts, not conjecture or subjective viewpoints, support the case that England as a single entity within such a federal arrangement will dominate all of the other partners and fatally unbalance its function.
England as a single entity would also result (in my opinion) in precisely the same malign form of centralisation we currently endure with the UK model. The peripheral Regions of the UK, and that includes Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have perennially suffered from gross (negative) economic and social disparities compared with a relatively affluent and prosperous nexus of SE. England/London power. England as a single entity would not solve this fundamental flaw and in many instances might actually exacerbate the problem for the English peripheries.
The English Nationalist campaign instinctively focuses on the historical and cultural aspects of alleged English homogeneity but this masks the real issues facing the peripheries of England in the 21st century. I am not too bothered about specifically “English” cultural values (you obviously are) but what really matters to me in the present is the social and economic prospects for the inhabitants of England’s peripheries; what kind of job they might get (or not), their very life chances (their life expectancy/infant mortality rates), what diseases they might contract, how much they will earn; this list goes on and on. These are the important issues – not some bogus notion of England’s inhabitants as a single populace with a collective destiny, that’s just a load of sentimental (and populist) bunkum!
Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and even Greater London have been granted some form of devolved governance through which they can begin to address these vital issues. The rest of England should also be granted the same potential for self-government. England cannot achieve this goal but robust, semi-autonomous, largely self-funding entities can. You should also know that I do not support the current official English Regional Map, indeed I believe it contributes in no small part to negative sentiment towards the principle of English Regional devolution.
Therefore, in such a federal system of equal partners as I envisage it, England actually represents an utterly unnecessary (and extra) tier of governance. In addition it will almost certainly frustrate the emergence of the strong sub-national entities within England we so desperately need to address the vital issues described above.
An English Parliament would, in my opinion, result in an inward looking, parochial and isolationist England, instinctively anti-European, which is where our destiny ultimately lies – I know you won’t agree with that either!
Thanks for dropping in gents
What were the points I missed? Number them for clarity if you like.
We few, we happy few.
Support for an English Parliament is definitely on the up – would you agree?
No-one can forsee how this support will go – but with word finally getting out about the Barnett Formula,and the WLQ I see this trend increasing.
It may just get to the point where MP’s from English constituentcies can no longer ignore petitions from their constituents for fear of losing their seats.
I’d say London is the favourite – but an EP doesn’t need a Holyrood landmark building.I doubt there’ll be enough money for that kind of thing anyway.
I don’t see the location of an English Parliament as a big issue.
It doesn’t even have to be in a fixed location… maybe it could move every four years or something.
@Wyrdtimes: “What were the points I missed? Number them for clarity if you like.”
We are in agreement that the status-quo is unsustainable in the longer term but you don’t have any imaginative response either, merely a knee-jerk populist vision driven by the same fear, jealousy and avarice you bemoan. Scotland has one so I want one for England too! How will creating a unitary state (because that’s precisely what constitutional form it will take if England becomes independent) with a population of approx 50 million and an institution of sovereign political power based exactly where the current UK version (with approx 60 million) is sited, seriously address the negative impact of entrenched centralism currently endured by its peripheries?
The structure of devolved governance you refer to actually exhibits no features of devolved power as I would understand it; local authorities do not represent devolved governance! The principle of devolved governance within England presently only exists in the form of the Greater London Authority; the policy of creating others elsewhere (North East, North West, Yorks-Humber) was contentious precisely because it widened this principle. In reality the competencies slated for these proposed bodies did not really amount to devolution in any meaningful form anyway.
In addition the original shires have been largely dismantled and are presently in the process of further irrevocable break-up. Cheshire (where I live) is just about to split into two unitary authorities. Reconstructing the original shire network would be a logistical, constitutional and democratic nightmare fraught with potential obstacles, overwhelming costs (hundreds of billions?) and highly divisive. Of course any dissent on the part of various local populations would doubtless be overridden by an EP based in London?
No, I am not saying a slightly smaller England will be any more effective in devolving power. What I am saying is; England as a single entity is actually too large to function effectively in terms of delivering homogeneous and equitable forms of governance. We see these same issues manifested now in a unitary UK model and England will simply replicate them. That’s why I favour a federal solution with constitutionally enshrined tiers of sub-national governance to overcome these inherent flaws.
And you can no more accurately predict the future either but historical precedent informs me that any sovereign body, once established, reserves power to itself. We can actually see this same pattern already happening in the Scottish Parliament.
There’s imagination and there’s fantasy – unfortunately you seem incapable of distinguishing between them! You seemed to have just ignored the seminal influence of FPTP upon election outcomes in the UK, presumably because it is an inconvenient truth for your vision of the future?
Yet more incoherent bluster on your part – why can’t you be pragmatic and realistic for a change? No wonder English Nationalists, when they actually do stand for election, suffer derision, ridicule and rejection at the ballot box.
Once again utter delusion on your part; yes, support for an EP has increased but its like saying there were ten of us before and now there a twenty, therefore our campaign is successful. The fact that you are still only a few (very vocal) campaigners seems to have eluded your senses.
When you attend the Future of England Conference on 26th April no doubt you will convince yourself that everyone (in England?) thinks like you and your fellow band of travellers. Sorry to disturb you from your reverie but it just ain’t so!
If an English Nationalist candidate ever stands in a by-election and blows away a mainstream party candidate, overturning a ten to twenty thousand majority in the process, I’ll begin to believe you. Until that landmark shift in public opinion occurs please don’t bother me with your fantasies about widespread public support!
I imagine England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland continuing to have a very close relationship. If anything relations will be friendlier post Union than they are now.
That particular geo-political scenario is not a given.
The only way federalism will work is to break up England – no thanks.
Interesting that you should mention “conjecture and subjective viewpoints” considering your next paragraph.
That’s pure conjecture based upon your subjective viewpoint.
An English government administering English taxes in an all England solution will provide more finance to all.
And you don’t seriously think the Scots or the Welsh are going to stand going back to being regions do you? Not a chance.
“English homogeneity”, or even just regular “homogeneity” – the only time I see either being mentioned is in the body of your posts.
Sorry to break the news Peter but it’s YOU that keeps on mentioning “homogeneity” and things like “cultural values”.
That aside let’s focus on those very important issues namely the “social and economic prospects.”
English taxes spent on England – better education, better roads, better hospitals, better flood defences, better mass transit, better environmentally, list goes on and on – better everything for the whole of England.
Sigh. An English Parliament would exist to address these vital issues – that’s why we want one!
An independent England CAN address those issues and bring real benefits to ALL the people of England.
That’s just how I view the UK government and the EU!
You’re certainly welcome to your opinion – how did you get such a bad opinion of your countrymen? Sadly we’re not going to agree on anything.
Speaking for myself I am anti European Union not anti European – big, big difference.
An independent England is not going to stop buying French cheese or Italian wines – and more importantly our friends in Europe aren’t going to stop selling things to us. At the same time England can renegotiate its terms of business with the rest of the world – leading to peace and prosperity.
This is what I mean about your imagination Peter – our destiny ultimately lies not in the EU but in the stars .)
Yes, we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this issue. I will continue to rail against an all-England solution for the reasons stated. You will continue to campaign for it.
In this context, it is perhaps instructive that you fail to address my final, and most important point; namely the relative success of English Nationalism as a cause around which ordinary people will rally and actively call for change.
I have no doubt that English Nationalism boast attractions on a mere populist level but when the issues are dissected and exposed in detail, the reality is not quite so appealing for ordinary people.
I share your desire for matters to come to a head and force change (and I believe that time is not too far distant – maybe ten years or less. I hope that when that scenario unfolds the English electorate is offered a real choice between two mutually exclusive options:
Either
An all-England political entity in much the form that you call for
or
An array of robust semi-autonomous English Regions (not necessarily corresponding to the current official English Regional map) boasting exactly the same powers
Assuming that the United Kingdom remains integral to the geo-political framework in which these two mutually exclusive options are offered (and I think it will be) I am absolutely convinced that the English electorate will decide overwhelmingly in favour of the latter option.
I didn’t answer your most important point because my last post was answering your previous post – sigh.
The English cause is an emergent phenomenon. Its early days, but support is growing. A lot of depends on events.
I think the “ordinary” people are already beginning to hear the call – I know I did. Nothing is going to happen overnight but more and more people are waking up to the injustices caused by the BF and WLQ.
Anyway the Scots will probably kill off the union before the English fully wake up, which will force the issue.
One of the main points you repeatedly make is that an English Parliament would neglect the “English peripheries”. Right?
My argument is that if English taxes were spent by an EP on an all England basis then everywhere in England would see the social and economic benefits.
Can you see that?
“Ordinary people” people are interested in those social and economic improvements in their own lives. An EP (serving and independent England) can deliver this.
It’s our greatest opportunity for change. Small government serving a small independent nation, our own borders, our own fishing rights, our own domestic and foreign policy, post world policeman at peace with our neighbours.
You would give everything up including our freedom to the EU! No-one is going to feel love for an EU region. Apart from the gravy trainers.
Which to vote for, an all-England political entity, or “an array of robust semi-autonomous English Regions (not necessarily corresponding to the current official English Regional map) boasting exactly the same powers”
What you describe is not going to appeal to the majority. If there were a vote on that tomorrow. I think the majority of English people would go for the former.
I know you like the last tap Peter but keep it brief, we know the score.