So the prime way that David Cameron sees as giving greater power to the voters in England in a small "f" federal UK is English votes for English laws in Westminster. He is therefore short changing the people of England do not be fooled by him.
In Scotland the Scottish MSPs can vote on Scottish laws in a chamber that is elected via a proportional voting system. Admittedly for the last 3 and a bit years that has been an SNP majority that the majority of voters didn't want but has in the past led to consensus politics.
In Wales the AMs can vote on Welsh laws also in a chamber that is elected via a proportional system, at times Labour have run the administration on its own but it has also often led to consensus politics.
In Northern Ireland while the MLAs are elected on a wholly constituency basis, it is a proportional system so unlike Scotland and Wales it does not have regional top up lists to ensure that people's views are represented as this is done in the six member seats.
If only the 533 English MPs could vote on whatever ends up being deemed to be an English only matter (something that there is actually very little of due to funding impacts for the devolved nations), it would mean that 39.6% of the electorate would end up with 55.9% of the MPs making their decisions. With boundary changes that were brought in since 2010 many of the 92 gains that the Conservatives made are supposedly harder to take away from them. But Labour with 28.1% of the vote and Lib Dems with 24.2% in England last time would have 35.8% and 8.1% of the MPs making such decisions respectively.
It is not proportionate as the other three member states have.
It is as Nick Clegg so rightly pointed out really a case of Tory votes for English laws.
What David Cameron is actually proposing is selling the people of England short and not giving them a true reflection of what the rest of the UK has experienced since devolution. He doesn't get what it is that makes the powers that true devolution can bring, he is seeing it as a way of regaining some control in some part of the UK, but to do so absolutely as only when the SNP had a majority from 2007-11 did they have any real say in any of the devolved powers.
Showing posts with label England. Show all posts
Showing posts with label England. Show all posts
Thursday, 9 October 2014
Saturday, 7 May 2011
We have a mountain to reclimb
My friend Craig Harrow was being philospohical this morning and remembered this quote from the great Libearal and Lib Dem, Russell Johnson.
"You can stand at the bottom of a mountain, look up and say: "This is so high and precipitous, so rugged and intimidating that I can never dare to challange it." Or, you can begin to climb. And, if you do, one day you may see the summit. And if you do not, its peak will be forever hidden in the mists of vanished opportunity. Today we can begin to climb..."
Last May as Liberal Democrats we appeared to have reached that summit. But as any mountaineer will tell you occassionally you reach a false peak. The edge of what is a plateau and when you scale that you realise that there is still a further propably more difficult and steeper summit to climb.
We as Liberal Democrats may well have climbed that false peak. It was a hard climb and making that last step unto that peak was a hard decision. We were looking for a foothold, and maybe we slipped in finding it a few times. However we are roped together as a party. We are an experience set of climbers, none of us have reached a summit easily and we all know the hard work that is needed. It mean going door to door persuading people that we do share their values as well as their fears. That we have the solutions and the ways forward.
What we have taken on in the last year has been a very precarious part of the climb. We are still the same climbers as we were 12 months ago. Some admitted have left the summit party, some of the support team have felt let down and fled. We know the goal we have in sight. We know we still have a way to go to get to a truly liberal UK.
But as we press on, like Hilary and Tensing to scale Everest the first time, we can look to the fact that once conquered once others will want to come and take a look. Much of what we have done in the last 12 months is lay a number of belays on the slope. Things we have put in place to that the UK doesn't fall back into illiberal ways. We have also searched out a different route from the one David Cameron the current expedition leader did set out. Our route is easier on pensioners, it lifts many out of taxation, it frees up many people from bureaucracy.
We have failed the student members of our moutaineering party, by letting them fall into the greedy hands of the University Chancellers down below, who all think they are worthy of £9,000 a year to start the expedition of life. Somehow our education system is all exceptional!!! But we still promise them that once we scale this nasty crag of national debt covered in dying red roses we will sort that out for them, we stand by that.
I for one am ready to carry on climbing, my legs may hurt, my heart is heavy and my lungs are gasping because there is still so much to achieve.
Who's with me?
Sunday, 20 September 2009
An Evolution of Devolution #ldconf
This morning I was in the hall bright and breezy for the Future of Devolution debate which was moved by Alistair Carmichael MP. When I say bright and breezy not quite early enough to hear Alistair moving the motion, after all it isn't every day one turns forty, but present for the rest of it.
It started with Simon Hughes moving an Amendment calling for:
This was accepted by the Welsh and Scottish Lib Dems who were the movers of the motion. But as the MP for Bermondsey and Old Southwark pointed out, there is a desire for more power in England. It may end up with a devolution to a 4th larger nation, but that is an issue the details of which need to be addressed. If we as Lib Dems with our Federal nature don’t deal with it, it will play up to the cause of English Nationalism, rather than the reverse case as put by some of our opponents.
There then followed a stream of familiar Scottish faces, some excellent Welsh ones and a few English ones. First up for Bev Hope who pointed out quite correctly that "Scotland doesn't need independence, doesn't want independence, and wouldn't benefit from independence". She also said we have to set out our stall clearly as we are up against as very clear and concise message, we need to lose the jargon and tell the people in accessible terms what we want for them, and for them to have.
She was followed by another first time speaker at Federal Conference who bookmarked his speech in Welsh, as he said the language of heaven. He called for the need for respect for Wales, so that people would stay or come home to Wales rather than being lost to jobs in London. Urging us all to chose a different devolution for a better future.
Kevin Lang the PPC for Edinburgh North and Leith was the next to speak. He said that now was the time to have the debate on independence because under a proper debate (i.e. not the national soliloquy) with proper and true analysis we would win the argument of what Scotland wants and needs. We should therefore support a referendum so that we can put this issue to bed for a generation.
Frank Kindel from the NE of England, welcomed Simon's amendment but stated that the people of NE England didn't want to have one form of government from Westminster replaced with another. If there was to be a move to devolution in England it had to address those issues. Roger Roberts of Abercowry then rose to speak of the need that even with devolution we have to address the issue of borders. The people of North Wales rely on the hospitals of Liverpool, also tend to use Manchester and Chester. The net result is that although they have their own provisions given by the Welsh Assembly they have to work with the neighbouring region which is in a different country for some of their provision. The issue of devolution doesn't merely end at the borders, something that those that want independence often overlook. He also pointed out that we should trust the Tories especially on powers for the devolved bodies, nor for that matter on anything else. He called for us to embrace an evolution of devolution.
George Lyon MEP for Scotland then pointed out that Donald Dewar had said that devolution was a process not an event. But what was a shame in Scotland was that the minsters on both side of the border were no longer talking to one another, things were being dealt with in isolation which wasn't in the best interests of Scotland. If the SNP were prepared to work with the UK Parliament they could have a booming voice in Europe but they don't and only have their three voices. The SNP are wanting the UK to fail in Europe and Scotland to fail in the UK for their own selfish ends.
Mark Hunter MP for Cheadle pointed out that the opening lines of the motion:
Applied to England too and must not be overlooked.
Kirsty Williams AM summating welcomed the amendment bringing the English devolution question to the motion. But added it would be presumptuous for the Welsh and Scottish parties to tell the English party how to best go about doing that. She called on them to get it together for next time and bring the debate to the floor. Now there is a challenge if ever I heard one, and one that fits into our Federalist nature.
It started with Simon Hughes moving an Amendment calling for:
"Urgent initiatives to address the democratic for England, and the replacement of the Barnett formula for allocation funding to the countries of the UK with a needs-based formula."
This was accepted by the Welsh and Scottish Lib Dems who were the movers of the motion. But as the MP for Bermondsey and Old Southwark pointed out, there is a desire for more power in England. It may end up with a devolution to a 4th larger nation, but that is an issue the details of which need to be addressed. If we as Lib Dems with our Federal nature don’t deal with it, it will play up to the cause of English Nationalism, rather than the reverse case as put by some of our opponents.
There then followed a stream of familiar Scottish faces, some excellent Welsh ones and a few English ones. First up for Bev Hope who pointed out quite correctly that "Scotland doesn't need independence, doesn't want independence, and wouldn't benefit from independence". She also said we have to set out our stall clearly as we are up against as very clear and concise message, we need to lose the jargon and tell the people in accessible terms what we want for them, and for them to have.
She was followed by another first time speaker at Federal Conference who bookmarked his speech in Welsh, as he said the language of heaven. He called for the need for respect for Wales, so that people would stay or come home to Wales rather than being lost to jobs in London. Urging us all to chose a different devolution for a better future.
Kevin Lang the PPC for Edinburgh North and Leith was the next to speak. He said that now was the time to have the debate on independence because under a proper debate (i.e. not the national soliloquy) with proper and true analysis we would win the argument of what Scotland wants and needs. We should therefore support a referendum so that we can put this issue to bed for a generation.
Frank Kindel from the NE of England, welcomed Simon's amendment but stated that the people of NE England didn't want to have one form of government from Westminster replaced with another. If there was to be a move to devolution in England it had to address those issues. Roger Roberts of Abercowry then rose to speak of the need that even with devolution we have to address the issue of borders. The people of North Wales rely on the hospitals of Liverpool, also tend to use Manchester and Chester. The net result is that although they have their own provisions given by the Welsh Assembly they have to work with the neighbouring region which is in a different country for some of their provision. The issue of devolution doesn't merely end at the borders, something that those that want independence often overlook. He also pointed out that we should trust the Tories especially on powers for the devolved bodies, nor for that matter on anything else. He called for us to embrace an evolution of devolution.
George Lyon MEP for Scotland then pointed out that Donald Dewar had said that devolution was a process not an event. But what was a shame in Scotland was that the minsters on both side of the border were no longer talking to one another, things were being dealt with in isolation which wasn't in the best interests of Scotland. If the SNP were prepared to work with the UK Parliament they could have a booming voice in Europe but they don't and only have their three voices. The SNP are wanting the UK to fail in Europe and Scotland to fail in the UK for their own selfish ends.
Mark Hunter MP for Cheadle pointed out that the opening lines of the motion:
"Conference believes that Scotland and Wales are distinct nations with distinct identities and longstanding political, cultural and social identities."
Applied to England too and must not be overlooked.
Kirsty Williams AM summating welcomed the amendment bringing the English devolution question to the motion. But added it would be presumptuous for the Welsh and Scottish parties to tell the English party how to best go about doing that. She called on them to get it together for next time and bring the debate to the floor. Now there is a challenge if ever I heard one, and one that fits into our Federalist nature.
Tuesday, 24 October 2006
West Lothian Answer Revisited
Looks like I published rather than saved as draft earlier than I intended and a number of people have already read only a disjointed opening paragraph. So here is the full version for your consumption.
Iain Dale has thrown his hat into the ring over the West Lothian Question or more to the point the answer to the question. Following the backing of Canon Kenyon Wright for an English Constitutional Convention (ECC), similar to the one he chaired for Scotland it looks like a serious attempt to seek the West Lothian Answer.
The West Lothian Question is not a simple one to answer otherwise there would have been a definitive answer a long time ago. So the ECC may well be a way of finding the enigma that has been circulating since Tam Daylell first raised the issue. The ramifications are far reaching ie there should not be two levels of MPs at Westminster, we already have seen some friction about the two types of MSPs in Holyrood. The issue of who can vote on what issues is largely impacting on plitics both North and South of the border. Also the issue of funding and the Barnett formula is well overdue revisting.
So I would say now is probably a good time to ask for an ECC. Rather than glibbling throwing out policies like banning Scottish MPs for voting on English only matters at Westminster an ECC would look at all the ramifications in detail. It should have a remit to look at the issues that devolution has raised for England and have dialogue between the parties to reach the solutions.
I hope that if Iain Dale and other signatories of today's letter go into an ECC they will do so with open minds seeking the best answers rahter than merely rubberstamping of their own ideas. The letter already rules out options for regional assemblies for England which the ECC would have to look into to meet the fullest remit to see if it is beneficial for local accountability, responsibility over issues or not.
Iain Dale has thrown his hat into the ring over the West Lothian Question or more to the point the answer to the question. Following the backing of Canon Kenyon Wright for an English Constitutional Convention (ECC), similar to the one he chaired for Scotland it looks like a serious attempt to seek the West Lothian Answer.
The West Lothian Question is not a simple one to answer otherwise there would have been a definitive answer a long time ago. So the ECC may well be a way of finding the enigma that has been circulating since Tam Daylell first raised the issue. The ramifications are far reaching ie there should not be two levels of MPs at Westminster, we already have seen some friction about the two types of MSPs in Holyrood. The issue of who can vote on what issues is largely impacting on plitics both North and South of the border. Also the issue of funding and the Barnett formula is well overdue revisting.
So I would say now is probably a good time to ask for an ECC. Rather than glibbling throwing out policies like banning Scottish MPs for voting on English only matters at Westminster an ECC would look at all the ramifications in detail. It should have a remit to look at the issues that devolution has raised for England and have dialogue between the parties to reach the solutions.
I hope that if Iain Dale and other signatories of today's letter go into an ECC they will do so with open minds seeking the best answers rahter than merely rubberstamping of their own ideas. The letter already rules out options for regional assemblies for England which the ECC would have to look into to meet the fullest remit to see if it is beneficial for local accountability, responsibility over issues or not.
Friday, 5 May 2006
Up All Night
Well after yesterday’s lie in I went and spoilt it by not sleeping all night but arrived at work this morning refreshed.
Obviously I couldn’t go to sleep until both the English council areas I’ve lived in had declared. Kingston was the later of the two to declare. Of the three wards I lived in Tolworth and Hook Rise and Chessington North and Hook both declared a full slate of Lib Dems. The first ward did so easily but the second saw fellow blogger Mary Reid just see off the strongest Tory challenge by only 18 votes. Old Malden the third ward I lived in sadly saw two Tories take the first two spots but Ian McDonald squeezed into the third spot by a mere 7 votes. However, it was good to see that the Liberal Democrats retain control of the council.
The other area where I’ve voted in English council elections is Coventry where I’m most be so out of the loop. I had no idea that the Tories were that close to taking control of the city when I was there in 1992 that would have been unheard of. Mind you last night they finally crossed the threshold for the first time in heaven knows how long and put the city of Lady Godiva into the Blue column. I think I'll go off and try and find out when the Conservative last controlled the city now.
Obviously I couldn’t go to sleep until both the English council areas I’ve lived in had declared. Kingston was the later of the two to declare. Of the three wards I lived in Tolworth and Hook Rise and Chessington North and Hook both declared a full slate of Lib Dems. The first ward did so easily but the second saw fellow blogger Mary Reid just see off the strongest Tory challenge by only 18 votes. Old Malden the third ward I lived in sadly saw two Tories take the first two spots but Ian McDonald squeezed into the third spot by a mere 7 votes. However, it was good to see that the Liberal Democrats retain control of the council.
The other area where I’ve voted in English council elections is Coventry where I’m most be so out of the loop. I had no idea that the Tories were that close to taking control of the city when I was there in 1992 that would have been unheard of. Mind you last night they finally crossed the threshold for the first time in heaven knows how long and put the city of Lady Godiva into the Blue column. I think I'll go off and try and find out when the Conservative last controlled the city now.
Saturday, 15 April 2006
Accrington Stanley Who Are They?
In 1962 Acrrington Stanley Football Club went bust and were forced to resign from the English Football League. However, this afternoon after 44 years in the wilderness they have sealed their return to the English League by winning 1-0 away to Woking. Paul Mullin who scored the goal that made history will probably have a statue soon outside the club's Interlink Express Stadium soon (the fact that this is on Livingstone Road gives this Livingston supporter some hope.)
The phrase 'Accrington Stanley who are they?' was from a 1980s ad for milk were one Scouse boy says to his mate that Ian Rush has told him that if he doesn't drink milk he'll only be good enough to play for Accrington Stanley. The riposte from his mate is Accrington Stanley who are they? Unfortunately Rushie's subsequent management career means that Stanley manager John Coleman might be able to ask tonight Ian Rush who is he?
On 12-02-62 the Club Chairman Edwin Slinger resigned revealing debts of £4000 pounds in unpaid transfer fees and similar amount owing to the Inland Revenue. On the 2 March they lost their last League Game 4-0 to Crewe put shortly after £40,000 of further debt to creditors forced the board to resign from the league on 11 March, midway through the season.
Well today the team for so long the joke of English Football have turned that phrase on its head.
So who are Accrington Stanley:
Founded in 1891 as Stanley Villa
Renamed Accrington Stanley in 1895
Name comes from the family name of the Earl of Derby who owned a lot of land in the area. Whether the founders of the Club lived in a Stanley Street of met in an Stanley Arms pub is open to debate but the connection is to the Earl in some form.
1905-6 Lancashire Combination Division 1 Champions
Entered the League in 1931 in Third Division North
1958 Best league position 2nd in Division 3 North
1958-9 Reorganised league finds Stanley in Division 3
1960 Relegated to Division 4.
1962 Resigned from Football League and joined Lancahsire Combination Division 2
1964-5 Promoted as Champions but relegated the following season.
1966 Resigned and folded from Lancashire Combination Division 2
1970 Club Reformed Join Lancashire Combination League
1977-8 Champions Lancashire Combination League, join Cheshire County Division 2
1980 Second in league but not promoted due to ground status win league the following year to earn promotion.
1986-7 Runners Up North West Counties Division 1 (Promoted to Northern Premier League)
1998-9 Relegated to Nothern Premier Division 1
1999-2000 Champions of Northern Premier Division 1
2002-3 Champions of Northern Premier League, promoted to Football Conference
2005-6 After finishing 10th for previous 2 seasons win Conference to return to Football League
As for the foot of the Scottish Premier with Falkirk and Dunfermline drawing 0-0 Livingston's 3-1 win over Dundee pulls us up to just 6 points behind Dunfermline making next weeks trip to East End Park very important.
The phrase 'Accrington Stanley who are they?' was from a 1980s ad for milk were one Scouse boy says to his mate that Ian Rush has told him that if he doesn't drink milk he'll only be good enough to play for Accrington Stanley. The riposte from his mate is Accrington Stanley who are they? Unfortunately Rushie's subsequent management career means that Stanley manager John Coleman might be able to ask tonight Ian Rush who is he?
On 12-02-62 the Club Chairman Edwin Slinger resigned revealing debts of £4000 pounds in unpaid transfer fees and similar amount owing to the Inland Revenue. On the 2 March they lost their last League Game 4-0 to Crewe put shortly after £40,000 of further debt to creditors forced the board to resign from the league on 11 March, midway through the season.
Well today the team for so long the joke of English Football have turned that phrase on its head.
So who are Accrington Stanley:
Founded in 1891 as Stanley Villa
Renamed Accrington Stanley in 1895
Name comes from the family name of the Earl of Derby who owned a lot of land in the area. Whether the founders of the Club lived in a Stanley Street of met in an Stanley Arms pub is open to debate but the connection is to the Earl in some form.
1905-6 Lancashire Combination Division 1 Champions
Entered the League in 1931 in Third Division North
1958 Best league position 2nd in Division 3 North
1958-9 Reorganised league finds Stanley in Division 3
1960 Relegated to Division 4.
1962 Resigned from Football League and joined Lancahsire Combination Division 2
1964-5 Promoted as Champions but relegated the following season.
1966 Resigned and folded from Lancashire Combination Division 2
1970 Club Reformed Join Lancashire Combination League
1977-8 Champions Lancashire Combination League, join Cheshire County Division 2
1980 Second in league but not promoted due to ground status win league the following year to earn promotion.
1986-7 Runners Up North West Counties Division 1 (Promoted to Northern Premier League)
1998-9 Relegated to Nothern Premier Division 1
1999-2000 Champions of Northern Premier Division 1
2002-3 Champions of Northern Premier League, promoted to Football Conference
2005-6 After finishing 10th for previous 2 seasons win Conference to return to Football League
As for the foot of the Scottish Premier with Falkirk and Dunfermline drawing 0-0 Livingston's 3-1 win over Dundee pulls us up to just 6 points behind Dunfermline making next weeks trip to East End Park very important.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)