Ask Ed Miliband
I participated in 'Labour Chat' today, featuring Ed Miliband.
Steve Garrett says:
I was most dismayed to learn that some parts of the east coast of England are being allowed to drop into the sea. It has been decided that there is neither the money nor resources to stop coastal erosion in England. However, this is not the case in Scotland, where apparently there is both the resources and the money to repair existing and build new coastal defences. If we live in the UK, why is it OK for one country to preserve its coast and not the other? And if it's the case that they look after their own affairs, while we cannot, why has the English taxpayer 'invested' God knows how many billions saving two Scottish Banks - when that money could have been used to build English sea defences?Ed Miliband MP says:
Steve--thanks for your message. We are investing significantly more in flood defences and the Pitt report has given us recommendations on the way forward on flood defences. This emphasises the importance of tackling climate change.Gareth Young says:
I'd like to ask Ed when he is going to comment on the campaign for a National Conversation for England. With all the discussions going on in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland now seems the ideal time to begin the debate on England's future.Ed Miliband MP says:
It's good to see that labour space is a forum to post ideas. I believe devolution has made us stronger as a United kingdom and given democratic accountability for decisions in Scotland and Wales that used to be made centrally. But across the country, we need to see whether there are ways of devolving power.Derek Marshall says:
Ed, In answer to Gareth Young's question you said "It's good to see that labour space is a forum to post ideas. I believe devolution has made us stronger as a United kingdom and given democratic accountability for decisions in Scotland and Wales that used to be made centrally. But across the country, we need to see whether there are ways of devolving power". Will you allow the people of the nation of England a choice by referendum in the same way that the people of Scotland and Wales were allowed? Or will it just be rehashing your regionalist agenda? Will the choice of an English Parliament be put to the English people? Or will we be denied the choice offerd to other UK nations?Ed Miliband MP says:
Derek---and indeed others on the English Parliament----I have to be honest and say I dont think it is the answer nor have I met anyone I can remember in my constituency who has said the answer to the issues in society today is a new parliament for England. The population of the UK is comprised of 84%, I believe, who live in England, so the vast majority of the Uk Parliament is comprised of English MPs. There is no reason to believe that an English Parliament would lead to different outcomes or more accountability. My view for what its worth is that those who are concerned about issues in England should tell us specifically what they want done---I dont see a new Parliament as the answer.
Thanks to Derek for the follow up question. What Ed doesn't seem to appreciate is the fact that what he thinks is far, far less important than what the people of England as a whole think. Ask the people, Ed.
Specifically, what do I want done? Hmmm...Well, the Ministry of Justice (nee Department of Constitutional Affairs) have never actually commissioned a survey on what level of support there is for an English parliament. Instead they have just repeated the mantra that there is "no support for an English parliament" despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. One former secretary of state at the Dept. Constitutional Affairs (An unelected Scottish mate of Tony Blair's named Falconer) went as far to say that there is "Absolutely No Demand for an English Parliament" and clarified his position by telling us that there would never be an English parliament, "Not today, not tomorrow, and not for any kind of future we can see!". So let us begin with a nationwide poll of the options before us (an English parliament, independence, regional assemblies, regional ministers, English Votes, an English grand committee or the Westminster Status Quo) instead of the Government telling us what's best.
We could call this A National Conversation for England.
Trackback URL for this post:
- Login to post comments
I was thinking the other day
I was thinking the other day about the form of question that could be put to the English people in a preliminary, 'consultative' referendum on our governance - if our governors ever deem fit to consult the governed, that is. The order in which you list the options undoubtedly has an influence on the result; but to 'play fair' (i.e. by the government's rules), we could list the most pro-status quo options first. Not too many options in a first vote, either, so as not to produce a meaningless result. Also, wording as neutral as possible. So I was thinking something along the lines of:
"What kind of parliamentary system do you favour for making laws and policy decisions for England?
a) the present United Kingdom parliament, including non-English MPs
b) only the MPs for English constituencies within the United Kingdom parliament
c) an English parliament, like the devolved parliamentary bodies that presently exist in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland
d) an English parliament within a fully independent English state, separate from the other nations of the present United Kingdom
e) assemblies for each of the nine English regions with powers similar to those of the present Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly."
The top two options could then go into the hat for a run-off poll, after which the fine points could be worked out and a definitive referendum held to ratify the deal on the table. If Scotland is offered a referendum on independence (which would break up the UK of which England is presently a part), I don't see why England shouldn't be offered the same set of choices.
On a separate but related note, do you think it would help to sell the idea of an English parliament to our benighted MPs if we pitched it (to use a marketing term) as basically the same parliament as now (even in the Palace of Westminster if they don't want to step off the gravy train) but without the Scots, Welsh and N. Irish MPs? They or some of them could put themselves up for election for a much smaller UK parliament to deal with the lesser volume of reserved matters. So it would be more a case of creating a new UK parliament and adjusting the present Westminster parliament down so it was a parliament of and for the English, rather than creating a whole new big English parliament on top of the present UK one? More evolution than devolution.
Do you think they'd get it? One can but hope.
The whole experience was pure
The whole experience was pure Labour - called a chat - was in fact a stilted, moderated, waste of time.
I suppose this is them engaging with the people. I didn't even get a hello published.
According to YouGov, the
According to YouGov, the constitutional status quo is supported by only 19% of Scots. As Jason Allardyce of the Sunday Times says: “The finding may help to explain why unionist parties are wary of backing a multi-option ballot.”
YouGov/Sunday Times Scotland
published today - 22 March 2009
no methodoligical information has been published yet
If a multi-option referendum was held next year:
Independence 27%
More devolved powers 31%
Status quo 19%
Scrap the Scottish Parliament 14%
Some 40% of voters said they would support giving Holyrood full tax-raising powers while 45% said these should remain with Westminster. There was majority support for handing the Scottish parliament power over a range of other functions, including gun control (62%), the country’s drink driving limit (51%), and drugs classification policy (50%).
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article5949967.ece
Note: the Sunday Times article has a great photograph from 1997: Alex Salmond, Donald Dewar and Menzies Campbell standing side by side, launching the ‘Scotland Forward’ Yes referendum campaign. Dewar and Campbell tilt their happy faces in each others direction, while Salmond directs his focus firmly onwards and upwards. You get the distinct impression that Salmond cannot believe his luck.
There seems to be an option
There seems to be an option missing (scrap the Scottish Parliament), but that's by the by.
If a multi option referendum goes ahead it surely won't just be Salmond who can't believe his luck. Once again the Scots will get to choose their constitutional relationship with the UK without consulting the rest of the UK.
There is, and always has been, only one acceptable referendum - in or out - the sooner they get on with it the better.
Err... Jim, the option "Scrap
Err... Jim, the option "Scrap the Scottish Parliament" was included! Only 14% of respondents supported that option. Alan Cochrane of the Telegraph conveniently ignores that nugget when he cites opinion polls.
Anyhoo. Here is a wee beauty for Gareth:
Stand up for the National Anthem! BBC's 'banal' song for England gets a panning
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1164245/BBCs-banal-new-national-...
OOps. Must lay off the
OOps. Must lay off the Chilean Merlot.