Recent Comments

RSS I'm Reading

RSS Modern Liberty

Blog Award
English Parliament
Scorched Earth
No2ID
English Parliament
Wino

Days since England had its own Parliament

Site menu:

Site search

Books

Links:

Meta

Wedgwood goes bust

Yet another of England’s iconic businesses looks as though it is on the way out, as the once mighty Wedgwood goes into administration. If you feel like supporting the Potteries then please consider this china mug from Bairstow Manor Pottery in Stoke.

91411

It’s available through Carbolic Smoke Book who describe it thus:

The central figure is, of course, the great robber himself, - Gordon Brown, complete with lugubrious countenance and that strange drop-jaw mannerism of his. Brown is very good at spending other peoples’ money. At his feet is a War Chest stuffed full of twenty pound notes sourced from your pension fund, and over his shoulder is a bag of swag marked ‘NHS’ which has a huge leaking hole in the bottom. His red Budget case reads ‘Stand & Deliver’, and the handle of the jug is a superb highwayman’s pistol.

This is a fantastic piece of political art. Brown’s spending spree is already coming unstuck, and the resonance of this limited edition piece becomes ever stronger.

Two Tier NHS

Janet Street-Porter:

We now have a two-tier NHS in the UK, after the Scottish Parliament voted to abolish hospital parking charges. In spite of the charges being one of the biggest causes of public dissatisfaction, the English branch of the NHS says it has no plans to follow its Scottish counterparts, which also abolished prescription charges.

When a family member is seriously ill, I fail to see why next of kin cannot be offered free parking during a patient’s care. Why should we have to take public transport, when NHS top brass and surgeons have designated parking bays? One angry NHS customer reckoned her family spent £500 in parking charges watching her dad die.

If we take “tier” to mean “a group of political or geographic divisions that form a row across the map” then the NHS is a four tier organisation divided by national boundaries. The Department of Health, the UK ministry that administers England’s NHS, has just unveiled its Change 4Life initiative to combat obesity in England. But if you are Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish, then fear not because the Change 4Life website helpfully redirects you to your own national resources:

Change4Life is an England-only campaign, but that doesn’t mean you can’t use the advice here to start making changes, even if you don’t live in England. There are also these helpful sites for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and for even more information, please contact your devolved administration here.

I wonder how long it will be before the NHS is renamed the English Health Service, and the Department of Health renamed the Department of Health England. In the Frequently Asked Questions section of the DoH website we are informed that “The Department of Health provides policy and guidance to the NHS and adult social services”. However, if you have a query about the NHS or social services in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, then don’t contact us…

For queries about the NHS in Scotland, contact the Scottish Executive on 0131 556 8400.

For queries about the NHS in Wales, contact the Welsh Assembly on 0845 010 5500.

For queries about the NHS in Northern Ireland, contact the Northern Ireland Assembly on 028 9052 1333.

National holiday anyone?

“A new British day should mark the ties that bind our society together. The NHS marks our collective decision that our responsibility to each other means that medical treatment should not depend on whether you can afford it. The NHS also shows how Britain’s diversity has served the common good - NHS day would be a chance to celebrate the positive contribution that immigration has made to our society.”

More on Change 4Life from Britology Watch.

England’s demise is on our agenda

Who said that?

“We have organized a department that will take care of England. England’s demise is on our agenda.”

When I first read that I thought it might have been Gordon Brown or Jack Straw discussing the Ministry of Justice. But no, apparently it was President Ahmadinejad’s chief adviser Hassan Abbassi.

Merry Christmas

I’ve had enough of this blogging malarkey for the time being, so I’m signing off until the New Year.

Gordon Brown Christmas

Check out the Witanagemot Club for your daily England news.

See you again in 2009.

The curse of Gordon “Jonah” Brown visited upon Jaguar

In September Gordon Brown took his cabinet of retards on a jolly to the West Midlands, where they stopped by the Jaguar plant for a photo-opportunity.

Brown vists Jaguar

Today the Government confirmed that it had “held talks with Jaguar Land Rover over the possibility of state aid for the carmaker”.

New Labour’s legacy

Ian Dunt:

This is not a police state, because the government does not intend to run a police state. But sometime in the future another government will come into power with darker intentions. And when it does, it will sing the praises of New Labour.

Scotland’s politicians are all Nationalists

A post entitled “David Mundell supports Scotland’s place in the Union” has sparked a fun little debate over at Conservative home, possibly because David Mundell takes a pop at Scottish nationalists:

We share the Secretary of State’s welcome for the Calman commission. Does he note the contrast between the application and thoroughness of the interim Calman report and the so-called national conversation, which appears to be little more than a taxpayer-funded blog site for insomniac nationalists? Does he share my disappointment not only with the content but with the tone of the First Minister’s response to the interim report? Will he therefore use his best endeavours to persuade the First Minister that now is the time to show that he is man not a mouse—to use the First Minister’s own analogy—by abandoning the national conversation, which does not have the support of the Scottish Parliament, and by engaging, as many in the Scottish Government wish to do, in the Calman process?

But as David McCrone remarked, “In an important sense, Scotland’s politicians are all Nationalists” (Understanding Scotland: The Sociology of a Nation; 2001).

Very true, all Scotland’s politicians pay homage to Scotland at every and any opportunity, in a way that English MPs never do about England (but perversely sometimes do about Scotland or Britain). The ground has shifted so much that the only difference between Scottish factions now is in degrees of separation that they advocate. One commenter to the Conservative Home thread, pokes fun at Mundell by directing us to the David Mundell website with the departing words “WOW look at all of those “Union” flags on his official website!”.

Fair point, I think. If David Mundell is such a big supporter of the Calman Commission, whose stated aim is to “secure the position of Scotland within the United Kingdom”, then why doesn’t Mr Mundell wear his heart on his sleeve and sport some British flags on his website? Too much for his constituents to swallow perhaps!

Not crash, just Gordon

Speculation over at Iain Dale’s that Labour are buying up advertising hoardings in preparation for a January general election. I hope that it’s true, I can’t wait to see how they spin this one…

Crash Gordon

Barnett Formula provides the rationale for Scottish meddling

Chris Vine has received another reply from the Ministry of Justice on the West Lothian Question. Previously Chris had suggested that using the Barnett Formula as justification for Scottish MPs voting on English issues was a make weight argument, because he believed the government would still want Scottish MPs to vote on English matters ‘even if the Barnett formula were to be replaced by a system of assigned revenues with needs based top-up‘.

The Ministry of Justice did not deny it:

The argument that the Barnett consequentials of ‘English only’ legislation may effect other constituent nations of the United Kingdom and so ought to be voted on by all Members of Parliament is not a make-weight. Funding is provided by general taxation, drawn from the across the United Kingdom. It is a matter of both general, and specific importance. Both in relation to the principles upon which it is spent, and the specific instance or policy which it is being spent to further. That the expenditure of public money should have effect in one area as a direct consequence of expenditure in another (in this case Scotland and England) is, in a Union Parliament reason enough to enable all Members to vote on that expenditure. But the core principle at stake is simply that all Members of Parliament are equal on the floor of the House, and have and ought to have equal voting rights.

Chris concludes, I think correctly, that the MoJ ‘have planted their standard on a mound of sand‘ by advocating a system of bad governance whereby Scottish MPs may ‘take decisions on detailed education or health matters in England, not on the merits of the decisions for those subject to them, but on the ground that they may result indirectly in too much or too little expenditure in Scotland‘.

This revelation would appear to be more of a justification of Ken Clarke’s solution (where the detail of the bill is decided by English MPs) than the Very Simple Solution advocated by Chris.

I have a Very Simple Solution (TM), which is to borrow from the precedent of the House of Lords, namely to confer the power to delay legislation for a session.

I think an arrangement could be devised that if at third reading a particular Bill or separate part of a Bill were not to receive the approval of the majority of members for the countries to which the laws are to apply, then it could only be passed by enactment of the same Bill or part in the following session. That would allow the government to govern, whilst also respecting the position of those in England or Wales and their representatives. This approach may possibly also need to be applied to the Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments stage of Bills originating in the Commons, by taking a further “in principle” vote at that stage, but that is a matter of finesse.

It’s been my view for a while that the Barnett Formula is the only real justification for Scottish MPs voting on English matters. Not a moral justification, but a constitutional justification because spending in England determines Scotland’s block grant. The West Lothian Question and Barnett Formula are intricately tied. It’s essential for Gordon Brown to resist calls for financial federalism because the logical extension of such a move is political federalism. If the devolved administrations fund their devolved portfolios from taxes raised directly then a proportion of the money available to the Treasury to be spent in England becomes manifestly English, and should logically be the responsibility of English MPs.

Equally, part of, say, Scotland’s funding becomes manifestly Scottish, which theoretically diminishes Westminster’s sovereign right to dictate how it is spent

Essentially the Barnett Formula is a centralising formula that binds Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to England’s spending plans (or rather Westminster’s), so preventing policy divergence by dint of the fact that the financial apron strings have not been cut. Devolution should have been on the basis that the devolved administrations can deviate from the centre, but only if they are prepared to pay for it through tax hikes. This would have been a basis for better more responsible devolved government, it would have represented real devolution. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

Eel in a suit doesn’t answer question

Slugger O’Toole’s readers have been putting questions to David Cameron, one of which was this:

In his opinion, has the New Labour devolution project in the UK strengthened or weakened the Union? If it is the former, will he then be looking to extend the “benefits” of devolution to England? If it is the latter, how does he propose to remedy the situation?

Cameron’s response:

I think to some extent some devolution was necessary because the popular demand had so built up, particularly in Scotland. And we can’t go backwards.

So my view is that we have to make devolution work. I’ll come onto what I mean by that but first of all let me answer the English Question.

I don’t want to see a separate English parliament. I think the last thing we need right now is another bunch of politicians on another bunch of big salaries and pensions and all the rest of it. So I don’t think we need an English parliament. I think, and I have set out elsewhere how we can correct the so-called West Lothian Question. And you can find lots of evidence on how we would do that….

If you’re not happy with the answers you can email me at camerond@parliament.uk and I will try and do better.

Well I’m not, so I will.

Dear Mr Cameron,

I watched your response to the devolution question on the Slugger O’Toole blog and I wasn’t convinced that you answered the question as fully as you could have.

1. You didn’t actually answer as to whether or not you believe that devolution has strengthened the Union?

2. Do you believe that England should enjoy the benefits of devolution, and if you do then how can that be achieved without an English parliament?

3. You said that you would come on to an explanation of how we can make devolution work, but you didn’t. How do we make it work?

4. You say that you have “set out elsewhere how we can correct the so-called West Lothian Question”. Have you? Where have you set this out? I’ve seen vague promises that the next manifesto might contain Ken Clarke’s “Democracy Task Force” solution to the WLQ, but I’ve heard nothing from you on this. What is your position; have you discarded the policy of English votes on English laws, which was pledged in the Conservative manifestos of 2001 and 2005, on which you were elected to Parliament?

Many thanks,

UPDATE: A response from Cameron’s office.

I am writing on behalf of David Cameron to thank you for your recent email.

We are grateful to you for taking the time to get in touch and for bringing your concerns to our attention.

For your interest, I have attached a link to one of David’s recent speeches, which addresses some of the points that you have raised –

http://www.conservatives.com/News/Speeches/2007/12/David_Cameron_Stronger_Together.aspx

I have also attached the Democracy Taskforce report on the West Lothian Question.

Once again, thank you for writing.

Thank you for fuck all you freakin’ twats. I’ve already read those you dimwits. The Democracy Task Force report isn’t even Conservative Party policy. Nor is it David Cameron’s opinion. My questions still stand, unanswered. What’s the point of asking people to email you if you then just fob them off with the banal, piss-poor, policy-lite, anti-ideological shite that you dish out?