Dominic Grieve (a waste of a stamp)

I sent an email to Dominic Grieve recently, to find out where he stood on the English Question.

Dear Mr Grieve,

Congratulations on your appointment to the position of Shadow Justice Secretary. I'm sure that you will do a great job in holding Mr Straw to account.

I have a lengthy (but quick to answer) question.

Do you favour a technical solution to the West Lothian Question, such as those advocated by Ken Clarke and Malcolm Rifkind, or; do you see the case for England to be consulted on the form of government best suited to its needs, to answer both the WLQ and the wider 'England Question' which
relates to the governance of England rather than just the voting privileges of Scottish MPs?

Best regards,

I received an email back from his secretary telling me that he did not reply to emails and asking whether I would send him a letter if I wanted an answer to my question. So I sent him a letter.

Today I received the reply.

Thank you for your letter dated 26th February about the West Lothian Question.

I do agree with David Cameron on this issue. Ken Clarke's proposals strike a balance between giving the English electorate the accountability they deserve, and preserving the UK as a single state.

An English Parliament would move us towards a federal state and would lead to the creation of a new tier of politicians. The federal arrangement it would create would be lop-sided and unstable as England would dominate by virtue of its size - in terms of population and wealth. And it would be both expensive and unnecessary at a time when we should be looking at cutting the costs of politics.

Regional assemblies are also not the answer. They represent artificial areas to which people have no local or emotional ties, and they too would be expensive layers of additional bureaucracy that people in England do not want.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to write to me.

He hasn't explicitly answered my question, as you can see. But I think we can deduce that he doesn't favour allowing the English electorate the chance to determine how they should be governed, or the opportunity to vote on it in a referendum.

The likes of Dominic Grieve and Malcolm Rifkind had better hope that they are correct about what the English electorate want. If they are incorrect then they are going to end up with egg on their faces. And what if the Convention on Modern Liberty became a Peoples' Constitutional Convention which takes things upon itself and makes a claim of right on behalf of the people, what then; would they oppose it on the same principle?

UPDATE

I am reminded of Dominic Grieve's maiden speech to Parliament:

Let us forget for a moment about the West Lothian question; the real question centres round the fact that a new United Kingdom is being created, yet there has been no consultation with the people of England….Instead we are offered vague ideas about constitutional reform in England, no test of whose acceptability has ever been seriously put forward or even canvassed.