Thanks Gareth - in addition isn't it mad in the 'green ink' sense that no one can understand it even after reading about it twice. I mean, it addresses a parliamentary game and Clarke is cynical enough to say, 'this solves the problem if it worries you "sigh" but don't worry it does not really change anything'. To put it another way, his body language goes along with that first New Labour Lord Chancellor, Derry Irvine, who said the answer to the West Lothian question is not to ask it. Clarke doesn't think it is an important question. And I agree in one sense, that it has moved on from the Commons to the people. What the English want if they think about it today is voice - now that Scotland clearly has its voice. 'Who speaks for England?' is the question.

Barry (The Elder)

So after nearly four years in the making KC and his not so Sunshine Band have finally delivered, was it worth the wait? not really is my answer, I assumed that a Democracy Task Force (DTF), would... well come up with something about democracy, other than DTF being mentioned the word or the concept of democracy were missing, this document does nothing other than tinker with parliamentary procedure and to what end? English constituency MPs decide the legislation and on the third reading Uncle Tom Cobbley and all can vote on it, then if that's not enough the Govt can veto it, well thanks KC, I cant wait for the next blockbuster

Quite right, Gareth and Anthony. In essence, Clarke's answer is an attempt to deny England a voice by denying the possibility of adequate representative democracy either for the UK as a whole (for instance, through a proper PR voting system) or for England in particular through an English Parliament (which would also be elected under a PR system). Note that the whole West Lothian Question is the acute parliamentary problem that it is only because of First Past the Post. If we had a decent PR system, it would be extremely unlikely that any party would command a majority either of UK MPs or English MPs only. So there would have to be a coalition government, or cross-party collaboration, which would see the same party alliances for England-only matters as for UK-wide legislation. End of problem as far as parliament is concerned; although that would still not enable English voters to have the exclusive say on England-only matters by voting on English manifestos for an English parliament, as they do in Scotland and Wales.

Why not go for this simplest of all solutions to the West Lothian Question: PR? Because, when you quote Clarke as saying "the government retains control of the agenda", this relates to the fact that the whole point of the Tories' solution is to retain the possibility of one party having an absolute UK parliamentary majority: the Tories next time. The real question that would then arise, which the Democracy Task Force's report doesn't even allude to, is Scottish resentment towards an 'English' Conservative government. That's much more of a threat to the Union than English resentment about the West Lothian Question, which Westminster politicians routinely ignore anyway (as does Clarke's fix). But the Tories are wilfully blinded to this threat by their lust for the unrepresentative absolute power that only FPTP will give them. See my critique of the DTF's report.

The progress of a bill through Parliament is difficult enough for the public to understand, and this just makes it more so.  And when you think that every bill with an English component will be subject to this, well...The fact that the mechanics of it are beyond the public's grasp, and can only be understood by constitutional heavyweights like Nick Herbert (hah!), makes it a dead pup that they might just be able to sell if they can only do a deal with Labour.

 They won't ask the people, and you wouldn't expect that from a dinosaur like Clarke, but the fact is that they fail to understand the magnitude of forces that are at play.  It's not just about voting anomalies - which are fairly unimportant in the great scheme of things.  Because the House divides on Party lines, rather than national lines, the WLQ is, for MPS at least, more of a party-political imbalance than anything else.  This solution just gives a Tory opposition an extra tool in their armoury without actually answering the West Lothian Question itself.  And it certainly doesn't answer the English Question - and it's that question more than the WLQ that will be the Union's undoing.

If the Conservatives go with this they are more stupid and ignorant than I thought they were.
I suggest we try to get Clarke and Frank Field , who is in favour of an English Parliament, on the box to make their respective cases to the English public, then have a referendum.
It has not dawned on the tories yet that New Labour facing a wipe out could pick up the English Flag and take England at the next election. Serves them right if they do.

From Ian Campbell:
The signs are this morning that even the Labour party may support Clarke's proposals. "Go on, steal my clothes," he teased. This surely confirms that the 'reform' would leave the UK government in total control (as viewed by Simon Lee in 'Best for Britain? The Politics & Legacy of Gordon Brown'). And Clarke seems to have said nothing about what will happen to such Bills in the House of Lords - will the whole House debate all stages? This is not going to achieve Clarke's stated objective of bringing in reasonable changes before the English become resentful. They already are, justifiably. Those one in five prospective Conservative MPs who admit to supporting an English Parliament need to speak up and make common cause with those in the other parties who share their view - or it will soon be plain to all that the Union does not rest on the consent of the people but only on the ambitions of the Unionists.

Keith McBurney

This is the "solution" that took Ken Clarke four effing years to arrive at?!!!!!
Dave and his "listening" compatriots had better take heed of the English (noone else is going to vote Conservative) and install an English Parliament with English elected MPs working in the interests of the English nation. Take your fudge and put it back from whence it came.
Patrick Harris, Portsmouth England.

We will do nothing to harm the Union (Brown, Straw, Cameron, Clarke et al).

The English democratic deficit has to be the greatest threat to the Union.

Ergo, we will not fix the democratic deficit.

Way to go brainiach!

Keith McBurney

I see that brainiach. But it does not take an Archbishop's eanchainn to recognise it is not until we are as interested in freedom from the British polity as much for the English, all the Irish, Welsh, Cornish et seq as we seem to be ourselves that we folk will join together whom they seek to divide and in the unison of our song bring their crumbling, rotting from within edifice down. It is this 'social union' of our nations of families, friends and communities and our family of friendly nations that should do what must be done before, repeat before we are presented with their political fix. If we do so before the 2010 General Election we will have politicians deserting parties in droves to join us in long last recognition that we are not prepared to join them and their track record until it is singing from the same hymn sheet that the peopled parties of our nations are.

Aye Ours, Keith

Ken doesn't get the English resentment at all.

Labour have given the Northern Irish, Scots and Welsh self determination. The English can see that it's working for them. Why not us? Put the Barnett formula to one side and just look at the democratic imbalance. England is a proud historic nation. Many feel England deserves self determination too - that's just an issue of fair play.

The answer to the WLQ is quite clearly to create an English Parliament to handle English legislation. For gods sake not another layer of politicians but based on the existing English MPs.

If an EP was was embraced by the British government and given similar levels of power as the Scottish Parliament and if the Welsh and Northern Irish Parliaments were also brought up to a similar level then there's a chance that could work - and preserve the union - all be it a changed one.

Trouble is Cameron and Clarke are both old world Unionists. Cameron is on record talking about sour little Englanders and Clarke has described even the idea of an EP as absurd and dangerous.

For them it's much better an imperfect union than a broken one. But the problem is the union is already broken. There's a bloody great spanner hanging out of the works with "asymmetric devolution" stamped on it. That's the problem. This spanner doesn't need polishing it needs removing.

Labours answer to the WLQ was "don't ask the question", the Conservative and Unionist Party's answer via a phenomenal piece of doublethink is a solution that identifies the problem but completely fails to solve solve it.

The Conservatives are more concerned with maintaining the big British state and their vested interests than justice.

Keith McBurney

In a way Clarke's devious offering is useful .

It is patently an exercise in attempting to make do and mend a broken edifice without actually disturbing it too much lest it collapse altogether.

It is incomprehensible not only to the populution at large but also to MP's who will leap upon as an invitation to play abstruse parliamentary games . It is a rule bender's paradise.

It is transparently an attempt to "solve" the problem on existing Westminster terms which might appeal to the British political class but which appears arcane and remote to the people .

It is glaringly obvious that it is an exercise in dodging the issue. The issue being that there is no English self governance and no English parliament.

It would not in any way defuse the existing discontent in any of the four countries of the Union , particulary England. It does not even mention the Barnett Rules which suffuse everything.

Placed alongside the more easily understanadable option of a federal/confederal UK it is plainly unsatisfactory and illogical.

It is rather useful in that stage in the argument is just that , a stage which has to be gone through , and Mr Clarke is doing good work in pointing up the inadequacies of anything other than an English Parliament for England.

John Hutchings

"In a way Clarke's devious offering is useful"

It's also useful in that, like other variations of English Votes, it establishes England, for the first time, as a political constituency - something other than the UK.  A precendent is set.  Not to mention the Scots and Welsh annoyed.

If any of these English Votes-type solutions are implemented they will fail and we will be a step nearer an attempt at a federal UK or independence.

From Keith McBurney

Toque,

GB of GB, Darling Alistair and Desperate Des might be but this Scot is not annoyed but delighted to see the symptoms of the British state's democratic inadequacies exposed. Until these are laid bare and recognised, no lasting solution to the problem will be found by Conservative or Labour parties. It is not about how to politically fix the UK long after its sell and use by dates, heralded by the fall of the Berlin Wall. Top down don't do it and don't cut it anymore; Britain is broken and bust. The real argument now is what replaces it.
The self serving ruling parties challenge us to defy them by getting elected and doing better. We can do better that by far by running our own Citizens' Constitutional Conventions, first and foremost to determine together our individual and several preferences for constitutional arrangements within and between our nations of families and family of nations both in these our isles and with others elsewhere. The arguments boil down to Federation or Confederation, both here and in the EU. As Confederation uniquely accommodates Independence and Union, that outcome is win win for us all.
The Council of the Isles already exists. A Union of the Isles (IU) would justly wrap it up in an altogether interdependent way.
Aye Ours,
Keith

@Keith McBurney: "by running our own Citizens' Constitutional Conventions, first and foremost to determine together our individual and several preferences for constitutional arrangements within and between our nations of families and family of nations both in these our isles and with others
elsewhere."

I agree wholeheartedly with your suggestion - A Citizens' Convention in the form proposed by groups like Unlock Democracy offers a device capable of delivering solutions to many of the constitutional/democratic woes bedevilling British society.

It should be understood that this process would not be the usual consultation between a deliberately dumbed down public and political élites concealing a pre-determined agenda and outcomes. This should be a meaningful engagement with the British people and there should be no taboo topics from the outset; The shape of the current official map of UK sub-divisions, the role and identity of the British Head of State, the preferred voting method used to elect our representatives to accountable bodies of political power, the scope of competencies displayed by these institutions.

All of these vital issues and more should be on the table for discussion and ultimate consensus, culminating in a written British constitution defining and limiting the powers of the state and the relationship between the state and its (newly empowered) citizens. This process would obviously include some sort of referendum (or referenda) offering different mutually exclusive options - for example a clear choice between an array of historically relevant and robust English Regional Parliaments (to complement institutions already in-situ elsewhere in the UK) against a similar all-England alternative.

To date the British public has been shortchanged by a duplicitous political class (of all colours) offering sham processes tinkering around the constitutional edges, solving nothing of substance and merely engendering increased (if that were possible) levels of public cynicism and disengagement - or as Anthony succinctly labels it; "A Democracy in Trouble"

Peter Davidson, Alderley Edge, NW.England