open Democracy News Analysis - What Gordon Brown should have said, Anthony Barnett - Comments

Keith McBurney on "What Gordon Brown should have said"

Keith McBurney — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 07:53:44 +0000

As I posted in Brian Barder's piece above, a Confederation accommodates both pro-Independence and pro-Union preferences. Moreover, as its antithesis, it is the only possible "federal" solution incorporating an English parliament unless and until all parties recognise it is not parliaments but the people who are sovereign. Of the 3 major parties, only the Lib/Dems espouse this fundamental recognition

padav on "What Gordon Brown should have said"

padav — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 10:06:57 +0000

An excellent analysis. If only our political elites were inspired by such principles, we would live in a much better place. Sadly, despite assurances from Mr. Brown that he is a conviction politician, it is clear (actions speak louder than words) that his convictions are motivated by an unquenchable thirst for the trappings of power rather than driven by any faint stirrings of democratic renewal. The irony here is that were Mr. Brown to adopt a statesmanlike disposition in the manner described above and act in the best interests of the majority, rather than merely advancing narrow self-interest, his electoral credentials would dramatically improve. Finally I feel I have to refute the comment from brianbarder: "But why do the constitutional proposals shy away from their logical conclusion, namely a full federal system for the four nations of the UK?" I'm sorry, what logical conclusion might that be? Once again we bear witness to the blind assumptions of those within the English Parliament brigade that England is a single homogenous social and political entity. Nothing could be further from the truth! Yes, federal principles offer the most equitable solution to the "English Question" but a federal framework will only function if the partners are equal (relatively speaking). London works as City Region precisely because of its relative size. The total GDP and population of NW.England both exceed those of Scotland. I agree that there is a debate to be had about the English Regional map but the principle underpinning the strategy of English Regional devolution remains sound, only the manner in which it has been pursued was fatally flawed. Please don't bang on about the NE Assembly referendum result because we all know that the people of the North East were not offered devolution of 'real' power, they were offered a sham, an expensive and powerless talking shop so, common sense prevailing, they understandably rejected it out of hand! A written constitution for the UK offers us a fresh start, a chance to set the record straight and disperse power equitably across the entire country. An English Parliament will achieve precisely nothing for the peripheries of England, indeed it is likely to increase the malign influence exerted by the SE bias, so prevelant within the current Westminster model. In short the English peripheries need an English Parliament like a hole in the head!

brianbarder on "What Gordon Brown should have said"

brianbarder — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 16:41:54 +0000

This is fine -- as far as it goes. But why do the constitutional proposals shy away from their logical conclusion, namely a full federal system for the four nations of the UK? A parliament and government for England to complement those already in place for the other three nations: full devolution of all domestic matters -- health, education, income tax, crime, environment, culture, you name it; almost everything except foreign affairs and defence -- devolved to the four national parliaments and governments: the Westminster parliament and government become the federal organs responsible for foreign affairs, defence, and any other subjects which the four nations agree to share with the federal centre: a written constitution defining the respective powers and responsibilities of the two tiers and mandating all five authorities, national and federal, to push power even further down within their jurisdictions. The Americans, Australians, Germans and many other grown-ups work federal systems like this very efficiently: why shouldn't we? Read more on this in my letter in the Guardian of 1 November, quoted with a fuller commentary in my own blog piece of 2 November. Brian B http://www.barder.com/ephems/

Barry Davies on "What Gordon Brown should have said"

Barry Davies — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 10:13:00 +0100

There is no written constitution in the UK this is a good thing because it is what allows our law making the flexibility to act as and when needed, a constitution simply prevents this from happening because it is so difficult to change any of the component parts, when they prove to be unsuitable. Brown should have made this point clear to the foreigners he was talking to in Lisbon, and then told the British public that we don't need a referendum because he is going to veto the so called treaty of Lisbon anyway. The government already is mainly governed from brussells they are the ones who are forcing the highly expensive and pointless ID cards on to us they will not make the world a safer place, in fact the idiocy of schengen has already made our world much more dangerous, and is a charter for criminals to hop around europe without any chance of being picked up, and foreign european criminals can no longer be deported back to their own countries. Education eu style is the George Orwell 1984 form of education, that is propaganda, his horrific view of the future it seems was only incorrect in the date chosen, which is 30 years before it will become the reality of our lives.

Robin P Clarke on "What Gordon Brown should have said"

Robin P Clarke — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 02:03:58 +0100

What Gordon Brown should really have said is the following. (1) That he admits that he had and still has no answer to the charges of massive fraud which were laid out in an article by George Monbiot in 2002. (See Public Fraud Initiative and the follow-up article Road Hogs .) (2) That he admits he is guilty of serious fraud. (3) That he accordingly offers his resignation from membership of parliament and will cooperate with the prosecution of his serious crime.

paul.kelly20 on "What Gordon Brown should have said"

paul.kelly20 — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 12:06:29 +0100

This analysis is spot on! I'd vote for Brown with this sort of agenda. I'm not sure I'd vote for him without it. The problem Labour faces is that the Blairite rump are reformists who just tinker with the mechanisms without getting to grips with the substantive issues. I suspect much the same of the Cameronites for all the breezy slickness of re-invention they exude. Constitutional change is generally thought to be deeply dull stuff. But Barnett makes it relevant, fresh and exciting and an essential tool to tackle the growing problems and inequalities in this old but fast-changing nation. What a tragedy of lost opportunity we are living through. Paul Kelly

What Gordon Brown should have said, Anthony Barnett

Anthony Barnett — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 19:06:46 +0100

Introduction

I had a dream. It was in September, before the party conferences. Gordon Brown and his Labour Party had a great lead in the polls. There was an opportunity to call an election and go to the people. From the point of view of the Brownites, they wanted to show that they could create an administration different in kind from the top-down control-freakery of the Tony Blair years, and deliver real change - in terms of education, especially. That is why they were for it.

My point of view was different: I thought maybe this is the last chance for a federal, democratic Britain. Many would say that the chance was already lost, that the end of the union is just a matter of time, and is the best outcome anyway (a view that both Roger Scruton and Tom Nairn have arrived at). But dreams are entitled to be impractical.

Read the rest of this post...