open Democracy News Analysis - The madness of Ken Clarke, Gareth Young - Comments

padav on "The madness of Ken Clarke"

padav — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 11:40:19 +0000

@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

Not logged in on "The madness of Ken Clarke"

Not logged in — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 03:36:35 +0000

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

Toque on "The madness of Ken Clarke"

Toque — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 12:03:07 +0000

"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.

Not logged in on "The madness of Ken Clarke"

Not logged in — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 10:23:07 +0000

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

Keith McBurney on "The madness of Ken Clarke"

Keith McBurney — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 21:22:15 +0000

Keith McBurney

Anonymous at 1510

Agreed. And an English Parliament with equal powers all round to the other executives (i won't use the word 'governments' - it's so top down and redolent of the British polity's belief in the divine right of politicians) means Union in Confederation, not Federation as the present past its sell and use by date sub-prime British state we are in would be decapitated at a stroke of our pen following our own Citizens' Constitutional Conventions and follow-up Referendums.

The mouth waters does it not at the added dividend of P45s for a layer of Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh 'representatives', including the present Sub-Prime Minister, Chancellor and part-time Defence Secretary and Scottish Secretary who would have another P45 with the other Gauleiters at the Northern Irish and Welsh Offices. Add to that the fine building at Leith could then be held in a Common Weal People's Trust to house out of town MSPs and Holyrood visitors at the going rate we taxpayer's could afford; ditto Cardiff and Stormont.

The pity is they missed the opportunity to use the old, handy GLC building that way too. There would have been room a plenty for all out of town public employees at Ministries etc, which would have spared us the scam of taxpayers money funding lodging allowances as rent to pay the mortgage on properties owned directly or indirectly by others doing the same thing. But no, they prefer to keep their London addresses secret lest more sleaze is uncovered, when they could have forsworn the temptation of large capital gains on selling amid a housing shortage of their making and enjoyed collective personal protection at a much reduced cost to our purse.

No wonder these porkies fear their house of stacked deck cards will be blown away before they can steal off into oblivion with their fat cat pensions from our purse too! How many have slunk off already?

Aye Ours,

Keith

Not logged in on "The madness of Ken Clarke"

Not logged in — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 15:10:43 +0000

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 on "The madness of Ken Clarke"

Keith McBurney — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 12:15:30 +0000

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

Not logged in on "The madness of Ken Clarke"

Not logged in — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 10:49:45 +0000

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!

Not logged in on "The madness of Ken Clarke"

Not logged in — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 10:42:18 +0000

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.

Keith McBurney on "The madness of Ken Clarke"

Keith McBurney — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 10:00:41 +0000

Keith McBurney

It's just a step in the right direction and provides them with a holding position pending the outcome of the elections in 2009, 2010 and 2011. No major party will openly address the issue of combining Independence and Union until then. That said, this unique accommodation of Independence and Union in Confederation is recognised as a threat by the top down, centralist, majorial, self-serving British and EU polity who will wait and see before deciding what is best for them for us. It is also recognised as an opportunity by the bottom-up, decentralised, co-operative, consensual, mainstream, independently minded social democrats of all hues who are addressing the matter of liberty, equality and humanity in an interdependent world, free of cash for votes dependent electorates. Getting the able disabled back to work is the first step to weaning the bairns off such cashback bribes. In that respect, Glasgow East may be too soon if the Labour vote turns out. In contrast, Howden is more promising if the 42 day sentence without trial is to have a judicial impact at sunrise when first if ever invoked before the Conservative possibility of repeal in sunset 2010.

The missing parts of the puzzle are the pieces: us - we, the people who should not be content to sit back as events unfold at a pace the major parties and their paymasters can control. Our own, separate Citizens' Constitutional Conventions to individually and severally self-determine the process of our engagement with each other, before then doing so again on the fundamental issue of our preferences for the body politic within and between our nations and communities both here and further afield. Bottom up stands. Top down is unstable. It is that simple.

I look forward to Charter 88's pregnant deliberations this weekend in recognition that neither Conservative nor Labour maladministrations' do democratic delivery. The answer is in our own hands: it always was, it always will be.

Sovereignty and Confederacy: the antidotes to Unions' Blues.

Aye Ours

Keith

Not logged in on "The madness of Ken Clarke"

Not logged in — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 09:11:15 +0000

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.

Not logged in on "The madness of Ken Clarke"

Not logged in — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 08:58:32 +0000

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.

Toque on "The madness of Ken Clarke"

Toque — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 08:50:57 +0000

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.

britologywatch on "The madness of Ken Clarke"

britologywatch — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 08:00:47 +0000

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.

Not logged in on "The madness of Ken Clarke"

Not logged in — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 02:59:37 +0000

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

The madness of Ken Clarke, Gareth Young

Anthony Barnett — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 22:57:27 +0000

Gareth Young (Lewes, CEP): Ken Clarke's plans to solve the West Lothian Question, have been greeted with predictable disdain by most political commentators. Typical was Iain Dale who declared that "England deserved better":

From what I have seen I cannot in any way defend this so-called solution. It is not even a half way house. Either you believe that England should have devolved government or you don't. If you do, then you either believe in English votes on English measures or you believe in some form of English Parliament.

But Iain Dale is wrong. Not that England deserves better, of course she does, but because neither Clarke's solution NOR English Votes on English measures are for people who believe that England should have "devolved government" (or "English government" if you prefer). Instead both are crude technical devices that attempt to right the democratic deficit brought about the very absence of English government. Clarke's contrivance is contrived to such a ludicrous degree precisely to avoid even the pretence of an English parliament that EVoEM seems to offer, and the consequent threat that such a democratic English body would pose to the Union when Scots object to it on the grounds of their own irrelevance. Indeed, as Clarke went to pains to point out on the Today Programme, his solution "means that the government retains control of the agenda; it retains control of the money." Scottish MPs would vote on the second reading of an English bill - "which is the vote on principle on the bill" - thereby ensuring the legitimacy of any cabinet government that contained Scottish ministers. But as Malcom Rifkind points out Clarke's mechanism would not have prevented the disgraceful actions of Scottish MPs during the Foundation Hospital and Top-up Fee legislation, even if last week's English Planning Bill amendment, scuppered by Brown's non-English MPs, could have been carried by English rebels. Under Clarke's scheme the English will be denied the affirmative expression of national identity afforded to the Scots; instead English MPs will speak for England only negatively - by wrecking UK Government legislation through the of tabeling ludicrous amendments, or the deleting of English clauses at committee stage. But fear not, for as Clarke points out the UK government retains control, and:

"at the final stage all the UK members would vote so if the English have transformed it to a way that is unacceptable to the Government the government could ask its majority to veto and abort the measure."

Or in other words if the English have transformed the bill to a manner that is acceptable to the English, the government could abort the legislation. Malcolm Rifkind does offer a slightly more sensible alternative to Clarke's madness:

There could be a requirement that at Second Reading and at Report stage, for a vote to be carried on amendments to an England-only Bill, the vote, to be declared carried, would need a majority both of the House as a whole and of MPs representing English constituencies.

Though one has to ask Rifkind why, if the English can veto the UK Government, should we bother letting the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish vote at all; why not just let the English draft and vote on their own legislation instead of muddling up UK Government and non-English MPs in the process? The simple answer to that question is "The Barnett Formula", a funding mechanism that provides Scottish MPs with the constitutional right to vote on English legislation by dint of the fact that English domestic legislation determines the block grant due to Scots as an inflated percentage of what is available to the English. Naturally Ken Clarke does not even bother to address the Barnett Formula.

PS: Good article by Paul Kingsnorth on all this