open Democracy News Analysis - Conservative Party - Comments

andymycock on "Hastening the end of the Union?"

andymycock — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 05:46:01 +0000

Many thanks for the comments on the above piece. The point raised by Hendre is not one which most leading lights in the Conservative Party seem to comprehend. Their faith in the ability to history teaching in state education fails to acknowledge that the informal consensus on a British historical narrative reflected a distinct national divergence in content, pedagogy and purpose that devolution has exacerbated. James, the point in the piece is not that the other nations of the UK might reject a Conservative Government more that current policy and political rhetoric is contradictory in its aims.

Cameron has restated his commitment to defending the Union but some (most?) of his Party would appear not to share his view. Be it political opportunism (maybe realism) or a genuine lack of faith in the Union, there is undoubtedly a shift in attitudes within the Party.

Aelwulf on "Hastening the end of the Union?"

Aelwulf — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:48:18 +0000

The constitutional illiteracy of the Tories is playing right into Salmond's hands. Salmond knows very well that the Westminster parliament is a British parliament and yet is happy to pretend it is "London", code for English.

The Tories appear not to be aware that the Westminster parliament is a British parliament and are obviously veering towards regarding it an English parliament of sorts. Salmond won't disabuse them of their error and Cameon's EVOEL policy will just confirm this suspicion in many minds

From the article above it would seem there are many in the Tory party who are now past the point of trying to appease the nationalists and the attitude a fast crystallising "stuff 'em".

The time is fast appraaching when Dave is going to have to decide in his own mind what Westminster is to be

a British parliament , in which case that leaves the case for an EP still open

or an English Parliament in which case the pressure will be on him to finally expell ALL members for non English constituencies and a reversion to pre 1707.

He is trying to ignore this choice. Circumstances will not let him.

britologywatch on "Hastening the end of the Union?"

britologywatch — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:19:22 +0000

If you look at No. 10's response to Toque's petition demanding he say England when he means England, it could be taken as implying two things:

1) in his capacity as prime minister, Gordon Brown does not represent the people of Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath: "it is in this capacity [as prime minister, not - by implication - as elected MP for the said constituency] that he speaks . . ."

2) the fact of Brown's holding the office of prime minister does not authorise him to speak for 'England' but only on behalf of the UK = 'the country': "It is in this capacity [as head of the UK government] that he speaks when articulating his vision for the future of the country".

Tantamount to saying, adapting Wittgenstein's famous dictum, 'of that which one cannot speak, one cannot know'; i.e. the prime minister can't acknowledge 'England' verbally - he can't confirm that it exists - because his office does not authorise or validate him in doing so. But neither, in talking of England - as the UK and in his capacity as UK prime minister - is Gordon Brown fulfilling his role as a Scottish-elected MP.

Parliamo mandarin?

Hendre on "Hastening the end of the Union?"

Hendre — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:18:12 +0000

A scot may get in first ... but the Conservative so-called National Curriculum never applied in Scotland and had variations in Wales and Northern Ireland. There has never (ever) been a UK-wide education system.

James Matthews on "Hastening the end of the Union?"

James Matthews — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:01:23 +0000

"Further cementing the view of many outside England that it (Westminster) is an institution which deals primarily with English issues."

That is the view of many inside England too. Indeed, after the 1997 devolution settlement it is hard to see how anyone could deny that it is true. The problem is that while Westminster does deal mostly with English issues the representatives of the other countries of the Union are allowed to interfere in its deliberations thereon. The Conservatives are seeking (inadequately) to address this issue. To say that, in so doing, they are putting the Union at risk is a bit like saying that elections put continuity of government policy at risk. They do, but that is not why they are important and it is certainly not a reason for avoiding them.

The thrust of this piece seems to be that the non-English countries of the Union, being less Conservative than the English, will not like Conservative government. Well tough. They will have to decide for themselves whether they want democracy within the UK or outside it. If they choose the latter it will demonstrate that the Union is not a viable political entity, not that there is some defect in Conservative policy.

Toque on "Hastening the end of the Union?"

Toque — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:54:31 +0000

Michael Gove is an old hand at talking about 'Britain' or 'this country' when he means England. Only Gordon Brown surpasses Gove's ability to neglect to mention England.

Check out this Tory PR on child protection.

And I'm not just picking on Gove because he is Scottish, many of his English colleagues are just as bad. Check out Mike Penning discussing England's NHS Dentistry and care home places for dementia sufferers in England, or Andrew Lansley highlighting the King's Fund Report into the English NHS.

Gordon Brown actually responded to a petition of mine on this issue, but unfortunately he was completely dismissive. Since that time he's been yapping on about the NHS constitution (England-only) and saying what a great thing it is for Britain, and the 'Working Together' initiative as if it has something to do with this mystical place called 'Britain' and nothing whatsoever to do with England and England alone.

Toque on "Hastening the end of the Union?"

Toque — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:28:43 +0000

The CEP noted the absence of an English speaker in a recent PR.

I failed to spot any mention of English votes on English laws in any of the coverage of the Tory conference, but I'm reliably informed - by Sir George Young - that William Hague mentioned it in his speech at the end of the session that Sir George opened.

I'm sure the Tories were extremely conscious of the fact that the SNP conference followed theirs and left out any discussion of English votes to prevent speculative commentary in the Herald and Scotsman building up to Inverness.

shan oakes on "Red Tory"

shan oakes — Tue, 05 May 2009 07:04:03 +0000

Thank you for this, Phillip. I'd be interested in your views on Trident, since the Tories seem wedded to this insanity which negates all your proposals regarding community and higher values. Shan Oakes, Green Party European candidate, Yorks and Humber.

owly on "The Tories' authoritarian tendencies"

owly — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:43:24 +0000

Piffle. Visa checks are hardly a Civil Liberty matter. For God sake the border controls are a joke. If they were decent we wouldn't have so many illegal immigrants in the land. Mind you the Civil Liberty crowd seem to think illegal immigrants should have a soft ride.

There are far more pressing matters at hand. Labour have been so authoritarian it just isn't true. Seems to me the Left are all for stuff when they are getting what they want, but not so keen when it starts looking like they might be inconvenienced by things. But the Left also needs to examine the role of the EU in all of this. Another authoritarian little outfit. Perhaps you should all go back and actually study the differences between our systems and those on the continent and then maybe some will start to appreciate the rather messy British way of doing things. It works rather well.

Malcolm Hardman on "Red Tory"

Malcolm Hardman — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:25:59 +0000

Michael Wheeler has booked the Athenaeum for Thurs 25 March 2010 6.30 pm. Would Philip Blond please confirm that he will meet that date? Failing this, we shall be compelled to find another speaker. Deadline for PB's reply:
May Day 2009 (i.e. May 4 2009) . Reply to above email.

padav on "Returning trust to local government"

padav — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 00:36:15 +0000

Quote:

Trouble is Local Taxation is a politically poisoned chalice

Yes and that is precisely what Mr. Cameron is handing local authorities with these half-baked proposals. In just the same way as the Scottish Parliament dare not invoke its capacity to vary income tax by 3p in the pound to raise additional revenues, no English local authority would dream of utilising these proposed powers - a certain route to electoral extinction. Cameron knows this only too well which is why his announcement is nothing more than financial sleight of hand.

When Mr. Cameron comes up with a plan that amounts to actual transfer of existing tax raising powers away from Whitehall to more local tiers of governance, we will be able to congratulate the Conservatives on a bold political move. Until that happens, these proposals are only worthy of derision.

Peter Davidson, Alderley Edge, NW.England

owly on "Returning trust to local government"

owly — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:37:24 +0000

Trouble is Local Taxation is a politically poisoned chalice – a wise politician gives it a wide berth for obvious reasons. Everyone wants this, that and the other locally, but people resent paying for it. Council Tax is a bubbling political issue because it has quite obviously gone far beyond reasonable levels and it now quite ridiculous in many areas of the country. Also by not having a directly link between taxation and expenditure you have destroyed accountability and this is something which must be addressed urgently.

John Redwood has an interesting post on the topic of setting the Council Tax - http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/02/17/council-taxes-are-too-high-time-for-change/

He is quite right in what he says. So perhaps we need an honest debate and examine just what local and national government should or shouldn’t be doing.

Anthony Barnett on "Victory for Cameron but at what future cost?"

Anthony Barnett — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 20:09:11 +0000

I think Owly is onto something - the entire episode is symptomatic of the corruption of parliament

owly on "Victory for Cameron but at what future cost?"

owly — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 18:04:26 +0000

What you fail to grasp is that it was Harriet Harman - the Labour Government - who were busy cooking up this daft idea. She went to the other parties with it not the otherway round. Surely the logic is that it was the Government that had something to hide or they would never even have started this nonsense. Frankly the Chairman of the 1922 Committee should have told her to piss off.

Toque on "Cameron's flawed plan for the Commons"

Toque — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 16:40:16 +0000

The standard of legislation under New Labour has been abysmal, improperly drafted, debated and scrutinised. And much of it not required.

But given that there were only 128 days in the last parliamentary calendar, I have to conclude that the malaise won't be fixed by tinkering with the numbers of MPs.

Interestingly the Guardian reported that the number of Scottish MPs wouldn't be affected by Cameron's plans:

The Tories would not change the number of Scottish constituencies,
which were cut at the behest of English cabinet ministers, such as Jack
Straw, as the price of their support for a Scottish parliament. But
Cameron would reduce the number of Welsh seats from 40 to around 30 and
would cut small inner-city constituencies. These changes would benefit
the Tories.

So the MPs that have the least to do, at least in theory, will have the smallest constituencies.