@Aelfred - we have repeatedly published CEP contributions on a range of subjects, and will continue to do so.

Jon

And why not have a separate selection jury drawn from each of the regions?

It is simple, couldn't cost anything like the £70million of an electon even if the jurors were all paid hansomly, and it might not even require any legislation

... they could do it tomorrow!

It's illogical to say that having a regionally elected House of Lords means that the people of England do not need their own domestic Parliament. A regionally elected HoL would in effect become the British Parliament.

Legislation enacted in the Scottish Parliament is not referred 'upwards' to the House of Lords - why should that of a devolved English Parliament? Adopting the Scottish model would save a whole tier of government for English domestic legislation.

Elected by PR, both the Scottish Parliament and National Assembly of Wales are far more responsive to the people than is the present House of Commons. A similarly elected English Parliament would start to implement policies actually supported and voted for by the people of England who presently have policies imposed on them by British government elected by only 20% of the British electorate, using votes of MPs from outside England, and which won fewer votes in England than the Conservatives in 2005. Is the present arrangement democratic, Phil?

There is no reason why an English Parliament, freed from the grip of the British government, should be either statist or London-centric or both. Move it to York and keep the House of Lords in London. Why not, Phil?

Phil is tying himself in knots trying to insist that that the people of England must have what he supports rather than what they might want. Let us have a referendum as the Scots and Welsh did. Why not, Phil?

Any solution to the present constitutional difficulties which does not offer the people of England a referendum on having their own Parliament fails the democratic test. One can only conclude that those who insist on refusing such a referendum do not in fact believe in democracy. Pity then that some of them signed the Claim of Right for Scotland which recognised the sovereign right of the Scottish people. Oh, but of course, that recognition can never be applied to England because the people may not vote the way Phil wants them to. Isn' that right, Phil?

If you're suggesting that the Lords should become an English parliament that oversees matters devolved to England, with a system of regional committees operating within, then great; that's what many English nationalists have argued before - including myself on numerous occasions over the years.

Good to see you're finally seeing the light.

Phil,

Your "grassroots" Campaign for English Regions died a death for a good reason - it wasn't grassroots, hardly anybody wants regional government.

It's important that readers understand your motivation I think. For instance, most readers won't be aware that since your own party voted you out of office as Leader of Telford & Wrekin Council in a vote of no confindence you have relied on unelected regional quangos to employ you where you would be shielded from voters and your own party members. Your support for Regional Assemblies might be put into context if readers realised that you were Chair of West Midlands Regional Assembly until 2003 and that you are still in the pay of at least one regional group - Transport West Midlands.

The CfER website is owned by a search engine and there is no public support for regional government. The CfER was a failure a few years ago and it'll be a failure again. Get a real job Phil and stop flogging the dead horse of regionalism.

OK, so now we have heard what Phil Davies of tthe Campaign for English Regions has had to say. A campaign I might add that fell flat on its face at the first regional referendum.

In a truly democratic country the Campaign for an English Parliament would now be approached for their comments, being as how the polls for an English Parliament far exceed those for Regional Assemblies. But then England is no longer run democratically is it?

Perhaps English independence offers a better platform for reviving English regionalism because English nationalists are opposed to regionalism on the principle that you use it as a tool to emasculate England as a political entity.

Until you can come up with a regionalism solution that gives England a national voice then I fear you are wasting your breath because the only way you present regionalism is as an alternative to England itself.

The only Unionist solution I am comfortable with is regional committees within a wholly English parliament or a wholly English house of Lords. The other option is English independence.

"...Gordon Brown actively seeking debate on constitutional renewal and a Lords reform white paper expected this year, new opportunities arise to drive forward the English regions as democratic building blocks for a new UK constitutional settlement."

1. What's it got to do with Brown?

2. It would not be a new UK constitutional settlement, it would be an English constitutional settlement.

Scotland, Wales and NI are very happy with what they have already. This is English business and the English should be asked if they want what the Scots and Welsh have. Nothing less will do, anything else will not be equitable.

"those of us who back devolution for England via the eight English regions see a shift in the political landscape."

Phil,

Whilst you will find me (and hopefully many others) an enthusiastic supporter of English Regional Devolution, do not make conflate this support with unqualified agreement in respect of the current English Regional map outline.

I believe that the shape of the current official English Regional Map is a major contributory factor in public antipathy towards the idea.

You argue that a reformed, democratically accountable HoL would provide a vehicle for introducing a more direct form of Regional diversity into our institutions of governance and I wouldn't dispute such potential. However I also believe that a written British Constitution also provides a more durable and inclusive route to a lasting and equitable UK constitutional settlement.

The debate leading to that long term goal should include the potential to reshape the English Regional Map as well as offering the entire UK electorate dispersal of meaningful political power. It was after all the paucity of powers slated for the nascent English Regional Assemblies, which proved a major factor in stimulating public rejection in North East England in the first place!

Perhaps the British Constitution route offers a better platform for reviving English Regionalism because the English electorate could be offered a straight choice between an inherently centralising all England Parliament and dispersal of real power to robust (rather than sham) English Regional Parliaments. At least English Nationalists could not then complain about a fixed strategy with only one predetermined outcome.

Let's not commit the cardinal sin of repeating the same errors incumbent within the original Prescott strategy. Devolution of power in England (and elsewhere in the UK) should mean transfer of real influence, which equates to English Regional Parliaments with primary legislative powers and the capacity to raise taxes to fund said competencies.

... but before Cornwall, how about the 50-odd million in England?

Phil, there are nine euroregions in England, not eight.

Peter, the only mistake Prescott's balakanisation crew made was in seriously thinking that English people want to see their country broken up into made-up euroregions. They don't and there aren't "many others" who support regionalisation.

Where is England Devolve when you need them?: http://www.devolve.org/

Phil Davis,

The south west government zone you try to call a region is a total nonsense. How possibly could a 'region' that stretches from Swindon to the Isles of Scilly deliver any viable solutions to the problems we face in Cornwall or bring power closer to our communities? We would be run from Bristol as opposed to Westminster, great!

We, the Cornish, don't wan't to be part of your artifical SW region what we do want, and we have the 50,000 signatures to support it, is devolution to a Cornish assembly.

So as opposed to flogging a dead horse why don't you support a real region, Cornwall, that really wants devolution.

The Cornish Constitutional Convention awaits you call: http://www.cornishassembly.org/

You pimp Devolve all around the internet don't you, including on my website. Have you ever actually met any of them? Do you know the names of the people behind it? What do they actually do?

Seem like a shadowy bunch of anglo-saxon revivalists to me, still preferable to regionalists of the EU variety, like Phil Davis but probably less connected with reality.

This Cornwall region, will that include Gibraltar?, Or should Gib Now be Tagged on to the Ruling Scots, as they are aloud a say by way of a referendum.

Gareth,

"shadowy bunch of anglo-saxon revivalists"

Do you take yourself seriously? I wonder at times.

Anyway even if true I'd prefer that rather than a bunch of disillusioned UKIP and BNP members converted to "we hate the scots" English nationalism.

Me too. Or even to flag burning Cornish 'true-celt' nationalists.

So, do you know anything about them or not?

Do you know anything about England First, English Independence or any of the other BNP splinter groups who now form a section of the support for the CEP?

The best most respectable nationalist party you lot can pull out of the hat are the europhobic exUkippers the English Democrats.

Honestly Gareth an English nationalist pointing the finger and saying "a shadowy bunch of anglo-saxon revivalists" is really rather funny.

As for England Devolve they are supporters of Cornish devolution and the Cornish Constitutional Convention. I have communicated with them via e-mail on more occasions than I can remember and their website, that I recommend people to visit, provides a clear description of what they are about: http://www.devolve.org/

Terry Heath,

"but before Cornwall, how about the 50-odd million in England?"

Yes that's all well and good for Tory England in and around London but why should anyone in the Duchy or North of England give two hoots for an English parliament? Are you seriously trying to convince us that in the name of democracy it would be better to reinforce centralisation around London.

Phil, I don't go around the internet leaving links to the BNP or England First.

If you don't know anything about Devolve then just be kind enough to say so, don't insinuate that I, or the CEP, have anything to do with England First or the BNP.

I'm not UKIP, English Democract, BNP or England First. Never have been, most probably never will be.

The CEP are mostly old Labour, Lib Dem and Conservative supporters (we have members of all three within the organisation, though mostly Tory). The former chairman is a lifelong union man.

There is only ONE English region ... She is called England.

There has been only ONE referendum ... The answer was NO

But then again that happened with the EU didn't it? Hmmmmm

More layers of government means LESS democracy, not more. I fail to see any advantage in regional government at all, unless the region is England,under the control of the Engish, as it the other 3 countries,and that the Westminster parliament becomes the UK parliament,with representatives from the four countries, and The Isle of Man and Channel Islands too.The last thing that is needed is a an additional complete and costly layer of regional government. We already have counties and cities with elected councils, so some central powers can be returned to them.. That is the way to increase democracy. As for the Lords, we don't need it at all. abolish it! Either elected or appointed, it will still continue to frustrate the actions of thethe elected parliaments of the four countries ( if we have them), in the interests of a self appointed elite, who still consider themseves born to tell the rest of us what to do, as they have done since Magna Carta. There are many successful unicameral governments in the world, and many close to us that have workable elected upper houses too, such as Australia and Canada.As for comparing regional governments with the European Parliament, the one common factor is that they would be just as useless.Th parliament has no teeth. The EU is run by unelected commiissioners,appointed by,and acting on the instructions of the leaders of their governments. I have never understood why we could not have appointed all the euro MPs from the house of commons. Or if not, why can't the number of Westminster MPs be reduced by an amount equal to the number of Euro MPs + commissioners? Likewise, if all four countries have their own parliaments, by whatever name, the English one can be cut by about half, and we can send a few of them to meet together with representatives from the other 3 parliaments to deal with common matters which should not be much other than defence, and immigration. .

We all know the present House of Lords works remarkably well except for that niggle that it "isn't democratic". We all know that any form of election will create an upper house full of politicians who even if we had a written constiution, would think that they had a mandate to "do something" and so would end up fighting with the commons.

So, why can't we simply make the selecton process more democratic and pick members using a panel of ordinary chosen at random?

Like a jury they would sit and hear the evidence provided by supporters of each member and then sit down to decide which candidates best qualify for the house both in terms of their experience and in terms of "representatveness".

I doubt whether the panel would select people hugely different from the present appointments panel as to be honest there really aren't that many people who either have the time to go to the lords or the relevant experience in government, businesss, academia who would get the kind of support that would be needed for the best candidates.

The main difference would be that ordinary people would trust the selection in a way that the present panel just can't achieve and certainly can't be achieved by political appointments.

But the obvious difference between a citizen's panel and elections is that we won't have a second house of politicians who spend all their time trying to justify their electon by confronting the commons and instead they will do the sober job of the present lords of revising and checking legislation using their wealth of experience.