Following on from my post of the other day, it would seem that more and more Britons favour the idea of an English parliament.
Most people, including those in Scotland, think England should have its own parliament, a BBC poll suggests.
Newsnight found 61% in England, 51% in Scotland and 48% in Wales agreed with the idea.
The poll, carried out to mark 300 years since the Act of Union, was of 883 adults in England, 543 in Scotland and 527 in Wales.
Interestingly, it is the Scots and Welsh alongside the English who agree that the present situation is inherently unfair. That effectively puts paid the the “little Englander” lie put about by a government that hates England and would seek to wipe it from the map; turning it instead into a collection of regions. The argument put forward by Neil Harding in my comments section just doesn’t hold water. An English parliament dealing with English matters would no more affect Scotland than Holyrood affects England – unless you count fishing licenses. To suggest that a large population would affect the machinations of a parliament across the border is absurd. Does Madrid Affect Lisbon? They are both countries in the EU, after all.
To suggest that Londoners would be disenfranchised is to ignore that we have local councils running alongside national government – the same would apply here. Now, it may be appropriate to point out that the last thing this country needs is more politicians, but that’s another argument. It may be appropriate to suggest that the thoroughly objectionable Livingstone be toppled from his perch, but that, too, is another matter. Ken can look after purely local London matters and a parliament would look after national ones – it isn’t difficult. That London wants its old GLC back is very much the business of the London electorate. However, for that to be used as a vote of confidence for regionalising the rest of England is pushing it, somewhat.
Ultimately, though, what we say is not really what matters. Democracy is about what the majority want and if the BBC poll is accurate, then the majority – along with our Welsh and Scottish brethren – want an English parliament. So, it’s about time the government stopped feeding us a line, and gave us what we want.
Update: Waking Hereward on Diane Abbott playing the “Little Englander” card. The woman disgusts me.
We all know if you ask a question in a particular way you can pretty much get any result you want. These surveys are based on people’s first impressions. I think the implications of an English Parliament when explained would change people’s minds on both sides of the border.
For someone who repeatedly moans about the UK’s lack of influence in the EU, where no single country has more than perhaps 15% influence, your argument that an English parliament that controls 85% of a union would not dominate is absolutely astounding. The EU gives a nod towards this problem by giving smaller countries greater weighting in the EU parliament.
You moan about there being too many politicians (despite the UK having the lowest per capita in Europe) and too many layers of government, but to fulfill your fantasy of a English parliament you are prepared to have a fudge of FOUR layers of government in London. Even you realise how undemocratic it is to get rid of London’s government and Mayor. A Mayor that after the President of France has the biggest direct mandate in Europe.
You are bending over backwards to achieve this fantasy of yours. People are not actually that bothered. I would hazard a guess that if you listed people’s priorities, an English Parliament would come nowhere for most people. It’s a bit like all those ‘Christians’ that tick the box on the census but who do not believe in miracles, an interventionist god, never go to church or pray or even know who preached the sermon on the mount.
Hi Neil, democracy is about accountability to the electorate if that is not upheld, it is not democracy. We have 600+ M.P.s for the U.K. Let U.K. matters be dealt with by U.K. M.P.s. Let devolved matters be dealt with by the relevant regional Welsh, Scottish,Irish, English. M.P.s. Devolved matters to London are still the same status quo.Then everybody is represented and the only people to suffer are the M.P.s.
One comment I have to make about France is that if the people do not like the proposed legislation, they take to the streets. If enough do, the Government gives in with, if that’s what the people want so be it. Not as the British government, we have the mandate, we will not submit to mob rule. Except they change their manifesto’s at will on whatever pretex they like, claiming the mandate as given.
I stand with LONGRIDER.
Neil, you do like your strawmen, don’t you?
Er, I don’t think so. I have complained occasionally about the EU in general terms, but repeatedly moaning about the UK’s lack of influence? Two other people, I think.
Yes, of course polls can give misleading indicators depending on the questions asked. We all appreciate this. However, this one whatever questions were asked, does indicate a heightened awareness. And that can only be a good thing.
As Peter pointed out, the lack of accountability of Scottish MPs imposing insidious legislation on another country that does not affect their own constituents is not just unfair, it is deeply iniquitous and English people who realise that they have a poor deal compared to their Scottish counterparts are slowly awakening to it.
Yes, indeed I have complained about too many politicians and my preferred approach would be a severe cull of the self-serving charlatans rather than increase their number. However, we are where we are and devolution is what we have got. Therefore, the logical conclusion is equitable devolution for England. Although I really don’t want to see it, I would sooner see Scottish independence than New Labour balkanising of England.
Peter, France’s electorate have exactly the right approach to their elected representatives – they keep the buggers in check and protest loudly if they step out of line. Oh that the UK were a little more active…
Still, in a few years France will be my home, too.
PS – Neil, your original comment on the previous post ended up in my SPAM filter and I’ve just found it. This was because you inserted three links, so Akismet presumed it was SPAM. I’ve just reinstated it in place of the link-free comment. If you’ve put links in, people might as well have the opportunity to follow them.
I’m rather bothered about an English Parliament for several reasons. The first is possibly suspect because I derive most of my knowledge of political shenanigans north of the Tweed from sources like Mr Eugenides, DK and The Reactionary Snob who, while excellent commentators, may not be wholly impartial. Nevertheless, it’s by no means clear to me that having an extra tier of government in Edinburgh, to complement the ones they have locally and in Westminster, has left the Scots either less or better governed. I’m open to correction on this one, but, if I’m right about their experience, I’m not sure why sassenachs we should expect to fare any better.
The second, in some ways related, worry is what happens with the money. I’m never too sure, when people talk about an English Parliament, what sort of tax-raising (tax-lowering? we can but dream) powers it’ll have. If it’s just spending money granted to it by Westminster, then it’s not much of a parliament — and the people there can always use the excuse that they would have done a better job had Westminster given them the resources, I neither trust Westminster to cede tax-raising (or any other sort of)powers it doesn’t absolutely have to and I certainly don’t like the idea of it raising money that it’s not accountable for spending — that’s one of the main problems, in different ways, with both local government and the EU.
I’m willing to be convinced, but I’ll need reassurance on those two points in particular if and when any real proposals for an English Parliament are put forward for consideration.
Consequently, had the BBC poll asked my opinion, I’d have to put myself down as a ‘don’t know’ since, at the moment, all I’d be agreeing to was a lot of pigs in a poke.
Peter Whale, Longrider: I am not denying there is an injustice that needs to be fixed, but about how it is fixed.
An anon poster left this comment on my site which makes an excellent point.
“It is hardly a meaningful form of devolution to have one devolved parliament for the whole of England which is supposed to represent almost 90% of the population of the whole UK. Regional govt in England makes more sense than one English Parliament. No other devolved/federal system has one developed assembly that represents almost 9 in 10 of the people.”
I think that outlines my main point better than I did.
Those people who have told pollsters they want an English Parliament have been led to believe that they cannot fairness without it. Most people are also in favour of the union and the best way to preserve that is regional government that doesn’t mean one parliament dominates.
PS thanks for adding the links to my other post.
I have to say, I do share some of notsaussure’s concerns; I always have. However, as I’ve mentioned before in this debate; we are where we are. The devolution package is flawed and unfair. That part, we can all agree on. Although, as an aside, I do wonder just how many Scots and Welsh rue the devolution decision – I’ve certainly met those who complain about more politicians interfering in their lives… But, then, I’m biased on that one as I treat all politicians with utter contempt.. Not because I am cynical, but because twenty years of political involvement has left me desirous of returning the favour.
Regionalising England is a non starter. Irrespective of our opinions, the North East rejected it. That, therefore, is the end of that option. Also, bear in mind that regional assemblies will never be granted the kind of power currently wielded at Holyrood. Therefore, the outcome will not resolve the current unfairness; we will still see Scottish MPs voting on issues that do not affect their constituents back home.
The size of England’s population is irrelevant. An English parilament will be a standalone in the same mould as Holyrood. It will not affect events there and Holyrood will not affect events south of the border. For this reason, I do not accept your anonymous reader’s argument. Indeed, I’m inclined to add the rider to anonymous’ final sentence with “so what?” Just because others haven’t done it, doesn’t mean that it can’t be done.
The EU argument doesn’t hold up either; it is the UK that is a member and will remain so unless Scotland declares independence and then the Scots will just have to go it alone.
So, if you are opposed to a national parliament and regional assemblies have been rejected by at least on of the potential regions, what, therefore, is the viable solution to a problem we all acknowledge exists?
I agree we are where we are, and we shouldn’t be here, but is it strictly necessary to go anywhere else unless we’re sure it won’t make a bad situation still worse?
While, in the short term, undoing the damage caused be devolution is probably politically impossible, to my mind we in England would do better pressing our MPs to make the present devolved arrangments less and less attractive to their supposed beneficiaries, possibly by insisting they raise more money locally. If they want to spend extra…
The North East mainly rejected the assembly put before it because of the LACK of devolution, not the concept itself. They rejected it because it wasn’t the same as what the Scots have. It was seen as just another talking shop and hence a waste of money (and they were probably right). I believe we can devolve the same powers over health, education and crime etc to the regions (even limited tax raising powers). Surely devolving power down to the lowest possible level has got to be a good thing?
As a general principle; yes.
However – and there’s always a “however”… I agree with the voters in the north East for exactly the same reasons; they weren’t going to get the same powers as Scotland, so therefore the problem remains (I would have voted “no” too). Devolving powers affecting health and education to the regions would create a greater mess than the one we currently have – maybe I should travel across to another region for my prescription or to get my new reading glasses?
As for the suggestion of doing nothing; in the short term, that is exactly what is happening, but as people become more aware, then pressure for a solution will increase.
My preferred solution – given a time machine – would be devolving greater powers from Westminster to the existing local authorities. That, however, would not have placated Scotland or Wales…
Competition between the regions over who was best provider of services would be no bad thing.
There would be differences in service provision but hopefully it could be done so that those most successful regions would have their policy and organisational ideas copied by the rest.
The regions would be big enough to have decent economies of scale but small enough not to dominate the union.
PS. To reduce corruption and inefficiency at the local level, a PR system of elections would prevent one party being in power in an area for generations with a minority of the vote, liek we get at present under FPTP.