Skip to main content

Cameron's democratic conundrum.

I am not at all impressed by the simplicity of 'English votes for English laws'.  Introducing a rule in parliament that says only MPs representing English Constituencies can vote on matters affecting the English doesn't solve the problem of how we move forward with the United Kingdom. On the contrary it hammers yet another nail into its coffin. But my main argument against it is that it denies, yes denies, the same level of democracy that voters in Scotland or Wales etc would have. Far from solving a problem it creates a new anomaly.  If I were then to be a voter in Scotland I would have the opportunity to split my vote - I might for example vote SNP (well I wouldn't but that is a different matter) for the Scotland Parliament but would vote Tory (certainly wouldn't but then this is an example) in the UK wide vote.  If I lived in England I would not have these opportunities. I would have to choose the same party to represent me in England as UK wide.

Now you might ask why a voter might wish to do that. But that is often what voters do. In local elections they will often vote for a different party than they would in a general election. The same is the case in European elections. Voters it seems are more sophisticated than 'English votes for English Laws'.

The British Constitution is an odd make up of conventions and statute. It has its anomalies. Some might argue that it is these anomalies that give it value. After all, if we are talking about democracy and votes counting, then why should someone born into a particular family have any greater say in our affairs than any other person? That of course is so with the monarchy. It is also the case with  hereditary peers. If Cameron really believed in democracy he would surely have abolished the remaining hereditary peers and finished the reform of the House of Lords. He won't of course.

Our 'democracy' is neither perfect nor thoroughly bad. To pick on one particular problem and elevate it above all the others is simply party politics. The West Lothian question is not the most vital issue in politics. It is a conundrum.  If Cameron wants to 'save the union' then he had better come up with something better.  He should stop playing for party advantage following the Scottish referendum. In doing so he puts the Union at risk.

I have no doubt that some kind of federal settlement is required. But that will require proper devolution of powers in England - or perhaps I should say 'to England'.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Prioritising people in nursing care.

There has been in recent years concern that care in the NHS has not been sufficiently 'patient centred', or responsive to the needs of the patient on a case basis. It has been felt in care that it as been the patient who has had to adapt to the regime of care, rather than the other way around. Putting patients at the centre of care means being responsive to their needs and supporting them through the process of health care delivery.  Patients should not become identikit sausages in a production line. The nurses body, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has responded to this challenge with a revised code of practice reflection get changes in health and social care since the previous code was published in 2008. The Code describes the professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses and midwives. Four themes describe what nurses and midwives are expected to do: prioritise people practise effectively preserve safety, and promote professionalism and trust. The

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

When Finance Drives Destruction

Tackling climate change means stopping the funding of rainforest destruction, says a significant study commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund.  The UK's financial services have provided directly over £8.7 billion to 167 different traders, processors, and buyers of forest-risk commodities (cocoa, rubber, timber, soy, beef, palm oil, pulp & paper) from 2013 to 2021.   With direct and indirect investment,  the figure rises to a staggering £200 bn.  Whilst not all that investment is in destructive projects,  the study concludes there is little transparency on the risk.  Finance is the oil in the economic machine.  But it also drives decisions. We all know the importance of money. We borrow to invest. So much depends on it, such as company pensions.  Do we really know what our pension pots are doing? We invest for the future. But what kind of future? Is all investment good?  Much investment is bad. Investment drives the nature of our economy. It drives our decisions as individuals,