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

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

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't

No evidence for vaccine link with autism

Public health bodies are worried that an alarming drop in childhood vaccinations is leading to a resurgence of diseases in childhood that we had all but eradicated.  Misinformation and scare stories about the harmful effects of vaccines abound on the internet and in social media.  Where they are based on 'science', it is highly selective, and often reliance is placed on falsehoods.  Conspiracy theories also abound - cover-ups, deception, lies. As a result, too many parents are shunning vaccinations for their children.  So, what does the published, peer-reviewed literature tell us about vaccincations? Are they safe and effective, or are there long term harmful effects?  A new report now provides some of the answers. New evidence published in the Cochrane Library today finds MMR, MMRV, and MMR+V vaccines are effective and that they are not associated with increased risk of autism. Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (also known as chickenpox) are infectious diseases cau