Flashback: Cameron ready for “unpopular” rule

Lest you think David Cameron has become a radical constitutional reformer, what with his talk of fixed-term parliaments – only maybe, he’ll think about it – recall his speech at last year’s Tory conference:

Preparing the party for a hard grind in government, he insisted he had “the grit and determination to impose discipline on government spending, keep our nerve and say ‘No’ – even in the teeth of hostility and protest”.

Mr Cameron’s speech, largely stripped of jokes and partisan attacks on Mr Brown, was designed to reflect the mood of the times. Unlike his “walk-about” speech at last year’s conference, he spoke at a podium with notes.

The connecting strand of Mr Cameron’s vision was the building of a “responsible” society, although at times the speech was disjointed and was clearly the result of a rapid rewriting exercise to take account of the fast-changing financial environment.

[Emphasis added.]

Bill of Rights, anyone?

As part of his Britishness agenda, Prime Minister Gordon Brown has set in motion a process of constitutional reform – or preparing for it, at least. A written bill of rights (and responsibilities, presumably) was one of the options to be considered.

Now that he’s going to be writing a book on his favourite subject (no, not prudence – it’s “Britishness”, again) and trying to revive his premiership with an economic rejaunch, will Brown have time to draw up a list of rights? There won’t be many, since he’s all for internment and the anti-union laws…

Paul Feldman at A World To Win writes:

Parliament’s joint committee on human rights report acknowledges that both major parties are lukewarm about the idea, so the chances of the Bill becoming law are tiny. Secondly, the economic and social rights outlined by the committee would not be enforceable in law – they would be a statement of rights and no more.

[…]

Recent surveys show that more than 75% of those questioned favoured a Bill of Rights, with massive majorities in favour of the right to privacy, to a fair trial, trade union rights, hospital treatment and housing. The market state that has replaced the parliamentary state has no interest in enshrining these principles, let alone making them enforceable.

Under these conditions, the struggle to establish permanent democratic, social and economic rights can only succeed in the context of a new, democratic state that reflects the aspirations of the presently powerless majority. How to achieve this aim is one of the key themes of our Stand Up for Your Rights festival on October 18.

England’s asbestos scandal

Socialist Appeal reports on the latest example of a) the need for an English parliament, and b) New Labour being soft on safety crime.

The judicial House of Lords has recently ruled that pleural plaque (scarring of the lung – a condition caused by breathing in asbestos) is not an industrial illness for which compensation can be claimed. This reverses twenty years of common law practice. What do the Law Lords know about it? Asbestosis related conditions are not exactly an occupational hazard for judicial bigwigs.

Linda Walman, reporting the House of Lords decision (Guardian 17.10.2007), commented, “While industry and society have benefited from the use of asbestos, today’s ruling effectively means that the people who worked with it – mining it, installing it, using it in manufacture and, more recently, removing it – and those who lived in the vicinity of asbestos companies will continue to bear the social and physical costs. It is the workers, ordinary men and their families, who will continue to pay the price for the mining and manufacture of asbestos. Their experience – watching friends suffer, dealing with doctors and lawyers, trying to find a way in which they can support their families – confirms their deep suspicion of the medical and legal establishment.”

At first Gordon Brown promised to rush through a law reversing the decision. Now he’s decided to have a ‘review’. The Scottish Executive responded by tabling a bill to reverse the Lords’ decision. The English review falls a long way short of doing the same

Construction workers will this week target the constituencies of cabinet ministers David Miliband and John Hutton, in a campaign to force the government to rule that the insurance industry has to pay a £1.4bn compensation bill to sufferers of pleural plaque.

Alan Ritchie, general secretary of construction union Ucatt, said: ‘The insurance industry seems intent on dismantling the industrial injury compensation system and it has to be fought.’

It seems the government is the prisoner of big business. How gutless can Gordon get? It appears pleural plaque is an industrial illness in Scotland, but not in England.

Why is an English parliament beyond the Tories’ Ken?

Consider the following:

Unpopular “reforms” such as Foundation Hospitals, student top-up fees, and the new undemocratic Planning Bill – have been imposed on England by the votes of Scottish Labour MPs.

If Camoron’s New Tories are really nicey-nicey, they’d want this anomaly to be resolved: it’s not very democratic is it? It’s rather nasty, in fact…

But no, not quite. Rather than simply support devolution for England (they didn’t support it for Scotland or Wales, either!) they Tories want to save their beloved Union. It’s the only union they support – though I suppose Ken and co are fans of the European Union…

So, instead of an easy-to-understand proposal for an English parliament, we have the confusing report from Ken Clarke – which might not even be adopted by the Tories as party policy, despite Camoron asking Clarke to come up with some ideas on the West Lothian Question. No, really:

For matters relating solely to England, only English MPs should vote, while English and Welsh MPs alone should vote on issues only affecting those two countries, it argues.

MPs from all countries could later vote to pass or reject the bill as a whole, the committee adds.

Mr Herbert seemed to agree in principle, saying: “Just as most of Scotland’s laws are now passed with the consent of the Scottish people, expressed through their elected representatives, so it is right to require English consent for laws affecting only England – or English and Welsh consent for laws affecting only England and Wales.”

The proposals will not necessarily become Conservative policy, although party leader David Cameron himself set up Mr Clarke’s Democracy Taskforce to come up with usable ideas.

Mr Clarke said his plan was a “compromise”, more workable than simply banning MPs from other countries from voting on England-only laws, and that this would help preserve the Union of England and Scotland.

The ideas comes amid concerns that the Scottish devolution settlement has created two classes of MP.

In Scotland, legislation on issues such as health and education are controlled by the country’s own parliament at Holyrood.

But policy for England is decided by the full Westminster parliament, with MPs from all parts of the UK able to vote.

Since some powers were devolved to the Holyrood parliament, there have been calls for just MPs with English constituencies to vote on England-only matters, or even the setting-up of a separate English parliament.

Labour MP backs calls for devolved English parliament

He’s not the first, but I get the feeling Derek Wyatt won’t be the last – especially with the growing anger at the “perverse” method of dividing public finances between the nations in the UK. Also, it’s an easy issue for New Labour MPs with English constituencies to make a stand on.

Demand ‘growing’ for English parliament
Wednesday 18th June 2008 at 12:12 AM

The United Kingdom is in a “constitutional muddle” and demand is growing for an English parliament, a Labour MP has said.

Speaking ahead of a Westminster Hall debate on parliamentary representation in England, Derek Wyatt told ePolitix.com that four lower houses of equal powers should be established in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

A new upper house of representatives should be set up with responsibility for issues such as the environment and foreign policy, the Sittingbourne and Sheppey MP said.

He said: “We’ve devolved to Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, but we’ve not devolved the same powers to the one assembly and two parliaments. And by default, we have not given anything to England.

“We tried to do elected regional assemblies and they failed; now we’ve got unelected regional development agencies and we’ve still got some form of regional assembly – unelected. So the largest economic unit in Britain has no democratic representation.”

Wyatt, who is the parliamentary aide to culture minister Margaret Hodge, said that England was becoming increasingly disillusioned with the Barnett formula which allocates funding across the United Kingdom.

“English people are tired really of a Barnett formula that spends more money in the [other] three countries and doesn’t give them the same rights and the same responsibilities and the same treatment,” he said.

“I think it’s time we stopped and thought about what we’re doing.”

He added that demand for an English parliament will grow within the next five years to 10 years.

“People are tired of hearing that Scotland’s got better facilities when the Barnett formula gives them more per head for education, for instance, than in Kent where I live,” he said.

And since I was so amazed at this news, I checked Derek Wyatt’s own website:

Labour MP calls for five UK parliaments: “the United Kingdom is a half-built house,” says Derek Wyatt.

In a Westminster Hall debate tomorrow morning (Wednesday June 18) Derek Wyatt MP (Labour, Sittingbourne & Sheppey) will compare the United Kingdom to a half-built house where no one lives the way they want to and everyone argues about the household bills.

Setting out proposals for wide-ranging long-term constitutional and financial reform, he will call for a replacement of the “Barnett formula” which determines public spending in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland: “arrangements set up in the 1970s for reasons no one can now remember with results no one can now understand.”

Mr Wyatt will propose a constitutional convention, representing all the parties and peoples of the United Kingdom, to agree a ten-year plan for major reform of Parliament. At the end of the period the convention would present proposals for five separate Parliamentary chambers, one for each of the nations of the United Kingdom and one for the United Kingdom as a whole. Each nation would choose the issues it wanted to handle in its own chamber – and finance its policies from its own tax revenue. Other issues would remain with the UK chamber and financed from UK-wide taxation. The final package of proposals would be put to all voters in a referendum.

He will say: “I believe that all the peoples of the United Kingdom should have the same power to shape the laws and services which shape their lives, but they should also have the same responsibility for paying for them. We cannot carry on as we are. The present constitutional and financial relationships cannot endure. They are arbitrary and opaque and they allow everyone in the United Kingdom to believe that the system is unfair to them. The resulting mutual resentments could well lead to the break-up of our country in confusion and acrimony.”