WOW!

The short answer is because the Labour party would loose influence over England because they would never gain a majority in an English Parliament. And it would make Westminster even more redundant that it already is, if that were possible.

But Helen Goodman decided to opt for the longer answer in her reply to a letter posted on Little Man in a Toque

The Government does not believe that it is necessary to establish a separate ‘English’ Parliament to balance the current devolution settlements in the United Kingdom as England is already the dominant partner and English interests are fully represented.

I believe this is somewhat evading the point the UK government speaks for the people of Britain the Welsh Parliament for the Welsh, the Scottish Parliament for the Scots, and the NI Parliament for the NI, no one speaks for the English.

Of course if English interests are fully represented in the British parliament then so too are the others, but they also have totally devolved matters which they decide in their own parliaments, whereas in England those matters are not devolved. The conclusion of that argument would be to dissolve the other regional parliaments, because those interests are represented in the British Parliament.

The Government accepts that the current devolution settlement is ‘asymmetrical’, in that it provides for separate and distinct representative bodies for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but not for England. However, constitutions throughout the democratic world are similarly asymmetric, as the protections needed for minorities are not the same as those for a majority. The result of this arrangement is that there is greater ability for local decision-making and policy formulation at a localised level, hence the divergence in policy delivery across the countries.

I rather think that other constitutions are not relevant, that is a matter for them, we are interested in Britain and our constitution. Which used not to be unbalanced until the devolution process was stalled. Sorry the protections needed for minorities are not the same as for majorities? We are all British our protections are for the British. How does it protect the Scottish minority to separate their medical care from the rest of Britain? The result of this formulation is there is greater ability for local decision making except in England.

A fundamental principle of our constitution is that all MPs have equal rights in Parliament whether they represent English, Scottish or Welsh constituencies. The Government does not accept the proposal for English votes for English laws. To do so would be to create two distinct classes of MPs - those who could vote on all matters before the House, and those whose voting rights would be curtailed by virtue of constituency location. MPs play a representative role in considering legislation, considering the welfare of the UK as a whole, rather than narrow geographical interests, and it is right that all MPs continue to have equal voting rights on all matters before the UK Parliament.

But the devolution process has already broken the fundamental principal by creating two distinct classes of MPs – those that are accountable to their constituents and those who are not - in all devolved matters Scottish, Welsh and NI, MPs are not accountable to the English voters, yet they are voting on matters which do not affect their own constituents and only affect the English.

Well the last is not strictly true is it, on all devolved matter MPs are not considering the welfare of all the British but only the narrow geographical interests of the English.

The Government is also of the view that even matters which may appear confined too England may have an impact on the United Kingdom as a whole. For instance, the funding settlement with the nations and regions of the United Kingdom, means that what is decided on public funding in England affects Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We believe these are national issues for the United Kingdom and should be debated at the national Parliament by all MPs representing the United Kingdom, not by subsets depending on the location of their constituency.

But Helen Goodman also believes that subsets depending on the location of their constituency can and should debate regional issues except England.

Helen Goodman ends with - I hope this has been helpful - it certainly has Helen it helped me to understand that you are playing with words.

The Scottish dominated Labour executive has created a fission in our community.

One which it seems quite happy to accept as a basis for a constitution, an imbalance in our system that will drive a deep wedge between our countrymen, whilst at the same time creating the impetus and vehicle for further erosion of our nation state, as the Scots and the Welsh use their devolved parliaments to further the cause of their nationalism and their independence and separation.

And what of the Government’s Green Paper, The Governance of Britain - the first step in a national debate on further constitutional reform!

Oh good even further constitutional reform, as if they had not already done enough damage.

What has this Scottish dominated government got to offer England - well nothing really - a strengthening of the regionalisation process that has already been rejected as being unacceptable to the English, and further dismantling England into 9 separate regions, now where have we heard that one before.

Technorati Tags:
England. English Parliment, regionalisation, Scottish Parliment, devolution,
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

Front page of the Telegraph today Labour`s secret council tax database penalise properties with a view.

Details about the logging of homes with a view and off-street parking came from answers to Tory parliamentary questions given by Jane Kennedy, John Healey and Phil Woolas, all ministers either at the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), the Treasury or the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Thus conflicting with the government line given by the DCLG : “We have made clear many times there are no plans for a revaluation, and there is no revaluation by stealth. This means no one can be penalised for improving their home, off-street parking or having a scenic view.

The Telegraph says some of us can expect rises of 11 percent, as my business rates have just gone up by twenty percent, I suspect that my property has already been revalued.

I cannot deny that we live and work in a very scenic area or that we also have quite a lot of off street parking, so according to Labour`s theory we should pay more.

But wait a minute let us try to think this through- whose criteria is it that says having a view is something which should be taxed – does it add value to the property , I would have to agree that it probably would, but is that not counterbalanced by the fact that country houses hold less base values than those in towns. If my house was in the middle of Ludlow for instance it would be worth something like twice as much.

Then there is a very distinct difference in the service we in the countryside are offered by our government than is available in the towns and cities.

We have a mobile library which I think visits once a month, we have one solitary street light at the other end of the village, the single track lane which runs through the village is swept once a year, but I note not last year, well the council has got to find extra savings I suppose. The last time it snowed a tractor pushing a snowplough ran through the village once, if there is ice there is no gritting of the roads. We have no council pretty flowers adoring  roadsides no litter bins on our pathways in fact come to think of it, we have no pathways, we just jump up into the hedge when a lorry drives past.   

One sunny Thursday afternoon last June I walked out of my house and literally stepped back in absolute open mouthed amazement because walking down the lane was a policeman, good god! I exclaimed, I have not seen one of your lot about here for the last 7 years what’s happened. The young fresh faced (it really does make you feel old) officer explained this is a new project, the idea is that I will travel around with the library van and visit all the outlying villages on a regular basis get to know the locals and see if there are any problem we can help with. I can only assume that he did not find many problems in our village because he has not been seen since.

That is not to argue that I never ever see a policeman, in fact one stopped his car with his lights flashing at 12.30 am, right outside our house a couple of years ago. when I answered the door in my pyjamas he wanted directions to somewhere I have never heard of. A paramedic team on a call did something similar, as did an ambulance on an emergency call.

Then there are other facilities if we want a postage stamp, half a lb sorry 25ogm butter, loaf of bread. light bulb it means a 9 mile round trip in the car. Because we have to contend with steep hills, muddy, icy, snow covered roads a 4X4 is almost a necessity, it certainly makes travel much safer as you can see over some hedgerows. If we want to go to the cinema to see a film it means a 38 mile roundtrip increasing to 80 miles if we want the latest releases, and these are just some of the drawbacks in country living.

When was the last time a herd of 30 cows or a flock of sheep parked themselves on your font drive. Public transport is a laugh it is impossible to live and work in the countryside without a car the public transport system is simply not capable of offering a flexible enough service to make it consideration.

If you try to run a business like mine in the countryside, one that necessitates customers actually travelling to you other considerations must be faced, the weather and the BBC, ever since the hurricane debacle the BBC, well the TV in general, have gone overboard with their dire weather warnings, they might think they are offering a public service, when they announce because of the possible prospect of high winds, snow, rain, ice that you should not travel unless it is absolute necessary, but they are also directly affecting our livelihood by putting people off.

Now I do not want anyone to run away with the idea that I am complaining, after all we chose to live in the country side, and I would totally agree that if there is little crime there is little need for a police presence, and of course the police and ambulance service are only a phone call, a satellite navigation system and about ¾ of an hour away.

But a pretty view can also comes at a cost of services that are available on the doorstep a cost in higher travel expenses, a cost of less or slower police protection, less or slower emergency cover and a cost of lower earnings.

We have already seen an attack by this government on what they term Chelsea tractors, but the last budget has changed the criteria and now even a modest 4×4 like ours carries a tax penalty, one that might have some relevance if we actually lived in Chelsea, but we do not. So their increased tax is a direct attack on country dwellers.

Now if we have off road parking (just try parking in our lane and you will block it for everyone else) and a view, we must also contribute more to central the coffers for the privilege of having less public services, slower emergency cover, fewer and more dispersed public amenities, all topped off with lower average earnings.

My Mother in law came up with a good argument this morning, when she said I should write to my local council and tell them that I understand we have a nice view of the countryside, but as I am short sighted could I please get a rebate.

Technorati Tags:
Council Tax, counrty living, taxing view, police protection, emegency services, local amanties
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |