I've had an email from Harriet Harman's office in reply to my email I sent last month (see this post). The email is below, along with my reply to it. The response is, predictably, full of false information and ill-formed opinions and presumptions. To think that this woman is in charge of a department which is responsible for the fundamental rights of the people is bloody scary.
Thank you for your e-mail of the 14 May 2005 to Harriet Harman, regarding the electoral system, English devolution and the Barnett formula. This has been passed to the Constitution Directorate as the area in the Department with responsibility for devolution and electoral matters.
The Government’s policy on devolution is based upon the principle that the nations of the UK have their own history and clear national identity, and devolution arrangements need to reflect this. The starting point for England is not the same as it was for Scotland and Wales before devolution, and the Government believes that different approaches and solutions are appropriate to address the differences that exist between the countries that comprise the United Kingdom.
The Government believes that the establishment of an English Parliament would not be of real benefit to the people of England. In addition, as the population of England accounts for 84% of the UK population, this would mean that an English Parliament would only be slightly smaller than the current UK Parliament. Such a move will not therefore, contribute significantly towards bringing people in England closer to the decision making process than is already the case.
Your letter also raises concerns over the question of Scottish MPs voting on English matters, while English MPs are not allowed to vote on devolved matters. Debates in the House of Commons are by their nature seldom confined to devolved matters and bills are an invariably complex intermingling of reserved and devolved matters. Moreover, a fundamental principle of Parliament is that all MPs have equal rights. The Government does not support the suggestion that there should be different classes of MP in the House of Commons with different voting rights. Indeed, in May 1999 the Procedure Committee of the House of Commons noted that it was undesirable to have Members with “different roles, different responsibilities, different rights in this Parliament”. In addition, the vast majority of MPs are against removing this equality, with the House of Commons rejecting a motion in January 2004 which sought to prevent Scottish MPs from voting on matters which did not ostensibly affect Scotland, by 377 votes to 142.
To have different classes of MP would also mean that it would be highly possible that a Government would have a majority in some areas reserved to the UK Parliament but not in others. The Government takes the view that this would undermine one of the central tenets of the Constitution – that the Executive is formed from the party that can command a majority in the House of Commons. The Government therefore does not intend to limit the voting rights of MPs representing Scottish, Northern Irish or Welsh constituencies.
With regard to the Barnett formula, this formula provides the Devolved Administrations with a population-based share of comparable increases in spending for UK Government departments, and reflects the long-standing conventions that have governed funding for Scotland and Wales under successive administrations. As it is a population-based formula, levels of immigration would also obviously affect this population level and so the amount that is allocated.
The Government believes that this is the best available means of distributing public spending across the nations of the UK in a fair and stable way, and has provided stable settlements for over 20 years. That block grant and how it is spent is then decided by each administration.
In relation to your points regarding the electoral system for Westminster elections, elections to the House of Commons are conducted using the simple and traditional ‘first past the post’ voting system. This system is recognised as not reflecting the votes cast as accurately as proportional representation (PR).
There is a great deal of speculation about which voting systems might engender different results, and any discussion will produce several views as to which system might be the most appropriate. Our current system for Westminster elections is the simplest for the voter, requiring just one cross against a single name and party, and gives a clear result.
The Labour party, in its recent Manifesto, has again renewed its commitment to reviewing the experience of the new electoral systems – introduced for the devolved administrations, the European Parliament and the London Assembly-and reaffirmed its belief that a referendum remains the right way to agree any change for Westminster.
There is an official level review of the existing evidence of the experiences of the new UK voting systems currently underway within this Department. This review is at an early stage, and decisions regarding any next steps for the review will be taken in due course.
I hope this answers your query.
Yours sincerely,
James Copeland
Crown and Devolution Division
Hi,
Thank you for the response to my recent email. I have some questions and comments and would be grateful if you would address them.
Thank you.
The starting point for England is not the same as it was for Scotland and Wales before devolution, and the Government believes that different approaches and solutions are appropriate to address the differences that exist between the countries that comprise the United Kingdom.
> Different stating point? Please explain.
The Government believes that the establishment of an English Parliament would not be of real benefit to the people of England.
> Why would it not benefit England when it's benefited Scotland and Wales no end?
In addition, as the population of England accounts for 84% of the UK population, this would mean that an English Parliament would only be slightly smaller than the current UK Parliament
> Why is this a problem? According to government figures, roughly 85% of parliamentary time is spent dealing with England so 3/4 of the UK government can safely be disposed of.
Such a move will not therefore, contribute significantly towards bringing people in England closer to the decision making process than is already the case.
> The UK Parliament is for the UK, an English Parliament would be for England. How can an English government with a reserved portfolio of devolved powers for England not bring the decision-making process closer to the English people?
Your letter also raises concerns over the question of Scottish MPs voting on English matters, while English MPs are not allowed to vote on devolved matters. Debates in the House of Commons are by their nature seldom confined to devolved matters and bills are an invariably complex intermingling of reserved and devolved matters.
> Two examples: university tuition fees and foundation hospitals. Both were for England only and would have failed if it wasn't for the votes of Scottish MP's. The bills were rejected in Scotland by the Scottish government.
Moreover, a fundamental principle of Parliament is that all MPs have equal rights.
> So English MP's can vote on matters affecting only Scotland the same as Socttish MP's can vote on matters affecting only England?
The Government does not support the suggestion that there should be different classes of MP in the House of Commons with different voting rights.
> Agreed. That's why we need an English Parliament.
Indeed, in May 1999 the Procedure Committee of the House of Commons noted that it was undesirable to have Members with “different roles, different responsibilities, different rights in this Parliament”. In addition, the vast majority of MPs are against removing this equality, with the House of Commons rejecting a motion in January 2004 which sought to prevent Scottish MPs from voting on matters which did not ostensibly affect Scotland, by 377 votes to 142.
> Would you, in all honsety, expect a Scottish MP to give away their voting rights on non-Scottish matters and risk something happening that wouldn't be in Scotland's favour?
To have different classes of MP would also mean that it would be highly possible that a Government would have a majority in some areas reserved to the UK Parliament but not in others.
> Good. The government shouldn't have enough of a majority to force a bill through regardless of opposition votes.
The Government takes the view that this would undermine one of the central tenets of the Constitution – that the Executive is formed from the party that can command a majority in the House of Commons.
> The government's majority should not be larger than all its opposition combined which, thank god, it no longer is.
With regard to the Barnett formula, this formula provides the Devolved Administrations with a population-based share of comparable increases in spending for UK Government departments, and reflects the long-standing conventions that have governed funding for Scotland and Wales under successive administrations. As it is a population-based formula, levels of immigration would also obviously affect this population level and so the amount that is allocated.
> Are we talking about the same thing? If it is population based then England should have 84% of all tax money but it doesn't.
The Government believes that this is the best available means of distributing public spending across the nations of the UK in a fair and stable way, and has provided stable settlements for over 20 years. That block grant and how it is spent is then decided by each administration.
> The Barnett Formula was intended as a stop-gap for a maximum of 2 years and is only still in existance to appease greedy politicians who are inacapable of surviving on their own fair share of tax money. Have you asked the English people if they think it is fair that the rest of the UK gets up to a third more than they do in public spending despite paying the same amount of tax?
In relation to your points regarding the electoral system for Westminster elections, elections to the House of Commons are conducted using the simple and traditional ‘first past the post’ voting system. This system is recognised as not reflecting the votes cast as accurately as proportional representation (PR).
> So, the government recognises that the people did not want the Labour government and that they only retained power by the unfair and unrepresentative local authority boundaries that meant a majority of seats could be secured with a smaller number of votes?
There is a great deal of speculation about which voting systems might engender different results, and any discussion will produce several views as to which system might be the most appropriate. Our current system for Westminster elections is the simplest for the voter, requiring just one cross against a single name and party, and gives a clear result.
> Simple but ineffective. The Conservatives secured over 60,000 more votes in England compared to Labour but Labour still secured a majority of over 30 seats.
The Labour party, in its recent Manifesto, has again renewed its commitment to reviewing the experience of the new electoral systems – introduced for the devolved administrations, the European Parliament and the London Assembly-and reaffirmed its belief that a referendum remains the right way to agree any change for Westminster.
> Excellent news. When will the review take place and how can the public get involved? And will this manifesto pledge actually be honoured or will it be sidelined like the referrendum on the EU Constitution?
There is an official level review of the existing evidence of the experiences of the new UK voting systems currently underway within this Department. This review is at an early stage, and decisions regarding any next steps for the review will be taken in due course.
> What evidence is this? I don't know of anybody who's been asked their experience of voting. Are the public allowed to see this evidence?
The government are proposing a new mileage tax to replace the current system of road tax and fuel tax.
Currently, motorists pay an amount each year in road tax which allows you to use and keep your vehicle on the road. Then you pay an extortionate amount of tax (about 85%) on your fuel.
The government proposes to abolish both of these and replace them with a system of taxation where you pay a variable amount by the mile depending on which road you are driving on. Rural roads will start from 2p/mile and congested roads will be up to £1.34/mile.
To enable the charging system, every vehicle will have a GPS enabled black box.
What a well thought out proposal. Not!
- Do you want the government to know the whereabouts of your vehicle at all times?
- Are you happy to pay the cost of having the system fitted to your vehicle?
- If you have the choice of driving down 10 miles of congested road at peak time for £1.34/mile (a cost of £13.40) or driving round 20 miles of country lanes to get to the same place for 2p/mile (a cost of 40p), which one are you going to choose?
The third point is the main reason why this system just won't work. The first two points we have no control over - the government will force us to pay and they will force us to have the black boxes. The third point, however, they have no control over. When faced with that sort of choice, people will drive the extra miles down unsuitable roads ill equiped to cope with the extra volume of traffic. Accidents will increase and the government will lose tax money as a result. Then they'll realise what's going on and bump the cost up on rural roads to compensate but you can bet they won't decrease the cost on the other roads so it'll end up getting more expensive.
Unless, of course, you live in Scotland. Because driving in Scotland will be cheaper than driving in England (source: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/050606/17/fkh81.html). Now why aren't I surprised?
It has been brought to my attention that the English Democrats are fielding Garry Bushell in the delayed elections in South Staffs.
My contact forwarded me a copy of the election leaflets from each party that's standing. Conservatives ... dull. Labour ... dull, lies and false promises (what else would you expect from a party headed up by Traitor Blair?). Lib Dems ... dull and 4 pages! UKIP ... the usual inconsistent xenophobic crap. EDP ... excellent!
The EDP leaflet was a single page, bright and clear. It is in red and white (of course) and clearly sets out what they are standing for in a few paragraphs and bullet points. It looks completely different from the standard dullness of the main three parties and the garish purple and yellow of the UKIP.
While I'm on the subject of the UKIP leaflet, there were some inconsistencies. Their first bullet point said that they would withdraw the UK from the EU and save £39m a day. Then the third bullet point says that with the £30m a day saved from leaving the EU they would cut council tax. So which is it? £39m or £30m a day? Also, is that £39m (or £30m) a day net of the lost trade, subsidies, grants and preferrential trade agreements that we get from the EU? Apart from the inconsistencies such as the money side of things, the deliberate missing out of important information and deliberate misleading stops me from taking UKIP seriously at all.
South Staffs is a fairly rural constituency and I think it would benefit from the time and attention that the EDP could give it. I also think it would benefit from the increased profile having a minor celebrity and journalist as it's elected representitive. Finally, as an English constituency and one that would be swallowed up by a meaningless region that it has no links to, I think voting for a non-regional, pro-English party would be in its best interests.
I normally vote Lib Dems myself but if I was in South Staffs, I would certainly take this opportunity to vote for Garry Bushell.