Regular readers of this blog might by now have cottoned-on to the fact that Denis Healey is one of my political heroes. This week he has been showing why.
Interviewed by the BBC's Andrew Marr on Sunday, he said Tony Blair should quit now in favour of Gordon Brown, a course of action which I have been urging on the Prime Minister for some considerable time.
Now, in his Daily Telegraph column, Marr has revealed the delightful story of what Healey said in the studio afterwards to Ruth Kelly, the youthful Education Secretary who was also being interviewed.
You can read it here.
Thursday, March 02, 2006
Power Inquiry: English Question "is not significant cause of disengagement"
Yesterday's post on the failure of the Power Inquiry to address the democratic deficit in England has provoked a good response, including a helpful reply from one of the report's authors, Adam Lent.
In my view this significantly moves the story on, so for the benefit of those who haven't read his comment I am reproducing it here.
Adam writes:
"The report of the Power Inquiry does not purport to be a "complete constitutional reform blueprint" by any means. What the Commission tried to create was a strategic response to the problem of disengagement from formal democracy - that was its remit. There were any number of constitutional issues that could have been addressed which were not because they did not relate directly to this issue.
We certainly did receive some submissions about an English Parliament but the Commission was not convinced by any means that the West Lothian question etc. was a significant cause of disengagement. This was in large part based upon the fact that in all the many hundreds of submissions we received and in all the objective research we carried out - through surveys, focus groups and our citizens panel - the issue of an English Parliament or the West Lothian question was very rarely mentioned. Alongside the issues of the main political parties, executive power and the electoral system, for example, it was a very minor concern.
This is not to say that those campaigning for an English Parliament do not have a legitimate concern but it seemed to the Commission an issue relating to areas other than disengagement."
As I said, it is helpful of Adam to send a reply but if this was the reason for ignoring the English Question I think it is a fairly intellectually shallow one. At the end of the day, how can voters "engage" with the democratic process if the process itself is flawed and, in some respects, undemocratic?
Furthermore, it is also remarkably short-sighted in that the English Question is absolutely bound to rise up the political agenda in years to come.
What, for instance, is going to happen when a majority of English voters wants to elect a Conservative Government, but Scottish and Welsh voters ensure that the UK as a whole elects a Labour Government? It is not impossible that the next election could produce such an outcome.
Will the authors of the Power Inquiry then say to outraged English voters that such a situation is "not a significant cause of voter disengagement?"
Update: More reaction to Mr Lent's comments on the CEP newsblog.
In my view this significantly moves the story on, so for the benefit of those who haven't read his comment I am reproducing it here.
Adam writes:
"The report of the Power Inquiry does not purport to be a "complete constitutional reform blueprint" by any means. What the Commission tried to create was a strategic response to the problem of disengagement from formal democracy - that was its remit. There were any number of constitutional issues that could have been addressed which were not because they did not relate directly to this issue.
We certainly did receive some submissions about an English Parliament but the Commission was not convinced by any means that the West Lothian question etc. was a significant cause of disengagement. This was in large part based upon the fact that in all the many hundreds of submissions we received and in all the objective research we carried out - through surveys, focus groups and our citizens panel - the issue of an English Parliament or the West Lothian question was very rarely mentioned. Alongside the issues of the main political parties, executive power and the electoral system, for example, it was a very minor concern.
This is not to say that those campaigning for an English Parliament do not have a legitimate concern but it seemed to the Commission an issue relating to areas other than disengagement."
As I said, it is helpful of Adam to send a reply but if this was the reason for ignoring the English Question I think it is a fairly intellectually shallow one. At the end of the day, how can voters "engage" with the democratic process if the process itself is flawed and, in some respects, undemocratic?
Furthermore, it is also remarkably short-sighted in that the English Question is absolutely bound to rise up the political agenda in years to come.
What, for instance, is going to happen when a majority of English voters wants to elect a Conservative Government, but Scottish and Welsh voters ensure that the UK as a whole elects a Labour Government? It is not impossible that the next election could produce such an outcome.
Will the authors of the Power Inquiry then say to outraged English voters that such a situation is "not a significant cause of voter disengagement?"
Update: More reaction to Mr Lent's comments on the CEP newsblog.
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
Lib Dems: It looks like Ming
The result of the Lib Dem leadership contest is declared at 3pm tomorrow, with opinions among the political betting fraternity divided over who is likely to take the spoils.
King of the tipsters Mike Smithson is still calling it narrowly for Huhne, but most visitors to his PoliticalBetting.com site disagree, with a good two thirds predicting a Campbell victory.
Rival pundits SpecialBets are also going for Campbell, as is Guido Fawkes who has followed the twists and turns of the contest more obsessively than most.
My own gut feeling is that they are right, and that Ming has it. I hope I'm wrong, but my gut instinct tells me that Huhne just hasn't done quite enough to overhaul a man who was a fairly big frontrunner to begin with and who, unlike Hughes, has got through the campaign without any major gaffes.
As to where it will leave the poor old Lib Dems though....well, that's another story.
4pm update: Guido now has a poll of polls showing Ming on 53pc and Huhne on 47pc following redistribution of second preferences. I reckon that's about right.
King of the tipsters Mike Smithson is still calling it narrowly for Huhne, but most visitors to his PoliticalBetting.com site disagree, with a good two thirds predicting a Campbell victory.
Rival pundits SpecialBets are also going for Campbell, as is Guido Fawkes who has followed the twists and turns of the contest more obsessively than most.
My own gut feeling is that they are right, and that Ming has it. I hope I'm wrong, but my gut instinct tells me that Huhne just hasn't done quite enough to overhaul a man who was a fairly big frontrunner to begin with and who, unlike Hughes, has got through the campaign without any major gaffes.
As to where it will leave the poor old Lib Dems though....well, that's another story.
4pm update: Guido now has a poll of polls showing Ming on 53pc and Huhne on 47pc following redistribution of second preferences. I reckon that's about right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)