I was very struck by Nick Robinson’s post on the ‘English votes for English matters’ debate, and also by Robert Kirton’s comment (#4) on the problem that faces the Labour Party in the event of English or effective English independence.
If we make two assumptions:
1) That Scottish independence is a real possibility, with the rise of the SNP and possibly a Conservative shift given that:
2) The Conservatives stand to benefit electorally from an English Parliament, under First Past the Post
then those of us who desperately want to avoid Conservative hegemony have several options, it seems to me:
1) Embrace PR, and do it as quickly as possible whilst Brown still has his eye on constitutional reform. With the progressive votes of Labour and Lib Dem MPs, the Conservatives can actually be reduced in power.
2) Try and avoid Scottish independence, or ‘English votes for English MPs’, on the basis that the issue will go away. But it seems to be popular and there’s a certain logic which is undeniable.
3) Put faith in the conversion of the Conservatives to New Labourish principles: just as New Labour followed Thatcher on economic reform, so the Tories can follow Blair and Brown on welfare. The problem here is obvious: even if this did occur in the leadership, there’s still a large core backing in the country for conservative principles.
4) Accept the situation and look elsewhere for progressive politics: at the EU level, or at a local, devolved level of cities, mayors etc. Let the conservative areas of the country follow conservative principles, and we’ll go our own way thanks. But the EU is unpopular, slow and too far removed, whilst even if local politics had a revival it would require significant power and money, and yet be unable to deal with central national and international policies.
5) Keep First Past The Post but re-align the parties – a broad coalition of the centre, and then a party of the right and a party of the left. Good luck trying to get that to happen.
6) Reject the premise – Labour can win in England by mobilising its broad base of support and winning over floating voters.
I’ve no idea what will happen, but it seems like an important question for the long-term future of the political system.
I just wanted to give a quick demonstration of the utterly facile nature of the Conservatives at the moment:
What’s gone wrong? Again if we don’t understand why Labour are failing we won’t succeed. I think it’s because the reform has been topped down. Targets imposed from above, endless re-organisation…
…we’ve got to scrap those top down targets and trust our professionals in the NHS…
…we’ve got to replace those process targets with measures of outcomes that’s what people care about…
…we will reform the police. We will cut out that paperwork, we will get rid of the performance assessments, get rid of the targets…
(Source: Cameron’s 2007 conference speech, BBC News – my emphasis)
Please ignore, for the moment, the idiocy of talking about how ‘measures of outcomes’ are completely different from targets to consider two news articles from the past week:
The government has denied a Tory charge that it has dropped targets for reducing truancy in England’s schools.
(Source: ‘Pupil absences reopen controversy’, BBC News)
The Conservatives have attacked the government over plans to “deep clean” English hospitals after ministers said it would not be centrally monitored.
(Source: ‘Hospital deep clean ‘a gimmick”, BBC News)
Which is it then Dave?
(Edit – oh, and in this article on Jack Straw: “in a speech to Cambridge University’s law faculty” – I was there! 
)
“Where the customer is sometimes right”
This week’s essay is on Thatcherism. Eugh. That’ll be fun, won’t it? Still, for all her faults she doesn’t seem to have been as bad as Calvin who got a nice lecture devoted to him this morning. You don’t really have to martyr yourself to Freud to see that sending round thugs ‘elders’ to people’s houses who are suspected of the grievous act of dancing might indicate a teeny weeny bit of sexual repression lurking underneath the curly-bearded man. Let it out man!
On the topic of sexual repression, you can stop e-mailing me to tell me that Dumbledore’s gay now welcome news as it is! It did remind me of one of the most irritating aspects of the last Harry Potter book, which was (and stop reading for spoilers) the ‘marriages’ of some of the main characters at the end. I don’t have the book to hand, but as far as I can remember – and Sanna semi-confirms this – it doesn’t actually say they are married. Couples, sure, with children, yes, but not married. Evidently David Cameron’s marriage bribe policy doesn’t apply to the magic world.
I’ve already shoved my photos up on Facebook and e-mailed some round, but did mean to blog a few too:
Me and Sophie
Joe, Yang and Irfan
The great hall!
During dinner, my DoS was interested about why people blog. I’m not entirely sure, but to be honest the prospect of writing a private diary fills me with dread (plus the desire to talk in the third person would probably be irresistibly overwhelming) so I’m not planning to stop any time soon 
It’s a busy weekend – Lucy’s visiting! – but luckily I have an extra day to do my essay on due to some fortunate shifting around of times, although I’ve already started writing this week’s piece on affluence. Ah, affluence. The Labour Party’s reaction to affluence during the 1950s can be summed up – if I may be so bold – as a sort of grumpy irritation. My absolute favourite historical fact of the week, though, comes from Contemporary British History, 1931-61:
“The promotion effort to push Limmits, an early slimming product, had to be rethought when research found that working-class women did not particularly mind being overweight, and indeed associated stoutness with a range of positive characteristics.”
Well, it amused me
Oh, and my old friend Ankit sent me photos of his first flight. His first flight! As a pilot! Here I am, can’t even drive, and he’s flying… wow!
Requiring the publication of a certain number of highly amusing quotes in one day:
The Conservatives have lost a battle to keep an £8.3m bequest by a man whose son described him as delusional.
Pharmaceuticals mogul Branislav Kostic, who died in 2005, wrote his will in the 1980s after saying Mrs Thatcher would save the world from “satanic monsters”.
But his only son Zoran, 50, contested the bequest at the High Court, saying his father was “deluded and insane” and he was entitled to the entire estate.
Source: BBC News
So it’s now acceptable to argue in court that one must be ‘deluded and insane’ to donate to the Tories?
(Warning – vital context has been removed from the story in order to facilitate this blog entry.)
Helen on It’s (waiting) time.: “Fabulous news, congratulations to you both! X” Jun 8, 21:51
