They think its all over...

An apology first If I'm starting to bore anyone :) 

A continuation of my attempts to prompt my MP to bring constitutional reform out in the open and into the public arena. 

Dear David

I have made clear my views on these topics and I have nothing to add.

I have made clear what will get my support from the constitutional proposals put forward and what will not, and that is what I have made clear to the Government.

I accept that you may not agree with me, but you shouldn't presume that all of my constituents agree with you either.

We have a General Election next May when the people in the Shipley constituency have the opportunity to decide who they want to represent them in Parliament. I have already made clear to you that you shouldn't vote for me as I hold very different views to you - not many politicians will do that - and both of us must accept the verdict of the electorate.

You talk much about democracy and so you must also accept the democrat wishes of people in shipley as to who should represent them in Parliament. I always will, whatever their verdict may be. I am sorry that you appear less willing to do so.

No matter how many time you email me I am not going to agree with you on these issues. I had hoped you might at least appreciate me being so direct and honest with you.

Best wishes

Philip Davies MP

Dear Philip,

I do appreciate your honesty (a rare thing in politics!).

I would never dare to presume that all of the constituents of Shipley agree with me and I don’t believe I have said or inferred that at any point, the only way we would know is to ask them which is what this was supposed to be about – how do we have a full frank an open debate about the future of democracy in the UK? It isn’t about what I want or what you want, its about having that discussion and accepting that we are all probably going to have to make concessions, but that we can improve on what we have. There is nothing undemocratic about suggesting that we should at least explore having more democracy and redistribute power from the few to the many.

This is about much more than the General Election next year, like Scotland, if we are brave enough to have the discussion, and it has to be a public discussion, started by Parliament but seeking public opinion and ideas and acting on the public will and not in their own interests, we have a once in a generation chance to change things for the better.

So, instead of getting into a long drawn-out discussion that is going nowhere I just want simple answers to 3 simple questions:

Firstly, the one you have so far failed to answer , it’s a simple question that only requires a yes or no. Will you as my MP and representative ask David Cameron, William Hague and anybody else appropriate to : a) Not seek to rush through any proposals or changes just to appease back bench MP’s or to protect the interests of any one political party & b) Make sure all discussions about constitutional change are held in an open and public manner and no changes or legislation will be brought forth without proper public consultation and without the people of the UK having their say and agreeing to the proposals through a referendum. Yes or No?

Secondly, how do you think is the best way to have a public discussion on the future of democracy and politics in the UK?

Finally, how many of your constituents would have to express in an interest in having this discussion before you would take it seriously?

Yours sincerely,

David Slaney

Dear Mr Slaney

The answer to your 3 questions is as follows - although I have made my views clear already know.

1). No.  I have set out what I want to see, and that is precisely what I will be lobbying for whether that happens quickly or slowly.  It is the right outcome that is important to me not the speed. The fact that you are ignoring is that Ed Miliband is only not supporting English votes for English laws due to party political consideration.

2). I have no idea what you mean. There is always a public discussion about politics and these issues. Many constituents have emailed me about this issue and so there is no shortage of public interest and debate about this.

3). I do take this matter very seriously - hence my article in the Yorkshire Post.  However, my views are not determined by the number of people who express them - they are shaped by the quality of the argument.  No matter how many people tell me they agree with you, I can assure you that I still will not agree with you.

I hope they directly answer your questions.

Best wishes

Philip

Dear Philip,

I must admit that my initial feelings to your last e-mail where slight disappointment and disillusionment and a feeling that neither you or your party really want any real constitutional change for the better, rather you would prefer to protect your own interests and power. But having had more time to consider your response, I want to thank you.

I want to thank you for reminding me what I’m fighting for. I want to thank you for perfectly illustrating what is wrong with our democracy and why it is in desperate need of change.

Effectively with your reply, you are telling me I have no voice.

You are saying, that if you disagree with me I have no voice, no representation at the highest level.

You are saying if I have any concerns but you disagree with them I have no voice as you won’t take these concerns up with the correct ministers (obviously I can always try and contact those ministers direct – but as we know, trying to contact a cabinet minister or the Prime Minister personally is not always as easy as it should be).

You are saying the only opportunity I (or any other ordinary person) has to get involved in democracy at a national level is only once every five years when there’s a general election.

You are saying in between elections, Governments should be allowed to what they want, regardless of whether it was in their manifesto or not and this should just be accepted.

That s not true democracy. MP’s, Prime Ministers are not elected to rule, they are elected to serve, the voice of the people should always be heard. There’s a website which I’m sure you’re familiar with –“theyworkforyou.com”. There is a growing feeling that MP’s don’t work for us, they work for themselves and their donors.

You remind me that, apparently, the fact that I am “ignoring is that Ed Miliband is only not supporting English votes for English laws due to party political consideration”. I’m not ignoring it, I just don’t think it matters because any decisions made on constitutional reform should be made by us, the electorate, not by Ed Miliband, not by William Hague (who I believe is chairing the committee looking into this), not by David Cameron, or Nick Clegg, not by the Conservative party or the coalition government. By us, the people.

So thank you for unintentionally inspiring me and enforcing my belief that the changes that are needed to our political system, have to be discussed, decided on and agreed by the people of this country, not the politicians. Thank you for enforcing my belief that we need more democracy and we need to redistribute power down from the few and give it back to the many.

Thank you. I do have a voice, and I will use it in any way I can.

Yours sincerely,

David Slaney

P.S.  Regional devolution would solve the West Lothian question. 

The story so far... for those who are interested!

Dear Mr Slaney

Thank you for your email.

I set out in an article in the Yorkshire Post what I would like to see as a result of the Scottish independence result which you can read online if you are interested.

I have no problem with a referendum on constitutional reform - we had one with the voting system recently you will recall - although it may not be possible or desirable to put everything into one simple "accept it all" or "reject it all" yes/no question for a referendum.

I do not agree with the regional government - and this was rejected in a referendum in the North East when John Prescott tried to foist it upon them and so we should accept the verdict of that referendum too. I also don't agree with 16 and 17 year olds having the vote for which there is no rationale - why not give it to 12 year olds, 10 year olds, 5 year olds even?

As you will know I want a referendum on leaving the EU but the Lib Dems and Labour keep blocking it in Parliament.

Best wishes

Philip Davies MP

Dear Mr Davies,

I have read your article and agree that any constitutional change has to be fair for England as well as the rest of the UK. What we cannot do though is try and rush through that change through in the interests of one political party or agenda – this has to be a large, open public debate with any decisions made on changes to the constitution being made and decided on by the people, not the politicians. The question of English votes on English issues, is an emotive issue and whilst I agree in theory this would be ideal, it is not quite as simple as English votes on English Issues, there is a danger that such a move would effectively stop any MP from a constituency from outside of England from ever holding the position of Prime Minister or Chancellor, or indeed any other major cabinet decision – how could they hold that role if they were barred from voting on their own proposals and legislation? This issue needs addressing, but we cannot rush into making decisions on this and it cannot be a condition on giving Scotland the extra powers that were promised – this should not be turned into a party political issue.

I accept that it is not possible to put everything into a single ‘take it or leave it’ referendum – that is not what I was suggesting, the change that we need means many decisions must be debated, discussed and voted on – we may need more than one referendum, for example one on regional devolution, one on the future of the monarchy & one on how we give more power back to the ordinary people of the UK, etc. If David Cameron is honest that he wants “to change the way the British people are governed, and change it for the better”  then he needs to let the people decide how this is done.

You may not agree with regional government, another thing we can agree to disagree On – personally I would love to see or regions being given more power to decide upon, for example, their own economic policies and strategies rather than one central economic policy which is largely centred around protecting and strengthening Londons financial sector. You may not agree with this, but this is not your decision, it is not just my decision, it needs to be made by the people. The proposals made by John Prescott in 2004 were so watered down and were only ever offered to the North East – the rest of the country and the other regions, including Yorkshire, have never been given a chance to have their say. We must give them that chance.

I am aware that you support a referendum on the EU, I would be happy to see this happen even though I believe we are better off in Europe than out of it, I would like to see a mechanism whereby if enough people feel strongly enough about an issue a legally binding referendum on that issue that cannot be blocked by any political party. Our membership of the EU has to be part of the wide-ranging debate that is needed – lets have the discussion.

You state that you “don't agree with 16 and 17 year olds having the vote for which there is no rationale - why not give it to 12 year olds, 10 year olds, 5 year olds even?” , I will try and ignore the second part of this statement as I will assume that you are not serious about this. There is an argument for giving votes to 16/17 year olds, as previously stated in my original e-mail, to tell Scottish 16 year olds ‘We trust you to make a massive decision on the future of this country’ but then come general election time ‘but we don’t trust you to pick who you want to represent you in Parliament’ would be hypocritical, if we are allowing 16/17 year olds in one part of the Union to have their say, it would be unfair to those of the same age anywhere else in the Union to be denied a voice.

This debate and any decisions will not happen overnight, it will have to be a long process, but it will be worth it n the end. We do have an opportunity to overhaul and change our political and democratic system for the better. One that takes some powers away from Westminster and London and gives them to local areas where they can be better used, a system that puts the needs and wishes of the people before those of business, one that is centred around true equality and social justice. I ask you to do what you can to ensure that this discussion is held and that the people of this country are given their chance to decide how they want our democracy and politics to work.

Thank you for your time.

Yours sincerely,

David Slaney

Dear Mr Slaney

Thank you for your further email which I read with interest.

I have nothing to add to my previous email to you but am grateful to you for letting me know your thoughts.

Best wishes

Philip Davies MP

Dear Mr Davies,

Just so I am clear here, can I ask therefore that you are not in favour of, nor will you be doing anything to support having a full open public discussion on the future of politics and democracy in the UK where the decisions on that future are made by the people, not the politicians?

Yours sincerely,

David Slaney

Dear Mr Slaney

I have not said that at all.

I have long campaigned for (and voted in Parliament for) a referendum on whether or not we remain in the EU.

I am also happy for any constitutional changes (such as English votes for English laws) to be put to a referendum.

My only reservation would be where any constitutional proposals could not easily fit into a simple yes/no referendum.

Best wishes

Philip Davies MP

Dear Mr Davies,

If we avoided all discussions that don’t easily fit into a simple yes/no referendum, we’d never have any political debate or change. I have suggested below though a few suggestion that could be answered yes or no to get the discussion started.

1)      Do we want a full democratic, accountable elected second chamber to replace the House of Lords?

2)      Do we want more regional devolution?

3)      Should we remain part of the EU?

4)      Do we want a fairer electoral voting system?

5)      Do we want to sign up to TTIP?

6)      Should any Government have to seek permission from the electorate before selling off or privatising state-owned assets?

Obviously the answers to these will prompt further debate before any conclusions are reached.

I am asking you as my MP and representative to ask David Cameron, William Hague and anybody else appropriate to : a) Not seek to rush through and proposals or changes just to appease back bench MP’s or to protect the interests of any one political party & b) Make sure all discussions about constitutional change are held in an open and public manner and no changes or legislation will be brought forth without proper public consultation and without the people of the UK having their say and agreeing to the proposals through a referendum.

Thank you once again for your time.

Yours sincerely,

David Slaney.

Dear David

Thank you for your email.

With regards to your 6 headings below:

1) I have no problem with this being out to a referendum in principle. However, given that I receive no complaints about the House of Lords from constituents and have received no other requests in 9 years for a referendum on this issue then there is no evidence that there is any public demand for such a referendum.

2) This was put to a referendum in the North-East by the last Labour Government as they felt that it would be the most supportive of a regional assembly. This was rejected in that referendum by the electorate by c70% to c30%. Given your support for a referendum, perhaps you would therefore be good enough to accept the result of the referendum!

3) I have already made clear I support this. Unfortunately it is being blocked by the Labour Party and the Lib Dems who are desperate to avoid a referendum on this issue

4) This Government has had a referendum on the voting system and people voted to keep the existing voting system.  You really must accept the verdict of the referendum when it is held.

5) This is not a constitutional issue and, in fact, even if everyone in the UK voted against it, it would make no difference as all trade deals are done and agreed by the EU not by the UK Government.

 6) Again, this is a policy issue decided by a democratically elected Government and is not a constitutional issue. If your Party loses the election you cannot try to overturn that election by putting anything you don't like to a referendum. We have a Parliamentary democracy in this country.

The article I wrote in the Yorkshire Post on Saturday - which you can read online - clearly sets out my views on the constitutional issues which flow from the Scottish referendum.

Best wishes

Philip Davies MP

Dear Mr Davies,

I have to admit to being slightly disappointed by your reply, mainly because you haven’t answered the last question I asked, so I will ask it again, will you as my MP and representative ask David Cameron, William Hague and anybody else appropriate to : a) Not seek to rush through any proposals or changes just to appease back bench MP’s or to protect the interests of any one political party & b) Make sure all discussions about constitutional change are held in an open and public manner and no changes or legislation will be brought forth without proper public consultation and without the people of the UK having their say and agreeing to the proposals through a referendum.

I have read your comments on the topics I suggested we could have a simple “yes/no” referendum and would like to respond.

1)      House of Lords Reform – you may not have received and complaints on this matter or requests during the last 9 years, but that doesn’t mean the second chamber isn’t in need of reform. In my view having an unelected second chamber is not democratic. We still have 92 Heredity Peers in the House of Lords, to be given the position to decide upon, change or block legislation because you happened to be born into the right family cannot be perceived as correct in the 21^st century surely?

2)      Yes, a form of regional devolution was put to the North East which they rejected. The question of devolved regional powers however was never put to Yorkshire & the Humber, Cumbria and the North West, Devon & Cornwall or any other region – why shouldn’t we get the opportunity to have the debate and a say? Are you really suggesting that because the North East declined a watered-down version of devolution, those of us in other regions shouldn’t have a say in our own future?

3)      EU Referendum – I would be in favour of this and if after the next general election I have a Labour, Lib Dem, Green or any other MP I will be telling them the same. As I have stated before I generally believe we are stronger being part of the EU but I may be tempted to vote against our membership it would stop us from being involved with TTIP.

4)      Alternative Voting Systems – We had a referendum on one type of alternative voting system. This referendum, in 2011, was heavily and deliberately manipulated by the Tory leadership in order to get the result they wanted. The question we should have been asking, before even looking at alternatives, should have been, not do we want this alternative system, but do you think we should have a fairer voting system in the UK? We rejected one alternative voting system, not all of them.

5)      TTIP is a massive issue that will affect every single British citizen. Although the negotiations are happening in secret (if you’ve nothing to hide...) we have been told by officials from both the EU and the US that the main goal of TTIP is to remove regulatory barriers which restrict the potential profits to be made by transnational corporations. These so-called ‘regulatory’ barriers though are some of the things that protect us, such as food standards, workers rights, environmental regulations etc. TTIP is more or less saying corporate profits are more important than protecting our people, protecting the environment or providing safe, well paid working conditions. TTIP is a constitutional issue because of the Investor State Dispute Treaty which it contains, which is a direct attack on democracy. Giving corporations the right to sue Governments that make decisions in the best interests of its citizens but could directly affect their profits, e.g. raising the minimum wage, enforcing plain cigarette packaging, stopping or cutting back on private involvement in the NHS. Under TTIP corporations would have more power over government policy than the electorate – that is a constitutional issue.

6)      Continuing privatisation of public services/selling off publicly owned assets. I can accept your argument to a certain extent. If something was within a party’s manifesto, for example if it stated in a party’s manifesto that if elected they would sell off the North Sea oil fields, and that party gets elected then there is an argument they have a mandate to then do this. If there has been no mention of selling publicly owned assets or privatising public services in the manifesto that got a party elected, then they should have to seek permission from those who do own the asset – all of us! There was no mention in the Conservative manifesto that they would privatise and sell off Royal Mail for example, a deal that was bad for the taxpayer (despite the fact that is was undervalued, any potential purchaser should have had to take on the pension pot as well – it is not fair to privatise the profit, but make the public responsible for the liabilities). What I’m saying is , yes we have a Parliamentary democracy as we stand, but there is a general feeling that that same Parliamentary democracy is no longer acting in the best interests of the many. We have an opportunity to start giving some of that power back to the people. There’s a saying which I’m sure you’ve heard before ‘Power corrupts & absolute power corrupts absolutely’ perhaps one the best ways to avoid corruption is to spread the power around more evenly instead of leaving it in the hands of the few.

We have an opportunity to discuss and create a new 21s century democracy that involves everyone, rather than the majority feeling disenfranchised, or we can continue with a worn-out, tired, old system which benefits the few at the top of the ladder. Change can be a positive thing – give us a chance to have that change.

Yours sincerely,

David Slaney 

My E-mail to Philip Davies MP following the Scottish Referendum Results

Dear Mr Davies,

I would like to start by expressing my happiness at the Scottish peoples decision to remain part of the union – I strongly believe that we are better off together and that the best way to get the political, social and democratic change the Union needs is with their help and support.

Which takes me on to my main point. The outcome of the Scottish independence referendum is not the end,  it is only the beginning. We now have a once in a lifetime opportunity to have an open and full discussion in England as to the future of our political and democratic system and how we want it to work.

David Cameron said in his speech on Friday morning following the referendum result “We now have a chance - a great opportunity - to change the way the British people are governed, and change it for the better... We have heard the voice of Scotland - and now the millions of voices of England must not go ignored”. For once, I agree with him.

During the independence debate, the leaders of all three main parties in Westminster all agreed to give more powers to the Scottish Parliament in the event of a ‘No’ vote – one of the first things we need to do is make sure this promise is kept, without condition. Yes, the West Lothian question needs addressing, that is a separate issue and needs resolving separately – we need to make sure our party leaders (for once at least!) keep their promises.

Then, alongside this we need to have a nationwide discussion about the future of politics and democracy throughout the UK. Nothing can be left off the table, we need to debate whether we want more regional devolution, whether we want a totally unelected, undemocratic, unaccountable House of Lords or do we want another type of second chamber, what do we see as the future of the Monarchy in the 21^st Century, should we have more legally binding  referenda on important issues, like EU membership, selling off publicly owned assets or privatising public services, or TTIP, What recall powers should we have etc. Then whatever consensus comes out of this, the decisions on the future of democracy have to be made, not by the Prime Minister, or MP’s or Civil Servants or any other type of politicians, the decisions must be made by the people, for the people. This has to be beyond party politics, we have a real chance to give the people a real say in the future of this country.

“We now have a chance - a great opportunity - to change the way the British people are governed, and change it for the better.” We do, but that opportunity must lie in the hands of the people, not the politicians. Give them the opportunity to have their say and then  follow through on what they say – that is democracy. The electoral turnout in Scotland shows that when you give people a say and the power to make decisions, they will turn out. We also need to address the voting age, it would be a little hypocritical to tell 16 year olds in Scotland ‘We trust you to make a massive decision on the future of this country’ but then come general election time ‘but we don’t trust you to pick who you want to represent you in Parliament’.

We must seize this opportunity with both hands and start the debate as soon as possible and let it be led by the people, we have a once in a lifetime chance to redistribute power from the few and give it back to the many – it is an opportunity that we cannot afford to miss.

Your sincerely,

David Slaney

If Not Them, Then Who?

Wow - two blog posts in less that 24 hours, something must be wrong?

This kind of a loose follow-up to last nights post. Since a number of church leaders, Bishops and Archbishops criticised the coalition governments welfare reforms earlier this week, there have been a number of articles in the majority of the mainstream newspapers claiming that these Bishops are out of touch with their congregations, the majority of whom (apparently support welfare reform), and as always when the church speaks out against the establishment, how the Church shouldn't meddle in politics.

Firstly, just for the record, I am willing to admit I am not fundamentally against welfare reform. However, the word 'reform' means to make something better, that obviously isn't happening in this case. I also believe that you can't reform the welfare system without also tackling raising the minimum wage, zero-hours contracts, corporate welfare and social justice.

The main question I would like to ask (and I'm not promising any answers.), Is around the age-old statement that is always brought up in this situations - 'The Church shouldn't meddle in politics'.

If the Church shouldn't meddle in politics, the who should (apart from politicians obviously)?

Unelected Journalists and newspaper editors?
Multinational  and Large Ltd Companies whose heads often don't live in the UK and often don't pay tax here?
Lobbyists? Getting paid to try and persuade ministers to change government policy for the benefit of a few, not the many.
Charities?
Other members of the Media?

Or, in a 21st century democracy, should everyone be allowed to be involved in the political debate? Can we really have a proper debate whilst we have a largely biased right-wing media?

There's no easy answers. What do you think?

An Open Letter to David Cameron and Iain Duncan Smith

Dear Mr Cameron and Mr Duncan Smith,

This week, you have come under considerable criticism, from a number of church leaders over your changes to the welfare system and the effects it has had on the poorest and most vulnerable members of or society. Mr Cameron, you claim that the changes are part of a 'moral mission'. If this is the case, I will not criticise your aims, however your methods may need reconsideration.

I would like to take this opportunity to ask you to do something.

It is my understanding that you both profess to have a Christian faith, albeit one Anglican and one Roman Catholic. I hope that despite the differences between your denominations, the core belief in the teachings of Jesus unite you more.

I know you are both incredibly busy men and have family lives to balance as well as your governmental roles, but I would like to ask you both just to find some time just to take time out and think about the change you have made to the welfare state and the impact of these changes upon the people affected. Maybe even take time to pray about this as well. Try to put to one side Party Politics and political ideologies and just think about these changes and there affects and whether these fit in with the teachings that you profess to believe in.

There are two miracles recorded in the gospels of Jesus feeding large crowds. The feeding of the 4,000 and the feeding of the 5,000. I don't recall in either case Jesus saying to his disciples "I'd love to feed the crowds and give them what they need, but if I do I'm afraid I may encourage them into a dependency on handouts, take away their aspirations and make them lazy".

Margaret Thatcher once said "No one would remember the Good Samaritan if he had only good intentions. He had money as well". I think she may have missed the point of the parable. There is actually much we can learn from this parable in our modern society for both our attitudes towards immigration and welfare. Yes he had good intentions and he was also rich - he had money. The point I think Mrs Thatcher missed was, the Good Samaritan was willing to spend his money on helping those less fortunate than himself and he was willing to do so with a blank cheque and without expecting anything in return. He did it because it was the right thing to do.

My understanding of Jesus' teaching is that he told his followers to love their neighbours as themselves, love their enemies and follow his example.

So please, take time out, think about the changes you have made and think about what you believe, and how important those beliefs are. Sir down, think, pray, then decide which beliefs are more important, your political ones, or your religious ones.

Yours sincerely,

David Slaney