Treehuggers sort of agree with the concept of an English Parliament….

Every now and again, I like to bang off an email to one of the Parties in an attempt to get an answer to the imponderable question….

Today, it’s the turn of the Green Party….

I SAID.............................

Hello,
I've had a quick scan over your policy document and cannot find anything about Devolved Government in it. Do you have any thoughts on a Parliament for England - along the lines of the Scottish model?

And talking about Scotland, I understand that the Scottish Greens are in favour of an independent Scotland - does that mean that the English Greens are in favour of an independent England?

Regards,

Alfie the OK
Englishman and therefore democratically disenfranchised.
Lancashire,
England.

THEY REPLIED ............................

Dear Mr OK,
You can find our policy on the structure of government here. Devolved government is a very important principle for Greens. The principle underlying it is that we believe that decisions are best made at the most local level appropriate, so that the people affected are more involved in the process.

We believe that Scotland should have as much autonomy as the Scottish people want, and that English regions should have a similar right. I assume that our policy has specified English regions rather than an English parliament because England is much bigger than Scotland and Wales and therefore the
regions would benefit from having their own governing bodies rather than an English parliament which would be more distant and more likely to neglect parts of the country in the way that the UK parliament does now.

You can find all of our other policies in the Manifesto for a Sustainable Society here. This is a collection of all policy motions passed by our party members at conference. This is how our policy is made.

Best wishes

Adam Stacey
Administrative Officer
The Green Party


SO I SAID BACK TO THEM BECAUSE I WAS A BIT ANGRY..........

Mr Stacy,
I'm sorry, but I find your statement -
"We believe that Scotland should have as much autonomy as the Scottish people want, and that English regions should have a similar right".......
to be wholly undemocratic. Rather than the ‘regions’, don't you think you should be wanting the English PEOPLE to have as much autonomy that we want also? English people DO NOT WANT regional government - have you never heard of the NE referendum? 78% said NO. That means NO, the people have spoken - Politicians - even Greens should LISTEN to the electorate occasionally. .

In a MORI poll conducted in July, 41% of people interviewed expressed a preference for an English Parliament. Don't you people think you should be listening to people from England as to what THEY want rather than clinging to NuLabour's discredited, unelected and wholly undemocratic regional 'solutions'.

England is not too big at all - that is simply not true. An English parliament would be smaller and more focused than the Westminster model. There wouldn't be any Welsh, Scots and N.I. members voting on purely English matters for a start. There would be more cash available as the Barnett Formula bribes to the other Home Countries will be terminated. Maybe some of OUR citizens will then have free residential care, access to expensive cancer drugs and a further education without top up fees!!!!

An English Parliament would have MORE contact with local issues - not less, via a county by county set up.

NATIONAL DEMOCRACY CANNOT BE OFFERED TO 3 OF THE HOME NATIONS - BUT NOT TO ENGLAND. It is pernicious racism, we are effectively being penalised because of who we are - and as so called 'democrats' you should be absolutely ashamed of yourselves for signing up to this nasty little version of establishment 'democracy'.

Alfie the OK,
English and therefore disenfranchised,
Lancashire,
England (a country NOT a collection of regions).


AND THEY CLARIFIED A FEW POINTS FOR ME.............

Hi Alfie,
Thanks for your reply - you've reacted very angrily but we agree on more than you realise.

I'll start with your paragraph: "An English parliament would be smaller and more focused than the Westminster model. There wouldn't be any Welsh, Scots and N.I. members voting on purely English matters for a start. There would be more cash available as the Barnett Formula bribes to the other Home Countries will be terminated. Maybe some of OUR citizens will then have free residential care, access to expensive cancer drugs and a further education without top up fees!!!!"

We would agree with all of this. I wasn't comparing an English parliament to Westminster - having an English parliament would be better than the current system. When we passed the policy several years ago we suggested regions rather than one parliament, but if the English people don't want that model they won't have to have it. The principle is that we believe in devolved power, and that the form it takes should be determined from below, not from above.

We were also unhappy with the form that New Labour proposed for a North East assembly. It was undemocratic, and seemed to be centralising a lot of power from below rather than devolving it from above. We are certainly opposed to New Labour's unelected regional bodies.

So, regarding your closing paragraph: "NATIONAL DEMOCRACY CANNOT BE OFFERED TO 3 OF THE HOME NATIONS BUT NOT TO ENGLAND." Yes, we agree.

"As so called 'democrats' you should be absolutely ashamed of yourselves for signing up to this nasty little version of establishment 'democracy'." Well, we haven't signed up to Blair's version of it.

We are absolutely for the principle of devolved power and democracy.

Best wishes

Adam Stacey
Administrative Officer
The Green Party