A referendum on an English Parliament was the most popular idea submitted to Power2010 during the public consultation phase. However, the idea did not receive enough support during the deliberative phase to warrant its inclusion in the public vote phase of Power2010's campaign to reform our democracy.
The Campaign for an English Parliament is formally opposed to the Conservative Party's 'English Votes on English Laws' policy (see Devolution for England: A Critique of the Conservative Party Policy "English Votes on English Matters").
In light of the CEP's historic opposition to EVoEL, should the CEP encourage its members and supporters to vote for EVoEL on the Power2010 website, to stimulate debate on the English Question prior to the General Election?
NO! EVoEL is nothing but a distraction.
English sovereignty demans full Independence from the UK!
http://independentengland.blogspot.com/
As a means to an end it would be acceptable but then I have no desire to see the UK survive and would only welcome it because of its destabilising effect on the union. In principle though I find EVoEL completely unacceptable and undemocratic.
No it should not. If it does it should change its name to Cop-out of an English Parliament.
I still think it should stand independent candidates on the basis of an English Parliament. Standing these in marginals would not jeopardise its neutrality.
In fact it should use local newspapers to encourage people to stand as independents, and those already standing as independents, to promote an English Parliament.
Ten years of campaigning with the result of only a small minority of MPs even bothering to respond to an IPPR survey about the English question should make the CEP get the gloves off, not to cave in and ask members to vote for the very thing it has been fighting against.
2000 members giving a tenner each means £20,000 which could pay the deposits for 40 candidates in marginals, or 15 candidates with full leafletting delivered free (based on about £800 spent on leaflets in 15 constituencies). Money could be sent to each independent candidate directly from each donor. Think about all those leaflets being delivered demanding an English Parliament to tens of thousands of voters for *free* during a general election.
It's a damned site better proposal than voting for EVEL in a Power 2010 smokescreen.
I think the CEP should leave it as a matter for each member or supporter to decide for themselves: make it a 'free vote', in other words. The CEP can't logically endorse it officially, since it's opposed to EVoEL as a matter of policy. Equally, however, it's the only way that English governance can remain on the Power 2010 agenda. 'So what, big deal', some might say; but it means that Power 2010 itself is forced to confront the English Question - which it has studiously ignored up to now, as far as I can see - and it means that each parliamentary candidate will be asked to pledge their support for the proposals, which may at least force EVoEL and, by extension, the English Question to be discussed at the election.
I couldn't care less about Power 2010. I suspected it would be unrepresentative and was not surprised to find it was not.
Billy Bragg wrote a piece in the Guardian or Independent (whatever) if I remember correctly. He has been quiet on the machiavellian post-consultative process, so far.
I wrote a comment on Alan Trench's site saying I couldn't determine whether he was a mouthpiece for the government or a codpiece. He removed it for being abusive. It was in no way abusive.