Constitutional Reform

Everyone (I think) without exception now agrees that Constitutional Reform is needed. Whether that is Labour's ill-thought-through plans that involve changing the way the House of Commons votes in order to push through legislation, reform of the House of Unelected Peers (aka House of Lords) or the question of an elected Head of State.

Toque (who has a team working on his site to repair comments apparently), refers to my comments about the parties and their policies on an English Parliament. I implied, wrongly, that I could be happy with the Conservative policy proposals. I strongly suspect this won't be the case when they are made public! Like the EU, the question of English democracy is one that my party does not solve to my satisfaction.

The only parties whose solutions to the West Lothian and English Questions that make logical sense are the English Democrats and the Independence Party (UKIP).

But House of Lords reform is what interests me. Ken Clarke's comments are entirely at odds with Michael Howard's comments on the Daily Politics yesterday. On the Daily Politics Michael Howard pointed out that the Conservatives had a proposal for a mostly-elected House of Lords under Iain Duncan-Smith and himself. Howard also said that he hoped any future vote on House of Lords reform would be a free (no whip and no party line) vote. I think it should be and I expect most Conservatives to vote for democratic solutions to Labour's ten years of bungled constitutional change (not 'reform'!)


Popular Posts