"An 'English Parliament' would not work; it would simply return a perpetual Conservtive majority and that is not good for democracy."

Can we put this myth to rest once and for all.

Labour won the majority of seats and the plurality of votes in England in 1945, 1966, Oct 1974, 1997, 2001. The also won the majority of the seats in 2005.

There have only been three brief periods since the war that a Labour government was “imposed” on England by the so-called Celtic countries. They are 1950 to 1951 (when Labour actually one the plurality of votes in Englnad), 1964 to 1966 and Feb 1974 to Oct 1974.

If there were an English parliament, all the evidence suggests that it would oscillate between Tory and Labour in the same way as the UK one does.

Why are people asking each other questions about the governance of England?

Just ask the English for God's sake.

Why is it so difficult to grasp the fundamental principle of democracy, that the PEOPLE vote for what they want?

It is refreshing to read many of the comments here on this topic.
Lets clear one thing up. English Democrats do not want to see the break up of the union. We do want English people to be able to determine thier own agenda. To say that if an English Parliament would be governed by the Tories does not take into account that it is not the Tory party who is arguing the case. Neither is it the Lib Dems or Labour.

It is these three parties who between them have eroded the regard and respect for politics that people once had many years ago. It is these parties who support EU membership. OK there are dissenters.It is this political spectrum that has given succor, directly or indirectly to the bankers that nearly brought this country and others in the west, to the brink of disaster.

If we want change, then we all have to get up and do something about it.

Whose up for it then?

Swantra we do not want regional government in England we are one nation and want a democratic voice through our own parliament. The asymetrical devolution imposed on smaller nations of the UK by New Liebour as led to social injustices towards the people of England that will no longer be tolerated.

Surely if there was a vote for Scottish Independence it would require all within the UK to vote on the Issue as it would break up the Union and affect us all.
Mr Salmond can rely on a huge English vote going his way.
Most of us wish the Scots extremely well and look forward to a day when they can be independent of England and dependent on Brussels.
Can't wait.

I totally support David Lane's comment. I would have said more or less the same thing. I do not understand why all those so-called socialists or Labour supporters are so against an English Parliament and so for a break-up of England to regional governments, just what is the point in that? Instead of voting the three main parties it's time to give every vote to the English Democrats Party: www.englishdemocrats.org.uk The only party who wants the best for England

Has any other artice attracted as much interest as this one?

Seems to have struck a nerve

Easy to solve this problem of "should there be an English Parliament?"--- just ask the English via a referendum in England only. Just like the ones in Scotland and Wales. I suspect the result would be resounding YES.

As for the supposition that the politics of England would be a replication of those of Westminster and the claim that this would lead to a permanent Tory majority, I don't see why. Far more likely is that a completely new politics would quickly emerge. Labour's future in England does not look bright unless they get shot of the aura of Brown and take a completely new tack. Championing an EP should an integral part of this and would have the pleasing effect of outflanking the Tory/Libs.

a Wessex assembly might help

I understand the problems that have arisen because of 'partial devolution' but I'm not sure that an English Parliament is the best idea (though, of course, it should not be dismissed out of hand without considering its positives and negatives) - what would happen to the UK parliament, for instance, if we had the equivalent of Holyrood in England? Surely either the Commons or the English Parliament would be surplus to requirements (because England is represented by 533 of the 650 seats (82%) in the Commons) - this is why there is a call for regional levels of government (along population sizes similar to Wales and Scotland), rather than what could be argued as largely a replication of functions performed by the Commons). Others have argued that only English MPs should be allowed to vote on English matters, which in terms of saving us all money and the added layer of representation is a better idea but has been contested for a number of constitutional reasons.

It's a toughie, but I do hope that the issue is put out there and we can have a good debate about it.

I have said it before and I will say it again, a vote for any of the big three parties now is in my view saying to them we are happy with you all ripping us off it's ok we will still vote for you, when will the people of this country get up of their preverbial backsides and vote for any of the alternatives, ie The English Democrats, UKIP, Greens or any other that stands in their ward? Your vote should not be about blocking one party or another or about the only party that might win either. Your vote is yours and yours alone stuff those who say it is wasted voting for this or that party that is what the big three want you to think and it works time and time again, at the next elecetion vote for WHO YOU want not for who you dont want to win or you will end up with what we have got....NO Change

Alfred the Ok

Oh you bet! Less than 100 out of 51 million, I'm shitting myself now!

It would help if people here knew what the scottish parliament actually did. It controls all matters except these:

" * Head A - Financial and Economic Matters

fiscal, economic and monetary policy
currency
financial services
financial markets
money laundering

* Head B - Home Affairs

drug abuse
data protection and access to information
elections
firearms
film classification
immigration and nationality
scientific procedures on live animals
national security and counter-terrorism
betting, gaming and lotteries
emergency powers
extradition
lieutenancies

* Head C – Trade and Industry

business associations
insolvency
competition
intellectual property
import and export control
sea fishing outside the Scottish zone
customer protection
product standards, safety and liability
weights and measures
telecommunications
postal services
research councils

* Head D – Energy

electricity
oil and gas
coal
nuclear energy
energy efficiency

* Head E - Transport

road transport
rail transport
marine transport
air transport

* Head F – Social Security

social security schemes
child support
pensions

* Head G – Regulation of the Professions

architect
health professions
auditor

* Head H – Employment

employment and industrial relations
health and safety

* Head J – Health and Medicines

abortion
xenotransplantation
embryology, surrogacy and human genetics
medicines, medical supplies and poisons
welfare foods

* Head K – Media and Culture

broadcasting
public lending right

* Head L – Miscellaneous

judicial salaries
equal opportunities
control of weapons of mass destruction
Ordnance Survey
time
outer space "

Call me naive, but that looks a pretty substancial list. To say that Scotland is ruled via Holyrood is nonsense; the greater balance of power over the scottish people still lies in Westminster.

Furthermore, before devolution 90% of legislation passed in westminster had to have another scottish version passed due to Scotlands different legal system. Post devolution this means that more time is available at westminster to focus specifically on english legislation.
There are issues with TWL question, but are you seriously suggesting the best solution to this is to spend billions electing building a new parliament, employing another set of politicians, and all the staff they need to employ? Come off it. (Btw the average MSP represents approx. 40000 people, applying this to england would mean another 1278 politicians) Restricting the voting rights of 'Celtic' MPs would be much easier, though I doubt you'd even notice the difference.

Therefore creating an english parliament based on its scottish counterpart would be extremely expensive, and the issues it would control are already being controlled at westminister with very little interference from 'celtic' mps. And if there was an EP you be left with a westminster operating at only half capacity.
So 2 parliaments, 2 executives, both situated within London, both operating over the same 51 million people? Can't you see how silly this is? Why don't you put them both together? Like the way it is just now?

It is beyond all doubt that the peope living in England would prefer to be able to vote into office their owm MPs with seats within their own land of England rather than a mishmash of MPs from the fringelands. We need to accept that the "Union" no longer exists except on paper but has long since vanished from people's hearts.Now we MUST grasp the fact thatonly in England do we still have this futile adherence to the "United Kingdom" and realise that the fringeland folk have already changed and are intent only upon caring for themselves. You who call yourselves English should strive to bring about a change in the politics of today and press urgently for our own Parliament at Westminster,devoid of the fringeland MPs with an ad hoc "UK" federal assembly for international matters as and when needed. Not hard to do ,just needs some oldfashioned English commomsense and courage.Why not join the Campaign for an English Parliament? Why not cease to carp and moan and bloody well do something? Now ,there's an idea!

'On the question of an English parliament Labour has a key choice to make'.

Errr shouldn't it be the people of England who have the choice?
Scotland and Wales had a referendum or two, when do we English get one?

@Des Demona, a MAJORITY of MPs from English Constituencies voted AGAINST the imposition of Tuition Fees. The 46 MPs from outside England were the ones to tip the balance in favour of tuition fees being imposed, the 71 MPs outside England who didn't vote don't matter, it's the one who DID vote who imposed the policy on English kids whilst their own young people were getting off "Scot Free".

Fact: New Labour doesn't do England never has done never will.

Swatantra Nandanwar and all the other New Labour rubbish can you please buy an atlas (non EU version) and have a good look at it ENGLAND IS NOT NOT NOT NOT MADE UP OF REGIONS just like Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales.

> Dave at 19:35

OK, you've convinced me: the Scottish Parliament is a pointless body and we should abolish it and return to having a single UK parliament.

.... But as that ain't gonna happen, if it's good enough for the Scots (etc), it's good enough for my nation.

If that is a further step towards dissolution of the UK then so be it. It weren't me that started this process, guv!

Dave: FFS, I was referring to the PERCENTAGE of those that have bothered to leave a comment (over 90% in favour over an EP - with just a few flat earthers objecting)...

Dave, when you see those very sophisticated opinion polls conducted by Bob Worcester and his ilk asking the nation what they think about this and that, crusty old Bob does not actually go out with his clip-board to ask every single one of those 60 million people in the UK what they think...they take a sample.

Looking at the comments sample, it appears to show the vast majority of those who have bothered to comment in favour of an EP - there, simples!

BTW, the last national opinion poll showed over 60% in favour of an EP - will of the people and all that....

Note: I do hope you have a change of underwear.

Just the mention of anything that favours England and it rattles all the ant-Englanders cage.
If the people on this thread who do not want a Parliament for England are English ,what is wrong with you?and if you are not English ,what the hell has it got to do with you?

For once I will agree with David Lane (and that will be a first) English parliament will mean justice for a forgotten England and the English people. England makes up the largest population in the now defunct Union, and that is just not fair, the peoples in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all get the right to be proud of their nations and proud to call themselves after their nations, if the English do this we are classed as right wing or racist. This is wrong on so many levels, we should not be forced to say we are citizens of the Uk or British we should be afforded the same right as the other countries in the union and that is to say it loud and proud, we are the English and are proud to be part of England and all he culture and history, not have that right dampened just in case we upset the minorities in our own land. As a civic nationalist, in my mind colour sexuality and religion has no consequence, it is not fair though that as a majority the English get treated different to the minority, we are the English and should be proud to say so not ridiculed or classed racist if we do. labour are to blame they are the ones that brought about the lack of patriotism in our country, people getting told you cant say your English you have to say your British while everyone else in the union is pushed and above all allowed to embrace their heritage, history, culture and nationhood. We as the English are not and that is the biggest injustice of all.

English parliament all the way for me and I urge people to join the Campaign for an English parliament ( google CEP) and help in the campaign for justice and fairness in our land.

Westminster is not the English parliament and we don't want this regional model. Look a simple referendum on the issue will settle it. The official conservative line is that they feel it will finally break up the union well I am sorry but that has already happened. What they really fear is that Westminster would be rendered a shadow of its former self it will be radically reduced in size and confined to UK foreign policy, macro economics etc. One other possible consequence of English devolution is that the EU membership is through the UK if the union goes then the four nations will have to decide if they want to stay in or have a different form of membership like the Swiss.

Some of the above refer to breaking up England into 'federal' regions (presumably those as decided on for EU elections, which have no historic basis). This option does not work, unless you like the idea of a separate South West or London NHS, just like Scotland or Wales which have their own NHS. Presumeably these super English regions would have at least the same powers of the Scottish government. Fact is, the modern Labour party is institutionally anti-English. Some would call it anti-English racism.

If you beleive in Equality and Democracy and want to keep a United Kingdom then you have to support a Government for England, anything else is a supression of a nations freedom.

1) So many opinions from on high, the LibLabCon, telling us why we should not have a cohesive English parliament.
2) So many in Labour telling us there is no appetite for an English parliament.
3) So many in Labour denying the English a referendum, saying an English parliament would lead to the break up of the UK.
4) So many in Labour unable to realise that 3 contradicts 2.

Why not prove your point by asking the English in a referendum?

The plain fact is that since devolution an integrated Britain is finished and that England, like its UK partner Scotland, has to have its own Parliament to negotiate either a federal Britain or the end of the union. Westminster is not England and England is not Westminster. God help the outcome if Westminster dares to negotiate the break up of England's union with Scotland.