We seem to have a problem with sorting out constitutional reform – particularly in England.
- Regional Assembly for North East England – rejected, but then it was a complete pig in a poke
- (Partial) Reform of the Electoral System – rejected, but then who actually wanted AV?
- City Mayors – rejected by the vast majority of cities asked.
- Crime Commissioning (whatever that actually is!) – not rejected, but then we were not asked!
- House of Lords Reform – falls apart, but have we actually decided what we want a second chamber for?
- Equalising of Constituencies (and redefining them whenever they get out of line – thereby reinforcing longterm links between MPs and their constituencies?) – lost in a tit-for-tat retaliation for the loss of Lords reform.
Why can’t we put propose sensible reforms to problems that are often universally acknowledged? And what does the loss of the last two actually say about Constitutional reform in England? Read more…