Anthony Barnett (London, OK): Liam Byrne is the Minister of State for Borders and Immigration. Eloquent and presentable, he is according to the Spectator, tipped to become a Cabinet Minister in next month's reshuffle. He's about to publish a Demos pamphlet on 'Refreshing Fraternity'. A trailer has just been published in this week's Spectator. It makes interesting reading in the context of our debate about Labour After Brown. Byrne's is definitely a Labour With Brown scenario. He attempts by seamless legerdemain to magic Britain into being a nation. He sat through the Prime Minister's IPPR speech on citizenship where Brown hailed the country as a pioneering multi-national entity. Byrne knows the reality, of course. This is how he tries to pilot out of it:
Tony Blair and Gordon Brown talked about the way individuals do better in strong communities. That truth has not changed. But it requires that alongside new measures to empower individuals, we need new measures to strengthen what ties individuals together, renewing the rules of mutual respect for a 21st-century British society.
Meaning: I am a Brown supporter but this cuddles up nicely with David Miliband's 'fusion' approach
This is why the debate about Britishness is so important and so relevant today. Britishness is quite simply one of the most important associations that we have;
So, definitely Brown. But note that Byrne would like to summons Britain into being as a "strong community". Of course, a community is the opposite of a large state. So how about an 'association'!
[Britishness] is a code, shaped by our history, that defines so much of the way we look at the world. But our work to reinforce national identity must be part of a much wider effort to refresh fraternity in modern Britain. To renew the social contract that links us all. To link a civic and cultural agenda to economic reform and a fresh assault on inequality in Britain’s poor places.
Whoa, this is very conjuring. Britishness is now a "code". Trendy modern linkage to Milibandism here (The Foreign Secretary proposed Britain as a network "hub"). Something secret but also something modern. The code - soon I predict it will become an 'operating system' - must be applied to reinforce national identity. Suddenly, Britishness is a "national identity". How did that happen? Of course it is a good nationalism that "refreshes fraternity" (subtle pamphlet plug). A term that echoes both traditional socialist values in a new context and a British kind of informal, practical approach. But what if you have a sweet side for Rawlsian philosophy and continental codification? For you, then, it is also a "social contract". Circle squared? Why stop at one circle? It is also civic and cultural and don't forget economic too, and if these words are too soft it is about "assaulting" inequality. But should that make you worried it might be a radical programme that aims at the bloated bonuses of the City of London, relax. Assaulting inequality will be confined to "poor places".
The Statement, or Bill, of British Rights and Duties is perhaps the most constitutionally prominent opportunity to set out a picture of the contract that binds us together. The London Olympics will be an extraordinary stage on which to set out our national story.
No, I have not made it up. From, "most constitutionally prominent opportunity" (what a phrase) to set out a "picture" of the contract we go straight into the Olympics. This, then, becomes a stage to set out our "national" story. Just like China setting out its national story? There are no Tibets here, anyone suggesting otherwise is exaggerating But will the torch that celebrates a British-'national' story be paraded in Belfast?
Renewed investment in our history and the sites, landmarks, monuments and markers of our shared heritage all help. I have made the argument elsewhere for a national day to celebrate what we like best about our country. Nationally, we must argue with new vigour our defence of the Union.
Hold that sentence. Say it to yourself: "Nationally, we must argue with new vigour our defence of the Union." The strain is evident. Who is the national 'we' defending the Union from?
And in towns and cities we must use the huge programme of regeneration — new homes, schools and health centres — as an opportunity to renew both civic fabric and civic pride. In my conversations around Britain, I met an especially eloquent lady in Edgbaston. She said, ‘We can learn to live together, if we only put our minds to it.’ I think she is right. And I think we should approach this task with an air of great confidence.
If we all put our minds to it and whistle confidently it will be fine.
He goes on. I won't. Byrne's conclusion: We must be radical, imaginative and inventive.
But the Minister is not being radical and has said nothing that is imaginative or new. He is right that we can and should be inventive politically. But invention was not just in the past as he seems to think. It is taking place in Holyrood and Cardiff Bay as we speak.
Comments
Quite. The New Labourites are really struggling with their post-devolution rhetoric.
“There are no Tibets here, anyone suggesting otherwise is exaggerating”
Some in Wales would refer you to the ‘extirpation clause’ in the 1536 Laws in Wales Act which Parliament kindly repealed in 1993.
The uncomfortable truth (for some) is that the foundation of the United Kingdom is far from glorious, being a contruct of colonialism and contentious treaty and that the traditional Anglo-centric ‘national story’ has always been resented to varying degrees outside England.
It is possible to create a new narrative for the union but New Labour seem incapable of it – perhaps it is the ‘E’ word that inhibits them.
What next I wonder? Wrapping bulldogs up in the union jack?
Did you read Michael Gove's thoughts on Brown's Britishness?
"..its interesting to note that when the Prime Minister does engage with questions about political loyalty - for citizens that is - its on an exclusive level. He thinks solely about Britishness - about the relationship of the individual to the state structure over which he presides.
I had thought that the Prime Minister’s rhetorical emphasis on Britishness was a tactical move designed to deal with the political weakness he would face as a member for a Scottish constituency in post-devolution Westminster. But it has become clear that is not the whole story. Brown emphasises Britishness so much because the only relationship which counts for him is between the citizen and the state."
The invention is taking place in Cardiff and Holyrood and elsewhere in the communities in the four countries as people have moved into a new political/civil space but the Brown govt lacks a language to recognise and address this.
Their policy bandwidth is too narrow and london-centric and the conflation of the London Olympics as a stage for the national story shows the same tired theatrical cliches are being trotted out once more.
They also have no language to address the changing nature of community - the civil fabric as well as the civic. Gerry Hassan made this point in his recent post with real clarity.
A Scandanavian colleague recently made the point to me that the Scottish policies on communities post devolution use terms like 'people', 'place', 'working and learning together', and with the election of the SNP, terms like ''conversation' enter the policy language. She contrasted that with English policies which are all 'strategies' and use terms like 'community empowerment', 'control' and 'cohesion' and she noted the real fear of debate, shrillness and strain that lay behind such terms
Post new comment