open Democracy News Analysis - Brown's reforms - Comments

mpcoc on "Second chamber must be a check, not a cheerleader"

mpcoc — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 17:26:36 +0000

Politically, even the Labour Party, when still in power in Holyrood, would not have gone near this with a barge pole. There's no chance that the SNP would play ball.

mpcoc

Tom Griffin on "The democratic republican moment"

Tom Griffin — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 19:51:00 +0100

Marquand did emphasise that the four traditions tend to overlap, and I think his scheme could accommodate English nationalism.
Indeed, he specifically mentioned it in relation to Enoch Powell.
The Powellite, Tory nationalist strain of English nationalism is exemplified by someone like Simon Heffer. I think you're right that there's a democratic republican strain as well that goes back to the Levellers.
I would be less inclined to identify Whig imperialism with English nationalism, as it is arguably the tradition which created supra-national Britishness.

britologywatch on "The democratic republican moment"

britologywatch — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 21:31:04 +0100

Where does civic / progressive English nationalism fit in to Marquand's schema? Judging from Tom Griffin's account, it's hard to see where it could be accommodated, as Marquand's narrative appears to be largely Britain-centric. At the risk of misrepresentation, perhaps he would see such a concept as a blend of 'Tory nationalism' and 'democratic republicanism', and, by that token, self-contradictory and marginal: appealing only to a sort of extremist fringe and loony alliance of different strands ranging from defenders of 'England's' great imperial traditions (seen as traduced by the modern post-devolution unionist mainstream) to republican nationalists intent on throwing every last bit of the Union baby out with the independence bath water.

However, if I were to express things in Marquand's terms - which are questionable, though highly thought-provoking - I would say that civic / progressive English nationalism was more a blend of Whig imperialism and democratic republicanism: probably an equally distasteful and uncongenial blend for Marquand. After all, Marquand himself uses the 'p' word in his definition of Whig imperialism: "a tradition of practical progress". Another term for Marquand's Whig imperialism could be 'one-nation Conservatism': and the one nation whose culture, temperament and traditional social hierarchies this tradition is most attuned to is England. The same England over half of whose voters may vote Conservative at the next election if this week's polls are to be believed, while the rest of the UK (a term usually used for England but here applied to Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland) votes Labour or nationalist.

Modern civic English nationalism appeals both to these traditionalist elements (so-called 'Middle England''s natural conservatism - small 'c' - and cautious progressivism) and to the strand of democratic republicanism, expressed in the form of calls for popular English sovereignty to overthrow the undemocratic rule of the UK parliament seen as the inheritor of the royal prerogative. These two threads, then ('Whig imperialism', if you wish, and 'democratic republicanism'), converge in an English nationalism that appeals to both radicalism and social conservatism, both rooted in an understanding and love for the democratic traditions, anti-authoritarian genius and love of rules and orderliness of the English people.

Maybe, then, English nationalism - and the advent of a new English parliament and popular sovereignty - is the thing that could provide the apparatus and focus of power that Marquand talks about, which could channel the forces of democratic republicanism in a way that is in harmony with the temperament and pragmatic thinking of the English, and not at odds with these elements, as much Britain-focused progressivism of the Tory-nationalist and democratic-collectivist kind has been.

And maybe, indeed, a Cameron government, with its power base in England, will be the perhaps unwitting vehicle for this transformation. Because one thing that is sure is that it will provide the momentum for the final break up of the Union. And maybe that's why so many people in England are getting behind Cameron: a very English way of reasserting English priorities over against an anti-English, undemocratic British collectivism more commonly known as New Labour.

James Ware on "Second chamber must be a check, not a cheerleader"

James Ware — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 16:19:28 +0100

The answer is stv by euro region/ nation for teh 80% part of an elected second chamber and the removal or reform of Welsh Scottish Mpos in the Commons, with the creation of the English parliament.

James Graham UD on "Second chamber must be a check, not a cheerleader"

James Graham UD — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:02:03 +0100

I think we agree. I have to admit to having a lot less difficulty with negotiating an "Aussie" package considering the electoral systems of both houses than the idea of a "one line bill" to get AV now and worry about the second chamber later.

While I disagree with the underlying assumption behind the Australian system that for the electoral systems of both houses to be sufficiently "different" one should be proportional and the other should be majoritarian (having the second chamber elected in thirds, in larger multi-member constituencies and with non-renewable terms would be sufficiently different in my view), at least both systems provide greater voter choice and voters would only be expected to vote in one way (1, 2, 3...) for both elections which will minimise confusion.

But as you say, any system needs to arise as a result of a deliberative process.

Toque on "Second chamber must be a check, not a cheerleader"

Toque — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:26:30 +0100

The Democracy Task Force have said that there would have to be a similar mechanism in an elected Lords. They do not see this as "an insuperable obstacle".

MichaelCalderbank(ERS) on "Second chamber must be a check, not a cheerleader"

MichaelCalderbank(ERS) — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 10:14:12 +0100

Go along with you 100% on the Lords, James. I should add that the Eletoral Reform Society remains absolutely committed proportional elections for both Houses.. However the Labour Campaign for Electoral Reform is promoting an entirely legitimate debate about whether reformers in the party should be supportive of moves to push through the only package of reforms that stands a realistic chance of getting through the PLP. I think we need to make clear that - even if this package is accepted for pragmatic reasons - it should only be as a staging post towards a much bolder and more substantial solution. We should continue to make clear our criticisms of the view that the single member constituency link (ie. monopoly!) is absolutely sacrosanct. My own view is that the Aussie Rules package would need to include some form of binding deliberative process, allowing a representative body of voters the ability to consider whether either a proportional top-up elements (Jenkins' AV+) or a shift to multi-member STV (my own preferred option) should be put to a national referendum. Ultimately AV might be as far as the MPs are willing to go at the moment. But whilst should force concessions where we can, ultimately MPs can't be allowed to dictate their own terms and conditions of employment - the decision is ultimately for us voters to make.

David, aka Britology Watch on "Second chamber must be a check, not a cheerleader"

David, aka Britology Watch — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 23:20:59 +0100

Alex,

Fair enough. I wish I had as much confidence that we in England would be granted a referendum on any Lords Reform Bill, so we could reject a revising chamber where Scottish- and Welsh-elected members could have a say on England-only laws. But it seems Jack Straw regards putting the proposals into Labour's manifesto as giving them sufficient democratic authorisation. Just as well they probably won't be re-elected.

Plebiscitary democracy, indeed, as David Marquand called it!

Alex Buchan on "Second chamber must be a check, not a cheerleader"

Alex Buchan — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 19:46:13 +0100

To make the House of Lords a revising chamber for the Scottish Parliament would be a major change to the 'Scotland Act' and would therefore require a referendum in Scotland before it could be enacted. Not to hold such a referendum would be to renege on the 'Claim of Right' which Gordon Brown signed up to.

Politically, even the Labour Party, when still in power in Holyrood, would not have gone near this with a barge pole. There's no chance that the SNP would play ball.

David, aka Britology Watch on "Second chamber must be a check, not a cheerleader"

David, aka Britology Watch — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:26:02 +0100

Would someone from the Conservatives' Democracy Taskforce care to enlighten us whether Scottish and Welsh elected Lords would be able to vote, or merely deliberate, on English matters? At least one advantage of an unelected second chamber is that it doesn't have to answer the English Question.

If the answer to my question above is 'yes', can we give the new House of Lords - including the English-elected ones - the power to review and suggest revisions to legislation originating from the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly? Or am I just being nitpicking?

Philip Hosking on "First thoughts after Labour's debacle"

Philip Hosking — Tue, 06 May 2008 19:55:28 +0100

Peter Davidson,

I too am going over old ground but you must realise how bitterly disappointed many in the Cornish Assembly campaign were by the lack of support from practically all quarters.

"I’m assuming you would concur with these goals?"

Of course and it seems to me a shame that a stronger working relationship does not exist between UK wide democratic reformers such as Unlock Democracy and the majority progressive elements in the Cornish movement.

Peter Davidson on "First thoughts after Labour's debacle"

Peter Davidson — Tue, 06 May 2008 10:34:54 +0100

Philip

I did use the words "it is vital that nothing should be off its agenda from the outset" and I meant it.

If a convention of this kind was established (which is doubtful of course but we can only keep up the pressure through groups like Unlock Democracy), it would be up to ordinary citizens to organise themselves in order to make their voices heard.

I think I am repeating myself when I say that I believe the shape of the current official English Regional map is a contributing negative factor in driving antipathy towards the concept of English Regional devolution.

Many here on OK complain (some in order to fulfill their own agenda) about the lack of connection, historical and cultural relevance displayed by some of the current official Regional boundaries and I would agree with them in a quite a number of instances.

One such Region is the nebulous South West Region, which has very few fans outside official circles.

For me a Citizens Convention should focus on four distinct areas of concern:

1. The shape and extent of power dispersal across the UK

2. The way in which in we elect representatives to accountable institutions of governance (of course this would include the voting system)

3. The role and identity of the UK's head of state

4. Creating a written constitutional statement.

I'm assuming you would concur with these goals?

Gareth Young (Brighton) on "First thoughts after Labour's debacle"

Gareth Young (Brighton) — Tue, 06 May 2008 10:24:30 +0100

A referendum on an English parliament, even if lost, would be a victory as far as I am concerned because it would be recognition of the sovereignty of the people of England and England's status as a nation.

It's interesting that the Scottish people, the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government all believe that there should be a referendum on Scottish independence - even if they do have different agendas and timescales for this to happen. Gordon Brown, meanwhile, whose signature on the Scottish Claim of Right endorsed the sovereignty of the people of Scotland, is opposed to a referendum under any circumstances.

So much for listening to the people. So much for listening to Parliament. So much for a new style of government!

Philip Hosking on "First thoughts after Labour's debacle"

Philip Hosking — Mon, 05 May 2008 20:12:40 +0100

"I believe that only through some form of meaningful engagement (not a consultation with a pre-determined outcome) with ordinary citizens can an equitable and sustainable constitutional settlement (for the entire UK) emerge"

Would this mean we would have to collect a new petition calling for devolution to a Cornish assembly?

In such a citizens convention if the majority in England demonstrated a desire for an English parliament would Cornwall, which also has a sense of national identity and interest in devolution, be heard and accomodated or simply ignored as has been the case so far?

Peter Davidson on "First thoughts after Labour's debacle"

Peter Davidson — Mon, 05 May 2008 17:06:09 +0100

OK: "it has merged into unlock Democracy which calls for a bottom-up constitutional convention."

To derive legitimacy constitutional reform must remain citizen (bottom-up) inspired. Through the dialogue contained within OK I have come to appreciate another subtle facet of the failed Labour inspired English Regional strategy (during 2001-2004) and that is its perception as a top-down process, driven by political expediency and notions of short term electoral advantage.

Following their recent electoral reverses, (Nu)Labour must now realise that any particular fiefdom of power is open to future change. Labour do not have a divine right to govern in the North any more than the Conservatives do in the South. That right must be earned by delivering appropriate policies appealing to core voters rather than pandering to corporate interests.

I believe that only through some form of meaningful engagement (not a consultation with a pre-determined outcome) with ordinary citizens can an equitable and sustainable constitutional settlement (for the entire UK) emerge.

A citizens convention in the form now advocated by Unlock Democracy (an organisation I belong to) fits this profile - it is vital that nothing should be off its agenda (including the potential for an all-England political institution) from the outset.