English Parliament

Paul Kingsnorth responds to Mark Perryman's call in Breaking up Britain for a progressive English identity.

‘What is Englishness?' is a question I have always studiously avoided answering. I can't stand the kind of lists that are sometimes drawn up by people trying to define ‘our national character', which always seem to come down to either a list of things that an English person should feel an attachment to (real ale, the countryside, David Beckham) or a list of Brownite-style ‘values' (tolerance, democracy, love of queuing) to which all English people should apparently feel equally committed.

But having read Mark's chapter, ‘a Jigsaw state', I am left with the feeling that perhaps we need to start trying to answer the question after all. Whether or not Britain ‘breaks up' in the political sense - and I am less convinced that it will ‘inevitably' do so than Mark seems to be - it is clearly already breaking up in the cultural sense. Scotland and Wales today feel more Scottish and Welsh than they did ten years ago, and so it seems do their people. The English, meanwhile, still struggling out from under ‘greater England', as Mark correctly calls the modern British identity, are in something of a fix. Still confused about the difference between Britishness and Englishness, always reluctant in any case to explain and define themselves, changed by immigration and the resulting policy of ‘multiculturalism', the English seem confused.

Can Englishness be re-claimed from the populist right? In this extract from Breaking up Britain Mark Perryman suggests what the key features of a post-Union progressive English identity would be.

In disentangling our Englishness from a Britishness which has denied the Scots and Welsh their independence we have the opportunity to achieve a progressive national settlement for ourselves. George Monbiot describes both the process and the outcome. ‘ Three nations in the United Kingdom, as a result of one of this government's rare progressive policies, now possess a representative assembly. The fourth, and largest, England, does not. England, the great colonising nation, has become a colony.' A populist right defines the colonisation of England  in terms of a Scottish raj, they detest an ungrateful nation on our northern border and want nothing to do with the continent except cheap holidays and bottles of plonk while proposing to erect barriers to keep out asylum-seekers and migrant workers.

The political theorist Chantal Mouffe describes the context in which a response devoid of a progressively popular alternative is provided.  ‘ So far the answer has been completely inadequate because it has mainly consisted in moral condemnation. Of course, such a reaction fits perfectly with the dominant post-political perspective and it had to be expected. Given that politics had supposedly become "non-adversarial"  the frontier between us and them constitutive of politics can only be drawn in the moral register.' Chantal describes the likely consequences of such a failing, ‘ If a serious attempt is not made to address the democratic deficit that characterises the "post-political" age that neo-liberal hegemony has brought about, and to challenge the growing inequalities it has created, the diverse forms of resentment are bound to persist.

Tom Griffin (London, OK): Over at Comment Is Free, Paul Kingsnorth reflects on his recent OurKingdom debate with Vron Ware, and re-states his left-wing case for English nationalism:

because the English, unlike the Scottish, the Welsh or the people of Northern Ireland, have no political focus for their concerns, they have nowhere to turn to express them. What can happen when such a focus does exist can be seen north of the border. The last decade has seen a transformation of Scotland, as a direct result of the creation of a Scottish parliament.

Of course, the Scottish Parliament is itself the product of decades of political mobilisation. Scottish nationalists had no political focus either until they created one. Perhaps the first step for progressive English nationalists is to figure out how to follow that example.

Tom Griffin (London, The Green Ribbon): In the latest edition of Parliamentary Brief, Arthur Aughey looks at how Ken Clarke's Democracy Task Force has attempted to answer the English Question. Although sceptical on the details, he suggests that Clarke's approach reflects distinctive conservative principles that may point the way to a solution.

English nationalism is still a mood, not a movement, if only because the Conservative Party refuses to mobilise it as such. The taskforce’s objective is to prevent that mood becoming a movement, confirming the Unionism of the Conservative Party, something David Cameron has taken every opportunity to confirm since becoming leader.

If the report becomes party policy, which seems very likely, then the trajectory of Conservative thinking on the ‘English Question’ since 1997 is from constitutional maximalism to constitutional minimalism. It has gone from tentative support for an English parliament, through ‘English votes on English laws’ and Sir Malcolm Rifkind’s idea of an English grand committee,to this taskforce’s present recommendation of certified English bills being considered and voted on by English MPs only in committee and at the report stage.

Gareth Young (Lewes, CEP): Ken Clarke's plans to solve the West Lothian Question, have been greeted with predictable disdain by most political commentators. Typical was Iain Dale who declared that "England deserved better":

From what I have seen I cannot in any way defend this so-called solution. It is not even a half way house. Either you believe that England should have devolved government or you don't. If you do, then you either believe in English votes on English measures or you believe in some form of English Parliament.

But Iain Dale is wrong. Not that England deserves better, of course she does, but because neither Clarke's solution NOR English Votes on English measures are for people who believe that England should have "devolved government" (or "English government" if you prefer). Instead both are crude technical devices that attempt to right the democratic deficit brought about the very absence of English government. Clarke's contrivance is contrived to such a ludicrous degree precisely to avoid even the pretence of an English parliament that EVoEM seems to offer, and the consequent threat that such a democratic English body would pose to the Union when Scots object to it on the grounds of their own irrelevance. Indeed, as Clarke went to pains to point out on the Today Programme, his solution "means that the government retains control of the agenda; it retains control of the money." Scottish MPs would vote on the second reading of an English bill - "which is the vote on principle on the bill" - thereby ensuring the legitimacy of any cabinet government that contained Scottish ministers. But as Malcom Rifkind points out Clarke's mechanism would not have prevented the disgraceful actions of Scottish MPs during the Foundation Hospital and Top-up Fee legislation, even if last week's English Planning Bill amendment, scuppered by Brown's non-English MPs, could have been carried by English rebels. Under Clarke's scheme the English will be denied the affirmative expression of national identity afforded to the Scots; instead English MPs will speak for England only negatively - by wrecking UK Government legislation through the of tabeling ludicrous amendments, or the deleting of English clauses at committee stage. But fear not, for as Clarke points out the UK government retains control, and:

"at the final stage all the UK members would vote so if the English have transformed it to a way that is unacceptable to the Government the government could ask its majority to veto and abort the measure."

Or in other words if the English have transformed the bill to a manner that is acceptable to the English, the government could abort the legislation. Malcolm Rifkind does offer a slightly more sensible alternative to Clarke's madness:

There could be a requirement that at Second Reading and at Report stage, for a vote to be carried on amendments to an England-only Bill, the vote, to be declared carried, would need a majority both of the House as a whole and of MPs representing English constituencies.

Though one has to ask Rifkind why, if the English can veto the UK Government, should we bother letting the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish vote at all; why not just let the English draft and vote on their own legislation instead of muddling up UK Government and non-English MPs in the process? The simple answer to that question is "The Barnett Formula", a funding mechanism that provides Scottish MPs with the constitutional right to vote on English legislation by dint of the fact that English domestic legislation determines the block grant due to Scots as an inflated percentage of what is available to the English. Naturally Ken Clarke does not even bother to address the Barnett Formula.

Tom Griffin (London, The Green Ribbon):The gradual emergence of a distinct English nationalism in the wake of devolution has proven problematic for all the main Westminster parties, but perhaps none more so than the Labour Party. It was interesting therefore that last weekend's Compass Conference featured a seminar entitled An England for All: Can a progressive patriotism ever be inclusive?

It proved to be a lively and well-attended session. In the chair was Mark Perryman, editor of the new anthology Imagined Nation: England after Britain, reviewed below by Arthur Aughey.

"This debate is not being driven by the English," Perryman lamented. "We now live de facto in a disunited kingdom."

OK's Anthony Barnett suggested that the debate has moved beyond technical issues like the West Lothian Question, arguing that "the English as a people must have the opportunity of being offered their own Parliament.

Gareth Young (Lewes, CEP): Upon reading Frank Field’s Speech to the University of Hertfordshire one Campaign for an English Parliament member told me that “the fact that Frank Field had made the threat of the BNP central to the article taints the English Question in the way we have fought so hard for it not to be”.

For a pressure group like the CEP, who make the constitutional case for an English parliament to represent all the people of England as one people, it is obviously disappointing to have our cause linked to immigration and the rise of the BNP. But for Frank, who looks through Labour eyes, The English Question is about addressing the practical results of devolution and Labour’s failure to discuss English issues. For Frank The English Question is not so much about a popular sovereignty that allows the English to decide how they are governed, in fact he barely mentions that. Instead it is a list of English grievances, symptoms of Labour’s failure, and the rumbling discontent that will cost Labour votes.

The dangers for Labour of failing to lead the debate are perhaps even greater. That conclusion may come about not simply by the Tories being generally accepted by voters as the English Party. An even worse outcome would be for Labour to concede to the BNP yet another issue – along with immigration – with which to appeal to Labour’s core voters. If this was allowed to happen we would then begin to witness what a future historian might call The Unnecessary Death of Labour England?

My first contact with the BNP came at eighteen, as a young dreadlocked and politically naive student at Leicester University, when I went down to Leicester market to demonstrate against a stall that was selling denial of the Holocaust books and distributing white supremecist literature. Leicester Market promoted itself as the largest permanent open-air market in Europe, it was a congenial and fun place to shop, a place where people of different races and religions set up shop alongside each other to trade. And as far as I was concerned this stall was most definitely not welcome. Our demonstration took the form of a human barrier between the public and the BNP stall. It was a disruptive but peaceful demonstration. Until, that is, a van load of booted and suited - and frankly very scary - thugs turned up in a van and the police were forced to intervene, disperse the combatants, and eventually close the stall down.

Tom Griffin (London, The Green Ribbon): The Telegraph has an interesting leak from the Conservative Party's long-awaited Democracy Task Force report. It claims that Ken Clarke's committee has rejected Malcolm Rifkind's proposals for an English Grand Committee.

Instead, he is said to have advised allowing all MPs to vote on English legislation at the initial second reading stage of parliamentary scrutiny.
But only English MPs would get to vote during the detailed committee stage of the legislative process, where real changes can be effected.
At the third and final reading, all MPs could once again vote, but a new parliamentary undertaking would prevent any party using Scottish votes to block amendments made by English MPs.

 

A sceptical Gareth Young has dubbed the plan 'English pauses for English causes.' Iain Dale has denounced it as a sop.

Gareth Young (Lewes, CEP): What comes first, nationalism or the nation?

For Mark Perryman it seems that an English Parliament is inevitable; England is the human flotsam that will emerge as the good ship Britannia sinks after offloading its Celtic jetsam. And our task - as inheritors of the new state - is to begin preparations for how we want that nation to be: A pluralist England founded on space not race, Englishness, an inclusive nationality for all. In 10-20 years, says Mark, we will arrive at "England after Britain". It's a timescale based on three assumptions:

• Scotland will vote for independence;
• Ireland, due to a Catholic hegemony, will be reunited, and;
• Wales will have a Parliament.

No need, then, for a Campaign for an English Parliament? Except, that of the three assumptions, the only one that I think is inevitable is Wales gaining a parliament. Northern Ireland is becoming greener but a Catholic majority is still a long way off, and since the Belfast Agreement gives the Republic a veto on reunification no outcome should be assumed. And for Scots the romantic dream of "Freedom!" is not yet matched by an overwhelming desire for complete political independence from the rest of the UK.

Paul Kingsnorth (Oxford, author Real England): Peter Facey of Unlock Democracy has posed an interesting personal question. He feels the issues of identity but draws back for fear of having to embrace the bad with the good and asks isn't nationalism always going to be about airing grievances? An interesting question. I have only recently begun to refer to myself as an 'English nationalist', and not without some reservations. When I see idiots like the English Democrats doing their anti-Scottish thing, or engage in blog arguments with bigots from both England and Scotland who seem to think that the purpose of their nationalism is to allow them to each blame the other for their political plights, or engage in personal attacks, it makes me want to give up and go home.

Mark Perryman (London, Editor Imagined Nation: England after Britain): On the eve of Labour's near meltdown in London, English and Welsh local elections last Thursday Gareth Young posed an interesting challenge for those of us on the political left who are interested in The English Question.

Arthur Aughey reviews Real England: The Battle Against the Bland by Paul Kingsnorth.

Gareth Young (Lewes, CEP): Anthony Barnett has asked me to write a piece about the “way forward” for the CEP - the Campaign for an English Parliament. To be honest it’s a difficult task, not because I can’t see a way forward but because I think it’s other people, rather than the CEP, that need to take the next step.

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): I arrived at the CEP – the Campaign for an English Parliament - annual conference yesterday as Mike Knowles was summing up his introduction asking why the 550 English MPs don’t stand up for England. I had to leave early as the gathering was questioning Simon Hughes MP. For an overview of the day see the CEP's blog. I’ll blog tomorrow about one thing Hughes said. Here are some bullet points:

Gareth Young reviews Where Stands the Union now? Lessons from the 2007 Scottish Parliament election by John Curtice, ippr.

(ippr, February 2008, 13pp)

New ippr report's use of polling data underplays Scottish and English dissatisfaction with the current Union settlement.

To begin Professor Curtice looks at Scotland's position in the Union, and he casts a critical eye over commercial polls that indicate significant support for independence. What is understood by 'independence' is crucial and he suggests that for many respondents 'independence' means greater autonomy within the Union, rather than separation.

Jon Bright (London, OK): You might remember Alexandra Runswick's record of what giving evidence to the Ministry of Justice committee on the England question was like for Unlock Democracy. Mike Knowles of the CEP has now produced his own account, which is too large for our pages but can be read here.

Gareth Young reviews Beyond the Constitution: Englishness in a post-devolved Britain by Michael Kenny, Richard English and Richard Hayton, ippr.

New ippr report calls for positive engagement with Englishness but ignores the need for political recognition.

(ippr, February 2008, 11pp)

This is a response to Alexandra Runswick's post below about the Ministry of Justice committee meeting on the English question.

Michael Knowles (Cheshire, Campaign for an English Parliament): I certainly found the Unlock Democracy account of the Justice committee proceedings very helpful in various ways. Many elements in it are very perceptive. However, she did make me smile a lot - smile quite cynically, that is. Her 'take', to use the word, is as Establishment as the Establishment figures she directs our attention to. I would say a most urbane account, very acceptable to the Establishment. Very very safe. It really is the sort of stuff they can take for a thousand years. Like water off a duck's back. Possibly it was the manner in which the Unlock Democracy people mixed so happily and easily in the corridor with the Establishment firgures in the half hour we were all kept waiting - a division bell - that told you most about them.

Alexandra Runswick (London, Unlock Democracy): Last week the Justice Committee took evidence on the English Questions as part of their inquiry Devolution 10 years on (watch the video here - available for 28 days only!). What was interesting about this particular evidence session was the way it was neatly divided into establishment figures and pressure groups, and the contrasts this showed, both in the issues raised and the style of the session.

This is a response to this post by Michael Knowles, which in itself was a response to this original piece by Peter Facey.

Peter Facey (London, Unlock Democracy): Michael - thank you for replying to my article. In your reply you accuse me of raising Aunt Sallys - but your reply does exactly that as well. You accuse me of wanting to Balkanise England (I would like to know on what you base this insight into my heart); as someone who has worked in the Balkans I can assure you that's not my intention. If you want to accuse me of anything of a geographical nature then make it wanting to turn our Country into a English version of Switzerland: decentralised and with real influence for citizens.