Rowntree's governance series

Stuart Weir (Cambridge, Democratic Audit): If we are realistic, the chances of electoral reform for elections to Westminster are now at least a generation away – unless first-past-the-post (FPTP) elections topple in confusion under the weight of the system’s distortions and contradictions. What can be done to try and rescue the opportunity for change, short of Gordon Brown seizing the moment for overall constitutional change by holding a Citizens Convention that embraces electoral reform as part of his near lost Governance agenda?

Well, I am a convert to the idea that the ice-breaker has to be the Alternative Vote (AV), even though it is even more disproportional than FPTP. The Combining All Our Strength alliance for civil society organisations, in which OurKingdom is a key player, this week held a high-level seminar on the prospects for change, involving electoral experts and Labour and Lib Dem MPs. My sense was that there was a consensus, reluctant on the part of some, around the argument that AV represented the best way forward, almost certainly because it was clear that it was the only likely starter.

Sunder Katwala of the Fabian Society opened a discussion that was held under Chatham House rules (for Sunder's argument for AV see his post in OK) . He argued that reformers had to unite around a first choice rather than continually debating systems; that AV would be no worse than FPTP; that it retained the constituency link that voters liked; and that it was an “honest” system in that it reduced the need for people to vote tactically. He suggested that at least Labour should be encouraged to put a change to AV for elections to the House of Commons in their next manifesto, along with the single transferable vote (STV) for elections to a reformed House of Lords and a written constitution. Hopes that a hung Parliament might lead to electoral reform were misplaced. “It will soon be the anniversary of the People’s Budget and then the Parliament Act. Make these anniversaries the occasion for another Great Reform Act”.

Andrew Blick (London, Democratic Audit): A new political term was coined Monday night - 'post-post-nationalism'. Its inventor, David Goodhart. Editor of Prospect, was giving a paper at another lively 'Combining All our Strengths' Rowntree seminar in Westminster on the 'English question'. When asked if he was really simply talking about nationalism, he insisted that he wasn’t – and if it was he would have saved himself the trouble and called it just that.

Goodhart’s basic thesis was that a 'post-post-nationalism' is necessary in the UK to replace the current 'fuzzy' concept of nationalism and create 'markers for a post-ethnic national citizenship that is also open to the world.' This project is particularly important to the liberal left, with the increased demands it wants to make on citizens, 'whether paying higher taxes or being more active citizens.' At this stage in history, the nation is a vital unit for collective action and 'without it we are sunk'. Given his benign attitude towards nationalism, the default establishment of a separate English state and Parliament that could follow Scottish independence is, in David Goodhart's view, nothing to fear, even for the Labour Party, which would simply have to work harder at winning English middle class support.

This is a report from the first in a series of seminars the Rowntree trust is running on issues connected to the governance agenda. The seminar was based on a paper by David Beetham, which is published below.

Stuart Weir (Cambridge, Democratic Audit): I don't want to find myself mired in the deficiencies of the discussion on "British values" in the July 2007 green paper and in Lord Goldsmith's citizenship review. But briefly - in their different ways both are intrinsically un-British: the green paper is, as David Beetham says in his paper, published with this note, prescriptive and exhortatory; Goldsmith turns to crass symbols, rituals and ceremony on the basis of a "historical narrative" that Beetham expose as partial at best, and false in its essentials.  Worse still, Goldsmith's design is to separate out citizens and non-citizens in pursuit of a narrow concept of citizenship; and his description of the citizen's relationship with the state comes straight out of Leviathan. Wake up, man, our shared values about democracy, human rights, citizenship, society and life have moved on since then!

Article: This paper was discussed at the Rowntree's seminar on governance which Stuart Weir reports on above.

David Beetham (Manchester, Democratic Audit): One of Gordon Brown's first acts after becoming Prime Minister in 2007 was to publish a Green Paper with Jack Straw, The Governance of Britain, outlining a "new constitutional settlement" which would "forge a new relationship between government and citizen." Part 4 of this paper, entitled "Britain's future: the citizen and the state," was focused on a set of concerns about what it means to be British, what are the distinctive British values, and what rights and responsibilities people should have as citizens, all of which were argued to be unclear or confused and in need of greater clarification. So, for example, we read: "The Government believes that a clearer definition of citizenship would give people a better sense of their British identity in a globalised world" (sec. 185). "A clearer understanding of the common core of rights and responsibilities that go with British citizenship will help build our sense of shared identity and social cohesion" (193). "It is important to be clearer about what it means to be British, what it means to be part of British society and, crucially, to be resolute in making the point that what comes with that is a set of values which have not just to be shared but also accepted" (195).