Anthony Barnett (London, OK): Thanks to a tip from Gareth Young in the vigorous comments section on his OK post about The way forward for the Campaign for an English Parliament, I've just read Bill Bragg here in CiF. Billy defends his call for an English patriotism and makes a lot of what is happening in Scotland to prove his case that progressive politics and civic nationalism can go together. He's right. Two things strike me. Billy makes an explicitly socialist case - from a socialist addressed to socialists - saying internationalism and patriotism are not incompatible and the right should not be permitted a free ride on England. But the SNP have never been a socialist or an explicitly social-democratic party - even if this is what their government is turning out to be. So we have to ask the question: why is it that the most left-wing government in the United Kingdom is not from the Labour or socialist tradition?
Second, and more important, Billy talks about the need for Englishness but seems to draw back from calling for any English institution or parliament. How will his Englishness be delivered if it has no engine? In an early discussion in OK last year where a point was made about the current narrowness of the appeal of England and the risk of its being seen as an ethnic - ie racially coded - concept the come-back was a strong one, I thought. This was, that the comparison with Scotland is an unfair one in because now that they have their own institutions they have the means to make their nationalism civic and inclusive, while it is far harder to do this when you are making the case for having a national voice in the first place.
Comments
The stated aim of the SNP is an independent Scotland - though for a long while people have regarded them as being regionalist. No matter. I'd argue still that the social democratic policies of the SNP - the kind Labour used to deliver - are designed to win support for the SNP and for Scottish independence amongst working people. On the flipside there's the cosying up to the big business elite (the Donald Trump affair) and the failure to include earnings from shares in the proposed local income tax...
Sadly, Billy doesn't support an English parliament. But without national institutions in which citizens can participate, English civic nationalism is limited to international sporting events...
And if anyone cares, I've written a "What England means to me" bit from my own, Marxist (or should that be Marksist?) perspective: http://charliemarks.wordpress.com/what-england-means-to-me/
"the SNP have never been a socialist or an explicitly social-democratic party"
Not true. The SNP have been an explicitly social-democratic party for 20 years.
You are not reactionary yet, Gareth, and I have a feeling that like the best of us you will get more profoundly radical as you grow older!
Anthony
Billy Bragg and his comrades won't deliver his Englishness. You could lock them in a room for eternity and they'd still be agonising over the fact that they are English, it's becomes more painful to read as each year goes by.
I may be reactionary but at least I have an idea of what I want to do.
The fact that the progressive left don't is exactly what I am complaining about. They ain't progressive. His book, The Progressive Patriot, widely lauded and applauded, was exactly the same.
Let's move the debate on Billy.
Here is my comment cross posted from CiF
Good article but I am intrigued more by what the article does NOT say rather than what it does.
The notion of reclaiming a sense of Englishness from the reactionary right is a laudable goal and I applaud that principle.
However just as it is correct to claim that English identity exists, it follows that East Anglian, Lancastrian, Yorkshire or Geordie/Mackem (North East) identities similarly exist.
To cut to the chase, I have no issue with extolling the cultural and historical legacy of Englishness but I do have a massive problem with the routine conflation of identity with institutions of political significance.
Put simply does Mr. Bragg support the idea of an English Parliament or not?
I am vehemently against the idea of an English Parliament precisely because I believe the large (and increasing) economic and social disparities all too evident within different Regions of England are the real issue here, not whether some sense of claim to Englishness is legitimate or not. In short, an English Parliament would do precisely nothing to redress the inequitable distribution of scarce resources within England; in fact it may very well make matters worse for the English peripheries.
I concur with those who argue that the status quo is unsustainable in the longer term. The asymmetric nature of (limited) devolution of power undertaken to date is a recipe for disenchantment and division rather than promoting unity and a more equitable distribution of power/resources.
The instinctively centralist nature of the current administration effectively torpedoed any meaningful dispersal of power (outside Greater London) for the rest of England. Did Labour think people were just going accept that situation in perpetuity? Offer people sham devolution (as they were in the North-East in 2004) and they will throw it back in your face.
What is required now is volte-face on the part of the current (and any subsequent UK administration) leading to real and effective dispersal of power, resulting eventually in the establishment of a federal UK framework.
A credible mechanism to achieve this goal might be a Citizens Convention, as currently championed by various democratic renewal groups - http://www.unlockdemocracy.org.uk/?page_id=953
- and Nick Clegg for the LibDems.
Nothing should be off the agenda for such a body; the shape of the official current English Regional map, the voting system used to elect our political representatives and the identity and role of the British head of state should all be up for discussion in a meaningful (as in something without a pre-determined outcome) conversation with the British public.
Only if we (the British public) are asked in a proper manner can we ever hope to establish a legitimate and consensual response.
If we carry on as now I too can see an acrimonious bust up with populist knee-jerk solutions to the fore - do we really want that scenario?
At it again Peter?
"I am vehemently against the idea of an English Parliament precisely because I believe the large (and increasing) economic and social disparities all too evident within different Regions of England are the real issue here, not whether some sense of claim to Englishness is legitimate or not. In short, an English Parliament would do precisely nothing to redress the inequitable distribution of scarce resources within England; in fact it may very well make matters worse for the English peripheries."
An English Parliament spending English taxes, on England will have more money to spend everywhere in England.
I received a great quote by email today:
"The regions are Brown's equivalent of Norman castles. Their job is to carry out the central govt's policy in each region"
Spot on.
Anthony wrote: "This was, that the comparison with Scotland is an unfair one in because now that they have their own institutions they have the means to make their nationalism civic and inclusive, while it is far harder to do this when you are making the case for having a national voice in the first place."
It should be remembered that the campaign for Home Rule was already civic based, it was the Scottish Constitutional Convention. It was not delivered by Donald Dewar or the Labour Party which is part of their myth-making re-history.
Its not that a civic Scotland has emerged from the institutions but that the insititutions emerged from the civic movement.
I agree with Agent Mancuso's comment above. The SNP has been openly Social Democratic for years, but as the only major party supporting independence, they have to accomodate a variety of views.
"Billy Bragg and his comrades won’t deliver his Englishness. You could lock them in a room for eternity and they’d still be agonising over the fact that they are English, it’s becomes more painful to read as each year goes by."
Maybe, but he has already written a number of worthwhile polemics. Perhaps it is time for someone else to take up some of his ideas and run with them.
Post new comment