Tom Griffin (London, Green Ribbon): The Labour Party has suffered a fair amount of ridicule over its position on a Scottish independence referendum in recent days. Guido Fawkes is offering a prize to anyone who can explain the current policy in less than fifty words. More sober commentators don't sound much more impressed.  Read the rest of this post...

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.  Read the rest of this post...

Guy Aitchison (London, OK): The PM has just announced the Government's Draft Legislative Programme to the Commons. We hope to have more coverage on this and PMQs later but on first glance there seems little sign of the bold "new constitutional settlement" Brown called for last July. It appears the Bill of Rights and the citizens summit on the Statement of Values have both been put on hold. The only reference to these I can find is a vague promise to hold consultations on the Bill of Rights which will "give people in the UK a clear idea of what we can expect from public authorities and from each other, and a framework for giving effect to our common values." And expect yet another White Paper on the Lords.  Read the rest of this post...

Claire O'Brien (Florence, EUI): Brown will not come back from this. £120 cashback or not, his premiership appears to draw closer to twilight with every passing day. The one thing that could resurrect it would be to set a fresh progressive course for Labour and for Britain in tomorrow's draft Queen's speech. It seems inconceivable this will happen. Which means a new leader, from a new generation, who can articulate that agenda is essential. It is clear by now that if Labour does not offer a new direction, the Tories will.  Read the rest of this post...

Peter Facey (London, Unlock Democracy): There has been lots of discussion on this blog about nationalism, patriotism, identity and even how the centre left should become more nationalist. I have always been interested in identity, nations and nationalism. I have a strong personal identity and am attracted to the way nation or community identity can bind people together across economic and religious divides.  Read the rest of this post...

Guy Aitchison (London, OK): Neal Lawson, chair of Compass, has an article in today's Independent calling on Brown to step down and return to the Treasury. He offers an analysis not dissimilar to Anthony's in Why Brown is Doomed, blaming the PM's plummeting popularity on his failure to make a decisive break from Blairism:  Read the rest of this post...

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): On Friday after the local election results and before London had been announced I wrote an analysis of why Gordon Brown could not lead his party to a recovery (First thoughts on Labour's Debacle). Contemplating the ruins now after a sunny weekend in Dorset both a deeper analysis and superficial gossip confirm the diagnosis.  Read the rest of this post...

Guy Aitchison (London, OK): There was something of a stir in the blogosphere this weekend over Labour’s campaign material in the Crewe and Nantwich by-election and in particular the fourth question on a leaflet purporting to be a Tory Candidate Application Form: “Do you oppose making foreign nationals carry an ID card?” Anthony emailed me this story with the Subject line “gross and outrageous”. I agree. This propaganda only serves to confirm two things: the willingness of Labour to adopt inflammatory, possibly xenophobic, language to win votes and the intellectual bankruptcy of the Government’s position on ID cards. Lib Dem Voice, Guido and Conservative Home were united in their condemnation of the ad – as good a sign as any that they'd strayed beyond the pale. To be fair Labour supporters themselves have now started voicing their displeasure, with one poster on LabourHome saying “Central should be putting their foot down on this; I would rather the seat be lost - than win on the back of a campaign based on fear.” Time to withdraw the ad perhaps?  Read the rest of this post...

Catherine Reilly (Dublin, Metro Eireann): Just days before he left office on 7th of May, former Taoiseach (Irish prime minister) Bertie Ahern told an audience at Harvard University that rejecting the Lisbon Treaty would be an “act of lunacy” by the Irish people. For a man lauded for his so-called common touch, and ear to the ground, it was an odd choice of expression. Irish people don’t like being told what to do. Irish people don’t like being tagged potential lunatics. This sense of being patronised was, I believe, a factor in Ireland’s initial rejection of the Nice Treaty in 2001, quite aside from concerns over neutrality.  Interestingly, new Justice Minister Dermot Ahern TD - who was promoted from his foreign affairs brief in last week’s cabinet reshuffle - has constantly played down the implications of a No vote, adopting a stoical ‘life would go on’ message (this, despite the fact that he resoundingly supports a Yes vote). Just like the dad who tells his teenage daughter that she can go to Friday night’s disco, but he won’t be paying for it, it has been a clever tactic. Taoiseach Brian Cowen TD has been similarly circumspect. Since taking office, he has placed full emphasis on the benefits that EU membership has wrought for Ireland, linking a Yes vote as a fitting return from a self-confident, modern Ireland. He has also played on Ireland’s current sense of economic uncertainty, as the country begins to come to terms with the fact that the boom is no more. “It is very important that we get a Yes vote,” Cowen said last Saturday. “It is critically important to our strategic interest and to our national interest.” Read the rest of this post...

Guy Aitchison (London, OK): With all the hubbub surrounding Wendy Alexander’s U turn on a referendum last week I missed the Constitution Unit’s contribution to the debate, released in this press notice. According to the Unit a “Yes” vote by the Scots in a referendum authorised by Holyrood would not be enough to secure independence. There would need to be two referendums. The first would be a “consultative referendum” authorised by Holyrood. It would deal with the “principle” of independence and permit the Scottish Parliament to enter into negotiations with Westminster which has the final say under the Scotland Act. The second referendum, authorised by Westminster, would deal with the terms and conditions of Scottish independence (including that Scotland should separate from the UK). Says the Unit’s Director, Robert Hazell: “People in Scotland might support independence in principle, but think again when confronted with the terms of independence. The terms will include not just issues like North Sea oil, but division of the national debt, ending all financial transfers from the UK government, and Scotland’s continued membership of the EU. The Scots are entitled to know the detailed terms of independence before making such a big decision”. In his post on the Alex-Wendy debate last week, Anthony pointed out that “Labour has conceded an absolutely stunning constitutional principle: it has accepted that the Scottish parliament has the right to call a referendum that will decide on that country's independence.” If the Constitution Unit is right, however, Alexander’s call to Salmond to “bring it on” is of somewhat less significance. She is simply recognising Holyrood’s right to seek authority through referendum to enter into negotiations with Westminster: a requisite second referendum on the outcome of these negotiations might convince the Scots to change their minds.    Read the rest of this post...

Scott Kelly, a researcher for the Conservatives, explains why the party should back a written constitution. Scott Kelly (Parliament): I recently joined my students from New York University at a lecture by Professor Vernon Bogdanor on the subject of the British and American Constitutions. The leaflet advertising the event stated that “many in Britain are calling for a Constitution”. The author of this leaflet may be surprised to learn that we already have one. What we lack is a written, or more correctly, codified constitution – most of our constitution is already written in one form or another although it has never been codified in a single document. Although the leaflet may contain factual errors, it is true that the issue of a written constitution has moved up the political agenda. The terrorist attacks of last summer obscured the fact that constitutional reform was central to Gordon Brown’s “big idea”. The Green Paper issued during the first week of his premiership stated that "there is now a growing recognition of the need to clarify not just what it means to be British, but what it means to be the United Kingdom. This may lead to a concordat between the executive and Parliament or a written constitution." Read the rest of this post...

GJ Harris (London): On 1 May 2008, the British National Party won its most high profile office to date with the appointment of the party's mayoral candidate, Richard Barnbrook, to the London Assembly. He came fifth in the contest for mayor but then won his assembly seat through the top-up list, allocated by proportional representation with 5.3% of the vote. Whilst the BNP only narrowly met the 5% threshold needed to secure a place on the London Assebly, the result is perhaps all the more significant, considering the high turnout that was hoped would put the seat beyond their reach. The seat was solace for the party’s failure to capitalise on anti-Labour sentiment in competition with a revitalised Conservatives in the local elections outside London where the party increased its number of councillors by 10 to take its total to 55. The far right in Britain usually provoke one of two responses: a complacency bordering on neglect, given the barrier to small party success by the British electoral system, or the hysterical ringing of alarm bells at the rise of a resurgent neo-fascism. Both are equally misguided. The BNP's recent political gains pose a problem to the democratic pretensions of a progressive opposition, as Barnbrook was quick to point out in his post election speech. The seat is potentially a stepping stone to gains in the forthcoming 2009 European elections, again allocated through PR. Success here would bring significant publicity and access to public funding, which could offer a real electoral breakthrough on the model of some of its continental cousins. It is a dangerous strategy to rely on the flaws of the democratic system as a bulwark against the illiberal democracy of the Far Right. As the BNP gains an increased pres-ence within the political arena this is a fundamental paradox for their opponents. Read the rest of this post...

Tom Griffin (London, The Green Ribbon): As Fair Deal predicted earlier this week, The DUP are driving a hard bargain over their position on 42 day detention. The Financial Times suggests that Gordon Brown is attempting to appease the party's 9 MPs by allowing Northern Ireland to retain £2.2 billion from the sale of public assets: 'Earlier this week Gregory Campbell, DUP MP for East Londonderry, told the FT he and his colleagues had not decided which way to vote. They are to discuss terror detention with Jacqui Smith, home secretary, within days. “If we remain undecided on how to vote on 42 days then the issue of bases could come into play. Are we prepared to negotiate? We haven’t ruled it in or out,” Mr Campbell said. But last night he made clear Mr Brown had not gone far enough to guarantee their loyalty. “It is a worthwhile offer but doesn’t address the issue of the military bases and doesn’t address our demands on the military bases,” Mr Campbell said.'

Guy Aitchison (London, OK): We've migrated Our Kingdom across from Wordpress on to the main openDemocracy site. It's an exciting move for us as we celebrate our first birthday this month, making us a grown up in blog terms! Apologies for any hiccups in the transition and please do let us know in the comments what you think about the design, features, any technical glitches etc. All the comments have been moved across apart from the most recent which I'll be moving over soon.  Read the rest of this post...

Anthony Barnett (London OK): “A street preacher in my constituency was told by the police that he could preach the Gospel but that it was harassment to warn people that they might go to hell if they did not repent.” This is from Dominic Grieve’s lecture on ‘Britishness’ he gave earlier this week. Guy will be posting about his efforts to manage our identity. But we could not resist a special plug for this brilliant, dry illustration of the growing restrictions on freedom of expression under the sign of New Labour. Read the rest of this post...

David (Cambridge, Britology Watch): One of a number of themes that came out in the comments on Anthony Barnett’s First thoughts after Labour’s Debacle, was whether the leader of the opposition is, and whether he himself regards himself as, English or British. Read the rest of this post...

Alexandra Runswick (London, Unlock Democracy): On the edge of your seat waiting for the latest exciting instalment on how the British Statement of Values and Citizens Summit is actually going to work? No? Just as well really, as the NCVO sponsored meeting last week with Michael Wills was certainly detail-lite. Anthony Barnett has rebuked me for not sharing the scintillating insights and fascinating public policy lessons learned from the meeting but to be brutal; there were none. All I can report is that motherhood and apple pie AKA participation and engagement are generally considered to be good things. Michael Wills, as ever, was passionate about the agenda and committed to making the Citizens Summit a meaningful deliberative exercise. I have no doubt that he personally wants the British Statement of Values to be a radical citizen engagement exercise. However I don't see how it can be when so little policy detail is available at this late stage. Read the rest of this post...

Henry Porter (London, writer): It is the triumphant vindictiveness of Jacqui Smith's speech today which leaves such a bad taste. That and the candid admission that new Labour has long given up being tough on the causes of crime and is instead prepared to let the Sun's editorial line dictate social and policing policy. Read the rest of this post...

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): If you are used to seeing the old regime at play in Prime Ministers Questions you must take a look at this clip of First Minister's Questions in Scotland's beautiful Holyrood parliament. I can't get the clip into OK so go on it here via the BBC report. The future of the UK is being debated by Wendy and Alex - a much more important contest than Boris and Ken. Note the point that Alex picks up at the beginning. Labour has conceded an absolutely stunning constitutional principle: it has accepted that the Scottish parliament has the right to call a referendum that will decide on that country's independence. This is not in legal terms a devolved power; formally only Westminster can decide constitutional issues. But Labour has has now agreed that the referendum, including its all important wording and timing, will be determined in Holyrood.

Guy Aitchison (London, OK): The Telegraph's Three Line Whip blog reports that the total number of "spoiled ballot papers" which included "41,032 rejected first choice votes and 412,054 rejected second choice votes" was "three times the size of Boris Johnson’s 140,000-vote majority". A "fiasco", fumes the Telegraph's David Hughes, a "democratic travesty". The Electoral Commission must take actions since "who knows what the result might have been if there had not been such a spectacular display of voter confusion." Read the rest of this post...