Anthony Barnett (London, OK): As Cameron prepares for the 'speech of his life' it seems to me that the national question looms as the defining issue. It was not mentioned at all in the discussion about the coming speech on this morning's Today programme, But this absence is evidence of political class unease: the repression below the media 'frankness'. As the tide recedes from the Labour Conference what stands out is the number of times Gordon Brown mentioned Britain and Britishness. I have heard that in the closed NEC meeting afterwards there was considerable unease over this theme with Irish, Welsh and ethnic minority members feeling uncomfortable and excluded. Some asked how British values differed from the values of other democratic countries. So it may not be going down well with Labour's own supporters, councillors and activists.
There has been lots of talk about the way Brown did not deign to mention Cameron and the Conservatives. What hasn't been discussed in the London media was his failure to mention Alex Salmond, a much more successful and dangerous opponent on current showing. Of course, if Brown had attacked Cameron and Ming Campbell then this absence would have been identified. This was the deeper suppression, every time Brown said "Britain" and "British" he was seeking to bury the SNP.
Digging out the repressed is never easy, so this is turning into a long post. As reported here the Brown government seems determined to create a large, possibly thousand strong citizens summit to define Britishness. Its membership will be chosen randomly while being demographically representative, but will SNP supporters be allowed through its doors? Over at Prospect magazine, David Goodhart had the idea of asking a randomish group of intellectuals what they thought of the idea. We have already run the response from Tom Nairn who thinks it is absurd. Most of the contributors, however, took it at face value and responded with plonking and worthy contributions. Two stood out and caught my eye. One is from Paul Gilroy who I have been trying hard to get to write here, so with Goodhart's kind permission I'll quote it in full as he explains why the exercise can't work,
The proposal that we codify Britain’s distinguishing values into a national mission statement is doomed to fail. People everywhere aspire to the same things. The bid to freeze our particularity would end up inadvertently joining Britons to the world from which this exercise is designed to separate them. To be plausible, the code would have to be tied to a specific historical sense of what marks Brits out. There is no prospect of consensus over what that core might be. A rather tentative conversation has been dominated by morbid and melancholic voices repeating the backward-looking mantra of little Englandism that has generated such a powerful electoral payoff since Enoch first coined it. Potentially, the lack of easy agreement about our values is a source of strength, a sign that reflection on what we’d like to become might be a way to find the solidarity that everyday life does not yield. Instead, we’re hostage to fantasies of greatness, influence and imperial power. People snuggle up to watch The Dambusters, while the flag-draped coffins pile up out of sight.
National values would have to guide corporate actors as well as individuals. If not, even the mildest ethical advice would instantly conflict with the neoliberal habits that supply New Labour’s corporate populism with its economic signature. On the other hand, if the demotic legacies of English radicalism are going to anchor the worthy content, then the real value being celebrated will be the capacity to set all principles aside in the name of pragmatic political advantage. We are to be connected by adherence to values as abstract principles while being prepared simultaneously to abnegate them in practice.
This makes sense to me. If any definition looks backwards it will be - and should be in a democratic country - divisive. If it looks forward it will be hypocritical. But what then should we do, now that the government (assuming it wins the election) is committed to holding the exercise and taking the lid of this Pandora's box? An interesting answer was provided by Sunny Hundal. He also took a step back and looked at the strategy behind the question rather than taking it at face value, and told Prospect readers,
A British statement of values that can help form a common bond across our increasingly mobile and diverse nation cannot be expressed in anything other than a new constitution.
There are two compelling reasons for this. First, that there is no alternative, and second, that a constitution fulfils all the requirements in this debate.
You can't say it more clearly than that. There has to be an institutional solution, hence now an overall constitutional one. The outcome needs to be organised before it can find a credible expression in any statement. The alternative is repression and regression. The Conservatives will be at ease with this, hence their chance now. An election and the opportunity it offers of demanding a 'a mandate' gives Brown his chance to make the Sunny leap and confound Cameron. However, this seems so far out the frame I don't think they are even taking bets on whether it might happen.
