AT HAGUE’S COMMAND?

The Conservatives sudden interest in "English votes for English laws” something conveniently happens to put the Labour Party in Westminster an awkward spot, in relation to the status of its Welsh and Scottish elected representatives, may be purely coincidental or it may not. Aside from mixing things up for the Labour Party, one of the main reasons why the Conservative Party has developed a keen interest in all things ‘English’ is because the UK Independence Party has emerged from the shadows calling loudly for the reform of the governance of England – something that has been independently confirmed by the most recent report of the Future of England Survey (FoES).

The survey’s findings don’t make comfortable reading for the Conservative part of the Con Dem coalition government. The study has noted a clear and growing dissatisfaction among English voters at the way the UK’s most populous nation is governed and a preference for an England-wide political institution to represent English interests. Although the current Conservative leaders preferred option of English Votes for English Laws (EVEL) has the most widespread support, it is short of a majority and, when voters in England are asked who best represents the interests of England, both Mr Cameron and the Conservative party are well behind Nigel Farage and UKIP.

Yet when it comes to finding an answer to the English Question, voters continue to place concerns over the governance of England well behind worries about the influence of the EU. However, there is a clear dissatisfaction with the current arrangements for governing England – with no more than a quarter preferring the status quo. The study noted that if somewhat more tentatively; the support for EVEL appears to be the preferred choice of voters – again short of a majority – and has gained popularity compared to the earlier FoES studies in 2013 and 2012.

Support for an English Parliament is of the same order of magnitude as support for the status quo whereas support for localism either in the form of regional assemblies or enhanced local government remains very low. While David Cameron’s suggested answer to the English question may be slightly ahead but there is growing evidence that neither he nor his party is trusted to deliver it. When asked “Which party best stands up for the interests of England?”, the Conservatives ironically came fourth (16%), behind UKIP (23%), ‘None of the Above’ (19%) and Labour (17%), although well ahead of the Lib Dems (4%). Much the same pattern is seen in terms of the party leaders.

Interestingly enough when asked which leader best stands up for English interests, Nigel Farage was voters’ first choice (22%) his nearest rival though isn’t even another party leader, it was the ‘None of the Above’ option which came in second place, with 21% of the survey’s 3,705 respondents in England dismissing all of the available political leaders. Mr Cameron is third on 15%, just ahead of Ed Miliband on 13%. The Deputy Prime Minister’s rating matched those of his party and, at 4%, slightly behind Boris Johnson on 9%.

The Con Dems in Westminster have now issued a Command Paper with a number of different options in relation to the problem of English votes for English laws an issue that which been quietly rumbling away in the background since the 1990’s. William Hague’s Command Paper included four main options:

• Simply excluding Scottish and Northern Irish MPs from any role in English and Welsh bills and limiting England-only bills to English MPs
• Basically allowing only English MPs, or English and Welsh MPs, to consider relevant bills during their committee and report stages, where amendments are tabled and agreed, before allowing all MPs to vote on the final bill
• Allowing only English MPs, or English and Welsh MPs, to consider relevant bills at committee stage and giving them a effective veto in a separate vote before their third reading
• There was even a Lib Dem plan for the establishment of a grand committee of English MPs, with the right to veto legislation applying only England, with its members based on the share of the vote.

These, to varying degrees subject to safeguards cold be said to be reasonable options and despite the bluster from Westminster and the Labour Party, potentially sensible and fair solution which could be worked out, given sufficient time and effort on the part of the Westminster based and focused political parties. The problem is that the on-going row over the issue could result in the real issue of the legislative imbalance between the different nations and regions within these islands continuing to remain unresolved.

Part of the problem can be put down to the overly complex nature of legislation, as bills that appear to relate to England only can include some well buried clauses that relate to Wales, some of which could have significant and potentially unforeseen consequences for our country. The way the budget works at the moment, means that if Welsh MPs are excluded from voting on English measures there could be a real negative impact on the Welsh budget. At a very basic level this would be both unfair and unjust.  

What’s needed is the implementation of a much more sensible and balanced devolution settlement whereby the four constituent parts of the British State have the same legislative and executive powers. Unless this happens then any drift (and drift may be a fair description) towards developing “English Votes for English Laws” would be pretty difficult to enforce and could result in the existence several different tiers of MPs.

The consistent failure over the last 15 years to address the imbalance between powers and funding in constituent parts of the UK along with cumulative nature of the fudged and bodged nature of the devolution settlement can no longer be ignored. The way things stand at the moment the Westminster based and focused political parties are treating Wales as a second-class nation and will they may pay for this at the ballot box next May, at least in Wales.

AFTER THE PARTY IS OVER...

Despite the column inches, the wall to wall TV coverage and the spin, it is worth noting that UKIP only won a seat in Scotland at all because the Lib Dems imploded. Their success in Wales, while looking impressive was not quite enough to deliver a top of the poll position (although they came pretty close). It was an uncomfortable night for the Westminster based and Westminster focused political parties.

Despite the momentary glee on the part of the ‘Brit’ political commentators last night the SNP still came top of the poll in Scotland. In England, things were different, here UKIP came top (save for in a few of the electoral regions). For a while last night, the Conservatives and the Labour Parties struggled merely to secure second place. The Lib Dems pretty much ceased to register across England at least on the European level, coming in behind the Greens.

Does UKIP speak for England? 

After the European elections and the local government elections (in England) perhaps it’s time for a Party for England, to raise English concerns and English issues – which have long been ignored by the London based UK media, UKIP and the misnamed Westminster elite. I mention this because on more than few occasions disillusioned voters (in England) have told that they have nowhere to go politically as none of the political parties operating in England speak for them.

If you follow this line of reasoning, there is not much choice if you are an English voter and are genuinely concerned about your country. Well that’s actually not quite true, as there is a degree of choice providing that your politics sits on the extreme right of the political spectrum. There is UKIP, which despite presenting itself as a UK Party is culturally perhaps deep down more concerned with independence of England, something which may explain why it does less well in Scotland and slightly less well here in Wales.  

Of course there are the English Democrats, who on a good day,  to be honest can make Nigel Farage look slightly to the left of Lenin, as they are somewhat to the right of Attila the Hun. As for UKIP, their interest in Wales is simply a matter of electoral expediency even more so than the Westminster based parties who do make some vague gestures to Wales by periodically branding themselves as Welsh.

I have no doubt that UKIP, despite recent public change of heart,  would if it could entirely abolish the National Assembly, along with our emergent democracy (and perhaps Wales itself) if it could get away with it.  Policy wise UKIP is a strange blend of latent (and not so latent) bigotry, some of the stranger political and economic elements of American libertarianism (the Tea Party strain) and a nostalgic (almost 18^th century) vision of Greater England (sorry Britain) that has not existed in fifty years (if it ever did then).

Putting the obsessive fixation with referenda on EU membership aside, UKIP’s grip on political and economic reality might be described as fragile at best. Our (Welsh) national interests and concerns being entirely absent, if left to UKIP, regional aid (European and otherwise) to our country would entirely vanish and not be replaced - it’s already under threat from the Westminster based political parties.

Regional aid historically has been  used by Westminster based governments to attempt to redress the glaring economic  imbalance that exists today (and has existed for much of the last century) between much of Wales and significant portions (but certainly not all) of England. One question the Westminster based political parties have failed to answer is - if the Union has been so beneficial to us here in Wales over the last 40 years then why are we even eligible for regional development aid?

I digress, the one real question that probably should be really be asked  in England is not why is there no viable rational left of centre English political party, but perhaps the question should be where has it gone? Along with why is it that a monopoly of the sense of 'Englishness' being defined by the far right. Historically, at least, there was a pretty solid radical tradition in England, at least until it was smothered by the emergence of the monolithic Labour Party - who sold themselves to the Westminster system in the early 1920’s. 

Perhaps George Orwell, in The Lion and the Unicorn: Socialism and the English Genius, which was published on the 19^th January 1941, identified the underlying problem with England and political representation that applies as much today as it did then,  wrote:

“England is not the jewelled isle of Shakespeare's much-quoted message, nor is it the inferno depicted by Dr Goebbels. More than either it resembles a family, a rather stuffy Victorian family, with not many black sheep in it but with all its cupboards bursting with skeletons. It has rich relations who have to be kow-towed to and poor relations who are horribly sat upon, and there is a deep conspiracy of silence about the source of the family income. It is a family in which the young are generally thwarted and most of the power is in the hands of irresponsible uncles and bedridden aunts...”

At the moment ‘England’ is being run by the irresponsible uncles and bedridden aunts, but, enough of Nigel Farage, George Osbourne and Nick Clegg. Sooner or later, preferably sooner, a rational political party needs to emerge to articulate English concerns and to redress them. From a Welsh perspective the rise or at least the reanimation of a sense of English national consciousness, should pose no problems for Wales, though we might well ask why has it taken so long?

WHO SPEAKS FOR ENGLAND?

The report by the McKay Commission suggested that English-only laws need to be backed by a majority of MPs who represent English constituencies and that Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish MPs could see their roles reduced if proposals to give English MPs more say on laws for England are eventually brought in. The Con Dem Westminster government said that it will give the report "serious consideration" this may well be Westminster speak for kicking it into the long grass.

The McKay Commission was set up to examine how MPs should deal with English legislation in the wake of devolution. For some time there has been a potential problem over what’s been known as West Lothian Question - the ability of Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish MPs to vote on England only matters - for several decades, but this has intensified of late as a result devolution.

Back in 2004, support from Scottish and Welsh Labour in Westminster MPs meant that the then Blair government could push through the introduction of university top-up fees in England. The McKay Commission has concluded that the current situation is "unsustainable" and that changes were needed. The Commission has proposed the principle that House of Commons' decisions that involve a "separate and distinct effect" for England should "normally be taken only with the consent of a majority of MPs sitting for constituencies in England".

The same principle would apply for decisions that affected only England and Wales. The Commission has recognised that while Westminster law-making had inevitably come to focus on England, or England and Wales the actual processes for making law at Westminster have not significantly changed or taken account of the developments of devolution.

Understandably people in England are unhappy about the existing arrangements and may support some changes to the Westminster legislative process. English people are beginning to fell disadvantaged and understandably have concerns that MPs who represent the devolved nations are able to vote on matters that directly affect England but not Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. Clearly the status quo is unsustainable and there is a clear need to sort out the problem of all England legislation

Even the Party formerly known as New Labour (and Ed) has recognised the problem and have made tentative efforts to embrace the political elephant in the room that is Englishness and they have admitted that they (Old and formerly New Labour) have apparently been somewhat reluctant to talk about the sleeping elephant (in the room) at the heart of the UK - Englishness. There is more, apparently they have decided that the issue of national identity (English or British perhaps?) should not be a closed book.

Last year in a keynote speech on ‘England’ Miliband managed to hit his thumb squarely rather than the head of the nail, saying that Britain should be a country "where it always possible to have more than one identity" and people should not have to choose between being British, English, Scottish or Welsh. The acknowledgement of "multiple allegiances" potentially raises some interesting questions about national identity and effectively accepted that Labour had done its best to try to avoid having to articulate a vision of Englishness.

Plaid has long called for a partnership of equals, but it is pretty clear that Ed's current position on the English question is that they do not deserve their own Parliament. Not unsurprisingly the party formerly known as New Labour, has done its best to largely ignore the thorny matter of the West Lothian Question and English votes on English laws, perhaps hoping the problem will go away.

Labour’s failure, may remind older participants in the devolutionary process of not so long ago, of typical old Labour fudge. Labour is still apparently currently keen to continue devolving powers to local authorities in England, which is one way to fudge the issue and avoid calls for an England-only parliament to balance those in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I suspect that based on the way labour plays the devolutionary game, I predict that this means that in about 10 to 15 years Labour will embrace the cause an English parliament....

ED EMBRACES THE ELEPHANT

Ed's new friend!

Ed (Miliband) and the Party formerly known as New Labour have decided to embrace the political elephant that is Englishness and they have admitted that they (Old and New Labour) have apparently been somewhat reluctant to talk about the sleeping elephant (in the room) at the heart of the UK - Englishness. There is more, apparently they have decided that the issue of national identity (English or British perhaps?) should not be a closed book. In snippets from the speech released before yesterday's event, it appears that Miliband has managed to hit his thumb squarely rather than the head of the nail, saying that Britain should be a country "where it always possible to have more than one identity" and people should not have to choose between being British, English, Scottish or Welsh. Yet at the same time acknowledging that "multiple allegiances" raise serious questions about national identity and accepting that that Labour has avoided trying to articulate a vision of Englishness. Apparently the released draft of Miliband's speech contained no reference to the thorny issue of a separate English Parliament. Plaid has long called for a partnership of equals, but it is pretty clear that Ed's position on the English (question) is that they do not deserve their own Parliament. He has also entirely ignored the thorny matter of the West Lothian Question and English votes on English laws. In a typical old Labour fudge. that may remind older participants in the devolutionary process of not so long ago, Labour sources suggested that although Ed was keen to continue devolving powers to local authorities, he believed that calls for an England-only parliament to balance those in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were "simplistic constitutional symmetry". By my reckoning, based on the way labour plays the devolutionary game, I predict that this means that in about 10 to 15 years Labour will embrace the cause an English parliament....