Little Man in a Toque

Over at the Scotsman Ian Swanson asks whether there’s such a thing as English-only legislation. He quotes one “senior Labour insider”.

“When MPs vote on an issue like foundation hospitals, it’s not just a political decision it’s a decision about spending UK resources. And if you spend X amount on that, you have minus X in the pot for everything else – so that affects everyone.”

That’s an argument for ending the Barnett Formula you little cretin. It is not a moral justification for Scotsmen to meddle in English politics.

Seriously, don’t ever give me a gun at a Labour Party Conference.

A letter to the Evening Standard.

Sir,

Anne McElvoy’s contention that Ken Clarke’s Democracy Task Force “paves the way to a manifesto commitment to address the English Question” (Cameron takes on the Andy Murray question) leads me to suppose that she’s been enjoying too much champagne with her strawberries on Centre Court.

Ken Clarke’s solution is a purely a technical contrivance to mitigate the West Lothian Question, a question that arises from asymmetric voting privileges; it does not seek to answer the much broader English Question, a question that asks how England should be governed, by whom and for whom. Only the English can answer that question, but unlike the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish we are never asked because, allegedly, an English parliament will break apart the UK.

It’s plausible that the West Lothian Question is an anomaly that the English are prepared to tolerate in order to preserve the Union, but it has become party-politicised due to the English bias of the Tories and the Celtic bias of Labour. So Clarke’s solution should be seen as a wrecking mechanism to protect a Conservative opposition against a Labour Government, rather than a democratic safeguard for the English or an attempt to give England a national voice.

Yesterday when Clarke said “Gordon Brown is very unpopular, but his unpopularity has nothing to do with his Scottishness… it is the man, his personality and his measures that have made him so unpopular”, he was only partially correct. English voters do not despise Brown because he is Scottish but his unpopularity is a function of his Scottishness. Much of Gordon Brown’s legislation does not affect his own constituents, whether it’s Foundation Hospitals, Tuition Fees or planning for Eco-Towns and Nuclear power stations in England only, and so we resent him for his measures and the constitutional and financial favouritism his government shows to his own people.

When the English are extended the same constitutional sovereignty that has been afforded to Scotland, so that we can decide how we wish to be governed and by whom, we might take a more lenient view of the anti-English japes of Scots like Andy Murray.

Just for the record I’ve forgiven Andy Murray for his sins. He was only 18 or 19 when he made his ‘anti-English’ comments, and even then he was only copying Jack McConnell who was being anti-English for political gain. Time for people to give him a break, even if he is a dullard…But enough about Jack McConnell.

Having now actually read Clarke’s report (pdf), instead of just the accompanying press reports and interviews, I just thought I’d congratulate myself for being the first to raise the Upper West Lothian Question which was addressed in Clarke’s paper:

Where would this leave a reformed and elected House of Lords? It would presumably have to have similar arrangements

We believe that the same arrangements would have to apply to a reformed and elected Lords, but do not see this as an insuperable obstacle.

Insuperable? No. A complete pain in the arse and a waste of Parliamentary time? Yes.

And congratulations also to Britology Watch who made an observation on the territorial extent of various parts of the Draft Legislative Programme, something that was also picked up on by Clarke:

Reporting on this issue in 1999, the Commons Procedure Committee concluded that it was possible to define bills according to the countries of the Union that are affected by them. Nor has the government found this an insuperable problem: its draft legislative programme, published in July, sets out to which countries each bill is applicable.

It just goes to show, possibly, that we’re not entirely wasting our time blogging, and ideas do eventually trickle down to the likes of Ken Clarke and George Young. That said, their report is still complete bollocks.

Our Kingdom has a selection of articles on this subject (one from me, one from Tom and one from Normal Mouth)

It’s been a bit quiet on this blog for the last few days. This is mostly because I’ve been up in Scotland for a long weekend, drinking my face off and attending the wedding of my good friend Mr MacIsaac. However, that’s the end of fraternising with the enemy, hostilities are resumed. Good to be back…

Ken Clarke’s plans to solve the West Lothian Question, have been greeted with predictable disdain by most political commentators. Typical was Iain Dale who declared that “England deserved better”:

From what I have seen I cannot in any way defend this so-called solution. It is not even a half way house. Either you believe that England should have devolved government or you don’t. If you do, then you either believe in English votes on English measures or you believe in some form of English Parliament.

But Iain Dale is wrong. Not that England deserves better, of course she does, but because neither Clarke’s solution OR English Votes on English measures is for people that believe that England should have “devolved government” (or “English government” if you prefer). Instead both are crude technical devices that attempt to right the democratic deficit brought about the very absence of English government. Clarke’s contrivance is contrived to such a ludicrous degree precisely to avoid even the pretence of an English parliament that EVoEM offers, and the consequent threat that such a democratic English body would pose to the Union when Scots object to it on the grounds of their own irrelevance.

Indeed, as Clarke went to pains to point out on the Today Programme, his solution “means that the government retains control of the agenda; it retains control of the money.” Scottish MPs would vote on the second reading of an English bill - “which is the vote on the principle of the bill” - thereby ensuring the legitimacy of any cabinet government that contained Scottish ministers. But as Malcom Rifkind points out Clarke’s mechanism would not have prevented the disgraceful actions of Scottish MPs during the Foundation Hospital and Top-up Fee legislation, even if last week’s English Planning Bill amendment, scuppered by Brown’s non-English MPs, could have been carried by English rebels.

Under Clarke’s scheme the English will be denied the affirmative expression of national identity afforded to the Scots; instead English MPs will speak for England only negatively by wrecking UK Government legislation by the of tabeling ludicrous amendments, or the deleting of English clauses at committee stage. But fear not, for as Clarke points out the UK government retains control, and:

“at the final stage all the UK members would vote so if the English have transformed it to a way that is unacceptable to the Government the government could ask its majority to veto and abort the measure.”

Or in other words if the English have transformed the bill to a manner that is acceptable to the English, the government could abort the legislation. Malcolm Rifkind does offer an slightly more sensible alternative to Clarke’s madness:

There could be a requirement that at Second Reading and at Report stage, for a vote to be carried on amendments to an England-only Bill, the vote, to be declared carried, would need a majority both of the House as a whole and of MPs representing English constituencies.

Though one has to ask Rifkind why, if the English can veto the UK Government, should we bother letting the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish vote at all; why not just let the English draft and vote on their own legislation instead of muddling up UK Government and non-English MPs in the process? The simple answer to that question is “The Barnett Formula”, a funding mechanism that provides Scottish MPs with the constitutional right to vote on English legislation by dint of the fact that English domestic legislation determines the block grant due to Scots as an inflated percentage of what is available to the English. Naturally Ken Clarke does not even bother to address the Barnett Formula.

Toque recommends.
Paul Kingsnorth: A radical answer to the Mid-Lothian question
Tony Sharp: Abandonment of the English
Fraser Nelson: Clarke waters down the West Lothian Answer
Womble on Tour: Do These Guys Understand The Problem ?

If the Conservatives do adopt as policy Ken Clarke’s suggestion (or for that matter Rifkind’s) I will join the SNP and campaign for English and Scottish independence. If I can’t have an English parliament and government inside the Union then I’ll have it outside the Union, it’s as simple as that. And the sooner the English Conservative Party - for English is what it is - understands that the better for both England and the Union. The English Question is not just about voting irregularities within the Commons, it is about recognising that England is a nation deserving of the very same sovereignty as any other nation. All that “English Votes”, or any variation on that theme, achieves is to inflame English nationalism and toss a bludgeon to Scottish nationalists with which to beat the last life out of the Union.

Those letters of mine must have worked. My MP, Norman Baker, is playing the English card:

As a Scottish MP, the Prime Minister will have noticed the strong success of the recently reopened railway between Stirling and Alloa, where passenger numbers are currently three times greater than the projected figure for 2011, and the reopened line to Ebbw Vale in Wales is similarly a success story. If reopening lines in Scotland and Wales makes such good economic sense, why has the Department for Transport ruled out, despite the strong social and environmental case, reopening lines in England, such as the line from Lewes to Uckfield?

Norman, it’s because they are Scotch Horrors.

Des Browne, Secretary of State for Scotland, has claimed that anti-English sentiment is killing Scottish patients:

DES Browne, the Scottish Secretary, intervened yesterday in the scandal over an outbreak of a fatal hospital bug.

He said that “best practice” from NHS hospitals in England – where infections from Clostridium difficile and MRSA have fallen as a result of “deep clean” programmes – may have been ignored north of the Border because of anti-English sentiment.

What an extraordinary claim for a Scottish Secretary of State to make. Unfortunately, due to devolution, he’s not elected to represent anyone on health, so even if he’s right he can’t do anything about it.

Following on from my post about the need for an English party at the Haltemprice and Howden by-election comes this press release from the English Democrats Party:

IMMEDIATE

The English Democrats have formally selected Joanne Robinson for the forthcoming by-election in Haltemprice and Howden. In a statement today Joanne praised David Davis for his courageous decision to stand down and prompt a by-election.

“By calling an election on the issue of civil liberties David Davis has done a great service to all of us for whom the word England still means something. The erosion of civil liberties under New Labour is a betrayal of our past and a betrayal of all our futures. The gifts of freedom and liberty bequeathed to us by generations of Englishmen and Englishwomen past are not Gordon Brown’s to discard and make alien to future generations.”

Chairman, Robin Tilbrook, also praised David Davis, but had strong words of criticism for Gordon Brown. “Gordon Brown is a coward”, said Tilbrook, “He’s afraid to give England a vote on her own parliament, he’s afraid of a general election, he’s afraid to give us a vote on the Lisbon Treaty, and now he’s afraid to put up a candidate in this by-election. He’s never put himself to the public vote in England, not as an MP - because he is elected in Scotland - and not as the leader of the Labour Party. He has no mandate.”

The English Democrats sent out a clear signal that although they respected David Davis’s stance he would not have the debate all his own way. We will point out that the transference of political power, and ultimately responsibility, from Westminster to the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has created a democratic deficit that has damaged English voters, perverting the most important civil liberty that a democratic people hold - the ability to choose and remove their own government.

The English Democrats will ask why Davis has backtracked on his belief that the English should be free to choose their own government. We will ask why Privacy International find that civil liberties are better protected in Scotland than in England. We will ask why Scottish MPs can vote to abolish smoking in English pubs, but not in their own country. And we will ask why the Scots debate civil liberties in their Parliament at Holyrood while the English debate theirs on the doorsteps of Haltemprice and Howden.

These are difficult questions for politicians that like to prattle on about Britishness and British values.

OK the press release you’ve just read is a fake. I wrote it. Did you spot it? I think it’s what they should have put out, or something like it. The real one, which completely ignores the point of the by-election and comes across as unremittingly negative, follows.

The English Democrats have formally selected Joanne Robinson for the forthcoming by-election in Haltemprice and Howden. The English Democrats are offering a fresh start and reject the cliché ridden and spin politics of the past. We offer the politics of a common national identity and common values. There should be an immediate referendum on the EU Lisbon Treaty. It is wholly wrong for Labour to try and impose this treaty on us, contrary to their own specific manifesto commitment that there should be a referendum. The people of the Republic of Ireland have said NO – WE WANT OUR SAY. There should be free residential care for the elderly, as is available in Scotland. It is wrong that pensioner’s homes in England are being seized to pay for this. Free access to all NHS drugs – not a postcode lottery. The unjustified subsidies to other parts of the UK – We want a fair system for all. Our politics are riddled with spin and political correctness, a vote for the English Democrats is a vote for honest and plain speaking. We should protect society and not the criminals. There should be an English Parliament, with an English Prime Minister to put England on an equal footing with Scotland and Wales. We believe in an English Parliament within a federal UK working alongside the parliaments and assemblies of the other UK countries. The country can no longer sustain uncontrolled mass immigration. It should be stopped. It places an unacceptable strain on all our services. All previous governments have allowed this to happen. The voters of Haltemprice and Howden have a wonderful opportunity and the chance to send a clear message to the government and the rest of the stale political establishment that the people of England are no longer prepared to be treated as second class citizens within the UK. Let us put England’s interests first. A vote for Joanne and the English Democrats is a positive vote for the people of Haltemprice and Howden. It is a vote for ENGLAND and an English Parliament.

Joanne Robinson stood for UKIP at the 2001 General Election in Haltemprice and Howden.

Warning: This is not politically correct!

Upon taking office the judges of England pledge to “do right by all manner of people, after the law and usages of this realm”. Gordon Brown’s suspension of the writ of Habeas Corpus seems to me to be so fundamentally subversive to the common law and usages of this realm that if I were a judge I would have no hesitation in ignoring 42-days detention, especially since this draconian legislation is directed against a certain manner of people. But then what do I know of the law.

I may not be a student of jurisprudence, but I do know what I like, and this exposition of what it means to be English, from the aptly named Tom Paine, is one that I wholeheartedly endorse:

our patriotism is not so much to do with “blood and soil.” At its best, it is a matter of values. Those values are rooted in Magna Carta, which set the laws of England above her rulers. They are rooted in habeas corpus, a simple writ which forces our rulers to account for their prisoners and to justify their detention to the courts. These things made Englishmen free long before democracy gave them the right to choose their government. They set limits that even a monarch could not cross. If you don’t take pride in them, you simply don’t understand what it is to be a freeborn Englishman.

On 11th September in the year 1648 the Levellers presented to Parliament their largest petition, signed by one third of all Londoners. 363 years later, to the day, al-Qaeda attacked mainland America and the subsequent “War on Terror” provided New Labour with all the political justification they required to embark on a comprehensive and systematic erosion of England’s hard won civil liberties. Free-born John has been spinning in his English grave ever since.

“Last Sunday was the anniversary of Magna Carta”, David Davis informed the Question Time Audience, “and Habeas Corpus, the fundamental thing that we gave away last week, is actually something that underpins what it is to be British”. David Davis’ view of Britishness is one that Gordon Brown apparently shares:

For there is indeed is a golden thread that runs through British history of the individual standing firm for freedom and liberty against tyranny and the arbitrary use of power. It runs from that long-ago day in Runnymede in 1215 to the Bill of Rights in 1689 to not just one, but four Great Reform Acts in less than 100 years. And the great tradition of British liberty has, first and foremost, been rooted in the protection of the individual against the arbitrary power of first the monarch and then the state.

The ‘golden thread’ of liberty is of course English, not British; as is the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights and Habeas Corpus, a writ that is unknown to Scots law but which dates back to the 1200s in England. For Scots these things form part of their constitutional inheritance, what Tony Blair might patronisingly term a “union dividend”. They are not a spiritual inheritance as they are for the English because they do not form part of what it means to be Scottish. I would love to believe that a spiritual connection to the ideals of England - the idea of England itself - is what led English MPs to vote, by a majority of 19 (which would have been more had it been a free vote), against 42-days detention. But who knows, for it seems that the Englishman representing the English constituency of Haltemprice and Howden is content to ape Gordon Brown and couch the debate in firmly terms of Britishness.

For all the merits of his campaign it is depressing that Davis can’t (or won’t) define his opposition to New Labour’s totalitarianism as a freeborn Englishman, to tap into that rich English tradition and appeal to his constituents’ Englishness. Would it really be too much to ask for an English MP to appeal to England as England in opposition to Brown’s dystopian Britishness, just as Scottish politicians have used Scotland as a bulwark against government control?

Someone needs to speak for England in this civil liberties debate. But who will it be? My past disagreements with the English Democrats have been too frequent to mention, and much of the antagonism - at least on my part - stems from the fact that the very existence of an English nationalist manifesto ties what should be a cross-party case for English self-determination to other policy areas. But in Haltemprice and Howden there is a real opportunity for the EngDems, and uniquely a real need for an English party. Of all of the elections since the English Democrats Party was founded it is this one that presents an unrivaled opportunity to campaign positively for England, to fight for the very heart and soul of England: Our liberty. For the EngDems there is a chance here to slay the ghosts of previous negative campaigns, and present a positive vision of what England should be; a chance to prevent an English election being fought on a “Best for Britain” platform; a chance to make the points of reference English, in defiance of those that claim Magna Carta and Habeas Corpus for Britain.

So much has been made of Brown’s shady backroom dealings with the DUP, but the fact that all New Labour’s Scottish MPs (with the sole honourable exception of Katy Clark) voted with their boy in Number 10 was decisive. This is not the West Lothian Question because Scottish and Irish MPs do have a constitutional right to vote on reserved legislation. But it is The English Question. It is about English sovereignty - national sovereignty and individual sovereignty - and it’s about England’s right to contradict Britain as the other nations of the union so frequently do.

I’ve always described myself as an English nationalist, but not, necessarily, a separatist. Constitutional sovereignty, the right to determine our future, was, I thought, enough. But I must admit that this civil liberties debate has had me seriously considering the case for English independence. To argue that Scots and Irish MPs should not be permitted to corrupt England’s proud tradition of individual freedoms is to argue logically that they should not vote on reserved matters. So perhaps the enticingly named Free England might be better suited than the English Democrats to freeing England from the attentions of a prime minister who has never faced the public vote in England.

Any English nationalist party that does join the fray will benefit from the absence of the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, the Greens and UKIP. The field is wide open and the platform will be theirs to take. Questions concerning David Davis’ u-turn over his call for an English Parliament will be perfectly valid because the democratic deficit that results from the absence of an English parliament perverts the most important civil liberty that a democratic people hold - the ability to choose and remove the government.

Our Kingdom has a list of Freedoms lost under New Labour. David Davis outlines the issues here.

In all the various revolutions, with their dark and dreary scenes of violence and bloodshed, through which England has passed, the people have clung to their ancient laws with a devotion almost superstitious. — Samuel Tyler

Who Do We Think We Are? has made the news:

More than 500 schools in England will focus on the subject of Britishness as part of a government initiative.

As it’s in the news I may as well share with you this email I received from the WDWTWA people back in April:

Thank you for your recent email enquiry about the Who Do We Think We Are? Project.

As correctly stated the project is funded by the DCSF and is in its inception year. The site has been designed to be of relevance to all schools - irrespective of their location within the UK. However, there isn’t a formal funding agreement with the Scottish Government or Welsh Assembly Government.

If you take a look at the Learning Resources section of the site you will see that resources are being uploaded that reflect all the UK nations. For example, I recently summarised some content about the excellent website on 100 Welsh heroes and heroines (100 Arwyr Cymru) - see http://www.wdwtwa.org.uk/teachers (Featured resources in the bottom left corner)…and more resources like this will come on stream over the next few weeks and months.

Kind regards

Dozey child-indoctrinating bastards. My final bullet point was correct.