British Social Attitudes

The Institute for Public Policy Research has released "Is An English Backlash Emerging? Reactions to devolution ten years on" which brings us details of the latest British Social Attitudes data on constitutional preferences for England.

Support for an English parliament has leapt from 17% in 2007 to a historic high of 29% in 2009.

The 2008 data should have been included in the 26th British Social Attitudes Report released in January 2010, but it was decided to hold back the data until now to publish the 2008 and 2009 data together as part of the IPPR's investigation into the English Question. So what we have here is a two year leap from when I covered the 25th British Social Attitudes report last year, when I suggested strongly that there would be a rise in support for an English Parliament.

The data for the 26th BSA report will have already been collected over the course of 2008; the year in which a Scottish prime minister was crowned, then bottled a general election, and in which his reputation and economic legacy were laid to waste. In 2008 we had an SNP Government, the SNP's National Conversation and the Calman Commission, not to mention the repeated criticism of the Barnett Formula.

Obviously I still have the same doubts about the methodology of John Curtice. I think the question is worded in such a way as to force English respondents to choose between Westminster - the traditional home of English governance - and a *new* English parliament. There is also no option to measure support for English Votes on English Laws, which is usually the most popular solution (although given that EVoEL is an answer to the British Question rather than the English Question I can understand why it was left out).

So the British Social Attitudes survey is flawed because it asks the public to choose between a *new* parliament for England or the UK parliament, which historically is the English parliament, and finds that only 29% would like a *new* English parliament.

It does not attempt to measure support for an English parliament at Westminster or a "parliament within a parliament" - an English Grand Committee or "English Votes on English Laws", the latter being the model that commercial polls find most support for.

Asking people to choose between Westminster (England’s traditional parliament) or a new English parliament presupposes that an English parliament must be new and/or distinct (ie not dual purpose).

It would be more useful to paraphrase the referendum that prompted the Scots to vote for a Scottish parliament in 1997:

1. I agree that there should be a English Parliament; or
2. I do not agree that there should be a English Parliament Parliament

Despite my reservations about the neutrality of the question that John Curtice uses to determine support for an English parliament, it is highly significant and encouraging that support for a new English parliament has risen to 29%. Commercial polls tend to show greater support for an English parliament, up to 67%, but it is the British Social Attitudes data that academics and politicians use as their measure of public opinion. In the past we have been treated to the following gems:

"Opinion polls show that an English parliament commands almost no support amongst the English people"
Prof Robert Hazell , Prospect Magazine, Feb 2006

"as we know, there is no demand for an English Parliament"
Lord Howarth of Newport , Hansard, 10 February 2006

"The English seem uninterested in a separate English Parliament, and not sufficiently interested to vote for English Votes on English laws."
Prof Robert Hazell, The English Question (2005)

"...there is no demand at all for devolution to England or the English MPs only being able to vote on English issues."
Lord Falconer, Today Programme, 10th March 2006

"there is little enthusiasm for an English Parliament, with support for such a body continuing at under 20%. So the idea of an English Parliament, we say: not today, not tomorrow, not in any kind of future we can see know."
Lord Falconer, Speech to the ESRC Devolution and Constitutional Change Programme, March 2006

"an English Parliament lacks popular support. Of course we can't be sure this will remain the case, but polls since devolution have shown very small levels of support (16 per cent) for this policy among the English."
Guy Lodge and Meg Russell, Scotsman, 18 Jan 2006

In light of this new data, the above rhetoric from people opposed to the creation of an English parliament will now be more difficult to sustain in the court of academic and political opinion. Public opinion will continue to be better reflected in the surveys of respected pollsters like ICM, Ipsos MORI and YouGov. Prof John Curtice concludes:

Support for the idea of an English Parliament may be beginning to find some roots in English national identity and perceptions of England’s material interests. If this trend continues too, then politicians may indeed no longer be able to assume that it is safe to ignore England in the devolution debate.

It is the upward trend that will worry politicians (and certain biased academics). Gordon Brown may yet be able to add rising support for an English parliament to his legacy list.

The full IPPR report is available for download here and the accompanying press relase can be read here.

Related: Response to Prof John Curtice

At this time of year we are traditionally informed by the British Social Attitudes people that there is no demand for an English Parliament (see last year's 25th Report).

Breaking with over a decade of tradition, it would appear that they have decided not to publish that data this year. The 26th British Social Attitudes Report does not contain the usual data that is used by constitutional experts and politicians to claim that there is 'no demand for an English parliament'.

What the press release does tell us is that Britain is a country drifting to the right, seemingly like every country in Europe.

Unfortunately we are less relaxed about drugs and fewer people believe that it is their civic duty to vote.

Fortunately fewer of us are in favour raising taxes and employing redistributive policies to help the poor (after ten years of New Labour failure, £billions wasted, and a burgeoning underclass), we are more tolerant of homosexual relationships, and for the first time since 1991 the number of people who identify as Labour supporters do not form the plurality (32% of people identified themselves as Conservative compared with 27% as Labour).

Britain in 2010: More tolerant, more Conservative, but less likely to vote

The 25th British Social Attitudes report has some sobering news for those of us who would like to see an English parliament:

The majority (57%, the same figure as in 2001) think England should continue to be governed from Westminster rather than by an English Parliament (17% in favour) or regional assembles (14% in favour).

Adding these (2007) figures to previous years we get this.

It's a finding that has sparked a measure of triumphalism from British nationalists unionists (see Alex Massie: What English backlash?).

True 32% of people in England feel Scotland receives an unduly generous share of public spending (up from 22% in 2003) and 61% think Scottish MPs should not vote on English-only legislation. But that's not quite the same as thinknig everyone would be better off if the Union were ended: in 1999 21% of English people thought it would be better if Scotland were independent and this year that figure is just 19%. More signifianctly, perhaps, just 17% of English voters back an "English parliament".

But before we all get carried away we need to consider the question that the British Social Attitudes survey puts to the public:

With all the changes going on in the way different parts of Great Britain are run, which of the following do you think would be best for England?

To which there are three available responses:

a) England should be governed as it is now with laws made by the UK parliament

b) Each region of England should have its own regional assembly that runs services like health

c) England as a whole should have its own new parliament with law-making powers.

The BSA asks the public to choose between a *new* parliament or the UK parliament, which historically is the English parliament, and finds that only 17% would like a *new* English parliament.

It does not attempt to measure support for a "parliament within a parliament" (an English Grand Committee or full blown "English Votes") which is the model that commercial polls find most support for.

Asking people to choose between Westminster (England’s traditional parliament) or a new English parliament presupposes that an English parliament must be new and/or distinct (ie not dual purpose).

Also, the BSA do not make it absolutely clear that any ‘new English parliament’ would be a devolved parliament that is subordinate to Westminster (like the Scottish Parliament), if that is indeed the option that they intended to measure support for.  They do not specify what law-making powers it should have, that they leave open to interpretation. By 'law-making powers' many respondents will understand that to relate to the Home Office and Police.

For all the respondents know they are voting for a federation.

A more useful question would be something straight-forward like that which prompted the Scots to vote for a Scottish parliament in 1997:

1. I agree that there should be a Scottish Parliament; or
2. I do not agree that there should be a Scottish Parliament

I have no doubt that people like Malcolm Rifkind will take the 2007 BSA results to be an endorsement of Conservative policy.  Rifkind will feel some justification given that 61% want an end to Scottish MPs voting on English legislation, yet the majority want still to be governed by Westminster.  But it is not an endorsement of Conservative policy. Firstly, the Conservatives do not really have a policy, and; secondly, the policy that they did have (English Votes on English Laws) is not understood by the public.

A derisory 50% trust the UK government to look after England’s interests either ‘just about always’ or ‘most of the time’, but....The English public still want continued rule by the UK Parliament (a real shot in the arm for our beleagured national institution).

It is far from clear as to what the best option for looking after England's interests should be because we are yet to have that debate. The House of Commons will be an interesting place to be when it occurs. The Tories and Labour will seek to put party advantage over all other concerns; constitutionalists will lament the passing of a unitary parliament; the SNP will make hay; Scottish unionist MPs will cry foul, and; we English nationalists will argue for public consultation - a national conversation.

The data for the 26th BSA report will have already been collected over the course of 2008; the year in which a Scottish prime minister was crowned, then bottled a general election, and in which his reputation and economic legacy were laid to waste. In 2008 we had an SNP Government, the SNP's National Conversation and the Calman Commission, not to mention the repeated criticism of the Barnett Formula.

Dear Mr Copeland,

I am writing to complain about the conduct of your department. The pro forma response that you send out to any complaint about the lack of an English parliament is misleading. It goes like this:

"The Government does not believe that there is any groundswell of opinion in favour of an English Parliament. The British Social Attitudes Surveys between 1999-2003 showed that support for an English Parliament averaged 16%."

This is misinformation. The first part of your statement - that the Government does not believe there is any groundswell of opinion in favour of an English parliament - is obviously incorrect, why else would Lord Falconer and others feel the need to attack the idea of an English parliament if there is no support for it?

The second part of your statement is so misleading as to be embarrassing. The 1997 Scottish referendum asked people to choose between two options; they were:

1. I agree that there should be a Scottish Parliament; or
2. I do not agree that there should be a Scottish Parliament

By contrast the British Social Attitudes Surveys (1999-2003) that you cite asked a leading question. Respondents were asked to choose between rule from Westminster, regional devolution or an English parliament.

I shouldn't have to explain to you why this is a leading question, and why it is not comparable with the Scottish referendum question but I will.

Firstly, people are asked to choose between three options, a sovereign Westminster, regionalism and an English parliament, as if all three were mutually incompatible - they are not.

Secondly, people are asked to choose between Westminster and an English parliament when Westminster has traditionally been the English parliament, and the seat of English Government since the early middle ages. The inference being that an English parliament would not be at Westminster.

Thirdly, an English parliament based on the Scottish model would be subordinate to Westminster so it would involve devolving power rather than transferring ‘rule from Westminster’. As the surveys were conducted during a very Eurosceptic period in British politics it is hardly surprising that the English public expressed a desire for a sovereign Westminster.

Times have changed since The British Social Studies Surveys (1999-2003) were conducted. First we had the Foundation Hospitals vote (2003) in which foundation hospitals were imposed upon England by the votes of non-English constituency MPs contrary to the collective wishes of English constituency MPs. This was followed by the vote on Student top-up fees (2004) in which the Scottish MPs again imposed a measure on England that had been explicitly rejected by the Scottish Parliament for their own constituents.

Following on from these democratic absurdities (‘constitutional anomalies’) YouGov (February 2004) conducted a poll that showed 24% of people supported an English parliament. 24% is two percent more than The British Social Studies Surveys (1999-2003) found to be in favour of regional assemblies (22%), and also two percent more than the percentage that voted in favour of the north east elected regional assembly (22%) - for which we were told there was 'grassroots support'.

The exact breakdown of results from YouGov was as follows:

1. England should have its own English Parliament 24%
2. England should be made up of nine Regional Assemblies 11%
3. Don't know 7%
4. Continue with status quo 12
5. Banning Scottish & Welsh MPs from voting on English issues 47%

This indicates that 71% of the population are in favour of either an English parliament or English Votes on English Matters. However, because the Government, the Lib Dems and the Constitution Unit have since described EVoEM as 'unworkable' it is reasonable to suppose that many of those previously in favour of EVoEM would now by in favour of an English parliament. As a conservative estimate let’s put the figure in support of an English parliament at 40%.

A later YouGov poll carried out for The Times (April 2005) showed that 70% (72% if you remove Scottish respondents from the equation) of those questioned believed that it was unfair for Scottish MPs to vote on English matters - a figure extremely close to the 71% that wanted either an English parliament or English Votes on English Matters.

In response to your boss’ unfounded rejection of an English parliament the BBC website is presently running a poll on whether there should be an English parliament. At the time of writing 3005 people have voted and 74.18% are in favour of an English parliament with just 25.82% against the idea.

All three major UK parties remain opposed to an English parliament and yet, despite the overwhelming lack of marketing or political support, the idea continues to gain support. Public support for an English parliament is now at a level that eclipses any support that was ever shown for regional assemblies, so to say that there is no groundswell of opinion in favour of an English parliament is a downright lie. Support for an English parliament is bound to grow as the Labour majority decreases and the West Lothian Question becomes raised with increasing regularity, and it will become a clamour when Gordon Brown, an MP democratically unaccountable to any electorate, anywhere in the UK, on issues devolved to Scotland, becomes Prime Minister. Alternatively, if the Conservatives get in and institute some form of English Votes on English Matters (why would they even consider this if there is no support for an English parliament?) then the UK will rapidly disintegrate into constitutional chaos – at that point in time an English parliament becomes a necessity not an option.

Whilst I do not expect you to support calls for an English parliament - you are, after all, in the employ of the Scottish Raj - I do expect you to impart up-to-date and relevant information to the public. Lord Falconer is a member of the Government, albeit one of Tony's unelected cronies, and he clearly understands there to be a groundswell of opinion in favour of an English Parliament. And as for The British Social Attitudes Surveys (1999-2003) you can stop citing that now because it was misleading to begin with and, in light of subsequent events, it is hopelessly out of date.

Bury your head in the sand all you want, prostrate yourself at the feet of Lord Falconer to your heart’s content, but please, please, cut out the lies. You are supposed to be the Department of Constitutional Affairs, not the Ministry of Propaganda. All you are doing is creating resentment and frustration; resentment against the Scots and Welsh that will ultimately damage the Union, and frustration that you so blithely cast aside concern at the lack of English political representation that people outside of government's ivory towers perceive to be a serious and widespread political concern.

Yours,

Since I mailed that letter I have been reliably informed that Mr Copeland is being even more economical with the truth than I previously thought. The figure of 16% that he quoted is infact the percentage of Brits that supported an English parliament - amongst the English support stood at 23%.