Conservatives

I thought about patriotism. I wished I had been born early enough to have been called a Little Englander. It was a term of sneering abuse, but I should be delighted to accept it as a description of myself. That little sounds the right note of affection. It is little England I love. And I considered how much I disliked Big Englanders, whom I saw as red-faced, staring, loud-voiced fellows, wanting to go and boss everybody about all over the world, and being surprised and pained and saying 'Bad show!' if some blighters refused to fag for them. They are patriots to a man. I wish their patriotism began at home... - J.B. Priestley

Wales Online carries some interesting comment from Alan Trench in an article titled Why Eurosceptics are not (always) Little Englanders. Trench argues that the Conservative's fresh commitment to the Union, in spite of their continued failure in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, stems from two Tory anxieties:

1. Dissolution of the Union would result in further integration of the Union's constituent parts into the EU
2. Dissolution of the UK would diminish England/Britain's international prestige and influence (no seat of the UN Security Council for England alone).

Mr Trench said the strategy of fighting seats in all parts of the UK had "bombed".

But he is adamant that Euroscepticism within Tory ranks is a key reason why the party remains determined to keep the UK together, despite the failure to advance in Scotland or win any seats in alliance with the Ulster Unionist Party in Northern Ireland.

He said: "It's one of the things people don't give enough attention to when they are trying to understand the Conservative party... All the evidence is Euroscepticism is one of the defining threads of the modern Conservative party."

During his lecture in Cardiff hosted by the Institute of Welsh Affairs, he said: "I think part of what's going on in this is if you are a serious Eurosceptic you are talking about Britain - the UK - being able to stand for itself on the world stage."

The United Kingdom has a population of more than 62 million, of which England accounts for just over 51 million - significantly less than Germany (81.8 million), France (65.4 million) and Italy (60.2 million), and only just ahead of Spain (46 million).

In other words, without the UK, England would be a midde-sized European nation which happened to have a few nuclear submarines. Would Japan (127.4 million people) see the UK as a peer or a pretender to be a great power?

It is essentially the contrary argument to that laid out by Robin Harris in The Rise of English Nationalism and the Balkanisation of Britain.

I tend to agree with Trench that Eurosceptic thinking is important in the debate over the British Question. The Tories are not 'Little Englanders' in the true sense of the phrase, they are anything but. I would say that the Tories want to keep Britain together because they are 'Big Englanders' or 'Greater Englanders' for whom Britain - or more correctly Westminster - is a device for projecting power and retaining sovereignty. They are what Chris Bryant refers to as the Anglo-British in his 2003 paper "These Englands, or where does devolution leave the English?":

I prefer to associate the Anglo-British not with an Anglocentrism whose epicentre is London, but rather with those in all regions and all classes in England for whom the difference between being English and being British, is, for the most part, unclear, unimportant and/or irrelevant. Many of them would see nothing amiss in the title of Clive Aslet’s Anyone for England? A Search for British Identity (1997). They inhabit an Anglo-British England.

The Anglo-British do not notice when an institution or person associated with England performs a British function. For example, it goes unremarked that the Bank of England is the central bank for all Britain, or that the Archbishop of Canterbury, the primate of the Church of England, crowns the sovereign of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Nor do countless references to ‘England’ which should have been to ‘Britain’ grate on the English ear. Walter Bagehot’s famous The English Constitution (1964 [1867]), for example, does not strike the Anglo-British as mistitled. Similarly, it is the 900-year continuity of the parliament at Westminster – originally English, later British – that enables Rebecca Langlands (1999) to speak of the English core of the British state.

The Anglo-Brits are also people who say 'British schools' or 'this country' - instead of 'English schools' or 'England' - when they are talking about Education policy in England; they are people who tolerate the fact that non-English MPs vote on English matters, even though they can see it is undemocratic. The Anglo-British are everywhere but I do think there is a class and age bias. The Anglo-Brits are particularly prevalent amongst the upper classes and the privately educated, and they're also more likely to be older (at least in my experience). However, they're not just confined to England or the upper echelons of society. Scots like Gordon Brown are Anglo-British in their understanding of Britain, which is why he uses an English narrative and English values to try and forment a sense of Britishness. But it's amongst Tories that you find the classic unreconstructed Anglo-Brit, Englishmen for whom the sun never sets, and for whom 1707 and 1801 marked the creation of a new Greater England, a colonial expansion. Yes it was a shame about the Empire, but chin up lads, stiff upper lip and all that...We still have Scotland and part of Ireland, ungrateful bastards though they are. Tally ho! What, what.

It's the Anglo-British 'Big Englanders' - rather than Little Englanders - who oppose an English parliament and a federal Britain. Robert Key is one such Tory:

One thing that is absolutely clear is that we should make every possible attempt to ensure that this House remains the Parliament of England. I do not wish to see any other Parliament established anywhere calling itself an English Parliament. That would be appalling and would go against 1,000 years of our history.

Mark Pritchard is another:

I am afraid I do not support your campaign as I feel it will play into the hands of European federalists by breaking up the United Kingdom, even more than Labour have done already. I think that there would be many in the European Commission and elsewhere on the Continent who would be delighted at seeing the United Kingdom become nothing more than a country of regions - a type of “divide and rule” concept.

I know that the CEP has the best interests of England at heart, but I don’t think that an English Parliament is the way to deliver these interests.

Liam Fox another:

I think our national identity is being stripped away in order to prepare us for being engulfed by those who wish to see Britain merely as a region in a European superstate. I believe our integration has already gone far enough and I will resist any moves to diminish British sovereignty in any way, shape or form.

The Tories prefer to avoid the issue of the EU, and so for this reason it is UKIP politicians who we turn to for an honest description of Eurosceptic Conservative thought on the subject of devolution. The following is taken from a letter from Jeffrey Titford, UKIP MEP and former Tory, again in opposition to an English parliament:

From our point of view, there is little point in establishing an English Parliament, while we remain members of the European Union. In fact, to do so would be to play into the hands of the EU, which is quite happy to see the United Kingdom broken up. We can only enter into sensible debate on this issue, after Britain has left the European Union.

This UKIP view of devolution is embellished by Derek Clark MEP, again in a letter opposing an English parliament:

We see the UK as a sovereign nation independent of the political construction known as the EU but otherwise co-operating with the countries of Europe. I believe that this view is shared by the majority of people in the UK. What is happening is a deliberate destabilizing process by the EU with the active support of both this government and previous ones. As a result all sorts of movements have sprung up in support of one view or another. Frankly the campaign for an English parliament can only help to assist the break up of the UK and further the cause of the EU agenda.

It's not only in the field of politics that the Anglo-British rear their ugly heads. Dave Richards of the English Football Association provides a classic example of Anglo-Brit thinking:

"It's time for a British boss, somebody who understands our passion, belief and commitment. There's no distinction between English and British."

Incredibly Richards made this statement in the context of advocating Martin O'Neill as the next England manager whilst opposing a foreign manager of the England team. For Anglo-Brits the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is simply - England writ large (at least to all English intents and purposes, they are rather more tactful when addressing a Scottish audience). It is the thinking of these people that is the greatest obstacle to English home rule - to them British sovereignty is English sovereignty.

David Cameron is another Anglo-Brit, as Trench notes:

Mr Trench was struck by Mr Cameron's commitment to the union in a December 2007 speech in Edinburgh in which he said in a "choice between constitutional perfection and the preservation of our nation, I choose our United Kingdom".

The academic said: "That was the first time I noticed a Conservative leader come up with a reason to support the union... What he said was the importance of the union was it was part of the UK's wider standing in the world."

The Anglo-Brits have a very whiggish interpretation of Britishness. Devolution is an asymmetry that can be tolerated and explained because sovereignty remains with the Imperial Parliament. In that way the unbroken continuity of English/Anglo-British sovereignty is preserved. Tradition, continuity and incremental progress are more important than democracy. For these Anglo-Brits it would almost be preferrable for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to be allowed to whither on the English vine and drop off rather than contemplate a federalism by which Westminster's sovereignty is diminished but an entity named Britain remains. They would internalise the managed decline of Empire by treating Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as colonies - as peripheries to the English centre - rather than undergo a radical re-imagining of the centre that disturbs their narrative.

I don't hold out much hope for a federal Britain. I see the future of Britain as one of 'managed decline' in which Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland claim ever greater powers from Westminster. The only way this will be averted is by the decline of the Big Englander and the rise of the Little Englander. In this respect I think demographics are on England and Britain's side, the youth of Britain being far more comfortable with the multi-national nature of Britain than is the post-war baby-boomer generation.

We Little Englanders do not necessarily view Westminster as a benign force for civillisation and progress; we talk of the Norman Yoke in the same breath as mention of Westminster; we sing Jerusalem instead of God Save the Queen or Land of Hope and Glory; and we view our politicians as corrupt and elitist, and invariably British.

George Young responds to David Nuttall MP.

Will the Leader of the House please find time for a debate on the unfairness arising from the fact that Members of Parliament who represent constituencies in Scotland can vote on matters such as education and schools that affect my constituents, but that I and other Members who represent seats in England have no reciprocal right to vote on matters affecting education in Scotland?

My hon. Friend might be familiar with a document that was published in the last Parliament by the Democracy Taskforce, of which I was a member, which addressed the West Lothian question. If he looks at the coalition agreement, he will see that our proposal to deal with this anomaly is to set up a commission to look into the issue and to report back with proposals.

Let me get this right. Your proposal is to set up a commission to report back with proposals?

So when will this commission begin, who will be on it and how do I have my say; and what was the purpose of the Democracy Task Force and the countless occasions before that when George Young personally advocated 'English Votes on English Laws' and promised us that a Conservative Government would implement that policy?

I once attended a Tory fringe event in Bournmouth to hear George Young speak about the English Question. I challenged him from the floor to offer my opinion that his EVoEL policy was unworkable and he couldn't explain how it would work, and to ask him what his objection to an English parliament was. The patronising beanpole calmly dismissed me and assured his audience that an English parliament was not necessary because his policy of English Votes on English Laws was the answer.

So implement it then!

A gentle reminder to Conservative MPs about the popularity of one of the measures on which they were elected.

...it has been suggested that when MPs at Westminster consider issues that affect only England, only English MPs (and not Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish MPs) should be allowed to vote on them. Do you support or oppose this idea?

Support: 66%

Oppose: 17%

Don't know: 17%

And a gentle reminder to Liberal Democrat MPs that they were elected on a promise to do something about the Barnett Formula.

Scotland currently receives around 20% more public spending per head of population than England. Do you think Scotland gets ...

More than its fair share of government spending: 59%

Pretty much its fair share, given Scotland's large land area and the costs that arise from this: 24%

Less than its fair share: 3%

Don't know: 13%

The polling data is taken from YouGov for the Sunday Times, three weeks prior to the general election.

The good folks at For Argyll have been asking some awkward questions, the type of awkward questions that the press in England ought to be asking the Conservative Party but, so far, have not.

They have followed up their poser to William Hague with the article 'Cameron takes up the England question – badly', which notes that Cameron has "focused on Tam Dalyell’s enduring ‘West Lothian question’ rather than confronting the underlying problem with constitutional structure". In other words, the Tories do not attempt to answer the wider English Question.

Mr Cameron now says that a Conservative administration will block MPs representing constituencies in devolved administrations from voting on matters already devolved and which therefore, in considerations at Westminster, can apply only to England.

He will create a English Grand Committee which will vote on such matters as the Speaker of the day identifies as ‘English-only’.

The membership of this Grand Committee is unspecified but the implication is that it will consist of MPs representing the English constituencies.

This proposition is no more than short term blue tack – in every sense of both of these words.

Its shortcomings are likely only to heighten England’s awareness of the extent to which the current constitutional lean-to discriminates against it; and thereby to generate increasingly focused aggravation.

Quite so. I expect the English press will get around to discussing the English dimension after the Tories release their manifesto tomorrow. In particular Simon Heffer will have something to say about the axing of English Votes on English Laws as a Conservative policy (after ten years of the Tories promising England that EVoEL was the answer) and I imagine that Power2010 will shine the spotlight on the Tories' inadequate proposals too.

I expect that Cameron's Conservatives hope that they can escape discussion of the English Question before the General Election. It is vital that they aren't allowed that luxury. In the realms of a hung parliament the territorial 'nationalist' dimension is of huge democractic importance, and the West Lothian Question is of huge constitutional importance - it's a question that can make or break minority governments.

A short message from David Mundell, the Conservative's sole Scottish MP, on the "National" Citizen Service proposal.

“We are extremely disappointed the SNP government has refused to even consider the National Citizen Service and have rejected it only hours after it has been launched.

“We were hoping to work with the Scottish Government to see it introduced in Scotland. Thousands of Scottish youngsters will now miss out on a real opportunity and our society and our economy will also suffer.

“This is narrow nationalism at its worst. It is another example of the SNP putting petty party politics ahead of the interests of the young people of Scotland.”

How is that 'treating Scotland with respect'? England has its own volunteering agency, so why not use that and let Scotland do its own thing?

There are shades of Gordon Brown's 'Britishness' classes about this. It's not to my mind a very Conservative proposal; less Burke's little platoons, more central government control.

Vanity Fair's Michael Wolff on vacuity:

The Cameron position isn’t about just consensus but about something more mystical, allowing everybody to hear what they want. Having systematically removed most of the overt points of contention—immigration, Iraq, Europe—the Cameron Conservatives then replaced them with a series of almost totemic notions of agreement.

Cameron is basing his campaign and, too, his idea of the Third Way—this further chapter in Clintonian and Blair-ite politics—on his being the bulwark against disagreeable and ugly people and other nameless terrible things. And he is counting on the fact that fewer and fewer voters will ask those old-fashioned questions about identity and provenance, which, after all, in the modern world are, for so many people, ever changing and fluid.

It can be surprising how fast perceived strengths can turn into visible weaknesses. The good ship Cameron is entering choppy waters so Cameron had better keep a good hold on the tiller.

Recently on John Redwood's Diary we've been treated to some of those 'cast iron' pledges that politicians like to come out with:

The Conservatives are – amongst other things – pledged to abolish ID cards, centralised computer projects, and English regional Assemblies and RDAs.
John Redwood's Diary, 7th March 2010

Good news – Conseravtives still want to abolish RDAs. RDAs have failed to narrow the gap between richer and poorer regions, have often got in the way of private sector led growth and development, have failed to deliver good transport systems and have been very bureaucratic. I look forward to their abolition, and hope we will save some money on all the bureaucracy.
John Redwood's Diary, 5th March 2010

Now we learn that the Conservatives have performed a u-turn on Regional Development Agencies:

THE Conservatives have admitted they will not scrap regional development agencies as they seek to end policy confusion just weeks before the General Election.

Two members of David Cameron's senior team, including former Chancellor Ken Clarke, were forced to send a memo to all Tory MPs in the hope of finally clarifying their proposals.

So having made a u-turn on English Votes on English Laws they've now done the same with Regional Development Agencies. Whatever next, "Tories propose elected regional assemblies"?

Why won't the bastard Labour or Conservative parties ask the people of England how we want to be governed; why are they so afraid of democracy?

In a leaked email Tory activist Peter Bingle has damned Cameron's campaign:

The Tory Party's one hope remains the PM. I cannot believe that English voters will give him their support when they have to vote in the privacy of the voting booth. At the moment he is the only compelling reason to vote for David Cameron. I feel let down by a party I have supported since I was sixteen years of age.

In other words, he hopes that the English won't vote for a Scot.

John Osmond at the Institute of Welsh Affairs relates that the Speaker’s Conference of 1920 was able to agree on the areas in which devolved legislatures should be established:

On this last point the crucial agreement was that the principle of nationality should be fundamental and so the Conference decided that England should not be divided. In short, therefore, the Conference opted for a British federation , made up of England, Scotland, Ulster and Wales.

It seems that Speaker Lowther himself favoured what is today UKIP's solution: Dual Mandate MPs.

...another explanation why the Speaker’s Conference led nowhere, was that it failed to agree on whether the devolved legislatures should be directly elected. Suggesting that the territories should be represented by Grand Committees of their MPs meeting in Cardiff, Edinburgh, Belfast, and London Speaker Lowther explained:

“The more I considered the proposal of one supreme and four independent legislatures, the less I liked it. The confusions that might arise, the multiplicity of elections, the novelty of five prime Ministers and Cabinets of probably divergent views, the enormous expense of building four new sets of Parliamentary buildings and Government offices and providing all the paraphernalia of administrations, frightened by economical soul.”

It's the dual mandate MP solution to the West Lothian Question that these days gets certain Tories the sack. The Conservative Party being smart enough to understand what UKIP cannot: There is no going back; the Scots will not abolish their MSPs.

Read on and comment here.

I've just been watching Lady Silvia Hermon on the Politics Show informing the viewers that she is not a Tory and has no intention of standing on a Conservative ticket. In November 2008 I wrote to Sylvia Hermon to ask what he views on the English Question were:

From: Gareth Young
Sent: 26 November 2008 14:38
To: HERMON, Sylvia (Lady)
Subject: Self denying ordinance

Dear Lady Hermon,

I welcome the new link between the Conservative Party and the UUP. But I would like to know whether you will be following the example of David Mundell in observing a self-denying ordinance on English issues at Westminster?

Could you also tell me whether the UUP has an official position on an English Parliament; English Grand Committee; English Votes on English matters, or; Ken Clarke's proposed solution - do you favour any of these potential solutions to the West Lothian Question?

Best regards,

Gareth Young

From: "HERMON, Sylvia \(Lady\)"
Sent: Fri, November 28, 2008 9:38
Subject:RE: Self denying ordinance

Dear Gareth.

Thank you for your recent e-mail of 26th November.

As I am sure you can appreciate, in light of my husband's very recent death, I need time and space to reflect upon my Party Executive's decision to progress an election pact with the Conservatives.

In these circumstances, I should be most grateful if you would kindly redirect your interesting questions to my Party Leader, Sir Reg Empey, at uup@uup.org.

With kindest regards,

Sylvia Hermon

Lady Hermon MP
House of Commons
London, SW1A 0AA

0207 219 0862 (Tel)
0207 219 1969 (Fax)

Having now had time to reflect on her party's alliance with the Conservatives she's obviously decided that it's not an alliance for her. It looks as though the UUP-Tory alliance may as well wave goodbye to their sole Northern Irish MP.