Power2010

There's a hum-dinger of a post from Anthony Barnett on Our Kingdom:

Particularly worrying here for anyone concerned with the fate of democracy in this country is the role of the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust, which is and will remain the strategic funder in the area of constitutional reform, as it is the largest non-charitable trust able to make donations to political causes. (There are three Rowntree entities, see the endnote for the differences between them.) Historically, the JRRT backs the Lib Dems and supported attempts to build a wider democratic movement and without it the UK’s constitutional reform movement would barely exist. It has created a cluster of campaigns and causes that can define the agenda as with the AV campaign. I am going to focus most of this post on the Reform Trust.

The JRRT was the source of funding for the Campaign for the English Regions which resurfaced, after many years of complete silence, during the Power2010 vote to urge their supporters to vote for anything but English Votes on English Laws. By pure coincidence other JRRT funded organisations, also opposed to an English Parliament or English Votes on English Laws, were also engaged in an attempt to bump English Votes on English Laws out of the Power2010 top-five, as Gerry Hassan noted at the time:

The Power 2010 inquiry has significant monies from the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust and its Reform Trust (1). Chaired by the formidable and impressive Helena Kennedy and led by Pam Giddy, previously of Charter 88, it has attempted to build on the work both did with the Power inquiry a few years ago....

The final list of 29 left the English question represented by English votes on English Laws, while a referendum on an English Parliament, which had been on the original list, was knocked out.

As we entered into the last few days, Unlock Democracy, the successor to Charter 88, asked supporters to vote for an elected second chamber, the demand which was below English votes. The Campaign for the English Regions urged their supporters to vote for any issue but English votes.

It's hard to escape the idea that the organisations funded by Joseph Rowntree operate as some sort of shadowy inter-connected club with someone acting as the hub - or in the words of Anthony Barnett a "cluster of campaigns and causes that can define the agenda". Certainly my involvement with Power2010 left me with a bad taste in my mouth. Firstly the proposal for an English parliament was 'experted' out of the running during the deliberative phase (there seemed to be something very underhand about that), then when English Votes on English Laws made the top five the rules were changed so that it became a pick n mix pledge, and then Power2010 was merged with Unlock Democracy (another JRRT organisation, formerly the New Politics Network and Charter88) and the English Votes on English Laws part of the pledge was never heard of again.

Of course, those of us who participated in the original Power Inquiry knew full well that Helena Kennedy disliked the Campaign for an English Parliament, so we went into Power2010 with our eyes open and should be delighted that Power2010 bore fruit at all. But despite this success I can't imagine that I'll ever engage in JRRT project again when I know that it is so biased towards certain political outcomes, namely the complete destruction of England’s political identity as a discrete nation.

The following is a partial transcript of Radio Four's Beyond Westminster programme, broadcast 16th Apr 2011.

Richard Wyn Jones: The elephant on the doorstep is the fact that the UK Government for many areas of domestic policy is now the English government and the Westminster parliament - especially after the referendum vote in Wales a few weeks ago that has led to the emergence of a legislative parliament in Wales - is also an English parliament to all intents and purposes, in many policy fields. And if and when we get a repeat of the election results in 1964 and 1974, which is Labour forming a government overall but without a majority of seats in England, there's going to be a huge problem here.

Sheena McDonald: Are you still sanguine about the Union, Robert?

Robert Hazell: We're talking now about the English Question, and that's a heading for English reactions to devolution. Broadly speaking there are two possible solutions. One is the one propounded by the last Labour government, to divide England 8 or 9 regions and give them all regional assemblies, and I think that policy is dead following the defeat of the North East referendum, but not necessarily forever. Remember, the vote in the north east was four to one against, Richard will remind us that the vote in Wales in 1979 was four to one against devolution for Wales, and within eighteen years that policy was reversed. So I don't think it's inconceivable that in 10-20 years time people might revive talk of regional government in England. But for now the policy solution that might be propounded by the Coalition Government is to set up a commission on the West Lothian Question, which was in the coalition agreement - that's something they haven't yet done but they are discussing how to do that. My guess is it might be quite limited in its terms of reference. I think if I were asked to advise them, I would say: set it up as a parliamentary commission and keep its terms of reference quite narrow; this is essentially a Conservative policy that you're trying to resolve, so have it chaired by a senior backbench Tory, and; get them to advise on the feasibility of testing the EVoEL on just a few bills at Westminster, do some experiments, see how it goes.

Sheena McDonald: The hoary old West Lothian Question...it hasn't ever been answered, is a commission the best idea, Alan?

Alan Trench: A Commission is the least bad approach, it is inherently an unanswerable question...

So Robert Hazell's 'two possible solutions' to the West Lothian Question are regional assemblies and a commission on the West Lothian Question, which he suggests should have 'limited terms of reference' [should not discuss an English parliament] and should be parliamentary commissions [should exclude the public]. My opinion of Robert Hazell is unchanged, he is a prize twat, and a pompuous condescending one at that.

Alan Trench - the expert who 'dissuaded' the Power2010 deliberative panel from adopting the proposal for an English parliament - seriously expects us to believe that he thinks the WLQ is unanswerable? Well, if you dissuade people from the obvious and natural answer then I suppose that it is unanswerable.

Trench went on to say that the Barnett Formula was "overgenerous to Scotland" and "undergenerous to Wales". The problem with reforming the Barnett Formula on a UK-wide basis, said Trench, was that "it would mean a very substantial cut in public spending in Scotland...something in the order of £4.5bn a year or possibly more". An alternative solution, mused Trench, was to reform the Barnett Formula not on a UK-wide basis but to reform it for just the "main loser, which is Wales". In other words, continue to overfund Scotland but overfund Wales too.

A happy St George's Day to Toque's long suffering readers.

On Wednesday Power2010 projected a large image of the flag of St George onto the Houses of Parliament. The projection didn't last long because the police turned up and unplugged the projector, implying that they were breaking the law, taking the names and addresses of those involved, citing anti-terrorism law, section 44.

This is England. A land without democratic voice, in which the police prevent people from projecting the national flag on a national icon in order to combat "terrorism".

The Power2010 stunt was to publicise the release of today's St George's Day press release which reveals that 68% agree with the statement: "England should have its own parliament with similar powers to those of the Scottish Parliament".

The ICM poll also revealed that an even greater proportion of people in England - 70% - would support "English Votes on English Laws", the policy that Power2010 is promoting as part of its five point pledge.

The ICM poll shows a large majority (70%) of voters say that laws for England should be made by the House of Commons but only MPs representing English constituencies should be able to vote on them. English Votes on English Laws (EVoEL) is one of the five changes to fix politics backed by over 100,000 votes which now forms the POWER Pledge being put to all candidates standing in the General Election.

The poll of 1033 people across England also shows that less than a quarter (23%) of people in England feels either “more English than British” or “English not British”. Almost half – or 46% - of those questioned in the poll say they feel “equally British and English”. 24% of those questioned said they feel either “British not English” or “more British than English”, according to the poll. POWER2010 says this means that the fairness of decision-making matters more to people than Englishness.

On the matter of identity the ICM data reveals that 77% of people surveyed felt English to some degree, so I'm not quite sure why Power2010 believe that 'the fairness of decision making matters more to people than Englishness'. Devolution to Scotland and Wales was sold on the message that devolution acknowledged the dual nature of national identity, recognising both Scottish identity and British identity, or Welsh identity and British identity. The English too have a dual national identity, yet England is denied the opportunity to vote for its own national parliament, despite years of polling that clearly demonstrate public support.

The Power2010 press release continues:

Director of POWER2010, Pam Giddy, said today:

“England was not mentioned once in the leaders’ debate and has not featured at all during this campaign so far. Yet we now know people want a fairer way of making decisions that affect England.

“It suddenly feels like we are on the cusp of seismic changes to the way our politics is done. But so long as the unfair system we have at the moment persists it can only play into the hands of undemocratic voices like the BNP. With all the talk of reform in the air politicians should not duck the English question, but use the opportunity of St George’s day to say where they stand.

It was a shameful disgrace that the word 'England' was not uttered once during the first leaders' debate, a debate that dealt almost entirely with matters affecting only England. What is it about England that Brown, Cameron and Clegg are so afraid of? Like Pam Giddy says, if they don't speak for, to and of England, then others will step into the political vacuum.

Power2010 are encouraging people to ask their candidates for their views on ‘the English Question’, so far unaddressed in this election - you can ask yours here.

Two thirds of voters (68%) in England believe England should have its own Parliament with similar powers to those of the Scottish Parliament, according to a new ICM poll for the Rowntree-backed democracy campaign group POWER2010 published on St George’s Day.

The findings come as POWER2010 stage a huge guerrilla-style projection of the St George’s flag with the words ‘Home Rule’ onto the Palace of Westminster to brand it English for a day.

The ICM poll shows a large majority (70%) of voters say that laws for England should be made by the House of Commons but only MPs representing English constituencies should be able to vote on them. English Votes on English Laws (EVoEL) is one of the five changes to fix politics backed by over 100,000 votes which now forms the POWER Pledge being put to all candidates standing in the General Election.

The poll of 1033 people across England also shows that less than a quarter (23%) of people in England feels either “more English than British” or “English not British”. Almost half – or 46% - of those questioned in the poll say they feel “equally British and English”. 24% of those questioned said they feel either “British not English” or “more British than English”, according to the poll. POWER2010 says this means that the fairness of decision-making matters more to people than Englishness.

Director of POWER2010, Pam Giddy, said today:

“England was not mentioned once in the leaders’ debate and has not featured at all during this campaign so far. Yet we now know people want a fairer way of making decisions that affect England.

“It suddenly feels like we are on the cusp of seismic changes to the way our politics is done. But so long as the unfair system we have at the moment persists it can only play into the hands of undemocratic voices like the BNP. With all the talk of reform in the air politicians should not duck the English question, but use the opportunity of St George’s day to say where they stand.

Power2010 are encouraging people to ask their candidates for their views on ‘the English Question’, so far unaddressed in this election - you can ask yours here.

Tony McNulty, exepenses fiddler extraordinaire, is the first MP to be held up to public ridicule by Power2010's Wanted campaign. Considering that the freak has Gordon Brown's backing it's a good choice.

It was Tony McNulty who, responding to a story that up to 570,000 illegal immigrants were living in the UK (not including the 700,000 asylum seekers whose applications were being processed), described the figures as a 'useful contribution to the debate' on ID cards:

“It is a useful contribution to the debate and it underlines the need for a robust ID card scheme which will, among other benefits, help tackle illegal working and immigration.”

If you know of an MP who has committed crimes against democracy, please visit the Power2010 website and nominate them as a target.

Pam Giddy has posted on Our Kingdom to clear up the confusion over the "at least three" rule change.

When we start asking supporters to take the Pledge to their candidates, it is exactly that - the Pledge, all five parts - that we will ask them to take. We are asking for our supporters and volunteers to back at least three, but they will be presenting all five to candidates and explaining to them the process through which the ideas came about.

Like anyone else, a candidate can sign if they back a majority of the ideas - hence the need for them to be presented with all 5. However, we also want to know exactly where the candidates stand on each of the issues and their responses will be tracked on our website so people can see which reforms on the Pledge they back.

So if you agree with at least three of the reforms on the Power2010 Pledge you can ask your prospective MPs if they agree with at least three, and if they do then they can sign the five point pledge.

Unfortunately this means that for the most part my problem with the revised Power2010 still stands:

It was my understanding that the five top reforms would form the Power2010 Pledge that prospective MPs would be lobbied to commit to in its entirety, thereby forcing constitutional reformers to consider the English dimension alongside the other constitutional reforms. It is my view that the other reforms in the top five (with the exception of ID cards/database state) should not be undertaken without resolution - or at the very least, consideration - of the English Question. Unfortunately Power2010 changed the rules without informing us, and after voting finished we found out that, actually, voters would be required to agree with only "at least three" of the top five reforms and ask their candidates to commit to those. So unfortunately the likes of Unlock Democracy and their cohorts can now just urge their supporters to support three reforms without consideration of the English Question.

The only reform on the Power2010 Pledge that I support on its own, as a stand alone reform, is "Scrap ID cards and roll back the database state". My willingness to support the rest is entirely dependent on all four reforms being considered in the same breath

The pledge is divisible, it is pick n mix, because both voters and candidates only have to choose three that they agree with; though candidates might conceivably pick a different three to the threesome that the lobbying voter wants them to.

David Rickard (aka BritologyWatch) has an article on Our Kingdom entitled "And then there were three: the Power 2010 pledge", it's well worth a read.

In regard to the "three" I feel that I have an apology to make to some of you for unwittingly misleading you. It was my understanding that the Power2010 Pledge would be an indivisible five point pledge, as implied by Helena Kennedy:

Over the months before the general election we are going to build this public agenda for changing politics and stage a mass popular "vote" for the five reforms people most want to see the next Parliament carry through.

This is the Power2010 Pledge; a public commitment that every candidate standing at the next election will be asked to make.

But no. Our politicians are not going to be asked to commit to the pledge in its entirety; instead the voters are going to pick "at least three" of the top five reforms and ask their parliamentary candidates to commit to those. According to Power2010's Guy Aitchison, this change in the rules was instituted because:

It was decided collectively by the Power2010 team in discussion with partner organisations over the course of the Vote. Some partners were concerned things like PR would preclude them from supporting the Pledge.

In other words they changed the rules mid-vote and didn't tell you about it. Like you I wasn't informed of that decision, and I don't know why the change wasn't indicated on the Power2010 website.

In a comment on David's article I explain why I wanted English Votes on English Laws in the top five.

I took a strategic decision to support EVoEL, and the basis of that decision was that these major reforms should not be undertaken without consideration of the English Question. It was my understanding that the five top reforms would form the Power2010 Pledge that prospective MPs would be lobbied to commit to in its entirety, thereby forcing constitutional reformers to consider the English dimension alongside the other constitutional reforms. It is my view that the other reforms in the top five (with the exception of ID cards/database state) should not be undertaken without resolution - or at the very least, consideration - of the English Question. Unfortunately Power2010 changed the rules without informing us, and after voting finished we found out that, actually, voters would be required to agree with only "at least three" of the top five reforms and ask their candidates to commit to those. So unfortunately the likes of Unlock Democracy and their cohorts can now just urge their supporters to support three reforms without consideration of the English Question.

Unfortunately it also means that I've unwittingly convinced a lot of people to vote for EVoEL on a false prospectus. We should have been told that it was a pick n mix pledge. To say that I'm extremely annoyed that we weren't told is something of an understatement - Power2010 is devalued as a result.

So to those of you who I persuaded to vote for EVoEL on the understanding that that it would force the constitutional reform lobby to support it, I apologise. I was naive, I was misled. I should have known that they would somehow wriggle out of it.

On the plus side, at least EVoELs is in the top five, and that fact may still help force a debate on the English Question. If I did persuade you to vote, then I thank you. I hope that it doesn't turn out to be a waste of your time.

With 10 seconds left to vote, the Power2010 website recorded:

English Votes on English Laws in 4th place with 6346 votes
A Written Constitution in 5th place with 6247
Fixed Term Parliaments in 6th place with 6219

We do of course have to wait for formal verification of this result, but assuming that there has been no cheating it looks as though we've scored a notable victory. Whatever the result I would like to thank all those English twitterers and Facebook campaigners, and the bloggers of the English Free Press, who I nagged and pestered to promote this constitutional abortion of a reform. In particular, insofar as I remember (apologies if I've left anyone out) BritologyWatch, Paul Kingsnorth, Devil's Kitchen, Man in a Shed, Wonko, Ana the Imp, Englishman's Castle, Iain Dale, Archbishop Cranmer, Daily Referendum, Mrs Rigby, WENaP and the CEP.

But most of all my thanks go to The Campaign for the English Regions and Unlock Democracy for providing the inspiration, as Gerry Hassan explains:

As we entered into the last few days, Unlock Democracy, the successor to Charter 88, asked supporters to vote for an elected second chamber, the demand which was below English votes. The Campaign for the English Regions urged their supporters to vote for any issue but English votes. Peter Facey, director of Unlock Democracy, stated that his motivation was that:

This was not an anti-English votes for English Laws email, simply a positive one for an issue we think needs to be in the top five.

The disingenuousness is shocking from supposed radical democrats, combined with their complete lack of understanding of the lack of democracy at the heart of the UK in the English question.

It's dangerous to tempt fate by declaring victory before it is confirmed, but irrespective of the result I feel that we have been victorious in seeing off competition from well funded and well organised opposition. Today we should congratulate each other on a job well done.

If the result is confirmed and English Votes on English Laws makes it onto the Power2010 Pledge, Helena Kennedy, Unlock Democracy and the Power2010 partners will face the ignominy of asking their supporters to lobby their prospective MPs to sign up to a pledge to ban non-English MPs from English Parliamentary affairs. It is a policy they do not believe in, and a policy that is unworthy and unworkable.

Conservative MPs, who will be standing on their party's policy of barring non-English MPs from only the Committee and Report Stage of English legislation, will face questions as to why they do not support extending the ban to Second and Third Readings. The Conservative's policy should not properly be called 'English Votes on English Laws' because it does not prevent non-English MPs from voting on English legislation and potentially having a determining influence on that legislation. If Power2010 does anything it should get the English Question onto the political agenda and force Tory candidates to come clean about their watered-down policy.

According to the British Social Attitudes 26th report, released January 2010, 61% agree that Scottish MPs should not be able to vote on English legislation.

The Director of Unlock Democracy, Peter Facey, says that I remind him of some old Marxist.

Gareth I like you and respect you too, but I now know what you remind me of and why sometimes its frustrating arguing with you. You are like some old Marxist who is against anyone who tries to make capitalism work better because it will prevent or delay the revolution.

That quote is a keeper, and one that I will cherish. Peter says this because I am uninterested in reforming British democracy if that reform doesn't include recognition of England's nationhood. Personally I think my position is a very reasonable one.

Peter's minion at Unlock Democracy, James Graham, has been frantically twittering to keep English Votes on English Laws out of the Power2010 top five. Too little too late, I hope.

If anyone has still not voted for English Votes on English Laws, you have 24 hours to register your vote here.

We’re now into the last week of the Power2010 online vote and there appears to be just one competition.

In fifth place with just under 4,000 votes is "A fully elected second chamber" and close behind is “English Votes on English Laws” (EvoEL) trailing by just 50. EvoEL had been in the top five for the entire duration of the online consultation until yesterday when a personal appeal from Peter Facey was sent out to all Unlock Democracy supporters calling on them to support just one reform, a fully elected second chamber. This followed on from last week’s email shot by the Campaign for the English Regions which urged their supporters to vote for any reform but EvoEL.

It is a short-sighted tactic by Peter Facey because our constitution needs to be addressed in the round, and the territorial – national – questions are vitally important not only to the future of our Union state, but also for the formulation and implementation of the other constitutional reforms on the Power2010 agenda. Taking Peter’s new favourite reform as an example, if we move to a fully elected upper house then the West Lothian Question is replicated in the second chamber which will increase England’s democratic deficit (see The Upper West Lothian Question) and make our democracy more unfair.

Short-sighted on not, those who are opposed to an English dimension to our system of government have mobilised. The question now is, do we care enough to rally to the cause of EvoEL?

It has been a tough sell to persuade the English Parliament lobby to vote for English Votes on English Laws. And with good reason. An English parliament is the ideal and EvoEL is a very poor substitute. But to those who do support an English parliament and who have not yet voted I say this: EvoEL at least gives voice to English discontent with the Status Quo and provides an English dimension to what is otherwise a very British affair.

The recent IPPR study into MPs attitudes to the English Question found that MPs are not satisfied with the Staus Quo.

“The overwhelming majority of MPs believe that it is time to reform the way that England is governed. Keeping things as they are is MPs’ least favoured option, attracting slightly less support than the radical option of establishing an English Parliament. However, while there is a clear mandate for reform on this issue within the House of Commons, opinion is divided over what to do.”

With a clear mandate for reform within the House of Commons, inclusion of EvoEL in the Power2010 Pledge would send a strong message to our politicians that the decade long statusquoism over the small matter of England is not acceptable.

From the Scottish Conservative Conference in Perth, the Times has brought us news that Ken Clarke’s solution to the West Lothian Question (dubbed English Pauses for English Clauses) is to be carried forward as Conservative policy and that these changes would take effect “in the first few weeks” of a Conservative government because they did not require legislation.

Ken Clarke’s solution will allow non-English constituency MPs to continue voting on English legislation, and to have a potentially decisive say on English-only legislation. Indeed, the proposed Tory reform would not have altered the outcome of the foundation hospital or tuition fees votes, had it been in effect. This watering down is despite Cameron’s vow to give English MPs the decisive say on English legislation, and despite the promises to England made by the three previous Tory leaders (Hague, IDS and Howard) who pledged to introduce English Votes on English Laws rather than English alterations at Committee Stage (for a fuller understanding of the Tory plans please refer to this pdf).

It is vitally important that the English Question is fully debated in the next Parliament and prior to the next General Election. Inclusion of EvoEL in the Power2010 pledge is a very good way of making this happen, and it is for that reason rather than any love of EvoEL that I urge you to vote for this reform. Otherwise, without debate, the Conservatives will tell us that they have a mandate, and that we should not complain, when they introduce a procedural change to the Westminster voting system as their answer to the English Question (they’ve never really understood the difference between the West Lothian Question and the English Question).

When I wrote to my prospective Conservative MP, Jason Sugarman, to inform him of my disatisfaction at Ken Clarke’s solution, he told me:

"I know one way of removing a Scottish born MP from Parliament. By voting Conservative in Lewes!"

Sugarman’s reference to Norman Baker being born in Scotland is a feeble attempt to make light of a democratic deficit that his party promised to fix and now will not. If Sugarman’s thinking is typical it indicates that the Conservatives believe that English nationalism is essentially based on anti-Scottish feeling. Much of it is, but it is an anti-Scottishness that springs from an inherent democratic unfairness that they promised to fix but have now reneged on that promise.

A Tory General Election win would remove much English resentment (assuming they were able to form a government) but it would not address the root cause of that resentment, and neither would Ken Clarke's attempt at mitigating the West Lothian Question. It is vital that we discuss this now, before more powers are removed from Westminster to Holyrood, Cardiff and Stormont, increasing again the English democratic deficit that gnaws at the heart of our constitution.

With the exception of EVoEL the Power2010 top ten reads like a Liberal Democrat's wet dream, or the Charter88 manifesto. The trustees at Joseph Rowntree House will all be nodding sagely at the wisdom of Joe Public if EVoEL doesn't make the cut. But if English Votes on English Laws doesn't make the cut it's all too predictable, too anodyne. It lacks credibility.

Date that boy that your mum warned you about. Go out and buy that motorbike. Inhale. Throw a brick through an establishment window. Vote for the joker in the pack, vote for the one that will cause debate and controversy, vote for English Votes on English Laws.