Say England

The BBC report on David Cameron's launch of the 'Big Society' and his plans to use the funds in dormant bank accounts - estimated to be £400M - to pay for it all.

David Cameron has launched his "big society" drive to empower communities, describing it as his "great passion".

In a speech in Liverpool, he said groups should be able to run post offices, libraries, transport services and shape housing projects.

Also announcing plans to use dormant bank accounts to fund projects, Mr Cameron said the concept would be a "big advance for people power".

What the BBC don't mention is the fact that David Cameron only plans to plunder English bank accounts. Bank accounts registered in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales will remain un-plundered. There is some sense in this given the fact that his Big Society plans will mostly affect only England (see BritologyWatch), so please bear this in mind as you listen to the media report this as a plan to plunder British or UK bank accounts. They - the UK press and the Tory Party - will do all they can to avoid mention of England.

UPDATE

This is what the Conservative Party's Draft Manifesto told us:

A Conservative government will use dormant bank accounts to endow an independent Social Investment Bank, with a mission to stimulate more social investment financing to help voluntary sector organisations, social entrepreneurs and others take on and overcome the social challenges we face.

The actual Conservative Party Manifesto stated:

We will strengthen and support social enterprises to help deliver our public service reforms by creating a Big Society Bank, funded from unclaimed bank assets, to provide new finance for neighbourhood groups, charities, social enterprises and other nongovernmental bodies.

No mention of it being an England-only policy.

UPDATE II

Analysis from BritologyWatch

The following press release was put out by the Lib Dems on their website yesterday. I've highlighted a few words in red.

£1 Billion fund to help regional business Tue, 29 Jun 2010

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg today launched a £1 Billion Regional Growth Fund to help areas and communities at risk of being particularly affected by public spending cuts. The fund, which will operate in 2011/2012 and 2012/2013 will help areas most dependent on public sector employment as the country makes the transition to private sector-led growth and prosperity. Both private bodies and public-private partnerships will be able to bid for funding by demonstrating that their proposal will bring in private investment and support sustainable increases in private sector jobs and growth in their area.

Speaking in Bradford after the first Coalition Cabinet meeting outside of London today, Nick Clegg said:

"While we sort out the nation's finances we can also help to foster a thriving and more balanced economy so that no region or community gets left behind.

"The Regional Growth Fund will create the conditions for growth and enterprise in the regions by stimulating investment and create sustainable private sector jobs.

"Alongside our commitment to waive some employment taxes for new businesses starting up in targeted regions of the country, this fund can make a real difference to companies during difficult times."

Nick Clegg also set out plans for Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) that will bring together councils and business on an equal footing with one voice, replacing the current Regional Development Agencies (RDAs). In a joint letter sent to councils and business leaders today, Business Secretary Vince Cable and Communities Secretary Eric Pickles have asked them to consider forming new Local Enterprise Partnerships that can provide strategic leadership in their local areas and create the right environment for business success and economic growth.

Vince Cable, the Business Secretary said:

"We are determined to rebalance the economy towards the private sector, so it's important we create a more effective structure to drive economic growth and development across the country."

All very interesting, as I think you'll agree. But I have some questions: The areas, communities and regions of where; to which nation - England or the United Kingdom - is this press release applicable?

Call me suspicious, but the absence of any named territory in this press release, along with use of the ambiguous 'the country', leads me to conclude that it is most probably a press release that is applicable to England alone.

Various newspapers took what I assume to be a Press Association wire based upon a Downing Street briefing, and reported Gordon Brown's desire to have a 'Democracy Day'.

This is the Guardian's version:

He will tomorrow try to put himself at the helm of the move for political renewal in the expenses scandal by promising a "democracy day", holding referendums to change the voting system for the election of MPs and to endorse a wholly elected second chamber replacing the Lords.

However, this is what Brown eventually said:

But I have one final mandate to ask of the British people as well. It is a mandate to improve public trust in our democracy and in our public life. Politics has been scarred by recent events. In the next few days I will put forward a comprehensive plan so that the people of this country can be sure that there is transparent, accountable, open and democratic politics being pursued in this country, at every stage accountable to them in the future. And I want us to renew the contract between the people and those who they are sworn to serve.

From a prime minister with no direct electoral mandate over vast swathes of government policy in England, and from one who baulks at reform of the Barnett Formula, this is a laughable statement. But where is the mention of a 'Democracy Day'? To me 'Democracy Day' implies a national 'Britishness' day, for example the 7th June "to remember the Reform Act 1832 also known as the Great Reform Act". Sadly it seems likely that Brown has in mind a one-off Democracy Day on which the public can vote on Gordon Brown's idea of how Britain should be governed.

Brown also told the assembled press core of his plans for the marketisation of England's police, cancer care, general practitioners and schooling, all dressed up as a guarantee "to every single citizen of Britain".

''And I want to give a direct guarantee to every single citizen of Britain that, when you need the police, when you need help with cancer care, when you need your GP at the evenings and weekends, when you need as a child to have personal tuition in your school, then these public services will be there, directly guaranteed to you as individual citizens when you need them, and accountable to you and your family.

All that was announced previously as part of the 'Working Together' policy document.

It's not often, or ever come to think of it, that you get a Labour Party politician engaging English nationalists in debate on a public forum. Which is why Andrew Gwynne MP should be applauded for this article and subsequent comments: "England, a constitutional conundrum".

My favourite exchange is this:

Mr A.D.Dagger says:
February 26, 2010 at 8:06 am

Perhaps? just as a starting point Andrew. You could pop along and see Mr Brown and ask him to be honest when making speeches on issues such as NHS, education, transport etc. Get him to tell everyone he is referring to England. Put him in front of a mirror to practice. E.n.g.l.a.n.d. Because so far he hss proven completely unable to say the word. I wonder why?

Andrew Gwynne says:
February 26, 2010 at 8:13 am

To be fair, on Tuesday both he and Ed Balls both spoke of government investment and reforms in “England’s schools”.

Wyrdtimes says:
February 26, 2010 at 9:12 am

Do you mean this speech on education? http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page22580

Where he mentions Britain nine times but England not once?

There really is no comeback from that. But it makes you wonder doesn't it? Perhaps Labour MPs don't even realise that Gordon Brown is doing it. Perhaps they don't object or even notice when Brown talks about "British schools" when he means "English schools", or about "a Britain of nations and regions" - where Scotland and Wales are the nations, and England the regions - or about that "golden thread of British liberty" that runs "from that long-ago day in Runnymede in 1215 to the Bill of Rights".

I think I'll send Andrew Gwynne a copy of Simon Lee's "Gordon Brown and the British Way" and ask that he distributes a few copies to his fellow Labour MPs.

Christ on a bicycle, they've only gone and done it. The Tories have said "England".

Stephen O'Brien has been criticised a few times on this blog. Perhaps he does listen.

Perhaps, after-all, the Conservative website is not, by default, an English website.

The Cabinet Office tell me that they will consider issuing guidelines that encourage politicians to be clear about the territorial extent of announcements and press releases.

4 January 2010
Dear Cabinet Office,

In light of devolution - now that Whitehall is increasingly concerned with England alone - I am interested in discovering if there are any cross-governmental guidelines when it comes to specifiying the territorial extent of policy announcements and press releases.

Please could you provide me with any rules or guidelines that have been issued to departments relating to whether reference should be made to England (ie. "This press notice relates to 'England'") in departmental policy statements and press releases (or similar documents), or about how such territorial references should be dealt with.

Yours faithfully,

Gareth Young

---

19 January 2010
Dear Mr Young,

I apologise for the delay in getting back to you.

I have checked with colleagues in the Cabinet Office and they have advised me the information found at the following link should answer your request regarding territorial extent of policy announcements and press releases.

http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/121707/workingwiththedevolvedadmin...

If you have any further queries regarding this request please get in touch and we will take it forward.

Kind regards,

Yasmine Edwards

FOI Team
Cabinet Office
Tel: 020 7276 2473

---

3 February 2010
Dear Yasmine,

I've looked through the information that you've pointed me towards and I can't find reference to any guidlines on specifying the territorial extent of policy in announcements and press releases.

For example, this foreword by Gordon Brown, the territorial extent of which is England, he never mentions England.

http://www.hmg.gov.uk/workingtogether/forward.aspx

There are numerous examples like this on various government websites. A minister might be talking about 'schools in this country' or 'our NHS' without specifying whether he is talking about schools in England or schools across the whole of Britain, or the NHS in England or all four Health Services. The same applies to policing, transport, environment, or any matter in which competence has been wholly or partially devolved.

Is there any guidance for politicians and public servants on this matter, so that they are clearer about what territory it is that they are talking about?

Best,

Gareth Young

---

17 February 2010
Dear Mr Young,

The devolution guidance we directed you to encourages clarity about the territorial extent of policy but we accept the point that it is not explicit that announcements and press releases should also be clear on this. We will consider this for the next revision.

Kind regards,

Zara Smart
FOI Team
Cabinet Office
Room 1.18
70 Whitehall London SW1A 2AS

I'll believe it when I see it.

In the following video the Conservative Party Chairman, Eric Pickles, tells you this:

At the 2005 General Election, we got 8,115,000 votes. The Labour Party got 8,050,400 votes. Under AV, despite the Conservatives polling more votes, Labour would have more MPs in Parliament. We don't need to change the voting system, we need to change this deeply discredited and pointless government.

Pickles is wrong. At the 2005 General Election the Conservatives received 8,772,598 votes and Labour won with 9,562,122. The figures that Pickles quotes are for England alone. But of course he won't say "England" because he doesn't need to. This video was shown on the Conservatives website, and as we know everything that you see on the Conservative website by default applies to England alone.

It's interesting to note that taking the English figures that Pickles quotes, the Conservatives still got fewer MPs in England, and that was under First Past the Post.

Hat-tip: TanktheTories

Having just condemned David Cameron, I would now like to offer some small praise - never let it be said that I am an attack blogger.

In his speech to the Scottish Conservative Party (or what's left of it) David Cameron did something quite remarkable, something that I don't think he would have done in a speech down in England. He referred specifically to England.

We had to change because when you have a state education system, after thirteen years of Labour government, that allows more boys from one English public school to get three A's at A-Level than all the poorest boys in England's state schools put together, who else is going to give them a chance?

This does, I think, offer a revealing insight into the Anglo-British psyche of the English Tory. Down in England they refer to British schools, British pupils and teachers, and even the British curriculum (even though no such thing exists). Yet when in Scotland they quite deliberately demonstrate that they understand devolution and refer correctly to England's schools. The use of 'Britain' instead of 'England' is what psychologists refer to as a demand characteristic, a subtle cue designed to influence the behaviour of the English (to instill a sense of Britishness perhaps).

As an Englishman I find it the denial of England extremely discourteous, and to a point anti-democratic because the use of Britain/Our country/This country in place of 'England' is an artifice designed to deceive (or at least not specify the territory under discussion). In 2001 David McCrone wrote that “In an important sense, Scotland’s politicians are all Nationalists”. Not just Scottish politicians. Even staunchly unionist politicians from England use a nationalist frame of reference when discussing Scotland. David Cameron falls over himself to talk about sticking up for Scotland and his respect for Scotland, and Unionist politicians of all persuasions talk of being proud Scots and wanting the best for Scotland. So why don't politicians do the same for England and encourage a positive English political identity?

It is difficult from Cameron's speech to understand whether he speaks as an Englishman or a Britisher. What exactly does he mean when he tells the Scots that the Tories will protect the "precious Union between our two countries". Is that England and Scotland, or Britain and Scotland?

It may seem like a daft question but parts of Cameron's speech read like the Union is between Scotland and Britain.

Yes, Alex Salmond and I have big differences. Yes, there's little he says that I agree with. Yes, I will fight him every inch of the way whenever he tries to break the precious Union between our countries. And no, I won't be bidding for one of his lunches.

But if we win that election, then I promise you this: I will be a Prime Minister who works tirelessly for the whole of the UK. We must repair the relationship between the British Government and the Scottish Government.

There is almost an air of defeat about that statement, something almost inevitable about the fact that British Government will not in any way be Scotland's government. For Cameron the British Government is England's government and the Scottish Government is Scotland's government, and he must work tirelessly to heal the rift between England and Scotland.

England is the unstated other, that part whose presence is not mention but is hinted at by reference to a Union

It will be good for Scotland, good for Britain and good for the Union.

We are then to take it that "It would be good for England" too; and that anyone who is doing a great job for Britain is also doing a great job for England? That's what Dave would like you to think.

Bob Neill, Shadow Local Government & Planning Minister, has announced that the Conservatives will stop gardens up and down "the country" being concreted over:

The practice of “garden grabbing”, where developers build homes or blocks of flats on back gardens, is dramatically changing the character of many suburban areas throughout the UK, leading to high levels of unsustainable development and increasing housing densities in areas previously characterised as leafy suburbs. Some figures suggest that over 180,000 buildings have been put on back gardens in the last five years.

Bob implies that the 180,000 figure relates to the UK. However, the figures actually come from councils' responses to a Government survey of 42 local authorities, covering a seventh of England's population.

Findings of the survey, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, show that between 2003 and 2008, the councils granted planning permission for 26,688 new homes on land which was previously occupied by houses and their front and back gardens.

The amount is a net total – for instance, if one large Edwardian house is replaced with a block of ten flats, it would count as nine new homes in the figures.

The survey totals equate to a figure of 186,000 new homes in England as a whole – 102 a day – or 210,000 for the UK.

So although he mentions the UK and doesn't mention England, Bob's article on Garden Grabbing is about England. And any Tory change to the legislation will affect England (and may also apply to Wales).

Credit where credit is due though. Where Bob fails, at least Caroline Spelman gets it correct:

The only people who are not losing out from the rush to develop back gardens are the developers and land speculators. For them, England is literally becoming a treasure island. Right now, land agents may be putting this Bill and my speech on their website in a bid to convince people speculatively to buy plots of land in the expectation of being granted planning permission.

Yesterday I speculated as to whether Gordon Brown would utter the word 'England' in his speech on health and social care in England.

I'm rather taken aback to report that he did, just the once:

And for too long in England we have tolerated a care system which sees tens of thousands of people who would prefer to be cared for in their own homes go needlessly into residential care, with all the cost and losses that entails.

He managed to slip the word 'Britain' into his speech seven times. But none of this is relevant to Scotland where the Scottish Government takes its own decisions on health and social care.