Guy Lodge responds
Over at Our Kingdom Guy Lodge has responded to my piece on John Curtice's IPPR report (one half of a pincer movement - see criticism of the CEP at Comment is Free).
Last year I contacted Guy Lodge to explain this statement he made in the Parliamentary Monitor Magazine (July, 2007):
A fully fledged English Parliament must also be rejected. Such a body would create an incredibly lop-sided federation, as England contains over 80 per cent of the UK’s population and wealth. This would be a route to instability.
Specifically I asked: On what do you base the claim that an English parliament would create instability; have you done any research into this; is there a precedent for such an unbalanced federation in a mature and stable democracy such as the UK?
Guy responded, "I think there are historic examples you can cite, notably Prussia," and continued:
an English Parliament would leave very little for a UK federal government to get its teeth in to. V quickly, I suspect, people within England would begin to ask what is the point of continuing with the Union when it slows down decision-making on fiscal policy, on immigration and defence etc. For this reason an English Parliament would destablise the Union. This might not concern you and others in the campaign who seem uninterested in preserving the Union, a view I respect, but disagree with. I actually think that CEP would be more credible if it was more honest about its position on the Union.
The worry for a great many of these Fabian/IPPR types is that an England for-itself would destabalise the Union: English political nationalism is the threat. It is not Englishness but English self-interest that is the destabalising factor, as I wrote in my review of Michael Kenny's IPPR report:
Devolution recognised three nations of the multi-national UK state, it gave institutional political recognition to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, it reinforced the distinctness of those nations whilst simultaneously confirming the in-distinctness of England. England is Britain is England; an absorptive patria to which the Scots, Welsh and Irish belong, and in which they will have their say. Unionism for the three nations is now on an in-and-for-themselves basis; for themselves in their own national assemblies; in Westminster as part of greater England. By contrast England is not for-itself. For England unionism is absolute, England remains in-itself; absolutely, resolutely in Britain.
And that's just how they want it. The authors' wish to confine English nationalism to purely cultural terms, to deny a for-itself political expression of Englishness, stems from their idea that a politically assertive England would undermine the multi-national solidarity of the United Kingdom. That multi-national solidarity rested on a contract between the peoples of the UK, a contract that was renegotiated by the devolution referendums and, crucially, renegotiated without input from the people of England. The fear now is that any real or imagined grievances that follow from the asymmetric settlement will lead to an English renegotiation on English terms, for-themselves.
What people like Guy Lodge object to is English self-government. They don’t want an England for-itself like Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are for-themselves. Fundamentally their view rests upon discrimination against England as a nation. Hence Guy's response is entitled "Time for a review of English governance" and not "Time for English Self-Government" - England cannot be self-acting and must therefore be denied self-government. England must be self-less.
In Guy's world England must sacrifice itself for the benefit of the whole, a sacrificial lamb at the alter of Unionism. If that’s what it comes down to then I’d rather sacrifice the Union.
Trackback URL for this post:
England: The Fundamental Difficulty
from Toque on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 23:26Robert Hazell in a speech to the Constitution Unit:
The fundamental difficulty is the sheer size of England by comparison with the rest of the UK . England with four fifths of the population would be hugely dominant. On most domestic matters the English
- Login to post comments
Absolutely. If asked, I'll
Absolutely.
If asked, I'll sacrifice the Union before I sacrifice England.
And we're not alone - which is why they'll do their damndest to ensure we are never asked.
"England would begin to ask
"England would begin to ask what is the point of continuing with the Union when it slows down decision-making on fiscal policy, on immigation and defence etc"
Isn't immigration, thanks to the Lisbon Consti-treaty, an EU issue. And what about the Scottish Executive pressing to remove Trident from Scottish territory?
But this is all smoke & mirrors, what about real devolved issues such as education & health, that England should & must have control over such as the other nations of Britain?
Being "self-less" has got us nowhere we will always be "the imperialist English" to a certain liberal mindset. Surely shrinking "Greater England" should be a noble cause to them? But I don't really care for that as I'm not burdened with post imperial guilt; not being around at the time. I am, however, selfish and want an England to be democratically accountable, looking after the interests of English residents. It doesn't seem much to ask for really!
You can imagine Guy Lodge
You can imagine Guy Lodge taking the IPPR roadshow to China and arguing against Tibet's right to self-governance.
"It might slow down decision-making on fiscal policy, on immigation and defence etc. And destablise The People's Republic."
The anti-nationalist imperialist.
Though, everthing else being
Though, everthing else being equal, I am a Unionist, I can only echo your final sentence. An unequal Union is not worth preserving.
However, Guy Lodge's example of the failure of a federation because one partner was too large is less than convincing.
The German federation of 1919 had to deal with the aftermath of defeat in war and a disastrous flu epidemic, followed by partial occupation by France and Belgium, hyper- inflation, and, after endemic street warfare between groups on the extremes of left and right (not conflict between the states), a fascist government. To suggest that there is a parallell between failure in those circumstances and what might happen in the United Kingdom in 2010 is perhaps a mite pessimistic, even for those of us with no faith in Gordon Brown.
Notably, it was the victors of 1945 who most wanted to reduce Prussian power, not because they thought it would cause constitutional failure, but rather because they feared it might eventually be uncomfortably successful.
There are a number of federations in which there are huge discrepancies between the largest and smallest states, including Brazil, The Philippines and Pakistan. The current plans for Iraq, endorsed by Her Majesty's Government, also envisage such a discrepancy. All these states may fail, but if they do it is unlikely that it will have much to do with their constitutional arrangements.
"In Guy’s world England must
"In Guy’s world England must sacrifice itself for the benefit of the whole, a sacrificial lamb at the alter of Unionism. If that’s what it comes down to then I’d rather sacrifice the Union."
Same here.
The independent England route seems so much more optimistic and progressive to me.
Gyy Lodge , Senior Research
Gyy Lodge , Senior Research fellow at the IPPR
Areas of Expertise
The constitution and constitutional reform
Devolution and the politics of the UK
Democratic reform and new democratic processes
Britishness and identity
Public Service Reform
Central and local government and governance (esp. the civil service)
Policing and police reform
British political history
Guy is also a Visiting Research Fellow in the Department of Politics and International Relations, at Oxford University.He is also acting as an advisor to the Flanagan Review of Policing.
Press experience
Guy is a regular commentator on public policy issues in the national and international press. Recent coverage includes The Guardian, The Times, Financial Times, The Independent, The Observer, The Scotsman, The Herald, Economist, New Statesman, Business Week, Public Finance, and Public.
Broadcast: national and regional media.
Previous work
Before joining ippr in October 2004, Guy worked at The Constitution Unit, in The School of Public Policy, University College London. Previously he worked in Parliament and has also worked for the Fabian Society. He has a BSc (Government) and MSc (European Politics and Policy) from the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Hmmmm? The usual immature
Hmmmm? The usual immature hypocrisy from the English nation haters! Us English are not allowed to express our self-interest ah? Wrong!
I swear the majority of the English nation haters are like little children. I am not slurring Lodge, but merely stating that his reasoning is not sound, i.e. it's childish.
And just imagine if we as English folk said no to the scottish parliament (not that we were asked) Imagine what Guy Lodge would've snarled if we'd done that. We would've been labelled fascists, imperialists, nazis, and jock haters amongst other things. But now us English HAVE TO put up with not deciding for ourselves. Did Lodge tell the scots, welsh and n irish the same thing? No!
Lodge went to the london school of commie-nomics for crying out loud. Surely that tells you all you need to know.
It is not Englishness but English self-interest that is the destabalising factor.
Englishness is a huge factor! With it English folk will grow and grow (eg we can actually promote English values to our kids); without it what do we have? More of the same Britishness rubbish/p.c. propaganda. Can you imagine what it'll be like when we have control of our own destiny? We havent really had that since when? Just before the battle of Hastings. We would be a energised people. Which is why the English nation haters want to keep us down. Like you stated, "...that’s just how they want it." It is how they want it; but that aint how it's going to be!!!
You can't be a people if you havent got a culture. This is why English folk's enemies want to eradicate Englishness.
As for English self-interest, so what? Why shouldnt we be like every other nation? Why shouldnt we be like every other nation Guy Lodge? Using the supposed break down of a union that the majority do not want to deny the English their human rights is ridiculous. No! It is more than ridiculous. It is fascism!!!
All the double talk from people like Lodge constitutes stalling tactics. I doubt he even believes what he's spouting. Anyway, it isnt what he believes that counts; it's what we believe! And millions of us believe in English self-determination. The fact that Lodge and other like him don't like us being all uppity doesnt bother me in the slightest. Not many days go by now where i'm not advertising England via my clothing and more importantly, political views. And thanks to "devilution" and all the anti Englishness it's spewed I am so much more England conscious now!
As far as the anti-English go, they are hypocrites. Why should I care what they think about anything? England is everything to me and millions like me, both in England and abroad. Those people whining about the English thinking of themselves never uttered one word about the scottish or welsh or n irish being FOR THEMSELVES! Why not?
If anything destabilised the union it was devolution. Us English never had anything to do with that; the scots, welsh, n irish, fabians, loony left wingers, "constitutional unit", "Lord" Faulkner, Prescott, etc had everything to do with it! It is their fault that we English have become uppity! Telling us that we should grin and bare it isnt going to work, if anything it'll make us even harder to deal with!
The authors’ wish to confine English nationalism to purely cultural terms, to deny a for-itself political expression of Englishness, stems from their idea that a politically assertive England would undermine the multi-national solidarity of the United Kingdom.
Devolution, inspired by supposedly loony left-wing new labour, has already undermined the multi national solidarity of the UK.
Was there ever true multi national solidarity anyway? Tony Blair the scotsman certainly did everything he could to undermine so-called multi national solidarity of the UK. Why isnt Guy Lodge blaming Blair? No! He wants to blame us English for supposedly breaking up the union; everyone knows who is responsible. How could the English be responsible? We didnt even get a vote of devolution.
Us English folk deserve to be treated the same as the scots, welsh and n irish! Telling us that we need to put up with the results of devolution is a red herring. We dont need to put up with it and we wont put up with it.
ENGLISH PARLIAMENT AND ENGLISH EXECUTIVE NOW!!!!!!!
The problem with this claim
The problem with this claim is that the Union is already unbalanced, in that the UK parliament has 82% English constituency MPs. Surely a separate English parliament with a formal separation of powers could only help.
And if the UK parliament would have nothing left to do, surely that only demonstrates they are a de-facto English parliament, but with undemocratic representation of other nations.
It all comes back to how much importance you put on the existence of the Union, and how much on democracy.
Devolution has not stopped
Devolution has not stopped Scottish nationalism's "threat" of independence. Guy Lodge and his ilk do not attempt to answer the question "what happens to England after it has been bust up into regions then Wales and Scotland go for independence?"
This is one reason why English people won't go for regions. They don't trust the Scots and Welsh - or perhaps they do trust the Scots and Welsh to go for independence.
[...] where one of the units
[...] where one of the units is so dominant. In the post-war German federal constitution of 1949, Prussia was deliberately broken up into five or six different states to prevent it being disproportionately [...]