Is There An English Backlash?
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
Trackback URL for this post:
British Social Attitudes survey shows decline in support for an
from Toque on Sat, 01/07/2012 - 02:46If a reputable English blog announced that support for an English parliament had shot up from 29% to 57% in the British Social Attitudes survey, you would expect the rest of the nationalist blogosphere to sit up and take notice. However, when the blog of
The dog that finally barked?
from Toque on Thu, 12/08/2011 - 01:10The 28th British Social Attitudes survey was published yesterday. British Social Attitudes usually treats us to the data on Constitutional preferences for England, like so:
This is the data that our politicians have traditionally relied upon to utter
There's Still an English Backlash
from Toque on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 11:21This British Social Attitudes press release is presently doing the rounds.
English resentment is growing over the high levels of public spending in scotland.
The scale of subsidies north of the border - worth an extra £1,600 a person - has fuelled...
Social comments and analytics for this post
from uberVU - social comments on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 12:24This post was mentioned on Twitter by toques: Is There An English Backlash? | Toque http://bit.ly/bTrGXP
- Login to post comments
One of the reasons I support
One of the reasons I support an English parliament is to protect the English from the likes of Gordon Brown, it would be somewhat ironic if he was the eventual cause of one.
Good analysis. The question
Good analysis.
The question should have been:
"...or for England as a whole to have it's own parliament BACK."
As sure as eggs is eggs...
If the English question isn't answered - and quick, I can see real strife in the future. But they won't do the decent thing, they never do. Instead, they'll do as little as possible - they'll massage away, (a la Power2010) to divvy up as little as they can..... Then the Brown will hit the fan and all hell will break loose...
The question might get a
The question might get a better response if it asked "Do you want to get rid of those thieving shits who have been robbing you blind in the British Parliament by having an English Parliament which would make them and the British Parliament redundant overnight?"
English parliament
The "new" parliament is in fact the British parliament set up in 1707 after the parliaments of England and Scotland were left in abeyance(never specifically closed down)
The Scots missed a trick in 1998 when the Scotland Act was passed and Blair was being easily pushed around. They should have insisted on the act specifically referring to the RESUMPTION of the old Scottish parliament. Thus the wording of the preamble to the Act, which was in fact
"An Act to provide for the establishment of a Scottish Parliament and Administration and other changes in the government of Scotland"
should have been
" An Act to provide for the resumption of the Scottish Parliament last in session in January 1707------"
We in England need to be careful on this point. The England Act should very carefully connect a new English parliament with the old one ie last in session in (about) March 1707 and proclaim it as the resumption of the old English parliament usurped by the British.
Historical continuity is important.
Good point. Winnie Ewing got
Good point. Winnie Ewing got a bit carried away when she said: "The Scottish Parliament, adjourned on the 25th day of March in the year 1707, is hereby reconvened".
She obviously didn't see the replica mace right in front of her symbolising Crown sovereignty.