The forces of EVEL stalk the land!

So there we have it. The Conservatives, in the form of William Hague and John Redwood, have set out the stall for having 'English Votes for English Laws' - the forces of EVEL are loosed.

While it was vitally important to "cement" Scotland within the UK, he said a "balanced settlement which is both fair and better to the whole of the UK" was just as necessary.

"The United Kingdom is in greater danger if the legitimate arguments and expectations of English decision making, on decisions effecting only England, are not responded to," he said.

I don't think that Labour and the Liberal Democrats fully appreciate the challenge they face in rejecting EVEL. I watched Simon Danczuk, the Labour MP for Rochdale setting out Labour's real agenda - dividing the North of England from the South of England, balkanizing the country into 'city regions', 'regions' and such divisions. And Labour - in Danczuk's world - has no intention of giving this balkanized England the same authority in tax raising, over educatio or for health as they intend giving to Scotland and will support giving to Wales or Northern Ireland.

The West Lothian Question used to be an arcane debate that peaked the interest of but a few folk. But the Scottish independence referendum changed all that - not in Scotland where the constitutional settlement is a staple of political debate but in England where such issues were previously the purview of constitutional anoraks. Now - at least in Cullingworth - this issue, in the form of EVEL, is a subject of the Saturday night pub conversation (slipped in between discussion of football and such more important issues). And I don't think I speak out of turn if I say that most English people, from Carlisle to Canterbury and from Filey to Falmouth, want something that looks like EVEL.

The big problem for Labour is that people can see through its argument. It is not a considered argument seeking the best constitutional settlement for England but rather one based on an assumption about the likely outcome of next May's General Election. Labour is hoping that, on 35% of the national vote, it will squeak into an overall majority and put Ed Miliband in Downing Street. The problem is that the forces of EVEL would hobble such a Labour government for it's likely not to enjoy a majority in England.

A further problem for Labour is that, by giving Gordon Brown and others from the Scottish establishment such a high profile, they become the anti-English party, all set to deny English people the rights and powers they are keen to hand to Scotland and Wales. The famous Jack Straw quote about the English not being worth saving - however much it's taken out of context - will be shoved back in Labour's face time and time again. So far, Labour has managed to keep its English MPs in line by promising them goodies for their local areas in the form of more funding, more powers (mostly over bus routes and fixing up the roads) and the cosy little pseudo-democracies beloved of Labour's public sector establishment - combined authorities, economic partnerships and panels all made up of 'sector leaders' and the like.

But when members of the public start asking those MPs about England, start demanding more EVEL in the land, will they still hold the line? Or will they start badgering the party's hierarchy for something a little more substantial than "it's very complex so we need a big meeting" or "we want to give more power to city-regions"? Indeed, those English voters will want to know that EVEL is enough, that having more EVEL resolves the West Lothian Question. And Labour has no answer to this because, unlike the Conservatives over Scottish independence, that Party is too self-serving to put what is right above what is in the Party's interests.

I make no secret of my desire for an English Parliament that has the powers to make those decisions for England that need making. And these include the matters of regions, cities and counties - real issues about our nation that only the demos of that nation should have the right to decide. And let's make no bones about it, the nation we're talking about here is England not Greater Manchester, "The North" or the EU's standard regions. If the representatives of that nation's people wish to pass down powers to localities - cities, towns, counties or districts - then they should be able to do so (or not) without being fettered by the votes of others who do not represent England or the English.

Labour now seem to be scared rabbits as they stare at the idea of England and choose to reject that idea. After decades calling for devolution to the 'historic nations' Labour has been found wanting, found to be interested only in destroying England, chopping it into manageable bits that suit the Party's interests. I suspect Labour is in for a shock - the forces of EVEL stalk the land and their prey is Labour.

....

We need an English Parliament (in Bradford)

I remember, prior to the 2010 General Election, speaking with Eric Pickles at Party Conference about the 'West Lothian Question'. Eric's view back then was that the question wasn't really a problem and explained - accurately - that it wasn't exactly a burning issue on the doorsteps. You typical Tory voter wasn't going to add 'English Votes for English Laws' to the things they wanted from a new Tory government - certainly not compared to the urgent job of sorting out the economy and mending the train crash that was Labour's management of government finances.

I think that has changed. Not as much as people think following the sensible decision of Scottish people to reject the blandishments of Alex Salmond's rose-tinted independence. But next election, for the first time in a long while, the asymmetry of the UK's constitutional arrangements will be an issue in England especially if we assume that the process of delivering on the devolution promises to Scotland is under way.

Two questions need to be answered - probably on the same timetable as Scottish 'DevoMax'. Firstly are we content with constitutional asymmetry and secondly, having answered the first question, giving the precise details of any new constitutional settlement for the UK. In both these questions the real issue isn't about Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland but is about England. If we reject asymmetry meaning that all the devolved elements of the UK have the same powers and the same relationship with the UK government, then the question for England is whether we have a single English Parliament or a series of regional assemblies.

If we accept asymmetry then the picture for England is more complicated with options ranging from no change at all through solutions founded on English MPs 'double-hatting' to Spanish-style regional mayors or greater devolution to local councils. The problem here is that we retain resentments since one area gets more power or cash, or else we create a series of demarcation disputes between UK and English laws, between differential devolution to regions or sub-regions and between the devolved assemblies and areas without comparable levels of devolution.

Much though there is some appeal in 'home rule' for Yorkshire, I don't see regional assemblies as a solution - firstly because we immediately face boundary issues and secondly because devolution from a UK government to individual regions effectively abolishes England (at least in constitutional terms). If there is to be devolution to regions, sub-regions, cities or shire counties then that should be a decision for an English Parliament.

It seems to me that a 'four nations' solution matches local expectation but also opens up reforms focused on a more federal arrangement for the UK - this might include the numbers of UK MPs, the role (and means of election) for the House of Lords and the promotion of new locally negotiated arrangements for local government. Although giving English members of the UK Parliament a secondary role as an English Parliament provides a quick fix, it also raises some challenges in terms of administration even while it resolves the issue of law-making. Put simply there would be a Scottish government and a Welsh government but no English government - we could find the situation where a Scottish education secretary can't vote on the laws but is in charge of their implementation in England. The 'West Lothian Question' won't have been answered.

It seems that the Conservative Party is committed to seeking a resolution of the question - albeit with a preference for a Westminster solution rather than an English Parliament. However, neither Labour nor the Liberal Democrats seem to want this with the former wanting some sort of gathering for the great and good to decide on a new constitution (or not) and the latter wanting to abolish England.

For me, the answer has to be an English Parliament with the same devolved powers as those given to Scotland. And, of course, that Parliament should be in Bradford.

....

Shared experience - a thought on the Royal Wedding and why I'm a monarchist

****

I wrote a while ago about shared national experience - rather sadly in the context of the Eurovision Song Contest.

However, Eurovision has become a mark in the calendar, something we share as a nation – part of the social capital of Britain. Now before you all rush off let me explain. Much of our TV viewing is only marginally social – if it’s not a solitary activity, it’s shared only with our immediate family and friends. Indeed, some critics of our modern culture single out the goggle-box as a prime culprit for the loss of social capital.

However, events like Eurovision belie that gloomy prognosis. What we see is a much broader engagement – not only the large numbers of viewers but all the other aspects of social interaction. There’s pubs and clubs organising Eurovision nights, some people get together with a bottle or two of cheap fizz and some chocolates and others make it a big family occasion. Workplaces have sweepstakes, the newspapers are full of stories and twitter, facebook and other bits of the interwebs abound with chitter-chatter. It’s more than just a TV event.

Now it may be brave - and a little unfair - to compare today's wedding festivities to a song competition but there is a parallel. Which rather explains why I remain a monarchist. Let me explain.

What we have seen today is a shared experience, something that has brought people together with neighbours and friends, an event that has in that trite parlance "captured the nation's hearts" - or most of the nation at least. If we did not have the symbolism of the Royal family, we would need to create symbols, festivals and events to achieve what has been achieved through this wedding. Things that are there to unite us as a nation, that we share with our neighbours. Rather than a family of real (and privileged) people, we'd create other symbols of nation - flags, saints days, celebrations of liberation or independence - to serve the same purpose as sustainers of the nation.

Those who oppose monarchy - at least in the moderate constitutional form we enjoy - offer a rather grey, drab alternative. Not just a has-been politician parading in a sash on state occasions but an accompanying collection of clunky symbols. These opponents of our monarchy are the same sort of people who tried to abolish the Lord Mayoralty in Bradford, who rail at the tyranny of clothing by dressing down for meetings, who dislike table manners and who think there's dignity in the Mayor turning up in a Toyota Prius or a grey BMW.

Our system, much though it loads privilege onto a single family, has the merit of providing that unifying sense of nationhood without it becoming politicised or for nation to become conflated with state. Because the next monarch is decided by happenstance - by a fluke of birth - we avoid the division and discord that comes from a political choice process. The Royal Family are able to symbolise nation for the very reason that we do not choose them - the moment we are actively involved in choosing is the moment when the choice is rejected by those whose favoured person was not selected.

Given a choice between what we have now, a constitutional monarch, and an elected (or worse appointed) president - and let's face it that is the choice - opting for monarchy is fairer, outside of politics and more unifying. And vastly better looking.

....