English Parliament online

An Independent England and its Literature
Sponsored by the Humanities Research Centre, Warwick

6th November 2010, University of Warwick
Organisers: Michael Gardiner & Claire Westall,
Department of English and Comparative Literary Studies, University of Warwick

Please see attached for more details.

The Institute for Public Policy Research have today released a slightly reworked version of The English Question: The View from Westminster.

The paper is referenced in today's Telegraph.

• Tory MPs tell David Cameron: Cut Scotland's subsidy
• Analysis: English question would haunt David Cameron's government

Test your knowledge of English county towns.

A referendum on an English Parliament was the most popular idea submitted to Power2010 during the public consultation phase. However, the idea did not receive enough support during the deliberative phase to warrant its inclusion in the public vote phase of Power2010's campaign to reform our democracy.

The Campaign for an English Parliament is formally opposed to the Conservative Party's 'English Votes on English Laws' policy (see Devolution for England: A Critique of the Conservative Party Policy "English Votes on English Matters").

In light of the CEP's historic opposition to EVoEL, should the CEP encourage its members and supporters to vote for EVoEL on the Power2010 website, to stimulate debate on the English Question prior to the General Election?

Yes

No

You are not eligible to vote in this poll.

Andrew Rosindell has succeeded in his campaign to have three Union Flags flown above Parliament on every day of the year.

Should the Cross of St George - the flag of England - also be flown above Parliament, in addition to the Union Flag?

No, it would be inappropriate for the English flag to fly over the Union Parliament.

Yes, at least one flagpole could fly the English Flag.

Yes, but only on St George's Day.

You are not eligible to vote in this poll.

Power 2010 has recently published the results of its "deliberative phase" of proposals to re-invigorate British politics. This followed its earlier request for proposals from the public at large, 60 of which were then put to this "deliberative" stage. The deliberation was carried out by a representative sample of 200 UK citizens on 9 and 10 January. The top 29 topics following the scoring which accumulated on deliberation are now the subject of a period of internet voting, after which the five most popular will become the policies for constitutional change which it will ask candidates at the 2010 election to adopt as policy.

In this guest opinion piece I will approach it in the spirit in which it is intended, and not dwell on the fact that it is the party manifestos which set out what it is that the candidates will in fact pledge themselves to. Power 2010 will find it difficult to have any practical effect, but I suppose they are to be applauded on the initiative.

Overview

The thing which most struck me was the relatively unradical nature of most of the proposals, particularly those near the top of the list. This is not going to cause any re-enactment of the Chartist riots of the 1830s and 1840s; nor even the repeal of any Corn Laws. The no. 1 ranking following deliberation is given to strengthening select committees in the House of Commons, which doesn't sound to be the most appealing call to the manning of the barricades. The no. 2 ranking was "allowing voters to vote none of the above on ballot papers" which is particularly pointless: such markings on ballot papers are at present labelled and counted as "spoilt votes". (The fact that this ineffective idea did appear at no. 2 gives some hope that this exercise is not stage managed by constitutional enthusiasts.)

As to which my second thought is that the deliberative stage is only as good as the neutrality of the "guidance" given to the 200 citizens during their deliberations. Whilst this clip from "Yes, Minister" is intended mainly for humour, as with much of that series it is making a serious point. Polling companies stake their reputations on devising neutral non-leading questions which do not point to a particular outcome and therefore bias the result.

The proposals

Everyone will have their own views on what might make it to the final cut of 5 proposals. In looking down the list of substantive rather than trivial proposals, I have ignored those concerned with matters of privacy and databases and related human rights issues (and a referendum on substituting the euro for the pound which came in at an astonishing no. 12), as though important in their own right they seem to me to be not sufficiently connected with the re-invigoration of politics. The highest ranked proposal which I find of interest is one to "increase the number of issues decided by free votes" (no. 3), followed by direct democracy, that is to say more national consultation exercises on matters of importance before policy decisions are taken by means of referenda and the like, which forms three linked proposals at no. 4 in the deliberative results. After that, of the proposals in the results which I would regard as substantive and interesting without necessarily agreeing with them are MP recall votes (no. 9); doing away with some of the Freedom of Information Act exemptions (no. 10); giving MPs more control of the Parliamentary timetable (no. 13), linked in spirit at least to there being more free votes and which is much more far reaching than might be thought, because the control of Parliamentary time by the whips office is where much of the power lies; "allowing only English MPs to vote on matters affecting only England and only English and Welsh MPs to vote on matters affecting only England and Wales" (no. 16); only having ministers in the government from the House of Commons (no. 17); more devolution to local government (no. 18); and proportional representation (no. 23).

I have discounted from my list of interesting substantive proposals things like fixed-term Parliaments (no. 21) on the ground that it is not sufficiently ground-breaking, and having a written constitution (no. 26) on the ground that it is so ground-breaking that it asks more questions than it answers: in fact, producing a written constitution would require all 60 questions to be answered, and many others besides. I do not find a written constitution of itself particularly appealing - it is what would be in it which forms the grit.

Supporters of an English Parliament will be disappointed: following deliberation, holding a referendum on an English Parliament went to no. 45 and misses the cut. A referendum on an English Parliament ended up coming below even "Holding separate referendums (sic) on membership of the Union in England, Scotland and Wales" (no. 43), which seems an odd selection of priorities by the participants and it does make one wonder how reliably the exercise was carried out. The ranking also jars both with "Holding a referendum on the strongest form of devolution amongst the nations" which is higher again at no. 38, and which would of its nature require the referendum to cover whether there should be an English Parliament or regional government in England (although curiously the explanatory information indicates that "the nations" did not include England).

On the last point, I must come clean on this: readers of my own blog will know that I am not a great supporter of an English Parliament. Instead I would prefer to see real powers given to a parliament and government for three English regions, the North, the Midlands and the South, forming (with those already existing for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) a federal solution for the UK. I think that could give a new vibrancy to the whole of England (as opposed to the pathetic John Prescott proposals of earlier in the decade which were never intended to devolve anything meaningful and were intended to divide the north of England rather than represent it).

However, regional federalism came out even lower than an English Parliament, at no. 46, and in truth I have always recognised it to be a dead duck politically. Westminster career politicians are not going to vote to divest themselves of most of their current powers and leave themselves only with foreign affairs, defence, immigration, macro-economics and the benefits system as toys to play with, and reclaiming things from Scotland such as health provision to give politicians more to do at the UK level is likely to prove politically unachievable (there is no National Health Service at the institutional UK level any more and probably there cannot now be again). But by the same token, Westminster career politicians are not going to sign up to most of the other Power 2010 proposals either. And I recognise that an English Parliament is, in the decades to come, a more likely outcome than genuine regional devolution because it allows the more straightforward and less challenging metamorphosis of UK power structures into England power structures on matters which will have already become devolved in the remainder of the UK. The England rump ends up defining itself.

For those interested in voting systems, single transferable votes (sometimes also called alternative voting) ended up at no. 34 following deliberation, below proportional representation and missing the cut. Single transferable voting is, however, the only change to the voting system which is ever going to be implemented in practice, were first-past-the-post to be abandoned.

Another interesting one was "Selecting the Upper Chamber by lot from the population" (no. 49). This has a certain whimsical purity about it - a return to the ethos of the old House of Lords but with membership of the House of Lords determined by pure chance at birth (or perhaps on attaining majority) rather than by the chance of heredity at birth. It has a cousin "Selecting some councillors by lot from the local population" (no. 48) for the local level.

The problems

I have commented on the neutrality point, but one other significant problem with the exercise undertaken by Power 2010 is the fact that the issues dealt with cannot in truth be treated as discrete decomposed items in the way that appears in the table of post-deliberation results.

An example is the House of Lords. Having an elected House of Lords ended up ranked no. 28, just making the cut. However, whether the House of Lords is elected has an obvious effect on its political legitimacy and therefore on its power to override the House of Commons. If wholly elected, then the case for it to be able permanently to block rather than just delay a Bill also becomes considerably stronger. Likewise if the House of Lords is elected by proportional representation, the case for keeping first-past-the-post for the House of Commons becomes stronger, and there could be little justification for preventing members of the House of Lords from becoming ministers in the government. It also raises the question whether this new elected chamber should act as second chamber, or at least as an advisory chamber, for the legislatures for Scotland, Northern Ireland and (after a successful referendum under Part 4 of the Government of Wales Act 2006) Wales, given that a great deal of its time would otherwise be devoted to England-only legislation.

In fact, an elected House of Lords would require a wholesale review of the UK constitution going well beyond most of the other relatively modest proposals of the Power 2010 document. It might well require preparation of the written constitution to which I referred earlier.

By way of another example, one of the main arguments against English/Welsh votes on English/Welsh laws is the argument that the UK government must be able to get its business through, and to do that it may need to rely on (and whip the votes of) MPs for Scottish constituencies even though a matter may not by virtue of devolution affect Scotland. This is indeed what happened on student top-up fees in England and on some aspects of foundation hospitals. However, if there are to be more free votes as proposed, where each MP votes for what he or she thinks is the best for his or her constituents rather than in accordance with the party line, the argument for limiting voting rights to those whose constituencies are actually affected by the matter under consideration becomes obviously stronger.

Another problem is the inability of the process undertaken by Power 2010 to offer nuance on a number of the issues. On English/Welsh votes on English/Welsh laws, even though some protection for those in England against a recurrence of the student top-up fees affair is likely to be introduced at some point (and more quickly if the Tories win the next election), the formula at no. 16 which I have cited above does not in fact represent anything ever likely to be implemented, nor is the formula in its stark terms particularly realistic. Instead, the Tories propose an English Grand Committee at committee stage (a little different from the Scottish Grand Committee which used to sit on Scottish legislation, and in theory still can), together with restricted voting at report stage. Under the Tory proposal no Bill affecting England only or England and Wales only could pass either second or third reading without a vote in its favour by all members of Westminster Parliament. My own proposal in the absence of regional federal devolution or an English Parliament has been more limited: this is that, by analogy with the power of delay for a year available to the House of Lords, if a Bill or separate Part of a Bill were not to have a majority in its favour at third reading for the portion of the UK to which it applies as well as for the whole house, it could not be forced through against the wishes of the majority of those members representing that portion until the following session of Parliament. At all stages of a Bill all members would still exercise a vote; but people in England/Wales would get some protection at third reading against laws and decisions, applying to them only, being forced on them which are not approved of by their elected representatives. Possibly after a period of experience, this power to delay could be transformed into a power to block. (I also realise that those who want an English Parliament regard this as inadequate.)

Where we are

Power 2010 may counter criticisms of the kind I have mentioned on the grounds that their approach is the best which is achievable with "open authorship", and on that they are probably right. But the value of the outcomes can be judged from the coherency of the exercise undertaken.

I add to this that some good ideas have undoubtedly come from the process. The "direct democracy" proposals at no. 4 were right to come out near the top, and might if implemented do much to help counter public distrust in politics and politicians. But overall, the exercise and its outcomes seem to me a little like a Jackson Pollock art work. Throw some paint at it, stand back and hope that something has been achieved which hangs together as a complete work.

Well, I suppose I would say that, wouldn’t I? The results of last weekend’s deliberative poll of 200 ordinary UK citizens chosen ‘scientifically’ by the YouGov opinion-polling organisation, together with Professor James Fishkin of Stanford University (an expert in such exercises), were published today.

Basically, the gathering was considering a long list of 57 proposals for political and constitutional reform that represented the most popular out of 4,000 ideas sent to Power 2010 by the public. As English Parliament Online has already documented, the most popular out of these 57 proposals by a long chalk was holding a referendum on the creation of an English parliament, followed by a referendum on a proportional voting system and a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU.

In the deliberative assembly, before starting the discussions, the 200 attendees were asked to indicate their support for each of the 57 proposals. Then again after the discussions – which included seminar-style direction and guidance from a panel of ‘independent’ constitutional and legal experts – the citizens were asked to write down the degree to which they supported each proposal. This resulted in ‘before and after’ rankings. The top-29 proposals are now being submitted to a nationwide voting process to whittle them down to a list of five ideas that candidates at the general election will be asked to commit to.

As the press release states, in somewhat self-congratulatory tone: “In a surprising twist, populist reforms such as a fully elected House of Lords and lowering the voting age to 16 came relatively low down the priority list - with open primaries to select Parliamentary Candidates and a referendum on English devolution not even making the cut of options to be put to the public vote”.

Well, some of us don’t find that so surprising! In summary, the re-rankings that are of most interest to supporters of an English parliament are:

Idea	Ranking Before	Ranking After
Holding a referendum on establishing an English Parliament	27	45
Adopting a region-based federalist system	50	46
Allowing only English MPs to vote on matters affecting only England and only English and Welsh MPs to vote on matters affecting only England and Wales	4	16
Holding separate referendums on membership of the Union in England, Scotland and Wales	38	43
Holding a referendum on the strongest form of devolution amongst the nations	34	38
Holding a referendum on whether Britain should withdraw its membership to the EU	20	33
Changing the electoral system to allow for proportional representation	40	23

Yes, funny, isn’t it, how ‘populist’ proposals such as an English parliament, independence referendums in each of Great Britain’s nations, a referendum on a better devolution settlement and a referendum on Britain’s EU membership all got demoted as an effect of the deliberative process!

And strange that only one idea that recognises England’s democratic deficit – effectively, a version of English votes on English laws – made ‘the final cut’ of the top-29: precisely, a suggestion that preserves the present Union parliament intact and resists the creation of an English parliament in which MPs would be accountable to English voters and parties, not to a British mandate and British parties! Too much of a coincidence to be a mere accident, in my view.

But before I set out why I think that the results of the Power 2010 deliberation have no relevance for the case in favour of an English parliament, I want first to ask the following question: what exactly does Power 2010 mean by ‘populist’, here? Does that just mean ‘popular’, because there’s no doubt that an English parliament is an extremely popular idea. As Paul Senior – one of the 200 citizens – puts it in Power 2010’s press release, the proposal to ‘devolve England’ obtained the support of 51.7% of those who voted before the deliberation, falling to only 26.2% afterwards.

It seems to me that ‘populist’ does mean ‘popular’ but is a term intended to denigrate certain popular ideas that don’t sit comfortably with the liberal establishment. Indeed, the whole Power 2010 deliberative exercise is itself an explicitly anti-populist process: designed to take a set of raw, unthought-through ideas – including ‘extreme’ proposals that command mass support – and to refine, moderate and channel them in ways that are open to the reasoning and qualification of better educated, professional people who are experts and practitioners in the areas affected by the deliberation, i.e. politics and law. In other words, it’s a way of reintroducing disruptive ideas and politically alienated individuals into the established order and ways of doing things in order to counteract their revolutionary potential.

As a result, major constitutional-reform proposals tend to get demoted through the process of deliberation while relatively minor ones – even some that appear almost trivial – are promoted. This is because few ‘reasonable’ people, working together in a process that is intended to advance agreement and consensus, could object to certain ideas, especially if they are relatively easy to implement. Hence, ‘strengthening select committees’ came out at number one (promoted from number three pre-deliberation), followed by: ‘allowing voters to vote for “none of the above” on ballot papers’ [big deal: letting people abstain!]; and ‘increasing the number of issues [in Parliament] decided by free votes’. Well, these things are hardly earth-shattering or controversial, which is why everyone agrees about them!

By contrast, the discussion on an English parliament will undoubtedly have brought home to people some of the problems – real or imaginary – that an EP might present (and definitely would present to the political establishment) that they may not have thought about before. We know this is so because Power 2010 prepared a checklist of pros and cons on each idea for the delegates to read before the event, and the cons against an English parliament outnumbered the somewhat lukewarm pros in a way that has been fiercely criticised elsewhere. Accordingly, it’s hardly surprising that fewer people supported an EP after the deliberation than before.

This is no test for the merits and legitimacy of an English parliament, nor indeed for the level of popular support it commands, even if – through the insidious conflation of ‘popular’ with ‘populist’ – Power 2010 appears to be insinuating that popular anti-establishment ideas such as this will tend to lose much of their initial support when they are subjected to a reasoned process of weighing up their relative merits, informed by the self-preserving mindset of the liberal establishment and of better informed professionals.

Indeed, so much does the deliberative process promote itself as a ‘representative’ process (i.e. one that authentically embodies the collective will of the ‘nation’) over and above more ‘popular’ forms of democracy (e.g. ones that equate popular sovereignty with simple majorities in a mass poll) that ‘establishing a duty of public consultation on controversial matters through a deliberative process’ is promoted from number nine pre-deliberation to number four post-deliberation, in parity with ‘establishing a duty of public consultation on controversial matters through direct democracy’, e.g. through referendums. In other words, swayed and flattered by being elevated to the status of a citizens’ parliament selected, rather than elected, to deliberate on ‘the nation’s’ political future, the delegates not unnaturally have been moved to consider the deliberative process itself as being literally on a par with a popular referendum as a means to take decisions about matters of major controversy. For me, this appears to be a way in which the Power 2010 deliberation seeks to validate itself as a process that will come up with recommendations that represent the authentic, considered will of the people: one that prospective MPs should, then, duly take note of.

But what, or who, is the ‘nation’ that the Power 2010 delegates are said to ‘scientifically’ represent, making them entitled to vote on the merits of an English parliament? The Power 2010 press release is headlined, “29 ideas to clean up British politics to be put to nation”. So the ‘nation’, for Power 2010, is unambiguously the UK / Britain. The delegates, as the press release puts it, were “scientifically chosen to represent the UK as a whole”. And the broader ‘nationwide’ poll that will now ensue is a UK-wide poll.

Are we supposed to accept that a vote by 200 citizens from all four UK nations on a proposal to hold a referendum (in England only, presumably) on the establishment of an English parliament is just as valid an indication of the merits of, or support for, an English parliament as an actual referendum itself: UK-wide citizens’ deliberation thereby replacing an English popular vote on English governance? No, of course not: only the English people as a whole are qualified to decide whether to create an English parliament or, indeed, whether to hold a referendum on the subject! In short, this UK-wide deliberative exercise reproduces the West Lothian Question in a supposedly more reasoned and open form: non-English people voting on England-only matters.

Power 2010 replicates the West Lothian Question for precisely the same reason as the WLQ itself is sanctioned by Parliament: to preserve the Union parliament, the Union itself and the established order. The very premise behind the Power 2010 process is that the Union parliament is preserved, indeed enhanced, as the cornerstone of ‘British democracy’ and the only valid vehicle through which political and constitutional change should be advanced. It is for this reason that parliamentary candidates are going to be asked whether they are willing to sign up to Power 2010’s top-five proposals: because it’s Westminster MPs that are going to be entrusted with implementing them; and, indeed, the top ones that have emerged so far largely relate to Westminster’s workings themselves!

Such a process, built on such a deeply entrenched unionism and fundamental commitment to the Westminster parliament, could hardly be expected to encourage delegates to endorse an English parliament. And that’s not just because of political bias but because the process itself involves buying in to the established UK-parliamentary way of running ‘the country’, i.e. England.

I’ve previously expressed (e.g. here, here and here) my grave doubts about the legitimacy of the Power 2010 process as a means to promote genuine popular sovereignty – meaning, in relation to English matters, the sovereignty of the English nation – as the principal driver of fundamental political and constitutional reform for England and the UK as a whole. I’ve been rather disappointed at the lack of any response from Power 2010 to my critiques; but then, I shouldn’t be too surprised if my raising of the English Question is met with silence from them. Ultimately, for Power 2010, it seems the ‘nation’ is conflated with the polity (i.e. Britain), with the consequence that there is little scope to allow the nation as the people (England) to take charge of its own affairs in ways that might involve tearing down the edifice of the British state and building up a new English polity on new foundations: those of the will of the people.

It is for these reasons that the opinions of a statistically tiny polling sample of 200 English and non-English UK citizens swayed by the advice of a radically pro-Union panel of experts cannot in any way be taken as an authoritative test on the merits and / or popularity of an English parliament.

29 IDEAS TO CLEAN UP BRITISH POLITICS TO BE PUT TO NATION

Weekend voting and ‘none of the above’ option top the bill, as POWER2010 unique nationwide vote launches today



Weekend voting, ‘none of the above’ on ballot papers and the public setting MPs’ wages are some of the top 29 ideas to mend Britain’s broken politics – as people prioritise practical reforms that strengthen parliament and give people a real voice in key issues – over longer-term fundamental change.

The 29 reforms were selected by a group of British citizens scientifically chosen to represent the UK as a whole at a unique deliberative event held last weekend as part of the Power2010 campaign. Those on the shortlist all received 50% or more support from participants at the end of the two day “Deliberative Polling®” event.

The group’s recommendations will be put to the country ahead of the General Election in a nationwide poll starting today on www.power2010.org.uk .

In a surprising twist, populist reforms such as a fully elected House of Lords and lowering the voting age to 16 came relatively low down the priority list - with open primaries to select Parliamentary Candidates and a referendum on English devolution not even making the cut of options to be put to the public vote.

James Fishkin, Director of the Center for Deliberative Democracy at Stanford University said:

“This was a good microcosm of the entire country brought to a single place. They came from all regions, walks of life and political viewpoints. They worked hard to clarify their priorities and on about two thirds of the issues their views changed significantly. They wanted more deliberation, by citizens in public consultations and by Parliament in Select Committees. They moved away from populist proposals such as direct election of the Prime Minister or making party manifestos legally binding. They really weighed the competing arguments and told us what they thought the country needed now.”

Participants were asked to rate the proposed reforms before they started the weekend’s debate, and again at the end. Before deliberation, a majority supported “having a referendum to decide whether to devolve England” (51.7%), “electing the Prime Minister directly” (50%), and “making party manifesto promises legally binding” (59.30%), but after deliberation all three lost majority support decreasing to 26.2%, 25% 18.3% respectively.

Paul Senior from Liverpool, one of the citizens chosen to represent the UK at the event, said:

“I, like many others, have been frustrated by the MPs expenses scandal and the state of our political system. This event has show that given the opportunity, people do care a great deal about politics and are prepared to put a lot of effort into debate. They are prepared to listen carefully to other points of view, and to consider the facts, even when they don't agree with the conclusions reached. Having taking part, I certainly now feel more positive about politics, and more likely to engage with it in the future.”

The Joseph Rowntree-backed POWER2010 campaign, which has already signed up more than 10,000 people, is launching the nationwide vote today to find the five most popular ideas to fix politics and put them to every candidate standing at this year’s General Election.

Helena Kennedy, Chair of the Power2010 campaign said:

“It’s simple. If candidates want to get elected they will have to listen to people and fix politics according to popular priorities. Everyone knows politics is broken. What we’re doing is getting people-power to fix it. We’ve got clear recommendations from this weekend’s event and now we want everyone to vote on those – and have their say.”

The Power2010 campaign, which many members of this site have taken part in, has unveiled their Guide to Reforms (pdf) for participants in the Deliberative Poll stage of the Power2010 consultation.

The three most popular reforms from the preceding public consultation stage are as follows:

1. Hold a referendum on establishing an English Parliament suggested by 410 people
2. Introduce a more proportional voting system for elections suggested by 280 people
3. Hold a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union suggested by 123 people

For updates please check out the Power2010 blog.

David Cameron has launched chapter one of the Conservative Party's 2010 Draft Manifesto. It can be downloaded in pdf format from the Conservative Party website.

The Draft Manifesto 2010 (Chapter one: Our reform plan for the NHS) mentions 'this country' three times, 'our country' twice, the 'UK' once and 'Britain' once.

'England' is not mentioned at all, but which of the Conservative's pledges on the NHS do you think apply to England alone?

Scrap hospital targets

Give patients detailed information about the performance of doctors, hospitals and GPs.

People allowed to choose where they are treated

More private and voluntary providers in NHS

GPs’ pay linked to their performance and results

Cut cost of NHS administration by a third

Independent NHS board to manage the health service

Hospitals will lose money if patients contract MRSA

End mixed-sex accommodation

Drug companies paid according to effectiveness of treatments

New hotline for urgent care to run alongside 999

New maternity system giving mothers more choice

Every five-year old given a dental check-up as part of overhaul of NHS dental service

Fines for those missing dentist appointments

New drive to help the mentally-ill

Department of Health turned into Department of Public Health

More funding for poorest areas to tackle health inequalities

£10 million a year to support hospices caring for children

Single budget for each person suffering from chronic illnesses to cover their health and social care

Everyone can protect their homes from being sold to fund residential care by paying a one-off insurance premium of £8,000 when they retire.

You are not eligible to vote in this poll.