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:

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.

The scandal provoked by MPs’ dodgy expenses claims earlier this year led to unprecedented professions of interest in constitutional reform on the part of the three main parties. In a single week, as I recall, all the party leaders lined up to set out their priorities and proposals in this area. However, none of these proposals and very little of the overall discussion addressed the so-called English Question: the issue of how England should be governed as a nation, taking into consideration the impact on England and the Union as a whole of devolution in the three other constituent parts of the Kingdom.

I personally favour the establishment of an English Parliament to deal with the work of government and areas of legislation that are now almost exclusively England-focused, including the ‘big three’ of education, health, and justice and policing. Such a parliament, which could comprise considerably fewer MPs than the present tally of UK-parliament MPs representing English constituencies, would probably require or lead to the creation of a federal or even confederal UK of four national communities (or five if you count Cornwall), with a greatly slimmed-down UK-federal parliament dealing with what are presently referred to as ‘reserved’ matters and perhaps replacing the House of Lords in some of its scrutiny functions.

However, I’m not expecting even the more modest proposal of ‘mere’ devolution for England, and the establishment of an English parliament with functions akin to those of Holyrood, to be adopted by the three main parties as manifesto proposals at the next general election. But what I would be extremely disappointed to see – but, I have say, what I actually expect to see – would be if those manifesto proposals that do relate mainly or exclusively to England continue to be presented and described as if they affected and would be implemented across the UK as a whole.

The parties and, it has to be said, most of the mainstream media have carried out a vast deception of the English people in the period since devolution by continuing to refer to England-only or England-mainly policies and legislation as if they were ‘British’. I say ‘continuing to refer’ because, prior to devolution, legislation on education, health and justice was enacted on a genuinely UK-wide basis by all the MPs of the UK Parliament, even if the specifics varied to some extent country by country, with separate criminal law and a distinct education system in Scotland, for instance. Now, in the wake of devolution, bills in these areas – along with those in other policy areas that have been devolved – almost exclusively affect England only, the most prominent exception being justice, law and policing, which England shares with Wales. But politicians and the media continue to discuss these matters as if they affected all the people of the UK, which is simply untrue. Indeed, putting it uncharitably, this is a lie.

This practice is so widespread, so all-pervading and – as the BBC itself has called it – so ‘instinctive’ that one sometimes has to make an effort and pinch oneself to force oneself to be aware of it. Take the recent row about the parties’ respective financial and moral commitments to the NHS sparked off by Tory MEP Dan Hannan’s dismissive remarks towards the NHS in a US talk show in the midst of the controversy over there regarding Barack Obama’s health-care reforms. Not one of the many articles on the controversy I came across on TV, radio or online – and I mean not a single one – referred to the fact that the NHS that the present Labour government and a prospective Tory government were or would be in charge of was not the British NHS but the English NHS: national-UK governments are no longer responsible for ‘the’ NHS throughout the UK but only in England. In fact, as a result of devolution, there is no single ‘British NHS’ but rather four NHS’s run by each of the bodies responsible for the government of the UK’s constituent countries. But the ‘E’ word – England – was conspicuously absent from any of the parties’ protestations about their commitment to the NHS, even though it was England that was effectively being talked about.

When you draw this sort of thing to people’s attention, there’s often a sort of embarrassed silence, which in a way mirrors the silence to which the word ‘England’ itself is subjected in presentations and debates about policy issues that affect her. This embarrassment is associated almost with a sort of incredulity and sense of outrage that one should dare to suggest that weighty ‘British’ matters are in fact no such thing but are, rather, merely domestic English concerns. And this unwillingness on the part of politicians, parties, the media and ordinary people to acknowledge English matters as English, not British, also involves denial, in the psychological sense of the term: a refusal to acknowledge and consciously articulate a painful truth. That painful truth, for us in England, is that the old unitary UK is gone, dead; and that, like a child that grows up and painfully has to separate itself from its parent, England must now manage its domestic affairs on its own.

Except, of course, that separation of its identity and assumption of control over its own life from an overweening parent has yet to be completed in England’s case. We’re stuck in a sort of transitional state – indeed, to continue the psychoanalytical metaphor, England’s continuing attachment to Britain and unwillingness to be separated from it is akin to that of an infant’s attachment to a ‘transitional object’: reflecting an identity not yet fully differentiated from that of its parent. So we blunder on, with England’s affairs being ‘managed’ for her by a parent that is too scared to let go; a parent from which we, the English, are also still too scared to separate in case we feel too little and powerless in the big wide world without our powerful protector behind us.

It’s time to abandon this infantilism. English matters – those areas of governance that relate to England only – are already distinct from UK-wide matters: devolution has brought about that divide. Let’s acknowledge that fact as a first step towards enabling the people of England to take charge of their own affairs.

And that, essentially, is where the main parties have a big role to play. They, we, must stop the denial and start honestly referring to policy and legislation that relates to England as English. A failure to do so means continuing to be dishonest to the English electorate. And that body of voters does really matter to the parties, as they need to win in England – albeit that ‘winning’ is defined only in terms of gaining the majority of English parliamentary seats, rather than the majority of English votes – in order to be able to claim any kind of democratic mandate to govern the UK as a whole. But the recent constitutional crisis of confidence on the part of the main parties was a reaction to the evidence of widespread disenchantment on the part, mainly, of English people with the British politicians and parties that are supposed to represent them. It’s English people that the Westminster elite has mainly become disconnected from; and perhaps the greatest single contributory factor behind this is the fact that the political class and the big-three parties have themselves lost the English connection: the fact that in domestic, social policy, the country for which they have to propose and implement a credible and realistic vision is England, and no longer Britain.

Once we begin to acknowledge this fact, we can begin the long road to recovery. By which I don’t mean merely economic recovery but also social, political and psychological recovery: reconnecting politics to the people, and restoring the faith that politicians and people can be partners in a common enterprise to fashion a better future for ‘the country’. But that country is – can now only be – England. There no longer exists a common British social fabric for which the Westminster parliament is solely and exclusively responsible. Separate administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are charting separate courses for their respective countries, and Westminster has equipped them with the legal responsibilities and the administrative tools to implement a social vision for their nations. For England, it is still the UK parliament that remains responsible for social policy for England. But unless and until Parliament acknowledges its responsibility in the social domain as being towards England, it will not be able to re-establish itself as a parliament for England, even if it is the de facto parliament of England.

But the parties, clearly, are unwilling, indeed afraid, to speak the name of the country for which they will be proposing solutions and remedies at the next general election. Why? Because they are afraid of breaking up the UK-wide power base they currently aspire to take command of by seeking, instead, to derive their authority from the people of England: from their needs, their priorities and their hopes for their country. But power and authority do stem from the people; the power and authority of Westminster governments derive, in particular, from the assent of the English people. The only way that assent can be genuine is if the parties now start to be honest about which of their policies are actually for the people of England, so that the votes of the English people can be based on a true and fair reflection of what English voters actually want for their country. Anything else is simply a denial of ‘English votes on English matters’ in the true sense: the right of the English people to be democratically consulted on the matters that affect them.

If, for a change, the parties finally do explain to the English people which areas of UK-government action and policy relate only to England, the people may indeed start to ask themselves why there is not a separate English parliament to deal with such concerns. Why, indeed? But that is no reason for the parties to deny them that choice by doing their utmost to even suppress the thought. Psychological and political repression cannot last for ever. Sooner or later, the people of England will wake up to the realisation that the parties have deceived them for so long. Better for the parties to ‘fess up’ before that time and accompany the English people on their road to recovery and a new democratic future. Who knows where that road will take us? But it’s up to the parties to determine whether they want to be party to the ‘us’ – the English – in question.

And that’s because England matters, and the parties cannot for ever take the votes of the English for granted.