Former Labour Cabinet Minister calls for proper recognition of English interests
John
Denham, the former Labour MP and a former Labour Cabinet Minister, who
is now the Professor of English Identity and Politics at Winchester
University has called for recognition within Labour of the English
nationalist movement. In doing so of course he admits that at present
the Labour Party doesn’t properly recognise England at all, and is
reluctant to mention the ‘E’ word, let alone give us our rights as
English people.
His
article is a good one, and I put it below, but one area of course that
is not mentioned at all is the idea of the English Nation.
Labour
are willing to discuss the idea of the Scottish Nation and the Welsh
Nation, but they are not prepared to recognise the ideas that England
has its own Nation - let alone the English Nation has its own country,
namely England!
It
has been interesting also to see that John Denham has encountered flak
from Far-Leftists within the Labour Party who do not like him raising
the ‘E’ word!
His
intervention is therefore welcome for the health and progress of the
English movement – even if he feels he can’t fully come out as an
English nationalist yet!
Below is the article. What do you think?
DevolutionEnglandEnglish Votes for English LawsJohn DenhamNational Education ServiceScotland Bill
20
years ago, Parliament was debating the Scotland Bill. Within months,
both Wales and Scotland were well on the way to their own elected
governments. From then onwards, England’s education, health, social
care, bus, environment and agriculture policy was distinct from that of
its neighbours.
Reading Labour’s recently published 2018 policy consultation,
you would never know devolution had even happened. Of eight papers,
only one – on health – can even bring itself to use the word ‘England’.
The policy consultation is a constitutional dog’s breakfast that ignores
the challenges of making policy within a devolved UK. Most documents
seem to refer to England, but don’t say so. Others wander blindly across
UK, devolved and unresolved policy areas without asking party members
how to manage the complications that will inevitably arise.
Education
policy is devolved, so presumably the ‘National Education Service’ is
only for England, but we are not told that. No one could imagine Welsh
or Scottish Labour writing policies that don’t mention Wales or
Scotland, so why can’t our Labour Party talk about England? The
consultation on housing, local government and transport – all devolved
matters – is subtitled ‘giving people the power’. It talks about local
devolution. Is this devolution within England, or devolution in every
part of the UK? We can assume that it is about England, but why not say
so?
‘Greening
Britain’ (sic) covers energy policy (not devolved) and air quality
(devolved). It covers agriculture, which will become hugely contentious –
in theory, it is devolved, but effectively most policy is made in
Brussels. With Brexit, the powers will be returned to us: should they go
straight to the devolved administrations? Cardiff and Edinburgh say
‘yes’, but many in England would want to maintain a single UK market for
farm produce. It’s an ideal question for policy consultation, but the
document doesn’t even mention the issue.
The
policy paper on poverty and inequality is mainly about UK-wide policy,
though it covers some devolved issues. ‘Protecting our communities’
ranges across English, Welsh and UK responsibilities, without making the
distinctions clear.
Labour
will pay a price for this confused lack of clarity. We cannot change
Britain, or any part of it, without an understanding of where power lies
now and a clear view of where it should lie in the future.
The
1997 Labour government did not make a serious attempt – despite John
Prescott’s best efforts – to shift power and resources out of London.
England saw no constitutional change (except, ironically, in London).
England needs devolution today because the last Labour government, of
which I was a part, failed. Labour members should be asked about the
governance of England as a whole: how power and resources will be
devolved, how laws for England are made, and about England’s
relationship with the rest of the UK.
The
party must stop talking as though England and Britain are the same
thing. This lazy confusion feeds nationalist propaganda in Scotland,
discourages party members from thinking about England’s needs and makes
us sound out of touch with millions of voters.
The
confused policy documents obscure the reality that England is the only
part of Britain permanently ruled by the UK government. It’s a
constitutional arrangement that allows a Conservative government to
bribe the DUP while taking free school meals from English kids. We
should at least be asked whether we want this to continue, but the
papers avoid any discussion of how England’s laws are made (including
the thorny issue of English votes on English laws).
The idea of a federal UK raised in the 2017 manifesto has disappeared.
Wales
and Scotland have radical traditions. England has its own. ‘’For the
many not few’ echoes popular English campaigns for land and homes, for
protection from exploitation, for justice and rights, using
self-organisation and co-operation. Labour could draw on such stories
that are embedded in communities across the nation, but only if we can
call the country, England, by its name.
While
not all voters are bothered whether we mention England by name, plenty
do care. They know where they live, they are proud to be English and
they want to know what a Labour government will do for England.
In
narrow electoral terms, Labour hasn’t won the popular vote in England
since 2001. By the time of the next election, we will have been behind
the Tories for 21 years. We are 60 seats behind the Conservatives and we
won’t be in government unless we win more English votes. In 2015, we
were badly damaged by claims that Labour policy for England would be
dictated by the SNP.
At
the next election, we need an English manifesto that sets out exactly
what Labour will do in England; the policy consultation should be the
starting point for that manifesto. Labour has gained a narrow lead on
‘best party to represent England’ but that support is dwarfed by those
who can’t identify any party that stands for England. Making it clear
that we know what country we are talking about and not being afraid of
mentioning its name won’t guarantee victory, but it would be a good
start.
Given that nationhood relates to territory, surely the title of this piece should be about "proper recognition of England's interests"!
ReplyDeleteIndeed, John Denham's article is about the Labour Party's refusal to talk about ENGLAND's interests!
Given that an element of nationhood is territory, surely the title of your piece should be recognition of ENGLAND's interests.
ReplyDeleteReference to English interests does not necessarily mean England especially when account should taken of the fact that the interests of English people domiciled outside England are not necessarily the same.
Indeed, Professor Denham correctly entitles his article asks: "Why does our Labour Party refuse to talk about England?" There is a certain irony in your avoidance of correctly referring to England in the heading of your article
I am not sure the present Labour leadership like the "idea" of British Nationhood let alone English Nationhood. Now if Frank Field was in charge things might be different.
ReplyDeleteWhat's in a name?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/judges-told-to-avoid-referring-to-jews-in-court-1.459693
Will the Justus system next be proscribing reference to the "English"...?
Doubtless you've noticed the TV advertisements by ancestry.com clouding the DNA of the British. First destroy the name, the identity, the culture; last: the physical vestiges. We're told the "Palestinians" don't exist as a people, so why not the same for the English?
An article in the Guardian says that Corbyn will create four new bank holidays if he's elected - St David's Day, St Patrick's Day, St Andrew's Day and St George's Day. It features a photograph of what appears to be the back of a house festooned with football supporters' England flags and union flags. This has nothing to do with England. It's a piece of British gimmickery.
ReplyDeleteClive,
W-s-M.