One of the most pressing issues in the current revolution in the British state is that the English question now seriously needs to be addressed. In recent years, to even suggest there was such a thing as an English question was to invite ridicule and accusations of right-wing nationalism.
But now the scenario of a reconfigured British state is unavoidable. Paul Murphy, the Labour MP for Torfaen, has come around to the idea of devolution to the English regions. This is the second time he has expressed this sentiment. In one sense it is welcome that he is contributing to these debates, as a former Minister involved in constitutional affairs and the peace process in Ireland.
However, English public opinion appears to support an English Parliament, not regional assemblies. Murphy obviously supports regional devolution because Westminster is virtually already an "English Parliament" numerically speaking, and will be even more so when the numbers of non-English MPs are reduced. His argument is a utilitarian one, to enable the British state to function better, and to possibly give Labour a number of regions (particularly in the north of England) in which it could consolidate power. The Labour MP Wayne David recently made similar points along these lines in the debate about the Silk Commission, arguing that devolution was about bringing democracy closer to the people, rather than about national identity.
That is a comfort blanket argument. The fact that Wales and Scotland have distinct national identities was and remains a huge factor in making devolution begin and then deepen. In England there are relatively strong regional identities (Yorkshire immediately springs to mind), but a broader English patriotism and desire for English nationhood appears to be in the ascendancy as a response to the decay of Britishness. It isn't clear that people in England would vote to dilute the centralism of Westminster. Rather than wanting to assert valid regional identities, public opinion in England might well support reclaiming Westminster as an English, not a British, parliamentary body.
While this is all a welcome debate, and shows that things are shifting, it puzzles me that those kind of Labour MPs always used to talk about Welsh nationalism as promoting the "Balkanisation of Britain"- dividing a great nation into fragmented parts. How then are those same men now keeping straight faces as they campaign for the Balkanisation of England?
Labels: devolution, England, English Parliament, Labour, Paul Murphy, Wayne David
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
I noticed that Murphy's comments on devolution for England were reported on the Wales section of the BBC news site, but weren't mentioned at all on the England section.
This would either suggest that he has no profile outside Wales; or that the comments were only ever intended for Welsh consumption - showing that 'something is being done' and were never intended to be taken serioualy.
Murphy's time has gone. He is a spent force. Dead wood like most Welsh Labour MPs.
Murphy has managed to stand on his head on a couple of issues.. devolution to Wales being one of them.
Devolution is the result of national sentiment, nothing else. It took place because of unionist fears of nationalism. It was a failure on their part to understand the phenomenon, or maybe they just didn't want to understand it.
To the socialists nationalism is an alien creed.. it runs counter to their centralising philosophies where there is little or no room for cultural, linguistic or national differences. It was evident in an extreme way in the former Soviet Empire - and we all know what happened to that.
To the Tories, who are essentially English nationalists, the conflation of England with Britain comes naturally. Often seen and heard on the BBC, when someone makes a slip of the tongue without even being aware of it. The BBC's news channel is a prime example of Britain equals England.
The Scots and the Welsh wouldn't make that mistake. Many reactionary English folk now realise that conflation of the two identities is no longer acceptable, and there's a consequent re-awakening of English nationalism. More of them it appears would vote for the break-up of the UK, than would Scots.
Neither party wants devolution for England, as that has profound implications for the constitution - which would have to be radically overhauled in written form - the present 'Westminster' political and electoral system would be swept away, with the patronage and elitism which accompanies it - the role of their deified monarchy would have to be defined etc. Democracy is the last thing these two parties want.
That is where the alternative idea of devolution to the regions comes from - as it avoids the hideous prospect of wholesale reform. The fact that the English regions don't really want it isn't relevant.
Both parties have an ostrich mentality (that goes for the LibDems too) - a bit like rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic as it slowly sinks.
They haven't got an answer to nationalism.. they've tried devolution.. and it hasn't worked. It was George Robertson who once said that it would 'kill nationalism stone dead'. He really misunderstood the phenomenon!
Unfortunately the unionist parties are going to find themselves paddling upstream without a paddle, as popular opinion is moving away from unionism pretty quickly in most parts of this island. It could be that it makes a last stand in Labour-run Wales. Pity help us!
excellent and thought provoking analysis maen_tramgwydd...but would just like to point out that there are many welsh 'socialists'...myself included...who campaigned tirelessly for a yes vote in the devolution referendums of 97 and 2011...and who fully support self government for wales.
Further a self governing wales is almost certainly likely to be socialist in its political and economic orientation...
Leigh Richards
swansea.
Like Leigh I highly rate maen_tramgwydd's analysis but the problem when he/she says that "to the socialists nationalism is an alien creed", is the fact that people like myself and Leigh don't think Labour can really be described as a socialist party anymore.
Across the water in Ireland, where there are various parties drawn from nationalism and republicanism, it's Sinn Fein that is really about freeing the people and liberating them from low pay and poor living conditions, rather than just creating an Irish state for the sake of it. A Welsh state will not come about just for the sake of people feeling Welsh or nationalistic. It needs a policy agenda as well.
It's an epic miscalculation for example to say "Devolution is the result of national sentiment, nothing else. It took place because of unionist fears of nationalism". The impact of Thatcherism was actually the main driver, coupled with national sentiment.
It isn't stretching it to say that the SNP have drawn much of their current support in the central belt and Glasgow by advocating a defence of the welfare state, a programme of house building, state investment in the economy and health and education policies to the left of Labour.
Whatever analysis we want to apply to the British state, it is not a similar situation to the Soviet Union. People in Wales don't generally experience state violence, visible oppression or subjugation. There is enough to deal with today without using those kind of metaphors. With austerity failing to bring any hope to the peoples of Europe, we are going to have to get used to seeing socialist ideas as part of the solution, not part of the problem.
Post a Comment
Post a Comment