UKIP is becoming the patriotic party of England

devolution and localism, UK politics

Immediate release

Following UKIP’s surge in the local elections, new survey data indicates that one possible explanation of their success – until now largely overlooked – is their emergence as the party with the strongest appeal to English patriots.

The data, taken from the Future of England Survey (FoES) run by the think tank IPPR, Edinburgh University and Cardiff University, charts the strengthening of English identity, but also its politicisation.

The 2011 Census found that 70 per cent of the English population identified themselves as either solely English or English in combination with some other national identity. Just 29 per cent of respondents identified themselves as feeling any sense of British national identity.

Without explicitly promoting themselves as an English party, UKIP appears to have become the key political beneficiary of this trend because the more English someone feels, the more likely they are to believe that England is getting a bad deal from its membership of both the European Union and the United Kingdom.

UKIP’s supporters express the strongest sense of English identity (55 per cent describe themselves as either ‘English not British’ or ‘More English than British’). And UKIP supporters are the most dissatisfied with the constitutional status quo in the United Kingdom (49 per cent agree that England should become an independent country compared to 36 per cent of Tories, 35 per cent of Lib Dems and 29 per cent of Labour supporters) while over 90 per cent want to withdraw from the EU.

When people were asked: ‘which party best stands up for English interests’, UKIP tops the list.

• UKIP – 21 per cent
• Labour – 19 per cent
• Conservative – 17 per cent
• Liberal Democrats – 6 per cent
• None of the parties stand up for England – 16 per cent

(Note – These responses are taken from a separate YouGov poll conducted 14-15 April 2013. Please refer to Table 1 in notes to editors for responses from November 2011, November 2012 and April 2013)

Even more striking is the fact that UKIP’s support as the party that best stands up for England has more than doubled since 2011 – up from 9 per cent, and overtaking Lab (21 per cent ) and Con (20 per cent ) and none of the parties (23 per cent).

UKIP’s rise in this context will be of particular concern to the Conservatives. Conservative voters at the last general election (2010) are split on the party who they believe best stands up for England. While 38 per cent say the Conservatives, almost as many (34 per cent) say UKIP – and this figure has almost doubled from 18 per cent in 2011, suggesting a potential for Conservative support to drift over to UKIP.

Nick Pearce, IPPR Director, said:

“There is an undercurrent of English national sentiment that has been growing in recent years and this appears to be propelling UKIP forward. Tories traditionally feel more confident that they are the patriotic party; but there are signs that complacency on their part is handing a gift to UKIP which is fast emerging – in the eyes of the English electorate – as the party which best stands up for English interests.

“If the Tories have been complacent about their natural position as England’s patriotic party, Labour has been consumed by fear. Fear that giving England more recognition in the union will inhibit its political interests by limiting the role of its Celtic fringe; fear that recognition of Englishness will simply lend credibility to the views of Little Englanders in respect of Europe and immigration. But fear breeds inertia, and inertia weakens Labour’s capacity to contest the politics of England.”

Richard Wyn-Jones, Professor of Politics at Cardiff University and co-author of the report said:

 “To understand the rise of UKIP as simply a manifestation of anti-European sentiment or even some kind of anti-political spasm is to the ignore the very significant, and much broader transformation in attitudes currently underway in England. It is a transformation that is bringing England and Englishness to the fore as a political community and political identity. It is a transformation that the current political class seem scarcely to have noticed let alone formed a coherent response too. UKIP is surfing a wave of existential angst about England’s place in world.”

Notes to Editors

1.The Future of England Survey (FoES) 2012 is a joint initiative between IPPR and the Wales Governance Centre (Cardiff University) and the Institute of Governance (Edinburgh University). The FoES is the most comprehensive examination of how public attitudes within England are changing in respect of issues around national identity, nationhood and governance. All figures, unless otherwise stated, are from YouGovTotal sample size was 3600 English adults/3401 White adults/651 BME adults. Fieldwork was undertaken between 23rd – 28th November 2012. The survey was carried out online. The figures have been weighted and are representative of all adults (aged 18+).

2.IPPR will publish a major report based on the full findings of FoES 2012 later this summer.

3.For more on IPPR’s project considering questions of Englishness, see: http://ippr.org/research-project/44/7115/english-questions

4.Selected tables below

Table 1: Standing up for England

Question :  “Which, if any, of the following parties do you think best stands up for the interests of England?”

 Table 2 Englishness and Britishness on the Moreno Scale

Question: “Which, if any, of the following best describes the way you think of yourself?”

NB – The ‘Moreno question’ is well suited to charting the strength of identity in the UK – a multinational state – where many people have overlapping, or nested, national identities. It asks respondents to locate themselves on a spectrum extending from an exclusively English to an exclusively British identity, with intervening levels of overlap

Contact

Tim Finch, 0207, 470 6110/ 07595 920899, t.finch@ippr.org

Plaid strengthens its call for English parliament after Welsh questions anger

26 Apr 2013 06:00

The loon from Dartford is squirming like a worm on a hook over his latest stunt.

Here is a bit of background on the subject.

Probe launched by police into Kent County Council elections nomination papers

Comments  |

exclusive by Stuart Woledge

swoledge@thekmgroup.co.uk

A police investigation is under way into an allegation of impropriety concerning next month’s Kent County Council elections.

Earlier today, a Kent Police spokeswoman said: “Kent Police is investigating after concerns were raised surrounding election nomination papers.”

The precise details of what the allegations are about have not been made public.

However, it’s understood one of the parties may have submitted nomination papers in the name of one or more candidates who do not exist.

KCC returning officer Geoff Wild said: “We are aware of the allegation, which is in the hands of the police.

“The council will not be making any further comment relating to any individual candidate while the investigation is under way.”

Mr Wild added: “When a returning officer receives a nomination form, they are legally required to consider those papers at face value.

“The returning officer is not permitted to investigate candidates or their particulars, other than to consider the papers submitted and ensure they are in order.

“Any candidate standing in a local government election is permitted to give a commonly used name.

“If they do, this name is used in place of their full name on official statements and ballot papers.

“Case law and guidance from the Electoral Commission requires that this name is considered only at face value.”

A fellow English Nationalist and Blogger, Wonkostane, was contacted by the Kent Online team.  Here is his post about the call:

I’ve had an interrogation from the Kent Messenger today.

Uncles has told them he’s been asked by Kent Police to provide a statement and that it’s all a conspiracy by UKIP.

He says that UKIP have posted him fake nominations which he’s taken in good faith.

He mentioned Black Ops of course. I explained that Black Ops is a piss-take and Uncles made it up. I asked why a party like UKIP would waste time and effort on a party that wasn’t even a threat to the Monster Raving Loony Party.

I said I couldn’t imagine why someone from UKIP would do it and pointed out that if these names are on the electoral register then this has been well thought out and someone has gone to a lot of effort.

I pointed out that the EDP are the only people who have anything to gain from this fraud in the media publicity from the BBC.

Interestingly, Uncles has told the reporter that Elm Cottage was the house that was demolished to build his own house – it took a couple of times of telling for it to sink in with the reporter that Uncles knows the house doesn’t exist any more so it’s fraudulent.

He asked if I was responsible and I told him I wouldn’t be so bloody stupid to risk 6 months in prison for something like that.

He asked about being sued by Tilbrook so I explained that.

UKIP Press Office have had them on the phone as well and they said “we have 1700 candidates and 9 staff, do you really think we’ve got time to waste on a black ops campaign against someone like that.

Three sentient points:

1.  Wonko was sued by the UKIP hating Tilbrook, Tilbrook lost. The hatred also stems from the rumour (Based on a meeting held under Chatham House Rules between UKIP,  Uncles and Still broke).

They are upset for being blackballed by UKIP when they begged to join and fold EDP for safe MEP spots.

2. UKIP black ops stems from the fevered imaginings of a raving lunatic and those that are crazy enough to believe his bollocks.
http://www.bloggers4ukip.org.uk/2012/01/we-are-ukip-black-ops.html

3. The address does not exist, Uncles witnessed the signature on the consent form.

Now Uncles is trying to claim it was an April fools joke on his pisspot blog

http://englandunited.com/2013/04/21/ukip-confirm-that-ukip-black-ops-played-april-fools-joke-on-english-democrats-with-anna-cleves-in-kent/

Where the bloated moron states:

UKIP Confirm that “UKIP Black Ops” played April Fools “Joke” on English Democrats with Anna Cleves in Kent

  Steve Uncles says   “Following confirmation on Facebook by UKIP’s Simon Preston that “UKIP Black Ops” have played an April Fools Joke on the English Democrats with the Candidate “Anna Cleves” standing in Tonbridge & Malling, I can confirm that we will be requesting Kent Police to check the Nomination Papers in fine detail of ALL 73 UKIP Candidates standing in Kent.

If UKIP think that the Election process is “A Joke”, then it will be no suprise to find that they have made short cuts and omissions from their own Nomination Papers in the Kent County Council Elections.

He circled a piece of the FB conversation and is now claiming this to be an admission.

Where was there an admittance of anything? Nowhere in the whole conversation, Uncles is clutching at straws.  Again.

He needs to get a grip on reality instead of himself on a night while he types bollocks on his blog about UKIP.

Lib/Lab/Con are the enemy of England.

Uncles needs to stop lying and the fools that follow him and believe any utterance need to research the idiot thoroughly before leaping to this intellectual pygmy’s defence.

Here is the political brain on twatter:

Here are the exact rules:

1.65 It is an offence to give a false statement on your
nomination paper. Therefore if you choose to provide a
commonly used name you must ensure that it is a forename or
surname which you commonly use.

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/141787/Part-2b-standing-as-a-party-candidate-LGEW.pdf

Here is a song for bright spark from Dartford.

An enlightening analysis of the candidates standing for  the EDP.
By Jonathan Snelling

I promised the EDP election analysis would appear so I will make a start. There are reasons for being late – not just that I’ve been very busy, but also their status is “complicated”.

Headline news is how few candidates the English Democrats are standing. From 76 in the last County elections they have exactly halved to 38. They have stood around 100 candidates in other annual elections over the last 3 years. It’s a pretty spectacular collapse after their continuing claims that they are still growing.

The other interesting news is the mysterious disappearance of all those former BNP activists. Will add details below – please chip in with any observations, additional info, corrections etc.

WHERE HAVE THE BNP GONE?

It was here that we first calculated that figure last year that 43% of their candidates were ex BNP or similar (I think there were about 4 that were not BNP but something equivalent or worse such as NF). There are a few here that I do not know for sure, but it seems that with just 38 standing (+ 1 Mayor and 3 of the same people standing in by-elections for lesser councils) the figure will fall to less than 10% by the same criteria. I believe there are 3 main factors:

1 Some of their new far right brethren have already gone. They have been shedding members from both ends – older members going because of BNP/EDL links etc and new ones going because it’s not as racist as they hoped, or they don’t like the English independence strain in the party – or more often because they were lied to. Some of them were told the party was much bigger, better organised and had some money. One or two were dismayed to find candidates are expected to fund their own campaigns. Some fascists have left in London, Essex and N Yorks – some of them straight back to BNP or NF (so they were well vetted!)

2 Simply a lot of the new far right members live in areas without elections this year – Barnsley, Leeds, Southend, Liverpool, Solihull etc

3 The above does not cover it. There has clearly been a decision to withdraw them. Some were even mentioned as candidates in earlier postings. Most of them are still there, but the failure to defend their only County Council seat in Three Rivers, Herts (BNP defector) or stand anyone in Boston, Lincs where EDP have their only 2 district/borough cllrs were bizarre choices. Both local parties are thoroughly BNP infested. Also Chris Beverley has been promising a strong campaign in N Yorks for at least a year, but not a single candidate – could have always been a bluff, but for what purpose?
DISAPPEARANCE OF THE EDP

To start with the absences, the pathetic 38 County candidates are contesting just 8 different Counties – at least 1 less than the Official Monster Raving Loonies!. This is down from 16 counties 4 years ago. They are not contesting anything in the 8 unitary authorities up for election, nor the Tyneside Mayoral or, as of now, the South Shields by-election where nominations close on Friday. 23 are standing in Kent. Only 2 other counties are fielding more than 2. Among the places where the Eng Dems have previously been active for years that have no candidates – Bristol, Wiltshire, Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Lancashire, North Yorkshire and Hampshire (where the party was closed down after the Eastleigh by-election).

Only a few weeks ago, Tilbrook was calling for 394 candidates to qualify for an Election Broadcast. It is unclear whether they have that many members left – certainly nothing like that many activists.
LAST STAND IN DONCASTER

The EDP was clearly the 2nd biggest party in Doncaster by number of activists 3 years ago. Now they have a handful of members left. Most of the best activists had gone long before Peter Davies resigned, but their only parish cllr Mick Glynn was among those to leave with him as well as the leading figure of the local party (sometimes praised in Tilbrook speeches) Roy Penketh – who is Davies’ agent. David Allen joined 3 years ago and is a recent activist as is his agent John Brennan. It’s only a handful of these relative newcomers and some of the older knuckledraggers left now. Mayoral elections are notoriously unpredictable like Police ones (that’s why EDP love them both), and I would find it hard to predict what % they will get or where they will finish – could be anywhere from 3rd to 10th, but it will be miles behind Davies and the Labour candidate Ros Jones.
MINOR COUNTIES

I will quickly tidy up the 6 counties with a very limited Eng Dem presence. Firstly the biggest collapse outside those places that have disappeared completely is in Essex. They have fallen from 10 candidates to just 4. Of these, 3 are members of the Tilbrook family – and the only other one is veteran campaigner John Hayter in Rayleigh North. None of these have known far right connections apart from Robin Tilbrook himself who has chosen to lead his party into alliances with every bunch of half a dozen thugs and nutters Steve Uncles can make contact with. Hayter was once part of a strong group in Rochford & Rayleigh, but he is the only one standing now.

A couple of lone party members who have been around for a while have popped up as sole candidates in Somerset and Surrey – Stephen Wright in Ilminster and Daniel Beddoes in Godstone. I have no interesting information on either. The pointless David Ford Lane has led his West Midlands area to the stage where he is now the only candidate – standing in Bede in Warwickshire. Similarly Charles Vickers has seen the existing Hertfordshire party collapse. He is now the only candidate in Letchworth NW. None of the new BNP contingent are standing in St Albans or Three Rivers. Lastly, former Tory councillor in Peterborough, Stephen Goldspink, has moved to the Fens and he and his wife Maria are standing for Whittlesey North & South between them.

That just leaves the interesting case of Northamptonshire – and the VERY interesting case of Kent……
FAR RIGHT LIVE ON IN NORTHANTS

So to Northamptonshire. This is the 2nd biggest field for the Eng Dems with 5 candidates and throws up some interesting points. Firstly there are the no-shows which include Alan Bennett-Spencer (funny how people vanish very quickly once they have taken over as party treasurer) and David Wickham – their mad-keen new activist who stood in the Corby by-election.

Area organiser Derek Hilling stands in Windmill ward and Victoria Hilling keeps up the party’s family theme in Clover Hill while former parliamentary candidate Terry Spencer stands in Croyland & Swanspool. The interesting part is the other two.

As discussed earlier in this thread, it is clear that a decision was taken to hide their far right members this year. Perhaps it was a ruse to make Peter Davies’ resignation look silly and allow them to score points off Labour and UKIP in particular for running former far right candidates. However, everyone knows they are still there and all they have done is admit they are an embarrassment – as well as meaning they will not contest most of their best prospects.

The thing is that Northants either never got the message or chose to defy it as former NF activist Kevin Sills stands in Desborough and former BNP organiser and parliamentary candidate Rob Walker stands in Hatton Park. So there are at least 2 far-right candidates running.

Also Northants are contesting 3 borough council by-elections as D Hilling, Sills & Walker all double-up. Sills is even contesting a 3rd one in a town council by-election.

There are lots of council by-elections getting tidied up on May 2 but I have not come across any more where EDP are standing. The party has not published a list of candidates (wouldn’t take long really) and have only promoted the Donny Mayor and a few Kent campaigns by name.

So with 38 County, 1 Mayor and 3 borough candidates (always exclude parish/town from such analysis) that is 42 candidates and 9.5% ex far right this time thanks to Northants
BENT IN KENT

OK then lets tidy up Kent. Four years ago they got their best results here including 6 2nd places and some good shares of the vote well above 20%. In many ways this was better than their Doncaster result, which was frankly a bit of a freak. Since then, dozens of their best activists have left and they made no progress at all at the General Election or other elections.

However, 23 of their 38 national candidates are standing here – so we can say that it is their only substantial slate of candidates and Uncles will use it to show he has worked hard where every other regional organiser has gone to sleep – and he will have a point!

He claims there are 25 candidates. This is because 2 of the leading Kent members will be contesting the 2 seats in HerneBay as New England. It was one of the parties that merged to form the EDP and they retain the name along with a few others. Seems they are experimenting with brand names after turning the current one toxic. Veteran Mike “The Tibster” Tibby who has moved to Herne Bay and Hitler enthusiast and Death Wish fanatic Nathan King, who is still in Dartford, are still very much EDP members but are not part of their party list.
Of the 23 that are standing, there are no figures with known far right history. The notorious trio of Eddy Butler, Claudia Dalgleish/Bryan and Paul Golding were all slated as possible candidates on an earlier Uncles list – may have always been a bluff. There is also no appearance of the promised Citizen Steve, the god-awful nationalist singer songwriter known from several nationalist rallies and events. Even under any assumed name, none of the candidates’ pen pictures mention their musical career.

Here are the statements from them all. Or at least the clumsy, copy and pasting, barely literate attempts from Steve Uncles:-

www.steveunclesenglishdemocrats.org/tag/anna-cleves/

I won’t bore you with all the others. There are a few EDP regulars, most of the Uncles family and most of “Sir Michael Walters of Eastligh”’s work colleagues plus a few new names. Tellingly, apart from Uncles and his missus, just 3 return from the 24 candidates 4 years ago. Among those missing – the parliamentary candidate in their main target of Dartford, Gary Rogers.

However, the real interest lies in the 5 candidates listed for the Tonbridge & Malling district….

Firstly they stand their teenage candidate in Malling North. Standing as Lee Jon, he is not using his real name. Least of the issues!

In Malling Rural East, Liz Uncles is standing. Not knowing the Uncles family I cannot claim he does not have a relation called Liz. However, I do not believe it likely that she is living with Mike Walters in Rochester as shown on her nomination paper. Why put a fake address unless she does not live in Kent at all?

In Malling West we have Helen Stevens (a new name with no EDP history). However both names have appeared in previous Uncles online fantasies and her home address shows she lives in Dartford with Nathan King. Not to be so mean as to wonder whether anyone would live with Nathan, I would add his FB status is still single.

In Malling Rural NE we have someone called “Steves Uncle”. Could be a typo. The real Steve Uncles is standing in Swanley, but there is nothing to stop him from standing in every ward in Kent if he can get himself nominated. However Steves Uncle lives at the same address as Michael Walters and Liz Uncles in the sitcom from hell.

Lastly in Malling Central we have Anna Cleves. The entries on Uncles’ blog have changed the spelling of her surname several times, changed her first name to Teresa and changed her sex to male! Her address has been checked by several people now and does not seem to exist. Of course, the most puzzling thing is why the former wife of Henry VIII is standing at all after nearly 500 years. She wasn’t even English!

Illegally entering fake people on the electoral register, producing forged signatures on an electoral nomination and deception over addresses used on an electoral nomination all carry prison sentences. This is all now under investigation.

 

(Or does he drink the ethanol straight?)

A couple of years back it was alleged by a member of the English democrats that Uncles had a few addiction problems.

It is well known when Uncles is at an EDP event he likes to try and drink the other 30 people there under the table.
Also he likes pies/greggs, lying, story telling and pissing off his wife.

In the wee hours he bashes his…………………… then types out libel and lies, latest one to include myself is saying that I am a simpleton and campaigning for labour.
Really? Really? Is that the best the idiot can do, make things up.

I prefer to allude to things that he has actually done like this:

Poor old Steve is so deluded at times due to his political bible, “The Political Brain” by Drew Weston. Yes its an American writer on American politics.

He seems to have got 23 candidates for the Kent County Council elections due on May the 2nd, but something is afoot in this story.
3 Candidates live at Walters address. Walters, Steves Uncle and Liz Uncle.
3 In Uncles House. Fat Idiot, Lousie and Milly.
2 In Nathan “i’m perpetually single, likes Hitler and Death wish Films” Kings house.
Among the others we have ANNA Cleve(s), the muppet has used 2 different spellings and sexes.

Annas address does not show up on google earth nor the Royal Mail address finder.
Jury is out on if this candidate is real.

The trouble is, on the face of it, the party does come across as sincere and moderate. It is only after some research that you find out links with BNP via ex members, who most have left since the PPC debacle.
The EFP, Uncles joined forces with them in the 2009 Euro elections. Did not run it by the membership.
Tillbrook and the ENA, Russky Orbaz, National Cultralists with Mr Buckby:

He has some nice friends eh.

So please look into the EDP and especially Uncles and Stillbroke.
Batman has some more advice for you:

Please research them first.

Do not believe everything that comes from the Dartford Bunker.

Welfare Spending Breakdown

Exclusive – Steve Uncles has been caught lying again. (Not really an Exclusive in that case).

I am really starting to believe that Mr Uncles must believe in Leprechauns, Unicorns and Mordor. The same could be said of his followers, who re-post his nonsense and re-tweeters of his lies on twitter.

The Leader/Chairman and Defacto leader of the English Democrats Party/BNP lite have been peddling their lies and ignorance again this week, all aimed at UKIP.

Bit of Background on the scenario: Uncles and Tillbrook wanted to join UKIP stating the EDP would be folded for cushy MEP spots, they were told no so have spat their dummy ever since with lies and basically libel on their blogs. That’s the long and short of it.

They do try and deny this, but their stories change every time. On minute its Pearson next its Nigel ……………blah blah blah, you have probably read the rubbish somewhere.

Now to the lies:

Complete and Utter Bollocks.

Here is a statement from UKIP Doncaster Branch:

UKIP Doncaster Press Release

UKIP Doncaster Press Release

UKIP will not oppose Mayor Peter Davies
It is Davies or Labour says Chairman

Doncaster, April 5, 2013: UKIP have been making great strides forward in the polls and the recent Eastleigh bye-election showed that in today’s political world, the party is a national a contender.
Over the last several months the local UKIP party has seen a steep climb in new members and the party is preparing to fight the 2014 council elections. Given the rise in UKIP support nationally, the fact that the party is not standing a candidate for the forthcoming mayoral election may be surprising. The party has no allusions that it would necessarily win but would still usually fight the election.

The local party has polled its members and there is no wish to stand against Mayor Peter Davies. In this particular case, it was felt that any vote not for the Mayor Peter Davies would be a vote for the Labour Party.

Members have therefore decided to put aside national politics in favour of doing what is best for the town in this current situation. Whilst not agreeing with all Mayor Davies has done, we believe he has been a critical check & balance against a Labour dominated council; the handing of the mayoralty to Labour would be an unhealthy situation for the Doncaster.

UKIP will therefore not be fielding a candidate in the mayoral election. We do however give notice that we shall fight the 2014 council elections vigorously, giving the people of Doncaster a vote for real change.

We wish the Mayor well in May.

Guy Aston
Branch Chairman

West Lothian refers to the anomaly that has arisen following devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland whereby non-English MPs get a say on decisions that relate only to England, but English MPs have no reciprocal say on devolved policy. In essence it is an anomaly rooted in the fact that after devolution the Westminster parliament doubles-up as a parliament for the UK and a parliament for England too.

If it were not for two factors the West Lothian question would be of interest only to constitutional anoraks.

Firstly, public opinion in England has shifted significantly since devolution. Survey evidence from the Institute for Public Policy Research shows that over time devolution has created a sense among the English electorate that they are getting a raw deal from a union that they believe over-privileges the other nations, particularly Scotland.

Significantly, research also suggests that the English no longer trust UK-wide political institutions like Westminster to pursue and defend English interests. Thus 81 per cent of English voters say they think that Scottish MPs should not be allowed to vote on English matters.

Politics is the second factor: the uneven territorial distribution of political power across the UK significantly politicises the debate on West Lothian, with reform believed to favour the Conservatives (who have few MPs outside of England) and punish Labour with its strong powerbase in Scotland and Wales.

So if public opinion is to be listened too then something must be done, but is it possible to do so in way that doesn’t lead to political inertia?

This is where McKay comes in. For a committee made up of the great and the good it deserves credit for listening to English concerns since its starting point is that the status quo is no longer tenable.

Shrewdly McKay calls on the House of Commons to adopt a principle which expects UK governments to act with the consent of English MPs when proposing English-only legislation. That would not give them a veto; the proposals sensibly reject giving English MPs a right to block English-only laws, as that would create constitutional chaos on the rare occasions when a UK government lacks a majority in England. But it would mean that for the first time England would be formally recognised in our constitutional arrangements.

Whether McKay’s proposals are considered sufficiently flexible to attract cross-party support will largely depend on the position of the Labour party. They believe that any attempt to curb the rights of Scottish MPs in the Commons will adversely affect their ability to form a UK government. Unsurprisingly therefore they refused to engage with the McKay process.

Labour strategists would do well to take a closer look at post-war electoral history which reveals that elections in which Scottish MPs have been decisive are relatively rare. Only on two occasions since the war has a Labour UK government being formed when it lacked a majority in England: these were the short-lived parliaments of 1964-66 and February-October 1974, when Labour had thin or negligible majorities in the Commons. In other words when Labour wins, it usually wins in England too.

Some will say why mess around with parliamentary procedure when England – like the other nations – should be given its own parliament. The flaw in this proposal is that it would likely destablise the union. An English Prime Minister, controlling most public spending, would soon be a bigger figure than David Cameron, the UK’s Prime Minister. Westminster would no longer be the focus of our national politics.

But the other major flaw with an English Parliament is that it would see a further concentration of power at the centre, which is the last thing England needs. The suffocating centralisation of the post-war period is the real curse of contemporary English governance.

Instead it would be far better too combine the workable approach McKay advances for placing greater emphasis on England at Westminster, with a radical dose of devomax within England itself. A powerful way of giving meaningful expression to rising English cultural and political sentiment would be to hand real control down from Whitehall to England’s cities and localities. Such a package would make for a fairer and more resilient union.

McKay Commission fails to answer West Lothian Question

The McKay Commission on the West Lothian Question has reported today with the conclusion that not addressing the West Lothian Question is unsustainable and that nothing should be changed to address the West Lothian Question.

British government puts Scot in charge of commission deciding whether Scots should vote on English laws

The report says that English-only legislation should be supported by a majority of British MPs representing constituencies in England and that they should pass a resolution saying that they’re not going to do it again.

And that’s it – no ban on British MPs from constituencies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland from voting on laws that are devolved in their own country, nothing to prevent a repeat of the shameful way Scottish MPs voted through foundation hospitals and university tuition fees for England.  The procedures of the British House of Commons “should be changes to encourage MPs to follow this approach” (my emphasis).

The report says that instead of requiring a majority of MPs representing constituencies in England to pass a bill affecting England only, they should just publish the voting record of MPs representing constituencies in England alongside the final result.

If a government was seen to have failed to attract the support of a majority of MPs from England [or England and Wales] for business affecting those interests, it would be likely to sustain severe political damage.

This is pie in the sky stuff from the Scotsman the Brits ironically put in charge of this English commission.  It was well publicised at the time and has continued to be well publicised that it was British MPs elected in Scotland who imposed tuition fees on English students yet despite all the campaigns and violent protests about them being introduced (and then tripled) there has been no mention of this fact by the campaigners, protesters or the media.  In fact, the executive summary of the report also fails to mention these votes, raising the prospect of it happening but then dismissing it by pointing out that the party with a majority in the British Parliament has only had a minority in England twice which is completely irrelevant.

Specifically it raises the possibility that a majority opinion among MPs from England on such laws could be outvoted by a UK-wide majority of all UK MPs. But it is extremely rare for this to happen. Since 1919, only in the short-lived parliaments of 1964–66 and February–October 1974 has the party or coalition forming the UK Government not also enjoyed a majority in England.

The report recognises that “people in England are unhappy about the existing arrangements and support change” but ignores – by cherry picking the surveys it quotes – the fact that the majority of that support for change is for an English Parliament.  It goes on to say that British MPs representing constituencies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should not be banned from voting on English matters because that “would create two different classes of MP” completely missing the point that there are already two different classes of MP – those who can vote on domestic affairs in their own constituency and those who can’t, those who can vote on laws for another country where the people affected can’t hold them to account and those who can be held to account by every voter their decisions affect.

The commission report says that the democratic deficit in England as a result of the botched devolution deal that left England out is accidental:

In the absence of change in the way the House of Commons works, the consequence – clearly unintended, but nonetheless important – may be to impede the voicing of any distinctively English concerns, or perceived concerns, that exist on wholly or mainly English matters.

I don’t believe for a moment that the way England is treated as a British colony is accidental and the refusal of the British government to release the minutes of the 1997 Cabinet meetings on devolution makes me all the more suspicious.  The spurious excuse for withholding the minutes is that it would undermine the principle of collective decision making but last week Margaret Thatcher’s papers from the Falklands war were published which showed that Ken Clarke – a current member of the Cabinet – opposed kicking the Argentinians out of the Falklands and favoured collaboration with them instead.  If those papers don’t undermine the principle of collective decision making then what does?

McKay and his researchers make it very clear that they have sought opinions from all parts of the UK on how England should be government:

Any reforms undertaken to respond to English concerns must therefore be mindful of possible impacts outside England and seek to mitigate such impacts.

In 1997, however, nobody in England was asked for an opinion on how Scotland and Wales should be governed.  We weren’t even asked for an opinion on how England should be government and we’ve been refused the right to voice our opinion on it ever since.

The report dismisses an English Parliament within a British federation out of hand, claiming that “the great majority of evidence submitted to [them] was, however, set firmly against the idea of an English Parliament”.  This “evidence” was:

There are no precedents of federal systems in which one component makes up over five-sixths of the overall population of a state. There is a wide view that such a big unit would destabilise the state as a whole, both in relation to the three much smaller units in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, but also in relation to the federal UK parliament and government, to which an English parliament would be likely to be a powerful rival.

While there is no precedent of a federal system with one constituent part comprising 80% of the population working, there is no precedent of it not working.  There is evidence of discrimination or poor treatment of a native population bringing down entire empires though so the commission is shown to be very selective in what “evidence” it considers.

The argument that an English Parliament would somehow dominate a federal British government is a nonsense – in a federal structure the English Parliament would be concerned only with English domestic affairs, the same as the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Northern Irish Assembly are now.  If a reserved matter was of such specific national interest that the English Parliament and one or more of the other national parliaments were at loggerheads over it then it is clearly something that should be devolved anyway.

Any federal system requires a delineation of competences, which are usually arbitrated by a supreme court that would be able to overrule the UK parliament, as well as binding the devolved institutions. This would be a radical departure from UK constitutional practice. In this and in other respects, the “massive upheaval in governmental arrangements that would be needed to create a new Parliament for 50 million people” would not appear a proportionate response to the current sense of disadvantage in England.

I fail to see the problem with a constitutional court and in fact proposed this as part of mycase for a British confederation – a solution that the McKay commission didn’t consider.  The British government (and devolved governments) should be bound by the law.  Changing the law to legitimise breaking the law is clearly wrong and a constitutional court should be able to bind a government in its judgements.  Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  Nobody and that’s why our politicians have been able to lie, cheat and thieve their way through their political careers with relative impunity.  A constitutional court is an eminently sensible suggestion.

Whether the creation of an English Parliament is considered by politicians and academics to be “proportionate” or not is irrelevant.  It is an integral part of the only two workable solutions to the democratic deficit experienced in England that maintains a British union and is what most polls show that most people in England want.

It seems unlikely in the current climate that citizens would favour having more politicians than now, or the costs associated with establishing a new institution.

The “more politicians, more cost” argument about an English Parliament is so discredited that it really shouldn’t have made it into this report containing “expert” evidence and opinion at all.  The vast majority of legislation currently passed by the British government is either English-only legislation now or would be under a federal system of government.  There is no need for over 650 British MPs with most of their work being the responsibility of another government.  Simply taking the number of British MPs representing constituencies in England and applying that number to a devolved English Parliament and redistributing the difference would result in no net increase in politicians but by being a bit more ambitious, the total number of politicians in the British and English parliaments could easily be decreased.

The cost is also a non-argument.  Former Tory MP, Chris Gill, wrote a paper on creating a British federation when he was still an MP.  The paper proposed turning the House of Commons into an English Parliament and the House of Lords into a federal British Parliament and found that in today’s money, it would save almost half a billion a year.

The report touches on cross-border effects of English legislation and uses that as a reason not to ban British MPs representing constituencies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland from voting on English laws.  It fails to examine the existing example of the Scottish government being given jurisdiction over sections of the River Tweed in England and its English tributaries which means English people accused of unauthorised fishing on an English river can be summoned to appear before a Scottish Sheriff in a Scottish court to be tried under Scottish law.

Cross-border effects of English legislation under the British government are also not fully explored.  The requirement of all young English people to remain in education until the age of 18 is a perfect example – the British government has passed this law without considering the cross-border effects resulting in there still being unanswered questions as to how people moving from England before finishing their post-16 education will continue to be educated in Scotland and Wales or if Scottish people will be exempted from post-16 education despite the fact that it comes into force this September.

EU legislation is given a brief mention, pointing out that it is applied differently to England than it is in Scotland, Wales and northern Ireland and that there is no differentiation between English and British interests.  The report fails to point out that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own representation to the EU.

So, that’s the report in all it’s inglorious mediocrity but what’s wrong with the proposal itself?  The proposals put forward by the report won’t actually change change anything in any material way.  The standing orders for committees might change but that’s just a framework.  Most English people have little interest in how these committees are formed, they’re bothered about the fact that British MPs representing constituencies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland get to vote on English laws and sometimes get to overrule the wishes of the majority of British MPs representing constituencies in England.  The McKay commission’s proposals don’t address this at all.  It isn’t even the unworkable “English Votes on English Laws” constitutional fudge, it’s a fudge of that fudge and a waste of everyone’s time, money and effort.

There are only three workable solutions to the democratic deficit experienced by England in the British union.  The first option and the one that causes the least constitutional upheaval is a federal structure which sees England given a devolved English Parliament with at least the same powers as the Scottish Parliament.  The second option is a more ambitious constitutional change, creating a British confederation.  The third option is English independence.  English Votes on English Laws and any of the variants proposed now or in the past just can’t be made to work.  A politician can’t exclusively represent British interests one day and exclusively represent English interests the next.  English laws need to be proposed, amended and voted on by politicians elected in England to represent English interests in an English government.  English Votes on English Laws would give us British politicians elected in England to represent British interests in the British government making British laws for England.  It would be an unworkable mess.

The unwritten brief of the McKay commission was to come up with a way of maintaining the status quo whilst appearing to be addressing the concerns of English people about who gets to make English laws.  In this respect, the commission has successfully met its objectives and the British government now has an “independent” report telling them that the answer to the West Lothian Question is to con English people into thinking that they’re doing something about it whilst doing absolutely nothing to address it.