I am not in the mood for writing a long analysis of this week's election results so will offer some brief thoughts instead.
First, Scotland is another country and when it's politics are defined by that issue above all others (which is why Labour is being squeezed out of consideration and the Tories have revived there) then independence is inevitably gong to follow one day.
Second, Labour did hold on, and it won heavily last time.
Third, I celebrate the win of Sadiq Khan. That was a victory for London as a wholes after a nasty campaign from Zac Goldsmith. The Crosby myth has been shattered.
Fourth, the Libdems are not coming back.
Fifth, the Greens are being noticed.
Sixth, UKIP has a worrying presence in many communities.
But what, overall? Simply this: the UK is not united, if ever it was. I have to question whether it will ever be so again. The idea that one day we may be four separate nations (in some combination or other) is one I now think plausible and maybe even desirable. But in that case London has to work out how it could live with England because that divide is very real indeed.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I’m not sure even England can withstand forever a metroland elite that treats the regions with disdain.
Hence my question about London
Perhaps five separate nations then!!!
Richard, I have always been in favour of Regional Government, and the old question “If not now, when?” has never been more pertinent or pressing.
I’m sure I have posted before (and if so, feel free to zap this, but certainly to convey my apologies to your readers for “droning on”) my view that there should be around 10 Regional Parliaments in a Federal Britain (perhaps to be called the “United States of Britain”, or if people don’t like that, as sounding too like America/USA, how about “The British Isles Federation”?
4 of the “Parliaments” already exist, one actually (Scotland), and 3 potentially, by being upgraded from Assemblies, namely
2) the GLA – which, once upgraded, should absorb the City of London, leaving the current mediaeval flummery in place, as a tourist attraction, and encompassing the whole old GLC area, ie Middlesex to the North and Surrey to the South (unless this leads to imbalance, which it could – subject to negotiation and fine tuning)
3) The Welsh Assembly (extended to cover Cornwall too, which historically was known in some quarters as “West Wales”, with which is has close cultural connections)
4) The Northern Irish Assembly
The capitals of each of these 4 would not change.
The remaining 6 should be (and I’m SURE there will be keen disagreement on some, but it’s the principle that I would like to establish)
5) Cumbria (covering Lancashire as well), with Liverpool as its capital
6) Northumbria – the ancient area – with York as its capital (I can already hear complaints from Geordies! So let’s be open to discussion)
7. Mercia – the ancient area – with its capital in Birmingham
8. East Anglia – covering the area already under discussion as a possible place to have an elected Mayor!! – with its capital either in Norwich or Cambridge (again I can hear complaints from Ipswich and Peterborough!)
9. Wessex – ancient area – with its capital in Bristol? Or Salisbury?
10. The Saxon Shore + Kent, Sussex and Hampshire, with its capital in Winchester?
All elected on PR, as referred to in Matt’s comment below, probably using STV, but open to discussion.
Then, abolish the House of Lords, and replace it with a Senate, perhaps, like the German Bundesrat, drawn from these Regional Parliaments in some way, or as a delegated assembly, based on electoral interests such as e.g. the arts, sport and culture, so that “experts” could be brought into it, rather than solely elected representatives (I posted on this before, with a House of Representatives = RMP’s and a House of Delegates = DMP’s, which soon produced the comment that it would be a case of Rumpers versus Dumpers! Ah me! The pitfalls that await one!!
I further suggested (and I suspect I HAVE posted this idea before), that legislation could be initiated in either the new Regional Senate, or in one of the Regional Parliaments, but to become law it would need to be passed by, say, 6 of the 10 Regional Parliaments, when it would become binding on the whole Federation.
The main point is that federation IS coming to the British Isles, whether Westminster wants it or not. As I’ve already said, a Brexit vote would see not just Scotland, but Wales, and even Northern Ireland, breaking away from England, and applying to stay in the EU. Northern Ireland, in particular, would NOT want to produce a renewed explosion of cross-border smuggling and gangsterism, such as would undoubtedly occur, if The Republic were in the EU and Northern Ireland were not! It doesn’t bear thinking of!
These types of radical idea do now need serious consideration
Andrew, to me as a German, the model you are proposing sounds very familiar. Having this kind of federal structure comes more natural to Germany than to the UK, given their history, but I do agree that it would help to resolve many of the tensions that are deeply embedded in the UK’s current parliamentary system.
The one point that I would disagree on is the idea of introducing binding legislation for the whole federation by a majority of regional parliaments. This could very quickly lead to bitter divisions not unlike the issues we face now, for example if six English regions vote for legislation that disadvantages Scotland. This would be even worse than the current situation, as it could lead to cumulative majorities:
Imagine the 10 regions to have roughly equal populations (which would be very difficult to maintain). In 6 of them 55% of the parliamentarians (representing the will of their constituencies) vote for a piece of legislation, while 45% vote against. For the sake of the argument let’s assume that 100% of the other four parliaments vote against it. The law would be passed with only 33% of parliamentarians across the country being in favor of it!
Presumably the federal parliament (i.e. House of Commons) would continue to exist and limit such mishaps, but one parliament passing legislation that would affect another region is always going to cause disunion.
Better to have a senate composed of the regional parliaments (by proportion of their party composition) to vote on federal matters as a second chamber, while the regional parliaments only deal with laws in their own (substantial) devolved remit. This would be equivalent to the German constitutional arrangement.
I really think this is an idea worth discussing, but the many practical issues that you have already mentioned may make it too easy to shut down.
The ‘resurgent’ Tory is a strange and easily misidentified beast. Bottom line is the D’Hondt PR system used in this election throws up anomalies whereby the largest party can increase vote share and still lose seats. The Tories came a close third in actual vote share, but a definite, but distant,runner up in seats. Scotland will come to realise just how bad the Tory Opposition are thanks to D’Hondt.
I don’t see the problems you suggest with D’Hondt in these results.
The SNP list vote was down from 44% to 42% (though their vote in the constituencies was up), which resulted in their share of total seats falling from 53% to 49%. That is the combined effect of winning more constituency seats and fewer list seats; but the aim of D’Hondt is to deliver approximate proportionality in total seats.
Labour’s vote share was ahead of the Tories in the constituencies (23% to 22%), but behind in the list (23% to 19%), hence behind in total seats (24% to 19%). Which is as expected: share of total seats approximately matching share of list vote.
The Labour Party’s problems in Scotland were the worst example of their problems elsewhere: Glasgow had become so ‘safe’ a stronghold that it became a parachute school for the politically-favoured, and a citadel of cavalier disdain for an electorate who always voted Labour and would surely always do so.
The best of Scotland’s Labour Parliamentarians were bland identikit careerists, talentless and out-of-touch; the worst were arrogant, amoral and toxic.
Speak to anyone who ever had the misfortune to encounter senior Scottish Labour politicians in person: few will recall them fondly.
There are reasons that the SNP created a successful grass-roots base of activists that would, in other times, have been the decisive electoral advantage of the Labour Party in the marginal constituencies: ‘politics is personal’ is first among them.
Second place would go to principles and inspiration: Scotland’s Labour Party were and are an uninspiring lot, and dismally inept campaigners.
This was seen, all too clearly, in the Labour Party’s ‘No’ campaign.
So much for the negatives: what’s positive in Scottish politics?
What Scotland’s got that London, England, and Wales haven’t is a credible alternative: a centrist party with an acceptable track record in local (and now national) administration.
It’s like a beacon in the landscape: hope, and credibility in politics.
I would say the SNP are rather mediocre, but they are far superior to their rivals and politics is relative; even UKIP would be positively inspirational in Belarus, Zimbabwe or Belize.
Unfortunately, UKIP are here; and they are quite successful in the media at placing themselves as an alternative.
Their success in doing so is mostly due to negative media coverage of the actual alternatives – outright exclusion of the Greens, and systematically negative coverage of Labour.
But, in fairness to UKIP and the media, Labour have in recent decades looked less like centre-left social liberals with an oddball minority of lefties, and more like arrogant neoliberals and privatisers; and Scotland got the worst of that.
I say Scotland did, but you might want to take a closer look at housing policy in Southwark: Mayor Khan has an appalling problem on the doorstep of his office which he cannot solve without a battle in the Labour Party.
For positives elsewhere, look to Birmingham: it’s a very pluralist city and quite unforgiving of the ‘safe seat’ arrogance that damages our mainstream parties. Success in that environment arises from a broad appeal, consensus-building, and the confidence that comes of competence.
However, even England’s second-most successful regional economy can be damaged and driven to political despair by toxic politics in Westminster: but that is all about a problen in the centre of power, not an indication that the UK has a widespread tendency to centrifugal disintegration.
That we are so disparate is evident. To challenge, but do so in a mature, non violent way is what I would wish. But violence does bring results in many instances, unfortunately. Are we witnessing a massive shift that will take years, that will remove TTIP, trim down the gravy train of the EU and the Lords, become a more classless society, or will greed and privilege still rule. My fairy tales, what am I like.
Human beings/relationships seem to be governed by two factors:
1. Our differences to each other.
2. Our similarities to each other.
Good governance by able and moral politicians realises the latter; political and economic opportunists (I now think of them as ‘anti-democratists’) realise the former.
You don’t have to try too hard to understand who is unfortunately in power at the moment.
I’m wish Khan all the best in the world. But be believe you me I will be watching him very closely indeed.
I would rather we were having a referendum on PR instead of EU membership,
FPTP is perpetuating the two party system and holding back the evolution of a more representative democracy in the UK,
I think people were genuinely worried that New Labour and the Conservatives were going to merge into a one party state,
hence the rise of other parties like SNP, UKIP, The Greens,
The problem at root may well be the myths about economics and economic choices that ALL parties are signing up to- other than that we have bogus lowest common denominator from UKIP that answer to the need for simplistic explanations.
The issue of an alienated white working class needs to be addressed properly and with sophistication otherwise we will hava simmering resentment. The ‘liberal’ middle class’ treating them as ‘ignorati’ is no answer and will only push people further right as it is doing.
“The ‘liberal’ middle class’ treating them as ‘ignorati’ is no answer and will only push people further right as it is doing”.
Really?
It’s a chicken and egg thing for me Simon – speaking as one from a working class background who has crossed into the lower middle class.
These people are not being pushed to the right by liberals who know better and can think for themselves.
They are being pushed to the right by those higher up the food chain – upper middle class and the powerful rich – who manipulate these people – those in politics and the media.
And those so-called ‘middle class liberals’ you speak of also get regularly pilloried in the press (and in parliament) that is governed by the increasingly upper middle class and rich too – just read the Daily Mail for example.
You seem to suffer from the affliction of most people (particularly the working class) these days – too willing to blame anyone but yourselves and too much in the thrall of money and wealth to ever question your so-called social-economic betters (the upper middle class and increasing super rich) whom you aspire to be. You can’t question these people because you would be questioning your own dreams wouldn’t you?
So the establishment provides a list of usual suspects for you to blame which you accept gratefully:
Immigrants
The EU
The disabled
Those on benefits
Public sector workers
The Scottish
If I had a pound for every working class person I’ve seen cheering on policies aimed at these groups by this Government and the coalition I would be very rich.
Poor you. Another blind man shooting at the world. Put your gun down, sit down and have a good think. And the first thing to do is to blame yourself. Blame yourself for not knowing enough. And having accepted that (as an alcoholic would have to accept their situation) then set about doing something about it.
Finally, it is not just the ‘working class’ who are problem. It is the middle class too. Too comfortable, too complacent, too worried about what to buy next, too concerned about which school to choose, too easily bought to carry out the Government’s dirty work whilst their rights and public services are gradually tipped down the toilet by their economic superiors (because that is what class has become in the UK now – how much money you have – not your ‘breeding’ or education).
I know both domains. Too clever and informed to be working class and not posh enough to be middle class. I sit on the fence and my nuts hurt all of the time and that is why I cannot let your comments above go unchallenged.
Sorry!
“The idea that one day we may be four separate nations (in some combination or other) is one I now think plausible and maybe even desirable.”
Surely not desirable? Who’s going to get the fiat currency and not have the long job of creating another?
Separation has in effect become a method of bipassing the real problems of the constitutional and electoral mess that is Westminster.
I think that manageable…
Regional government does not deny a federal role
Indeed it doesn’t says this Brit living in Southern Oregon.
All good stuff, especially point 5 about the Greens being noticed – their best ever result in the London mayoral election. I suspect (and sincerely hope) that the Lizard of Oz has masterminded its last campaign given how disastrously it turned out. Although disappointed that it was the Conservative candidate who benefitted I was relieved on a local level that the notoriously dodgy Mr Bett did not retain his position as Norfolk Police ad Crime Commissioner.
Still dubious. Federalism, when England has a population so much larger than Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, is likely to require some sort of regional solution for England – and that quickly degenerates into a so called postcode lottery as the country is so physically small. Oregon (for example) is bigger on its own than the entirety of the UK!
The problem with ‘Regionalism’ as described by Andrew Dickie is that Scotland is not a Region. It is a country, with all the institutions and history of a state. That is the foundation for the current situation in Scotland. With due respect to Wales and Northern Ireland none of the other ‘Regions’ has that foundation. Regionalism and federalism are touted largely because of the Scottish initiative and Scotland is unlikely to surrender that initiative for a place alongside East Anglia (no offence) as a UK Region. It is making its own way, just like any other country.
@BSA
I entirely support your argument concerning Scotland, and if it chooses to sit outside my proposed “British Isles Federation”, fine, and I’m glad to see you recognise the potential for Wales to be a separate nation,its failure to ve accepted as such being the result of profound, and active, hostility to Welsh nationhood by successive English (advisedly!!) monarchs, culminating in the savage oppression of Welah culture by the Welsh Tudor dynasty, who wanted to deny their origins.
However, nothing of what you say gainsays the arguments for the undoubtedly coming federalisation of a regionalised England, probably joined to Wales and Northern Ireland by federal ties.
I can say for sure that a Yorkshire faced with the choice of continuing to be ruled from Westminster, or to be rule from Edinburgh as the capital of an independent Scotland, would decisively opt for Edinburgh, given the closer cultural ties of Yorkshire with the Lowlands and Northumberland, than with the faraway Westminster elite. Indeed, at the time of the Scottish indy-ref there was a petition asking for the North of England to seek permission to join am independent Scotland.
Federalism IS coming, I am sure, as more and more independent Mayoralities are created, that could easily be transformed into federal parliamentary regions.
London mayoral election still top of the home page of BBC News.
It’s an unfortunate cultural and political reflex we have in one of the most centralised countries in the world.
It’s one of the major reasons that the political map has been withdrawn.
On R4 they i/vd some voters in Thurrock. After a Sikh lad who said that, despite the religious antipathy, he was glad that Sadiq had got the job, they I/vd 2 women who said “its disgusting, it shouldn’t be allowed, I mean this is Britain”. When asked to expand their “thoughts” they said “well, he’ll do right by his own won’t he?”.
The point, I think, is that, the right wing of the Labour party will tell you that that’s the sort of working class voter we have been losing & need to win back. My view is that we neither need nor want the bigoted, ignorant moron vote!
Also, were we to go out & try for the bigoted, ignorant moron vote we’d lose more votes among people who aren’ t bigoted, ignorant morons
I heard that interview
She wasn’t a racist, of course. She said so
I am probably going to sound a bit naive here but I think it is important to talk to people like this and show them a different answer to their issues or a different narrative to what they see happening around them because if we just look down on them they are all snapped up by the scary right and lost to us for good. Xenophobia is often a simple answer to complex changes in society.
“The Crosby myth has been shattered.”
Shame about the premature knighthood