The search for an English politics of identity, locality and democracy

The debate about nationhood will finish on September 18^th. When Scotland rejects independence, we can all breathe a sigh of relief and get back to fighting the Tories. The Scottish question will be settled and Labour can recline and contemplate its huge structural political advantage. The march to social justice can then continue on its relentless upwards path.

But it won’t be quite that simple. Firstly, let’s not discount the chances of a vote for independence. It may not be the most likely of scenarios but it is most definitely not impossible. Should the ‘yes’ campaign fall short, it may not do so by a particularly large margin. The instability of the political settlement on these isles remains. Scotland will continue its inexorable drift away from England. While it may well remain formally part of the United Kingdom, it would approach de facto independence (or ‘devo-max’) gradually. The notion that this will not impact the Westminster settlement that currently so benefits Labour is fanciful.

You’d think that with such a monumental strategic defeat on the horizon that Labour would be deeply engaged in some really creative political thinking. What would a new English political settlement look like? How does Labour calibrate its appeal to an England that has always had a fragmented identity? What is Labour’s account of English political sentiment? Should it look to govern alone in a new Westminster or would it have to be in partnership? Can centre-left notions of social justice be a majoritarian proposition in a new England? Where do notions of Englishness intersect centre-left notions of social justice and is there a new combination that can work?

With a few notable exceptions such as Jon Cruddas, Guy Lodge at IPPR and Professor Michael Kenny, Labour is not even sniffing these questions in the wind, let alone taking them on wholeheartedly. This is precisely what happened in Scotland. It was left to Alex Salmond to own Scottishness and an assertive yet generous new Scotland. Labour thought the same old social democratic patter would suffice. And this was in social democratic Scotland! What would happen in divided England? It will all depend on who seizes this debate as Scotland’s drift away continues.

There are some basic steps that Labour could take. It could drop its suspicion of Englishness. It’s always there, unsaid. Britishness is seen as plural and Englishness is seen as an ethnic identity. It is no such thing of course but there is latent feeling towards it. Labour needs to find its English heart – a welcoming and accepting Englishness of difference.

Given that Englishness is a plural and fragmented identity, a devolution settlement is needed. This shouldn’t be one-way; localities should be able to demand powers and resources as well as being granted them on the favour of the centre. The plan for regional Government failed precisely because it didn’t understand the texture of Englishness. England is a country of villages, towns, cities, and counties. These are aspects of cultural identity and not simply administrative units. Some may not have the critical mass to organise expenditure in significant areas of public provision. If they come together, they could do. It is in its villages, towns, cities and counties that Englishness is to be found.

Finally, there needs to be a new national political settlement. A plural nation needs pluralist political institutions. Constitutional reform has previously been governance driven. This is pretty passionless stuff. However, as part of new national settlement it becomes something rather more energising. This is not simply going to be a piece of legislation followed by a referendum. It is has to be a genuine attempt to engage all aspects of civil society in a simple question: what sort of nation are we and what type of democracy flows from that?

Trauma leads to political disruption and a possibility of change. Whether it is a slow or sudden departure of Scotland from UK political arrangements, this is the trauma that England and its major centre-left party, Labour, will have to face. A voice for Englishness will emerge in the next few years (and rather sooner should Scotland opt for independence). We should hope that it is a voice of pluralism and social justice rather than chauvinism and antagonism. The centre-left has been given fair warning.

But surely Labour should be concentrating on fairness, equality, and public services? The problem with this argument is that the nature of institutions of social justice flow from the nature of democracy. Greater social justice flowed from expansion of universal suffrage. Risk an English political system defined by majoritarian Conservatism and the toll on the weakest will be felt across the decades, across generations. Instead, there has to be a way of bringing more voices, more of the dispossessed into a new English politics of identity, locality and democracy. It is from this that greater social justice flows rather than from pretending that the politics of the United Kingdom is unshifting. No wonder we hear a plaintive ‘stay with us’. We fear what ‘us’ may be. Fear no more.