Englishness, identity and social justice

Democracy and social justice are inseparable. Any socialist knows that. It’s why we saw the expansion of the pillars of social justice – free education, health, social security – following the expansion of universal suffrage. It’s why Labour is a Democratic Socialist party. It’s why it needs to be the party of English and British democratic reform.

Yet, the impression it has given over the last few days is that democratic change is something to be quarantined, decontaminated and then slowly released back into the wild. Instead, it wants to talk about social justice issues as these are what ‘really matter’ to voters. Constitutional change is for academic obsessives and the chattering classes. Give them a convention to talk themselves to death while we get on with the real business of saving the poor. No-one cares about English votes for English laws.

And this sounds intuitively correct. In many senses it has some justification. Social justice – powerful freedom – is the fundamental mission for the left. Much of what is driving discontent is about a grotesquely unequal and disempowering society. People want to feel a greater sense of security and control over their destinies. That is why policies such as an increase in the minimum wage are so important and right.

The problem though is with the ‘we will give you social justice’ approach. The degree to which our political institutions seem to diverge from people’s sense of identity and what is right is corrosive. A good social democratic programme of progressive reform is not going to put that right. We had one of those under the Blair/Brown Governments and political trust continued on its downward trajectory.

The problem is quite simple: people no longer want Governments that just give them goodies. They want political institutions that are aligned with their sense of self and justice. Without this legitimacy then the scope to fundamentally change a nation over a period of time is heavily constrained. Significant reform requires deep trust. Trust comes from working with people, with consent. Our political institutions are devoid of this trust.

This is why the question of English democracy is so important and not just a matter of the ‘obsessive chattering classes’. Instead, despair at political elites, a growing sense of English identity, a sense of injustice at asymmetry in the UK, and the politics of genuine grievance (that Ed Miliband has rightly identified) are coming together. Unless Labour has something more convincing to say on an English parliamentary process then the trust issue will become even greater and its social justice goals further away.

We have a generation of politicians who have cleaved to Britishness for fear at the nature of Englishness and because it was politically expedient to do so. Meanwhile, a more relaxed Englishness, albeit still with an undercurrent of anger, has grown. ‘The vow’ to Scotland has brought all this into sharp focus.

Labour is right to seek to establish a constitutional convention. But it will have to say something more convincing on an English parliamentary process before then. The minimum will be an openness to the McKay report. At its centre is the following:

“decisions at the United Kingdom level with a separate and distinct effect for England (or for England-and-Wales) should normally be taken only with the consent of a majority of MPs for constituencies in England (or England- and-Wales).”

It is not quite a veto for English MPs but would be a strong convention. No constitutional legislation should be passed until the constitutional convention has been completed. The consequences of McKay or McKay plus (with a veto) would be considered in a wider context. That includes devolution to Scotland. All should be passed in tandem. That does mean qualifying ‘the vow’. And just for the record, regional assemblies are a non-starter.

What’s more, agreeing to an English parliamentary process would be an act of self-confidence rather than defensiveness. “We do this because we are confident of winning a majority in England and in the UK. With this majority we will work with all the people of these isles to make this country a better place for all.”

Social justice, trust and identity are bound together inextricably. Labour used to know this. Somewhere along the line it forgot. It’s time to relearn. Unless Labour has something more positive to say about English democracy it will fail to grasp and hold the trust necessary to make its social justice aspirations a reality. Labour, with some laudable exceptions, doesn’t really do identity. It has to start – a more socially just nation depends on it.