Well, before my response, a correction. I was one of the Scousers mentioned at the beginning of their piece, desperate to rid Liverpool Football Club of owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett last year. But our problem was not their nationality. It was that they treated fans like mugs. Like TV property moguls they bought, speculating that the price of the club would rise and they could sell it on. When they went into negative equity, they tried to get us to pay the spiralling debt. They had to go: not because they were US nationals, but because they were bad for our club.
This is the first problem with Jon and Jonathan’s analysis. They are right about the need for community. The Labour party was created to fight for our common good, against private vested interest. And when private interest in the shape of the financial sector caused great damage to public good, people rightly expect Labour to do much more than the Tories. The public expects us to stand up against wealthy vested interests. But this argument is not sufficient to make the case for English identity politics that the two Jons describe.
Their correct description of our anger against big business and the lack of care forces of global capital have for quality of life doesn’t necessarily make us nationalists.
Secondly, Labour did not uniformly lose in England. England is a diverse country. And in 2010, its election results were also diverse. In Chesterfield, the Labour vote fell only 1.6 per cent; but across the Pennines in Chorley, Labour shed 7.6 per cent of their voters. In Cleethorpes, Labour was down nearly 11 per cent; but down in Croydon, Malcolm Wicks’s vote increased by 2.5 per cent. With TV debates, expenses crises and a global economic shock ahead of the poll, this election was hard to call. The drivers behind the voters’ choices are equally hard to determine now. To say there is an ‘English’ political scene, crying out for someone to stand up for England, is just not factually correct, with so much divergence across towns, cities and counties.
It is important to ask what impact different local prospects had on the election. In my own Wirral constituency, where many are still employed in manufacturing, I have no doubt that high-profile support from Peter Mandelson and Gordon Brown for this sector through the recession helped me secure an unexpected Labour victory in a seat that was Tory until 1997. Perhaps the poor results in some of the former coalfield areas like Ashfield (Labour vote down Labour 15 per cent) and Leigh (nearly 10 per cent) stem from a perception that we had not done enough here.
This is an empirical question – one that needs more research. But I fear that over-simplification of our identity will not help us illuminate the losses of the last election as we work out how to win the next one.
Nobel laureate Amartya Sen wrote Identity and Violence about the error in politics of prioritising just one part of a person’s identity above all others. I am English. But I’m also a woman, a red head, a shoe-addict, from Merseyside, a politician, the daughter of public-sector workers, a philosophy graduate, and a Fair Trade supporter. My identity is multifaceted and so is everyone else’s.
Sen says: ‘The insistence…on a choiceless singularity of human identity not only diminishes us all, it also makes the world more flammable.’ He goes on to explain that he does not mean that we are all the same, but that our complex interconnected range of identities makes it easier to find alliances. He says, ‘The main hope of harmony in our troubled world lies in the plurality of our identities which cut across each other and work against sharp divisions.’
So, the relationship between our cultural identities and our voting intentions is a complicated one. We can know who we are, and celebrate our identities without the over-simplification that risks division. An instruction to Labour to ‘fight for an England which belongs to the English’ ignores the real political challenge we have now: to define that which unites us all, and spell out a vision for everyone that meets the varied expectations of our common humanity.
Alison, I agree that identity is far more complex that nationality alone. I also agree to an extent that reductionism can be used to aid election campaign strategy in relatively small communities, such as the example you gave concerning your own constituency. But with regard to your conclusion in the last paragraph: that we must ‘define that which unites us all’, and then presumably pay deference to that quality when deciding upon which political technique to employ nationally; would that not make you guilty of the same over-reliance on reductionist methods, and consequently vulnerable to similar attacks, as you yourself launched against the Jon’s article, albeit to a lesser extent. Does is not follow from your argument that broad reductionist reasoning has its place, such as in party slogans; but Labour’s main effort, when conducting election campaigns, should be in effect modular, where in each constituency has it’s own strategy based on less diverse, thus more reliable, reductionist reasoning. It appears that when broad reductionist reasoning is used exclusively it seems helpful because it produces messages that the electorate can identify with instantly, but in a limited and vague way, and at worst simply cosmetic and ultimately ineffective. As I understand it we were of the same mind concerning this up until the last paragraph. No matter how many qualities that one identifies in the public that appears plural it seems ever the fate of generalisations to alienate some part of that which they aim to summarise. Moreover, this deficiency grows in its potency the larger and more complex the thing is that one aims to reduce. Perhaps is you were just to clarify your last paragraph.
“To say there is an ‘English’ political scene, crying out for someone to stand up for England, is just not factually correct, with so much divergence across towns, cities and counties.” – you should get out more! The problem with the left, is that those that disagree with them apparently don’t count. 68% of the people of England want an English Parliament – even the BBC acknowledges that – how loud are we supposed to shout before you lot listen.
The author is correct that there was a diverse pattern of swings from Labour in England at the last election; although this glosses over the fact that the losses were generally greater in the South of England than the North, with the paradoxical exception of the North-East, where Labour’s vote share went down by 9.3% – and also the fact that Labour’s share nonetheless went down to a far greater extent across England as a whole (-7.4%) than in either Scotland (+2.5%) or Wales (-6.5%). So national factors do matter, and Labour will overlook them at its peril. However, if you follow the author’s reasoning to its logical conclusion, then any discussion that is based on examining trends and opinions that are common to a particular national community as such is invalidated, which must presumably include any consideration of ‘Britain-wide’ trends – or is ‘Britain’ implied in the terms ‘that which unites us all’ and ‘our common humanity’, as if ‘Britain’ is almost a universal concept not a particular national community? In what way is generalising at the British level any more valid or helpful than generalising at the English level; and isn’t focusing on English political trends and priorities more helpful than extrapolating to the ‘British-national’ level, where there are clearly so many differences between England, Wales and Scotland? And, with all her multiple identities, where would the author situate the relationship between (her) Englishness and Britishness, which she conveniently omits from her discussion? Is she (more) English or British, and to what extent does her whole argument hang from her answer to that question? National identity does matter, even if the author seeks to keep it out of her account of herself and her politics.
Junius, anything with the word England on is to Labour and now the Lib Cons. a no go area, of course they all know England must have her own Parliament, they would all be shouting from the roof tops if any other country in the world was denied one.
Labour couldn’t care less about England when they were in power, it’s a bit late to start pretending they care now. Besides using England as a cash cow for the rest of the UK, it deliberately and cynically chose to leave England out of devolution, instead trying to break it up into regions, which thankfully the people of England overwhelmingly rejected. Labour have treated England with contempt. Tuition fees were forced on England by Blair and Brown using the votes of Labour MPs with Scottish seats to overturn the wishes of MPs with English seats. Mass immigration was forced on England whether we wanted it or not, all in a deliberate attempt to dilute our nationality. England is the only country in Europe ot to be recognised as a seperate country in it’s own right, unlike Scotland, Wales and NI. England need’s it’s own parliament to give it the same constitutional rights and recognition as the rest of the UK but to do this, Labour know they might never be in power again. Labour have proved they couldn’t care less about England, all they care about are themselves.
An English Parliament would marginalise Labour in England, Junius. This is just one of a multitude of reasons why they will strain every sinew to see it doesn’t happen.
Of course ‘identity’ is multi-faceted. For many of us, ‘home town’ is the core identity. But we live in England. The English are a nation. The British government would prefer to submerge English identity in British. Jon Cruddas is only recognising that the people of England have a right to be heard. They have a right to their own national identity. And this in turn needs a political expression and a focus. This is something denied in the UK only to the people of England. Yet patriotism can be one of the planks of a civilised society. Who wants to trash their own country? Recognising the rise of Englishness is not ‘risky’. Failing to recognise it or worse, suppressing it, is risky because the people of England will not put up with it indefinitely and some may feel that they have to resort to extreme measures to assert their national identity.
Dear Ms McGovern Thanks for this article – I can’t tell you how good it is to hear a Labour MP refer to England as a country. Actually after the Blair and Brown years where even the word “England” seemed to be taboo this is refreshing. England is a diverse country you say and I agree – this makes the English a diverse people – I’m more than happy with that. However there are plenty of things which unite the diverse English. You point out that identities are multi faceted – again I agree. Your own identity comprises of being “a woman, a red head, a shoe-addict, from Merseyside, a politician, the daughter of public-sector workers, a philosophy graduate, and a Fair Trade supporter” as well as being English. However being a woman, a red head, a shoe-addict, a politician, the daughter of public-sector workers, a philosophy graduate or a Fair Trade supporter have zero effect on the services you get, the funding you get or the democracy you get – or more accurately in all three instances – don’t get. Being English means you pay £7.20 for a prescription – free and much cheaper elsewhere in the “UK”. Being English means facing £9000 a year in tuition fees – free in Scotland and heavily discounted in Wales and Northern Ireland. Being English means paying for care and facing having to sell your home to pay for care in your old age – free and cheaper elsewhere in the “UK”. Being English means paying hospital parking fees – free elsewhere. It means paying road and bridge tolls, for dental check-ups and eye tests. It means the British government funds you less than someone in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland via the temporary and by the admission of it’s creator defunct Barnett Formula. Being English means having your green and pleasant land sold off to the highest bidder by the British government. Being English means that you are governed by the UK parliament made up of unaccountable Scottish, Welsh & Northern Irish MPs as well as English MPs Being English means having your country undemocratically balkanised into “regions”. Being English means never being consulted on re-establishing your own parliament – unlike the Scots, Welsh & Northern Irish. Being English means even your own MP won’t stand up in parliament and say any of the above is unfair for fear of damaging the so called “Union”. As far as I’m concerned what has damaged the “Union” is British politicians pretending that England doesn’t exist. This is the worst part for me – the insult. England has done more than any other nation to create parliamentary democracy, the mother of parliaments is not the British parliament it’s the English parliament. But now England is reduced to one of the few nations on earth without it’s own parliament. So there are plenty of things which unite the diverse English. We’re all together in having zero recognition, zero representation and zero voice. We need our own English parliament back and when the the people of England wake up to this just cause we will have it back as well.
I’m English not British. I’ve arrived at this position after 13 years of devolution that dumped a tsunami of disadvantages on English, while still expecting them to pay for the benefits the rest of the UK enjoy. The list is lengthy, but the most scandalous is the dozen or more cancer drugs denied to patients on the English Health Service, that are freely available on the Scottish Health Service. Bowel cancer screening in Scotland is available for 50-74 year-olds, but only for 60-69 year-olds in England. We all know about tuition fees, but toll roads and bridges exist only in England. Hospital car park charges don’t exist in Scotland. In fact all the benefits in Wales and Scotland denied the English is too long to post here. Also, although the English are hostile to the regionalisation of their country, it was still forced upon us by Labour and is continuing surreptitiously under the coalition, with the merger of council CEOs and services in the name of cost-cutting. Once again the English people are left out of the debate. So not only are they expected to die for the sake of the UK for lack of medicines, they are expected to lose their country too. Hazel Blears cried crocodile tears about the Engish white working class being left out. This was when it was likely she would lose her seat. Now she has been relected she has reverted to her anti-English stance, so typical, not only of Labour, but also the Lib Dems and Tories. MPs in England have not merely betrayed their constituents, they have actively worked against them. The unelected House of Lords, that does not scrutinise the devolved chambers anyway, should be replaced with an elected English Parliament. Memebers of that place should be made to sign an oath promising to make the interests of the English people paramount, just as Gordon Brown and other Scottish former ministers, signed the Scottish Claim of Right promising to make the interests of the Scottish people paramount. The worst enemies of the English are the British.
I’m Irish through and through,yet I was born here. My mother’s care is paid for by her local council (West Sussex) because her income falls under the set level.I like the idea of Britain,although I would like to see a united Ireland,my mother was from Belfast my father from Louth ,and after university in Dublin simply quit the country as so many others had to do. (because of lack of opportunity) Where I live in central London ,could easily be Cairo when you look around but I so prefer that to the lack of integration one sees now round the corner in Nottinghill .The “English” thing feels retrogressive to me,not the modern world and the English I believe ,if anything are bigger than that.
D mcardle,if this is all you think of England ,well you should perhaps be living in “Cairo” or better still Ireland, it makes me wonder why you bothered to comment on this article
The English “thing” feels “retrogressive” to you, d.mcardle? Why? In the age of devolution, the political landscape is changing – and the English, the people of England, have been actively discriminated against by the UK Government. The English are the citizens of England, regardless of individual backgrounds, and divide and rule is one of the main weapons of politicians and others who seek to ensure that England does not get a fair deal and the UK gravy train rumbles on. You state that you are “Irish through and through” – what does that mean? To me, it simply means that you were born in Ireland. To then say that Englishness is “retrogressive” feels more than a little unfair. I dream of an England with an inclusive civic identity, as diverse and vibrant as ever, yet at the same time with a long history, steeped in new and old traditions, and an English Government whose first concern is the people of England.
The English “thing” feels “retrogressive” to you, d.mcardle? Why? In the age of devolution, the political landscape is changing – and the English, the people of England, have been actively discriminated against by the UK Government. The English are the citizens of England, regardless of individual backgrounds, and divide and rule is one of the main weapons of politicians and others who seek to ensure that England does not get a fair deal and the UK gravy train rumbles on. You state that you are “Irish through and through” – what does that mean? To me, it simply means that you were born in Ireland. To then say that Englishness is “retrogressive” feels more than a little unfair. I dream of an England with an inclusive civic identity, as diverse and vibrant as ever, yet at the same time with a long history, steeped in new and old traditions, and an English Government whose first concern is the people of England.
but I love England.I think England ,Ireland , Scotland ,and Wales are all great countries.And I ‘bother to comment ‘ because we are all struggling to find the right thing to believe in ,Politicians have to deal with people’s views and feelings being mixed and steer a way through for the best. (and I meant a peaceful Cairo)
Alison, thanks for your thoughtful response. I’m aware of the different Englands and the Southern Discomfort debate. I think you let the New Labour government off much too lightly. It embraced global capital during its period on office and its seen by many people as a contributor to the mess we’re in now. It’s not enough to point out how Mandelson did a bit here and Brown a bit there. On the larger scale Labour perpetuated and in places deepened and extended the neo-liberal model of capitalism it inherited from the Thatcher period. My problem with your description of our multifaceted identities is it has no politics. Sure you might be a shoe -addict but it carries no weight in the political sphere. There is never going to be a shoe-ist liberation front. Nor one for red-heads. Its an argument that avoids the real struggle over power and cultural meaning. The identities that do allocate and embody power, significant life shaping cultural meaning and domination are those around our race, class and gender where they are contested and fought over. Sen has nothing to say about this political struggle around meaning and power relations. He avoids the issues of commodification and exploitation because he supports liberal market capitalism. While I value much of what he says in the end Sen’s work maintains the status quo albeit in a more sensitive form. It’s not about simplifying our complex identities but articulating a political unity out of our differences in order to stand up to the forces of financial capital and unaccountable corporate power. Does this mean Englishness, Welshness, Scottishness. Yes, it will be an important element of it because these identities contain tradition, memory, a sense of belonging to a larger collectivity and so the basis for a sense of future. They speak for community, rootedness and locality. This does not exclude different regional and ethnic identities. What gives it substance is the idea of the common good and the practice of democracy. Both these have been undermined over the last few decades and Labour’s task must be to re-build them both.
Do you think tge same about Wales. Are you against the idea of a Welsh Assembly? The Welsh are top get yet another referendum. When are we English going to get one? Wales is much more diverse than ENgland. They don’t even speak the same languagein North and South Wales. Why not disband the Welsh Assembly/Goverment and set up a N. Wales Welsh speaking assembly and a S.Wales English speaking assemably?
“England does not get a fair deal” but England used to rule the world! Australia,India,large parts of Africa ,the far east, Caribbean , North America at one time and Ireland of course. The lie of the land now is indeed a new world shaped by the wealth that puts us in 6th. position because of our imperialist past.People seem to imagine there should be no consequences from history…who brought opium to China? who built the railways in America(the Chinese ) We made so many interventions all over the world . Well to some extent its payback time ,but we are intelligent people we can change and grow to accomodate what you seem to see as a cultural onslaught,I have faith that we have the imagination.
Here is something that unites us (maybe not you though). CLASS. All talk of nationalism is one step away from fascism, and all nationalism is inherently racist. But CLASS, yes CLASS, thats what unites us as a common experience, a common politics and a common interest. I think If labour had done a better job of providing jobs and homes, then maybe people wouldnt be disenfranchised enough to start talking about absurdities like nationhood, or englishness or any of that capitalist elite nonsense.
It would be interesting to hear what Alison McGovern MP, MP for Wirral South had to say about some of the comments. I don’t suppose there’s much chance of that. Is she happy about her constituents getting less funding than people in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland? Does she think it’s fair the prescription rip-off? The old folks selling their home for care? Students paying fees? And all the other disadvantages her constituents have just because they’re English?
d.mcardle you ask who brought opium to China? Wouldn’t be the British by any chance would it? The Welsh and the Scottish were heavily involved in the British empire. When do they get payback?