The Tories could be in power for a generation
—We all expect the Tories to pull every trick in the book to retain the power they unexpectedly won by a short head in May. They will, of course, complement timely Treasury bribes with redrawn constituency boundaries.
But after years of being outflanked by other parties, Tory strategists are determined to increase their lead next time. And to date Labour has been blinkered to one tactic creeping up on the blind side that, if left to sprint unchallenged, will leave us still further behind.
Ministers have moved quickly and quietly on ‘English votes for English laws’, seizing on the sense that English voters and their elected representatives have been left behind by devolution of power to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Defining what constitutes an English law is very complex, due largely to the United Kingdom nations’ interdependence. Yet the Tories’ narrative oversimplifies things, claiming Evel is about ‘fairness’, a long-overdue response to the West Lothian question, when what they have in fact done is to quietly and deliberately change the constitution.
Without fanfare in October they took advantage of Labour’s attention being wholly internally focused and passed changes to standing orders to allow new procedures on government bills that the speaker decides constitute an English law.
Now, there is a school of thought that this is such a mess, so rushed through and ill thought-out, that it will be mired in procedure and have little influence. But the political impact will be huge, and it is already being felt in parliament.
Removing the right of members of parliament representing non-English seats to vote on certain issues guarantees a hugely increased Tory majority in the lobbies. The second reading of the housing bill took place last month, introducing the right to buy for housing association tenants. It was the first time the Evel rules were enacted and they resulted in a thumping Tory majority of over 100.
And, having already made mischief with the Sunday trading laws, we should fully expect to see an acceleration of Scottish National party efforts to use Evel to break up the union.
An essential contradiction of Evel is that it does nothing to give English voters any more power over laws governing things that matter in their lives. Like others elsewhere, my constituents in Bristol South are left behind, excluded from discussion about any power they can exercise within the union – something the constitutional convention Ed Miliband proposed sought to address. It represents the beginnings of an English parliament, but without any of the deliberation or involvement of wider civic society that any reasonable person would expect if one were being established.
People in other parts of the UK in recent years were offered a referendum on key issues influencing the way they will be governed for generations to come. English citizens will not get one. Their interests are not being considered. Labour should take its share of responsibility for this basic injustice. Where is Labour’s matching narrative on the questions Evel pretends to address?
This is no happy coincidence for the Tories, but a deliberate tactical move to outmanoeuvre Labour. We are over 100 parliamentary seats adrift in England, we have just one MP challenging the SNP bloc, and no voice in Northern Ireland. Evel divides and weakens us further. It highlights our English problem and our inability to make a difference to Tory laws. It highlights our impotence in Scotland too. This will, of course, be used by the Tories and SNP to shore up their own positions as the only parties allegedly able to govern.
Labour should be cutting through the complexity, making it simple for English electors to understand what is happening and why it matters to them.
Instead of allowing the Tories to push the ‘fairness’ myth, that it is about protecting the union, we should be exposing the true agenda, leading and shaping the debate.
That we are not is perhaps a further indication that allowing our vision to be deflected, focusing on ideologically ‘perfect’ policies – rather than on the practicalities of winning elections – could help keep the Tories in power for a generation.
In the end, winning seats in England, with pragmatic mainstream policies, can be the only solution for Labour to the Evel conundrum. Unless we do so, we will have succumbed to a very British coup.
———————————
Karin Smyth is member of parliament for Bristol South
———————————
English MPs to sit as an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish one. Where is the problem other than a thumping Conservative majority?
The Scottish Parliament is elected by PR. The Tories got 42% of the English vote at the 2015 general election. Far from giving the Tories a thumping majority, an English Parliament would in fact make it quite tricky for the Tories to get a majority.
Maybe that is why they are not too keen on the idea.
You are right, of course, the English Parliament would have a large Tory/UKIP majority so probably best stick with FPTP. Actually, my suggestion is for the English UK MPs to do both jobs just to keep it simple.
Well, can the sainted Jezza not solve it?
Labour needs to shoot the Tory fox and back an English Parliament. The SNP is using this as a wedge to divide the union is because of the perceived unfairness by English voters to the current system and the actions of a Tory government unpopular in Scotland. In the north of England especially but also elsewhere, Labour is haemorrhaging votes to UKIP and this is one of the reasons.
I just don’t buy the argument of a natural Tory majority in England. In the past 50 years Labour has only won one general election which they would have lost if Scotland had been excluded.
Labour needs to start winning in England again because this where most of the seats are. If Labour can start winning the argument in England they can win English Parliament elections. We live in a democracy and should not refuse to back parity for English voters simply because we are afraid of losing.
A looser confederation of nations might actually be the thing that saves the Union rather than what ends it.
This begs the question what is the argument that has to be won. Can you enlighten us?
The political argument in elections. I would have thought that obvious.