David Miliband

David Miliband has 'answered' my question on Labour Uncut:

Q. (from Gareth Young) In the New Statesman you wrote ‘An “English Parliament” is not the answer’ but you gave no indication as to why it was not the answer. An English parliament seems like a very good answer to many people, so could you tell me why you think an EP is not the answer and whether or not you support a referendum on the issue so that the people of England can decide (as did Scotland and Wales)?

A. I think they must have edited out my answer! I actually did say why. English MPs are already 85% of the UK parliament and the way to respect the needs as well as the history of England is to build up the civic institutions being launched are local institutions. And actually the needs in South Shields are very different from the needs in the Thames Valley. And the way to recognize that is not through an English parliament that tries to treat the whole of England as the same but through effective local governance that does reflect the different needs of the different parts of England.

I say 'answered' but the observant among you will notice that he didn't really answer it. David Miliband is a master at giving oblique answers to direct questions, which is presumably why he is favourite for the job.

If you want to understand the Left's antagonistic attitude towards England and English identity then I recommend that you listen to this talk by Charlie Kimber and the discussion which followed. They would rather steal from the poor box than embrace their English identity. For them Englishness is a repository of all that is bad, racist, imperialist, conservative, white, reactionary and capitalist about Britain. The sluice gate marked Englishness is what they can open to purge Britishness of anything negative. As one woman put it: "It doesn't matter how many times you wash the English flag you will never wash away the blood of Empire".

During their thirteen years of power the Labour party promoted Britain and Britishness, and Scottishness and Welshness, but did absolutely nothing for England (except attempt to balkanise it into regions against England's will and milk the English taxpayer like a cash cow). But having deservedly lost English votes at the general election there are signs that they are waking up to the debate on the English Question. John Denham has recently given us his views on reclaiming St George's Day, the English flag and promoting a progressive idea of English identity. David Miliband has arbitrarily dismissed the idea of an English parliament and - quite selfishly - suggested that Labour should be leading the national conversation on England that they have studiously ignored for so long in order to win back votes.

On Radio 4's Broadcasting House on 4th July, listeners were treated to Michael Rosen, a popular author and voice of the far-left, informing the audience that England did not even exist.

"We're not giving them the grass roots support but I don't think that's why England failed. England fails because if you think you are a high paid footballer playing anywhere in the world, why would you want to play for this thing called England? It isn't even a nation. Great Britain is the nation. Why would you want to? Let's say you're Rooney, let's say you're Terry - you beat it out for nine months against each other where everything matters day by day, then suddenly you're sent away to a weird camp for three weeks to play for an entity that doesn't really exist. I mean, I'm not blaming them, but why would you want to do it?"

And today Rick Muir of IPPR treats us to the ludicrously titled "The English left needs to reclaim English identity". As if to suggest that English identity was once the property of the left. Rick informs us that "Scottish and Welsh national identity have managed to become inclusive civic identities precisely because those countries have political institutions with which all citizens can identify" and then goes on to argue against an English parliament. His pearls of his wisdom include:

• There is no comparable crisis [of democratic legitimacy] in England.
• the West Lothian question is an anomoly, but does anyone really care?
• There is very little support for this [a solution to the West Lothian Question].
• An English parliament would likely exacerbate [the weakness of local government].
• Federalism in a state dominated by one component (England) would likely lead to separation.
• by trying to solve a tiny anomoly (West Lothian) you end up creating a series of even worse problems.

The usual unsubstantiated rhetoric about the deleterious effects that an English parliament would have on democracy and Britain, it's the sort of thing that we're more used to hearing from politicians like Lord Falconer rather than someone purporting to be a serious academic. I've asked Rick whether he supports the right of the English to decide how we are governed.

Why doesn't the left ask the people that they are supposed to represent what they want rather than arbitrarily ruling out an English parliament. Where's the democratic left?

How do you hope to reclaim Englishness from a position of dictating to the English on what's best for them?

Rick has declined to answer. But in Rick's stead some joker named Peter Jukes has popped up to state: "I don't want popular sovereignty for England". That says it all. I welcome Labour's attempt to discuss the English Question, even if it is for purely selfish and partisan reasons, but in doing so they are going to run up against the problem of exposing their general antipathy towards England, and highlighting a significant constituency of left-wingers that are vehemently anti-English and opposed to the very idea of England itself. They have ignored the English Question for years for fear of exposing the dark racist underbelly of the Labour Party, but now they have to discuss England because their failure to connect with England has caused Labour to lose touch with their traditional supporters, the majority of whom are very happy to be English.

All is not lost. There are people on the left that do love England and are not hamstrung by irrational anglophobia. People like Frank Field, David Dyke and Andy Newman will keep chipping away at left-wing anti-English prejudice. Whether or not their common sense attitude prevails will determine whether or not the left manage to reconnect with England.

Links to Labour List's 'National Identity Day':

• The English left needs to reclaim English identity
• Why all identity begins at home
• The British left only succeeds at times of national hope
• Introducing national identity day on LabourList

We're well used to Jonah Brown ruining the chances of British teams and athletes. How nice that David Miliband is continuing that proud tradition.

Murray's loss will have cheered up a great many England fans but it didn't make up for our poor show in the football.

Writing in the New Statesman, David Miliband, Labour leadership hopeful, has ruled out an English parliament.

As a Scottish prime minister confronting the Anglocentric media, he sought to emphasise the bonds of Britishness. His was a heartfelt and rigorous account of British national identity but it failed to capture the public imagination. Moreover, as Gordon was seeking to construct an idea of Britishness from above, more and more of our fellow citizens were expressing an identity bound up in the history and iconography of England, Wales and Scotland. Gordon's great achievement was to solve the Scottish question (of a Scottish prime minister governing the UK in an age of devolution), but he did not resolve Labour's English question.

Labour needs a revived politics of Englishness rooted in a radical and democratic account of nationhood. We need to draw upon a specifically English story that points to the battle for social justice born of a proud tradition of personal liberty and independence - as resentful of corporate elites as meddling bureaucracy.

The challenge is to translate a notion of Englishness into the veins of our politics. One of the defining features of Englishness is its very diversity. There are many Englands: there is the conservative England of G K Chesterton, Hilaire Belloc, and now David Cameron and Nick Clegg; there is also the leftist England by which I am inspired - of mutualism, co-operation and the epic history of places such as the north-east, home to my constituency.

Robin Hood
On policy, the English commitment to democracy, to equal life chances and to challenging corporate excess can be seen in widespread support for an elected Lords, free school meals and the "Robin Hood" tax. The politics of England are also closely bound up in questions of the governance of Britain. Labour as a party remains too centralised, too London-dominated. We must recognised that, after a strong start, our mission to devolve power and challenge the centralised British state foundered.

An "English Parliament" is not the answer. We must strengthen the civic pride and economic resilience of English towns and cities. This is how the sense of identity, belonging and place of the many Englands can be better embedded and expressed. Labour needs to work with the grain of local and institutional affiliations - from army regiments to hospitals, from fire services to local authorities.

Extract from Labour needs to reconnect with England, New Statesman, 1st July 2010

David Miliband has said that while Britain has a "profound commitment" to freedom of speech, "there is no freedom to cry 'fire' in a crowded theater".

Well there is if that theatre is on fire, or you believe that it might be.

Miliband was wrong to ban Geert Wilders from entering the UK. Wilders is a democratically elected Dutch politician, and even his political opponents in the Netherlands support the right of Wilders to come to the UK and speak his mind.

The Dutch foreign minister, Maxime Verhagen, said his government would press for a reversal of the travel ban on Wilders, and a UK Independence party peer, Lord Pearson, who invited Wilders to Britain, said the screening of the film would go ahead today, whether he was there or not.

And so, it comes to pass, that in Britain, we now rely on Dutch politicians to defend our right to free speech.

Speaking personally I don't require the intervention of idiots like Miliband to protect me from being offended by idiots like Wilders. I'll decide what is offensive, and whether I want to watch and listen despite the fact that I may be offended.  But no...Miliband knows better.  According to Miliband, Wilder's Fitna video is "contrary to our laws" and will stir up religious and racial hatred, and Miliband knows this despite the fact that he hasn't even seen the video.

But it's not really 'offence' that Miliband is protecting me from.  Rather, it's others reaction to offence, and we know this because in the Home Office's letter to Mr Wilders they say that his visit will “threaten community harmony and therefore public safety”. 

Why?

This is politician speak for 10,000 Muslims on the streets of Westminster. This is a public order issue more than anything else, or appeasement as Minette Marrin correctly calls it.

I wouldn't normally link to such things, but if David Miliband and the UK Government don't want you to watch Fitna then you should do so and decide for yourself.