Labour sees English votes in Westminster as a threat. In fact, they are an opportunity.
By J.C.
STANDING before 10 Downing Street earlier this morning, David Cameron took the initiative. The prime minister had not had an excellent Scottish referendum, despite the solid No victory. As the polls closed last night it looked like he would face an angry reaction from his party over his panicked last-minute offer of further powers for Edinburgh. Backbenchers were already starting to grumble that Scots were getting all-too jammy a deal in the United Kingdom.
Mr Cameron's response was to jolt the debate in London onto the West Lothian Question, the most intractable of his MPs' bugbears. "The question of English votes for English laws, the so-called West Lothian question, deserves a decisive answer," he said. He was referring to the side-effect of devolution whereby Scottish MPs (of whom only one is a Tory) can vote in the House of Commons on issues that do not affect their constituents.
This was a smart move. It showed back benchers that the prime minister shared their concerns. It responded to growing irritation about the matter on the part of English voters (according to the Future of England Survey taken in April, the proportion strongly agreeing that Scottish MPs should not vote on English laws jumped from 18% in 2000 to 55% in 2012). It shifted attentions off the contentious new devolution package for Scotland and preempted objections to it in Westminster, including on the part of UKIP, whose leader, Nigel Farage, this morning flamboyantly invited Scottish MPs to self-exclude from votes affecting the English.
Most cannily of all, the prime minister put the Labour Party in a sticky position just days before its annual conference. Introducing an English-only dimension to Westminster lawmaking would certainly bring difficulties for Ed Miliband's party. 41 of Labour's 257 MPs represent Scottish seats. Exclude them from deliberations on devolved policy areas, and Labour's voice on matters like health, education and welfare becomes much less throaty. The number of seats that the party needs to win to form a stable and effective national government rises. In negotiations in the event of a hung parliament, it becomes a less attractive coalition partner.
Mr Cameron did not make clear which of the options for an English legislative dimension he thought should be considered. Instead he handed the matter to William Hague, the former Tory leader known to favour English-only votes on certain bills (he put it in his manifesto in the 2001 election). Some Conservative MPs, such as John Redwood, an outspoken back bencher, would go further, and establish an English Parliament.
In comments to Scottish activists a couple of hours after Mr Cameron spoke, Mr Miliband did not mention the West Lothian Question; doubtless for the same reasons that the prime minister raised it so prominently. Instead, he cited devolution within England as a suitable response to the coming constitutional imbalance. Just as the Tories are dusting down their old chestnuts from the early part of the last decade, so too is the opposition. Back in 2004 the then Labour government asked the people of the north east whether they wanted a regional assembly. The people of the north east said no. Today, arguments in Labour circles go, there is a fresh appetite for regional (or urban) devolution within England. And anyway, some add, the 2004 referendum was badly orchestrated and commanded only the lukewarm support of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, the two men at the top of the government.
There are good reasons to think that devolution is part of the answer to the West Lothian Question. The more domestic policy is pushed downwards from Westminster, the less likely it is that Scottish MPs there will vote on things not relevant to those whom they represent. Moreover, there is a strong "secular" case for it. England is over-centralised. Giving regions and, in particular, cities more power is likely to make them more dynamic and responsible.
Yet devolution alone is not enough. It will take many years, probably decades, for sub-national authorities in England to reach a level of autonomy comparable to that of Scotland, particularly once it has assumed the new powers promised in the past hours and weeks. For now, an English dimension to Westminster votes is the only direct answer to the West Lothian Question. This could involve English-only votes, but may be more informal; all Scottish MPs opting out of English votes voluntarily (as some do already), or some bills going through English-only committees for ammendment before their ratification by the entire house, for example.
And there is another reason for Labour to grapple with the West Lothian Question. The party under-performs in England, particularly in the south, where voters whose demographic counterparts in northern England and Scotland lean towards Labour are disproportionately Conservative. Some English figures in the party, most notably John Denham and Jon Cruddas, have called for Labour to engage more with England and Englishness. Mr Denham suggests that it create an English sub-party, for example. On his blog this morning he writes: "English Labour needs its own voice in this process, unrestrained by Labour from other parts of the union." Seen from this perspective, an English dimension in the House of Commons is less a threat than a chance for the party to rid voters of the impression that it concentrates on Britain's celtic fringes at the expense of those who make up nine in ten of the country's population: the English. Mr Cameron took the initiative this morning. Now Labour has an opportunity to do the same.
