Britology Watch: Deconstructing \’British Values\’

1 November 2007

It’s not just Gordon: Labour has no policies for England, either

There was another instance of GB’s [Gordon Brown’s] almost pathological aversion for the word ‘England’ yesterday: a policy speech on education  in England, supposedly, in which he said ‘Britain’ 17 times, ‘this country’ once, ‘the country’ twice, ‘our country’ three times – but ‘England’ not once.

I’ve commented on this elsewhere so won’t belabour the point here.  But it’s not just GB who can’t bring himself to utter the ‘E’ word: not one of the Labour Party’s major policy statements even mentions England. I checked on their website and looked through all of the pages detailing individual policy areas. You can find the list in a fixed frame that appears at the bottom of every page view.

Not even the devolved areas such as health and education refer to England. But, you guessed it,  there are heaps of mentions of Britain. You could almost be forgiven for thinking that GB wrote it all himself! There’s also a link to a page on the devolved governments. ‘Ha!’, I said to myself naively, ‘there’s bound to be something there about the impact of devolution on England’. ‘Stupid boy!’: there’s one link to information on Scottish devolved matters and the Scottish Labour Party; one link to the equivalent for Wales; and one link to . . . London and the London Labour Party. Not a single dicky bird on England.

But there’s a serious point to all this. If Labour can’t talk about England or even mention the name of the country in passing in policy documents many of which are about England alone, and others which involve a balance of English and UK matters, does this mean that they have any view or ‘vision’ – in GB-speak – at all about England’s specific needs and about policy solutions that are adapted to them?  I’m sorry, I’m a literal-minded chap, and the English too are famed for their love of straight talking. If you mean England, why don’t you say it and then we can come to a proper judgement about whether you actually have England’s best interests at heart? But if you don’t mean ‘England’, what are your intentions, plans and vision for England? I can’t tell from your policy statements.

In this respect, Labour is in gross dereliction of its duty of care for England. By this, I mean that now so many crucial, strategic areas of government have been devolved to Scotland and Wales, then – in the absence of devolved government for England – the UK government has a particular duty to attend, and to be seen to attend, to the specific needs of England, as it’s the only national body that does have responsibility for England. But if the party that is in power can’t even so much as talk about England in their policy statements, do they care about England at all?



  1. It isn’t only Labour – the Tory and LibDemmer websites also don’t seem to know where England is.

    Comment by Alfie the OK — 1 November 2007 @ 1.28 pm | Reply

  2. You got in there before me, Alfie. I was just thinking I might check their websites out to see if they were any better! Still might do it, though, just for the laugh – in a black-humour sort of sense.

    Comment by David — 1 November 2007 @ 1.40 pm | Reply

  3. Thanks, opit, you’re referring to the recent Sheffield Uni study that divided Britain demographically, economically and politically into northern and southern halves either side of a line stretching from the Humber to the Severn. You refer to this as the ‘two Englands’; but the original Sheffield Uni link ( refers, rather, to ‘Britain’ and ‘the country’; the only time ‘England’ is mentioned is when it refers to the counties of Gloucestershire, Warwickshire, Leicestershire and Lincolnshire and ‘all the areas of England below them’ being in the South.

    The map effectively does abolish a unified England, which is maybe why my post called the map to your mind. Wales and Scotland both lie in the ‘North’, identified politically as the Labour heartland. Maybe one of the reasons why Labour doesn’t appear to believe in England is because it’s serving only the interests of this ‘North’ plus London (singled out as a southern pocket of the ‘North’, economically and politically) and not the Conservative South / ‘England’.

    What this map reminds me of is Labour’s on-off plans to regionalise England. The two Midlands regions in the aborted New Labour plans are intersected by the North-South dividing line; but it wouldn’t surprise me if the Midlands regions were drawn up in such a way as to maximise the level of Labour support in any elected West Midlands and East Midlands assemblies. If the two Midlands assemblies were Labour-controlled, this would mean (or at least, this may have been the idea) that Labour was in charge of seven ‘British regions’ (including Wales and Scotland) plus a devolved London; while the Tories / Lib Dems would be left with just three.

    Clearly, there are considerable potential party-political benefits for Labour in regionalising Britain and in resisting an English parliament that they’d almost certainly never be able to control.

    Comment by David — 2 November 2007 @ 5.55 am | Reply

  4. […] It’s not just Gordon: Labour has no policies for England either […]

    Pingback by 1 November - WordPress PoliSci II « oldephartteintraining — 3 November 2007 @ 4.13 am | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: