The Englishness of Westminster

My chapter on ‘The Englishness of Westminster’ has now been published: it is one of the contributions to Christine Berberich and Arthur Aughey (eds), These Englands, published by Manchester University Press. 

I have another ten chapters or journal articles awaiting publication, so 2012 looks like being a good year for my publications list.

About Lord Norton

Professor of Government at Hull University, and Member of the House of Lords
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to The Englishness of Westminster

  1. Frank W. Summers III says:

    Lord Norton,
    Do you have a comprehensive file anywhere in any form which is your best estimate of of all your publications, reprints, additions and major published excerpts and citations? If not, what about without the major excerpts and citations? I must admit I am not even sure who the authoritative survey keeper of academic publications is in the field of politics. The MLA as we called it in literature, Shephards and West’s in Law, and a variety of other such resources I have used but I am sure there is a journal that goes through every issues of the History of Parliament, European Union Politics, the Journal of Politics, the American Journal of Political Science and keeps track of all chapters from the academic press. and any political guest writers that may be featured in the 280 academic journals published by Cambridge alone as well as standard university published journal articles. However, I do not know who they are nor how well they approach perfection in that exercise. Regardless, from what I have stumbled across yours must be an impressive entry. Nonetheless it is likely a flawed or partial one compared to your own files if you have them.

    • Lord Norton says:

      Frank W. Summers III: There are various citation indexes in the social sciences. I fear, though, that I have been too busy to check them for rather a long time. I certainly have not monitored citations so have no comprehensive, or even patchy, records.

  2. Toque says:

    I was very disappointed with your contribution to These England’s. It was all going well until you began referring to the ‘West Lothian Question’ as ‘The English Question’. The two are different.

    Parliament cannot answer the English Question, only the English people can do that and will hopefully do so by voting for an English parliament when you politicians deign to ask us what we actually want. Parliament can mitigate the West Lothian Question – which is essentially a matter of Parliamentary voting privileges – but cannot resolve it unless it answers The English Question by consulting the English people about how we wish to be governed. If we vote for an English parliament then that is your answer to The English Question (which by happy coincidence is also the solution to the West Lothian Question); if we decide to be legislated for by the UK parliament and devolved power within England then that is your answer to The English Question (and the West Lothian Question remains unanswered).

    So when you write “The English Question, however, permits of no logical or agreed solution” you are mistaken. It’s only Parliament who cannot find a solution. Logical solutions that may be agreeable to the people of England include independence, federalism or confederalism – the fact that Parliament finds them illogical and has no which to find out whether the people find them agreeable is neither here nor there.

    Hopefully the Scots will vote for independence or devolution-max and Parliament will finally give the people their say.

    See here for information on ‘The English Question’

    • Lord Norton says:

      Toque: The chapter is analytical, not prescriptive. The West Lothian question is not answerable unless one reverts to the status quo ante or opts for independence. The problem with a federal solution is that it is not a solution, given the sheer size and economic dominance of England.

  3. Toque says:

    “The chapter is analytical, not prescriptive.”

    I appreciate that, but it reinforces the wrong-headed conflation of the EQ and the WLQ that has become commonplace among Tory MPs in Parliament.

    No one has attempted a federation where one unit was so dominant in a mature stable democracy like Britain. Anyone who says it wouldn’t work is merely guessing. My feeling is that the British people will make it work if they value the Union and that a federation would be fairer to all nations of the Union than the Anglo-centric (but not England-specific) British state that we have now. It’s the Anglo-centrism of Westminster (and organisations like the BBC) that puts such tensions on the Union. Federalism, in my view, would lessen those tensions and be far more equitable and transparent than the undemocratic quasi-federalism that we have now.. However, let’s suppose you’re correct: Is the fact that an unbalanced federation wouldn’t work a legitimate reason to deny England its own parliament and government?

    Confederation is my preferred solution. I think Salmond calls it a ‘social union’. Unfortunately it’s impossible to see how the UK Constitution can evolve to confederalism without first breaking the Union, which is why this Englishman is hoping that the Scots do vote for independence or Independence-Lite (the later will inevitably lead to an ‘Englishing’ of Westminster that will be impossible to maintain).

  4. ladytizzy says:

    I hear Mr Balls is playing Father Christmas at tomorrow’s Christmas Party – with Mrs Osborne.

    The year has just flown by.

  5. maude elwes says:

    Balls playing Father Christmas is a nauseating image. Mrs Osborne must be a dedicated sould.

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