SOS United States (and QE2)

     Along the Delaware River in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, an enormous ship is tied up at a pier upstream from the Walt Whitman Bridge. Her two huge funnels – once brilliantly painted red, white, and blue – have faded significantly without a new coat in over four decades, and her black-and-white hull drips with rust. Her lifeboats and the davits that held them are long gone, and so are virtually all of her interiors. She still has her steam turbines, but they haven’t been used to drive her since 1969.

     She has been there for nearly 20 years, and still to this day, many people drive by her every day and do not know what she is, and for that matter, many other Americans don’t know her either.

     The ship I speak of is the SS United States, and she is now only days away from potentially being sold for scrap.

     If such a thing were to happen, it should be a national outrage and disgrace, for the United States – affectionately known as the “Big U” – is not just any ship. She was our national flagship and a source of national pride as one of the greatest passenger liners ever built.

     She was conceived following the end of World War II, when the US Government was so inspired by the troop-carrying abilities of the British luxury liners Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth that it decided to sponsor the construction an American merchant vessel that could also carry 15,000+ troops if ever there was a need, and with the Cold War in progress, it seemed as though this was a possibility. Under the auspices of the administration of President Harry S. Truman, the US Navy underwrote $50 million of the $78 million construction cost, with her owner, the United States Lines, kicking in the remainding $28 million. 

Queen Mary arriving in New York carrying thousands of serviceman home following the end of World War II. To this day, she retains the record for the most souls ever carried aboard a single vessel: 16,683 (including crew) on a crossing from New York to Greenock in July 1943. (Credit: Public Domain)

     The new vessel was designed by William Francis Gibbs, America’s foremost naval architect, and was built by the Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Company of Virginia. With her second role as a troop carrier or hospital ship in mind, she was designed to Navy specifications – which included heavy compartmentalization and having two sets of engine rooms, piping, and electrical systems, as well as the ability to carry enough fuel and stores to last 10,000 nautical miles.

     Unusually for a passenger vessel at this time, the United States contained virtually no wood aboard her. Interior fittings and fixtures – including chairs, tables, beds, and other furniture – were made from metals, glass, and other fire-proof materials. Fabrics were manufactured with spun glass fiber, and even the clothes hangers were made from aluminum. This had as much to do with William Gibbs’ obsession with fireproofing as it did with the Navy specifications. He even tried to get Steinway & Sons to build a special aluminum grand piano, and was only persuaded to accept one made from a rare fire-resistant wood after the wood was doused with gas and set afire without it igniting. The only other concession was said to be the butcher’s block.

     Without the heavy use of wood and with the incorporation of aluminum for the superstructure, the United States was considerably lighter than the British Cunard White Star Queens, and was also designed to fit through the Panama Canal. Nevertheless, at 990 feet long and with a gross tonnage of 53,300 tons, she was (and is still) the largest ocean liner to have been built in America.

     She was also built for speed, and was fitted with Westinghouse steam turbines which were designed for aircraft carriers. They were largest steam turbines ever taken to sea aboard a merchant vessel, and could develop up to a whopping 240,000 shaft horsepower for her four propellers. This, combined with the relative lightness of the vessel and her hull design, allowed the United States to cross the Atlantic in just over three days on her maiden voyage in 1952 and beat the Queen Mary’s fastest time from 1938 by ten hours with an average speed of 35.59 knots. She was capable of steaming astern at 20 knots, and could go as high as 38 knots (44 MPH) in forward direction (though this was kept under the wraps of Cold War secrecy for decades). In regular passenger service, she typically sailed at around 30 knots like the Queens to make four-day crossings from New York to Southampton and back. To this day, she is still the fastest passenger liner in the world, and holds the Blue Riband for the fastest speed on a westbound voyage (and was the first American ship to do so in a century).

SS United States in her Heyday on the North Atlantic Run. (Public Domain)

     Throughout her 17 year career, she was fortunately never used for wartime service, though she was placed on standby during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Instead, she sailed the seas carrying thousands of fare-paying passengers in peacetime. Despite the lack of wood, creative designs using the fireproof material produced fabulous interiors which rivaled those of the liners which carried wood. She soon became a favorite of many on the Atlantic run, including a variety of politicians, celebrities, and other noted people. Among those on her passengers lists were President Truman, the Duke and Duchess of Windsor, John Wayne, Duke Ellington, Bob Hope, and Princess Grace of Monaco – to name but only a few. She also carried a young Bill Clinton to the UK for his Rhodes Scholarship at Oxford.

     However, like many other vessels, the Big U fell victim to the advent of even faster and cheaper air travel, and she was abruptly withdrawn from service in November 1969 to be laid up in Norfolk, Virginia. Nine years later, the US Navy no longer considered her useful for their needs as a reserve ship, which opened the door for her to be sold. Since then and through 2009, she passed through several owners – all of them with plans to resuscitate the ship for sea travel – all of which fell though for one reason or another.

     In 2011, ownership was passed to the SS United States Conservancy, whose chairperson is Susan Gibbs, granddaughter of the designer, and whose executive director is Dan McSweeney, son of one of her captains. The conservancy has been trying to raise awareness of the ships plight and attempting to attract developers and other stakeholders, so that the liner may be refurbished and used in a stationary manner. With the interiors mostly removed to remove asbestos in the 1990’s, the United States is an open slate for virtually any development, and her hull – thanks largely to her Navy specified design and construction – is very sound for its age, despite the image given by the faded paint.

     Now however, it really does appear that the ship is reaching the end of the line. With docking fees amounting to $60,000/month and with still to no concrete way forward despite all efforts, the Conservancy has announced that if no progress is made through October 31st, it will have no other option but to sell the ship to a “responsible recycler.”

     Perhaps this is inevitable. Why, you may ask, should anyone bother themselves over a vessel that is over 50 years old and rusting away? Why should any person or entity pour vast sums of money into something that has served its usefulness and is only cared for by a few enthusiasts?

SS United States moored along the Delaware River in Philadelphia - waiting for her Future. (Credit: The Hartford Guy via Flickr cc)

     My response is that the United States, despite its age and derelict appearance, is a national treasure of the United States – much like the USS Constitution, the Wright Brothers’ plane, the Spirit of St. Louis, the Brooklyn Bridge,  and the Empire State Building. All of them, like the United States, were engineering marvels in their time and achievements in the realm of science and technology, and also like the United States, symbolized the ideals upon which the country was founded, including that can-do spirit and the belief that we can make great things happen when we put our minds to it.

     The Big U arguably stands out more so because she is the last and largest of her kind to be built in America, and there is little prospect of another US-built ocean liner of similar size and capabilities. Being the last of a breed that has already met the scrap heap or been wrecked, a uniquely American technological and engineering triumph, and the national flagship, it would be a sad day indeed for her to meet an ignominious end. Such a destination would likely take her to the shores of India to be broken up.

     This sight of such a great vessel bearing the name of our country being broken down bit by bit and reduced to nothing will be unbearable to watch. The thought alone should cause all Americans and our government to take notice, and the Conservancy has been working hard at this 11th hour to get the news out about ship and its meaning to our country and our heritage. The Big U has been repeatedly featured in news programs and talk shows on radio and television in the last three weeks, and special articles in print have been making her case known to the wider public, with mentions of the impending scrap sale and making appeals for donations. There has also been a call for developers to help come up with a real and sustainable plan for her, along with possible help from government agencies. So far, nothing as publicly emerged, and it really looks like the end.

     For now however, at least we still have the Big U in the United States. The United Kingdom however, has already lost its one time flagship, the QE2.

     RMS Queen Elizabeth 2 was launched on the River Clyde by HM the Queen in 1967, and sailed on her maiden voyage in 1969 – the same year the United States was withdrawn from service. Indeed, she was Cunard’s last-ditch gamble to save it from extinction in the face of the popularity of air travel. Unlike the Big U however, the QE2 sailed the seas for nearly 40 years and was a favorite among many a passenger and ocean liner enthusiast.

     As a revolutionary dual transatlantic ocean liner in the summer and cruise ship in the winter, the great Cunarder  was able to make money throughout the year, and she enjoyed an illustrious career in which she carried over 2.5 million passengers – from the well-known (including royalty, presidents, prime ministers, diplomats, and celebrities) to people of modest means who would only make one passage aboard QE2 in their lifetime. All were treated to unparalleled and sophisticated luxury aboard a ship that carried the legacy of the great Atlantic liners that had come before her, and she developed a solid reputation for reliability and comfort – setting a standard against which other ships were compared.

RMS Queen Elizabeth 2 on her last visit to the Clyde in 2008. (Credit: Dave Souza via Wikimedia Commons cc)

     Along the way, she made 806 transatlantic crossings and sailed 6 million miles. This included the period during which she served her country in the Falkland’s War as a troop transport (just as her predecessors had done in the previous world wars). In addition, she was the longest-serving liner in Cunard’s history, as well as its longest-serving flagship. On top of that, the QE2 was the fastest operating passenger vessel until her retirement.

     That retirement came when the QE2 was sold to Dubai World for $100 million and sailed there in November 2008, where she was supposed to be converted into a floating hotel like the Queen Mary in Long Beach, California. However, at the time when QE2 was purchased in 2007, the property boom was at its height, and by the time of her arrival over a year later, the global economy was on a downward trend, and this seriously affected the QE2’s prospects in Dubai. Since then, no conversion work has been done on her, and all long-term plans for use of the ship have fallen through.

     Up until two years ago, she was very visible and well-kept at a berth in Dubai with her engines and internal power systems still running as if ready to head back out to sea again. In 2009, she was drydocked and her hull was cleaned and given a fresh coat of paint, which raised prospects of sunny days ahead. However, the engines have been since turned off, and without them, the ship has been left to bake in the desert sun of the Middle East – with mold and mildew now making themselves present. Worse, she has been placed into a rather nondescript area with tankers and cargo ships, and the latest photos show her looking derelict and forlorn – as if she is being deliberately left to rot. Other photos, including those with workers roasting pigs near the swimming pools, have only confirmed the languishing state in which the former flagship of the British merchant fleet finds herself.

     Rob Lightbody, the founder The QE2 Story – a website dedicated to preserving the memory of the great vessel and to raising awareness to save it – told The Scotsman: “Nothing has happened to it in the last two and a half years. There’s no power. There’s no air. She’s filthy.”

2009 Photo of the Queen Elizabeth 2 in Dubai   (Indigodelta via Wikimedia Commons CC)

     Dubai meanwhile have been frustratingly silent on the fate of this much-beloved ship. Having promised to be faithful stewards of the QE2 from the outset – with an ambitious plan for her going forward – they have all but signaled that they are no longer interested in what was once supposed to be the crown jewel of their Palm Jumeriah development. This lack of interest is only ripe for them to want to be rid of what has now become a liability, and by any means if necessary, which obviously means the scrapyard.

     As with the United States, the Queen Elizabeth 2 has a community of people who want to save it. In her case, they would like to see her returned to Britain and preserved for future generations. Thankfully, she has not been laid up nearly as long as the Big U and still retains much of her interior and fittings, so the potential cost of refurbishment should be lower than that required for the United States.

     Nevertheless, that’s always going to be the sticking point: cost. Renovation and conversion costs for the United States range from $50 million to $200 million, and then there’s another $2 million for poentially moving her to a new location, such as her original home port of New York City. Throw in the annual costs of maintenance, docking fees, and wages and salaries, and you realize why taking in a 63 year old ship is not an enticing prospect for anyone who wishes to make a return on investment, especially in a relatively short period of time. The costs for the QE2 may not be as high with regard to a renovation, but they will definitely be there with regard to getting her back to the UK, and meeting the burdens of annual maintenance, docking fees, etc., which may perhaps make it difficult to just break even.

     In this sense, the odds are pretty stacked against these two great ocean liners. Throw in the struggles that the Queen Mary has endured in Long Beach (some of it arguably self-inflicted by the city) through a succession of several operators with different ideas for an even older vessel, and you can see why even those in the ocean liner community are skeptical of efforts to save the Big U and QE2, and are prepared to bow to the “inevitable.”

Stern of the Queen Mary in Long Beach. (Sergey Yarmolyuk via Wikimedia Commons cc)

     However, ask this: what does it say about us when are unable or unwilling to lift a finger to save critical elements of our national heritage in the US and the UK? What does it say about a society that turns their backs on something that has represented that best of their country, and is a critical part of national identity and purpose? What does it say about a people who cannot see that something so unique and special is going to be lost forever? What does it say about us that we just don’t seem to care?

     The United States and the Queen Elizabeth 2 can be saved if we really want them to be saved. They can be rehabilitated for new and appropriate uses if we really want it to be so, and much more could be done by public and private interests, again, if people demanded it to be so. The problem is that there is not an outcry – either from Maine to Hawaii, for Shetland to Cornwall – for the government and/or those with deep pockets to do something helpful and constructive with regard to these liners for the benefit of the nation and future generations of Americans, Britons, and the world at large.

     Some people will say that as unfortunate as it may be, it is probably time to let them go and be scrapped. After all they say – with justification – that we cannot expect to save all the ocean liners that have ever been built, and the brute reality is that when a ship reaches the end of its intended use of sailing on the high seas, its only realistic destination is the scrap yard. As the last captain of the Queen Mary said upon the great liner departing New York for the last time in 1967: “Ships, like [human beings], have a time limit, and they day must come when we go.”

     However and again, I must stress that the Queen Elizabeth 2 and the United States are different, and ought to be exceptions to the rule. They represented the best of their respective countries to the world with a standard of luxury, comfort, style, and class that made them stand out amongst their contemporaries.  Above all that, they are well and truly the last of their kind, and indeed, the last of an era. In addition, being the last great liners built in Britain and America is, in my estimation, the main feature that makes them special and worth saving, and given their profiles, it would an enormous blow to national prestige and honor to watch them be ignominiously scrapped.

     With particular regard to the Big U, I have to believe that if she was meant to be scrapped, she would have been scrapped long ago when the Navy no longer had use for her in 1978. She was not broken up, and has made it this far, so that I was fortunate to see her about eight years ago while visiting Philly with my father, and I have to say that she appeared to have much potential – with a lot of space that could be put to good use and ensure her survival. It is almost as though we have been given chance after chance to save her and keep her going and now, it just seems that she has come too far to only now face the torch.

     As for the QE2, I saw her when my father and I visited New York in 2001, 2002, and 2003. Each time, she was an awesome sight to behold – with her iconic funnel in the traditional Cunard red and black, her long and elegant black hull with a white superstructure, her clipper-shaped bow, and well-rounded stern. Overall, her profile was graceful and neatly-balanced – a great dollop of credit to her design team and the people who built her in Clydebank.  She looked so splendid – and even regal – like the Queen that she was, and still is. Underneath the grime, rust, and mildew is the QE2 that we all knew and loved.

My father and I at the New York City Passenger Ship Terminal with the QE2 in 2001. (Wesley Hutchins)

     Both she and the Big U need to be saved, not just for their individual attributes, but also for their importance in the rich seafaring traditions of Britain and America, which ought to be celebrated and cherished, especially in Britain because of it being an island nation dependent on overseas trade throughout the world. With their loss, I cannot help but to believe that we will have lost a bit of ourselves and be condemned for allowing it to happen.

     For the United States, there needs to be cooperation between the US Government, private entities, individuals, and the governing institutions and agencies of the areas that are willing to berth the ship – whether it be in Philadelphia or New York. Going further, she can be a great national project for the US in terms of breathing new life into her, for again, her interiors are largely gone and the empty spaces are open to creativity, while also respecting her overall dignity. While serving as something useful, she can be a symbol of American ingenuity and what America was able to do at one time, as well as a symbol of what we can do going forward with that same sort of ingenuity.

     Time is running out for the Big U, and there is the real possibility that she will be scrapped, which will be nothing less than a tragedy. The most important thing to is speak out and letting relevant authorities know that the ship is paramount to who we are as a country, and therefore worthy of being spared.

     Rehabilitating her not be easy, and will require the cooperation and good faith of many people and organizations. But with help from all stakeholders and the wider public, something can be made from this desperate situation. Just it is desired to have the Queen Elizabeth 2 returned home to a more happy and glorious future, hopefully it will be morning again for the United States.

Praise the Lords?

     Yesterday marked a truly dramatic moment in modern British politics as the House of Lords voted to delay Prime Minister David Cameron’s government from cutting over £4.4 billion of tax credits to low income families and individuals, which are part of an overall £12 billion deficit reduction plan by Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne.

     It’s remarkable because the Lords, the unelected upper house of the UK Parliament, usually does not take a strong stand in the way of legislation supported by the elected government and the lower house of Parliament, the House of Commons. Indeed, the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 stripped the right of Lords to veto “money” bills, and placed a maximum of two years (reduced to one year by the 1949 Act) for the Lords to delay other public bills coming before it. These acts asserted the near-supremacy of the Commons and limited the Lords to providing scrutiny to legislation.

     However, this isn’t to say that the Lords is entirely meaningless, for their ability to scrutinize, hold up, or turn back legislation to the Commons (even if only temporary) is can used as a check on the government and force it to rethink its proposals. This is what happened yesterday during a highly charged and emotional debate in a packed Lords chamber on whether to either allow the cuts to go through, delay them, or block them entirely.

     In the upper chamber, the Conservative Party – which has a majority of 12 in the Commons and therefore forms the UK Government – has the biggest number of peers at 249, but is faced with the combined numbers of 213 Labour and 112 Liberal Democrat peers, along with hundreds of other peers among smaller parties, independent crossbenchers, non-affiliated members, and Church of England bishops.

     Anticipating a possible defeat on the matter of tax credits, the government and people on its behalf warned against any move to delay or block the reductions, saying that along with contravening the Parliament Acts, this would break a 300 year old convention of the Lords not to interfere with finance bills and spark a major constitutional crisis. Professor Vernon Bogdanor, a leading constitutional scholar who was David Cameron’s tutor at Oxford, told the BBC:

     “These rules date back to the end of the seventeenth century and they say that the House of Commons had exclusive financial privilege – that is the House of Lords should not interfere with the financial privilege of the Commons or the power of the government.”

     He further stated that there was “no source” from which the Lords could derive the authority to defy the Commons, where the tax credit changes have been passed by the elected Tory majority. It was simply a matter of the “very fundamental principle, no taxation without representation”, and the Commons he said, was the “only representative chamber that should decide on matters of taxation.”

     However, Labour, LibDem, and crossbench peers defended their actions to table motions to delay or block the cuts under the notion that the cuts were not actually part of a finance bill or primary legislation. Instead, they were enshrined in secondary legislation known as a statutory instrument (or regulation), which according to The Guardian, is not "subject to the same line-by-line Commons scrutiny as legislation, but instead stand or fall on a single quickfire vote." However, by going about getting through the changes this way, George Osborne “forswore the ‘money bill’ exemption” with regard to the Lords, and therefore set it up to be more closely scrutinized there with the possibility of revisions being sent back to the Commons.

     In addition, the opposition and some cross-bench peers believed that they were within the limits of the Salisbury convention, which states that the Lords will not oppose government legislation if it was promised in the election manifesto of the government party.

     This then, leads to crux of the matter. The Conservatives spent the general election promising not to touch the tax credits brought in by the previous Labour government as part of its overall deficit reduction agenda. After the election, Osborne announced the creation of a UK National Living Wage, which would replace the minimum wage (currently at £6.50 per hour), and be gradually raised to £9.00 an hour by 2020. However, tax credits would also be reduced – with the government claiming that the National Living Wage would make up for the lost tax credit income.

     However, as the scale of the proposed reforms became known (that millions of families and individuals would be adversely affected to the tune of an average £1,300) and as there were questions regarding whether the National Living Wage could fully make up for it, opposition and unease increased. People who claimed to have supported the Tories in the election expressed their anger and the feeling that they had been lied to, including a single mother who unleashed her frustration on the BBC’s Question Time. Conservative politicians, including backbenchers in the Commons and Scottish leader Ruth Davidson, as well media pundits also expressed their displeasure and the need to at least find ways to blunt the effect of the cuts for the poorest working individuals and families who are beneficiaries of the credits. The idea of many of their constituents being told around Christmas that their benefits (and therefore a substantial part of their income) would be cut became increasing untenable in Tory ranks, but the reforms got through the Commons anyway.

     However, some peers contended that since the tax credit reforms were not featured in the Conservative election manifesto, they could at least be held up in the Lords for further debate and possible revision under the Salisbury convention.

     Following a passionate debate in the packed Lords chamber, a motion tabled by Liberal Democrat peer Baroness Manzoor to block the cuts outright was defeated. This was a so-called “fatal motion”, which is rarely used since peers are wary about overstepping their powers to throw out legislation from an elected government. However, the Lords did pass a motion tabled by Labour peer Baroness Hollis of Heigham to delay the cuts until the government produces a plan to compensate affected workers during a three year transition, as well as a crossbench motion tabled by Baroness Meacher to decline support for the cuts until the government outlines how it will help those affected by the cuts and responds to research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which claimed among other things, that only about a quarter of the income lost via cuts in credits would be taken up by the National Living Wage.

     This was a huge defeat for government of David Cameron and a personal blow to George Osborne, who responded that he would delay the policy until he finds a way to compensate the workers, and wait until his Autumn Statement next month to make an announcement about this. In the long-term however, he said that the events of last night raised “constitutional questions that need to be dealt with” and criticized “unelected Labour and Liberal Democrat Lords” for interfering on a financial matter passed  by the elected Commons. David Cameron’s office responded by saying that the Prime Minister will seek a “rapid review” with regard to the status of the Lords, saying that a “convention exists and it has been broken”, and that it must be restored to ensure that ensure that the Commons has complete primacy on finance issues.

     Other Conservatives made similar comments in expressing their outrage and fury towards the Lords, but some people who opposed the tax credit reforms appreciated the actions taken by the Lords, including some of its critics who believed that the chamber needs to be reformed into an elected body or abolished outright. Many commented it was good to see the Lords actually proving to be useful, while noting that it was sad that it took the unelected body of Parliament to force a climbdown by the elected government on this contentious, controversial, and quite personal issue.

     However, SNP members and politicians (including First Minister Nicola Sturgeon), never to be satisfied with anything the “Westminster parties” do, expressed criticism against Labour peers for abstaining on the Liberal Democrat motion to kill the cuts altogether. In response, Labour people said that their peers abstained because the “fatal motion” would have meant that Osborne could have just brought the cuts back again, and that delaying them to extract protections for those affected was more effective.

     Another reason for not passing the “fatal motion” was that it may result in a Conservative retaliation whenever Labour returns to government. To this, some Nationalists said this showed why the Lords needed to be abolished and replaced by an elected chamber that can actually take action without constitutional concerns, but as this is a more long-term concern and would not do anything to help those to be affected by the proposed reforms, it made more sense from a Labour perspective to do something that would force Osborne to think again, rather than do something that may have turned out to be ineffective and quite potentially overstep the power of the Lords more so than the delaying motions did.

     In many ways, this showed how the SNP is obsessed over constitutional arrangements they don’t like, rather than working within the existing system in the here and now to achieve positive outcomes for the day-to-day lives of their constituents. Certainly some of their members don’t seem to understand the intricacies of parliamentary procedure and strategy, for process matters as much as principle and the latter cannot be achieved without the former. Instead, they prefer to just wanting to tear things down and not observe necessary processes (and of course, having another go at the Labour Party for being “Red Tories”).

     One personal I interacted with said that along with “lack of principle”, the UK has a problem with process and tradition, as if to say that they get in the way of governing or taking certain actions. However, process and tradition are some of the things I admire and respect about the UK. Yes, they may perhaps be archaic, but they give character to the country and make it stand out – mostly in a good way, I might add. Many people look at such processes and traditions, and think, “Yep, that’s how the Brits do it”, and say it in a positive light because that’s simply how things have been done going back hundreds of years.

     That being said, there is always room for reform, and indeed, the British system has reformed it time and time again through many changes over the centuries – some revolutionary, others for more evolutionary and gradual. The monarch is no longer absolute, but constitutional; free elections are regularly held to Parliament with a universal adult franchise, as opposed to elections by the propertied elite; and the Lord’s are limited to a revising and scrutiny capacity, as opposed to an outright and perpetual veto.

     On this last point, yesterday’s developments showed how the Lord’s can be useful in these roles as a check on the government of the day, and it seems that people on both the left and right agree. Stephen Bush of the left-leaning New Statesman tweeted that it was “not a constitutional crisis for the Lords to return to sender. It’s just the constitution.” Adam Tomkins, a Glasgow law professor and Conservative candidate for the Scottish Parliament next year also tweeted that “it’s the House of Lords’ job to scrutinise legislation. That’s what they did today. It [would] be a constitutional crisis if they didn’t do it.” Conservative writer Tim Montgomerie of The Times emphasized in a tweet that the actions of the Lords had more to do with giving MP’s time to rethink, especially considering that "tax credits weren't specified in [the] Tory manifesto", and that for this reason, democracy was not "being undermined." Meanwhile, in relation to politics north of the Tweed, Kevin Shoefield of PoliticsHome.com commented on Twitter that the Lords “does a better job of holding the executive to account” than the SNP-dominated committee’s at the Scottish Parliament (and many others on and off social media expressed similar sentiments).

     Nevertheless, the Lords still attract controversy for being viewed as not much more than a gravy train for former politicians and party favorites – a symbol to some people of a self-serving elite and of Westminster decadence and corruption. Furthermore, while there were expressions of pleasure and even "high-fiving" with the way the Lords acted yesterday, those who did so may not be pleased tomorrow if they are on the losing side of an issue taken up by the unelected body.

     Of course, the reality is that the House of Lord’s does have many people who take their membership seriously and actually work hard. There are elder statesmen who actually bother to read legislation (as they did in their previous political life) and serve to question the agenda of the government and provide counsel for particular areas of public policy for which they have a specialty.  There are also many others from all walks of life who also bring particular qualities and experiences to the upper house, and help to guide its decisions.

     Given what happened yesterday, it may very well be that the Lords acted as it should have done in scrutinizing legislation and turning it back to the Commons for revision, and that fears of a constitutional crisis are overblown. However, reform may be needed to make the Lords more legitimate in the eyes of the British public and therefore more able to take the kind of stands as it did yesterday.

     Among other things, perhaps there should be reform of the nominations process to the peerage, so as to reduce the use of Lords as a reward for party hacks and donors, and to encourage the nomination of people who can bring valuable skills and expertise in the Lords. In addition, there should be attendance requirements to ensure that peers are active in their job, as well as limitations on expense claims to prevent abuse of the system. Even more boldly, it should not be outside the realm of possibility for the Lords to represent the nations and regions of the UK on an equal or near-equal basis, in similar fashion to upper houses in Canada, Australia, and the US, where such representation gives constituents parts – particularly those with small populations – a greater sense that they have a role on running the country on the same terms as the larger areas. This, and perhaps eventually, a partially or entirely elected House of Lords would give the ancient upper chamber a more firm legitimacy in the eyes of the public and allow it be a more effective and meaningful body.

     For now though, the Lords will continue to operate as it has, and if the developments over the tax credits leads to long-term and positive constitutional reform, then that can only be good for British democracy going forward.

EVEL: Constitutional Earthquake or Wee Breeze in a Tea Cup?

The Parliament of the United Kingdom (Credit: Jim Trodel via Flickr cc)

     So it has happened: English Votes or English Laws, or EVEL.

     By a vote of 312 to 270 in the House of Commons, procedures in the lower chamber of Parliament have been changed to empower the Speaker of the House to determine whether legislation coming before the Commons affects England, England and Wales, or the entire United Kingdom as a whole. If the Speaker determines that it is an English or English and Welsh matter only, a “grand committee” of the affected MP’s will decide on amendments and if the matter can go forward to the next parliamentary stages, which involve all members of the House and results in a final vote by the full House. If however, the Speaker determines that it is a UK-wide matter, then the legislation will go through the normal parliamentary processes.

     This is government’s response to the long-asked West Lothian Question, which refers to the situation whereby Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish MP’s are able to vote on matters at Westminster which are now exercised by their respective devolved legislatures. This effectively means that they are voting on some issues that do not directly affect their constituents – ones which directly affect England only – but English MP’s cannot do the same to with regard to devolved issues (such as health and education) in Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland. It is an anomaly that has been debated and discussed for nearly 40 years during the debates on Scottish and Welsh devolution, and even farther back to the debates on Irish Home Rule.

     The basic principle is that as more central government powers are devolved to the legislatures in Belfast, Cardiff, and Edinburgh, English MP’s at Westminster should have a greater say on matters that affect only their constituents – lest an English-only bill supported by the majority of English MP’s is defeated by a majority of MP’s from across the whole United Kingdom, including those from Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales.

     Sounds simple? It isn’t.

     For starts, the Palace of Westminster is home to the Parliament of the United Kingdom (which includes England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales), and as such, all matters before it should be decided amongst all MP’s, regardless of their geographical location.

     Furthermore, what issues are “English only” or “English and Welsh only”? Without a known criteria, this may well become a contentious issue, for even though a matter may be viewed as English-only in its legal and territorial definition, MP’s from Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland can also argue that the legislation can (and will) have effects on the rest of the UK.

     Nowhere is this truer than in the realm of public spending, because through the Barnett Formula – the mechanism which decides how money is allocated throughout the UK – spending decisions applying to England have knock-on effects in other parts of the UK. If public spending in England goes up by 2% for any reason in any area, then the amount of block grant money allocated to the Scottish Parliament for example must rise as well. This matters on issues such as proposals to build a third runway at Heathrow Airport in London, so that if money is spent on it from the UK Treasury, then spending in Scotland must increase by a proportionate amount. If health spending decreases in England, then the block grant also gets cut for the devolved legislatures. These are known as “Barnett Consequentials”, and are therefore presented as a reason why non-English MP’s ought to continue to vote on some “English” matters because of their indirect effects elsewhere. (It should be noted that public spending in Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales is typically higher per head than the UK average, whilst in England, it tends to be slightly lower.)

     There is also concern regarding the potential politicization of the Speaker, a person who must observe political neutrality in his or her position. This may prove difficult when making decisions on what is and is not an English-only matter, and the decision reached by the Speaker will have far-ranging consequences either way with the decision that is reached, because they will establish precedents for future decisions. A Speaker may also be accused of acting in the interests of one party or the other, or far worse, acting in the interest of one part of the UK over the other, and this may undermine the authority and legitimacy of the Speaker.

     However, the biggest problem with EVEL pertains to the composition of the Commons itself and the government of the day. A UK government is formed by the party that commands the confidence of the Commons, and this is usually done by having that party holding a majority of seats via a general election. Traditionally, this means that the governing party has the ability to get its agenda through via the support of its MP’s from throughout the country.

     But with EVEL, this becomes problematic if a government has an overall UK majority, but not a majority in England, and if a Speaker determines that an issue becoming before the Commons is “English-only” and a grand committee of English MP’s effectively vetoes the legislation before it comes to the full House. It could – as some fear – lead to a situation where the government cannot act effectively and is held hostage by the UK minority/English majority – resulting in the sort of political stand-offs like those in the US with situations where the houses of Congress and the White House are controlled by different parties. It could potentially generate a massive constitutional crisis and put the Union under terrific strain.

     Interestingly, the party that appeared to be most concerned about EVEL was the SNP, the very political party that wants to break up Britain.

     Leading the charge was the SNP MP for Perth and North Perthshire, Pete Wishart, who could not contain his “outrage” when he tweeted, “Well that’s it. With a majority of 42, Scots MPs are now second class in the UK parliament they were so determined to keep us in.” He further claimed that the change in standing orders amounted to a “slap in the face to Scots voters which they are unlikely to forget”.

     This was the man who claimed – quite passionately – last year on the BBC that he had “no concern or issue” with EVEL, and claimed that it was “an issue that the Scottish people could not care less about”. To Wishart, the debate over EVEL was an “inconsequential spat” which Scots were “not interested in”, and the voters in his constituency “could not care less about policing in Peckham or Plymouth.”

     Indeed, up until recently, the SNP believed in the principle of EVEL and Scottish MP’s abstaining on English matters. In 2007, Angus Robertson, the SNP leader in the Commons asked Prime Minister Gordon Brown (an Scottish MP) if it was not “completely iniquitous” that MP’s representing English constituencies “are not able to decide on matters in Scotland but Scottish MPs…can vote on matters which only impact on England. Why does he not join the SNP in abstaining on these issues?”

     Think of that: the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom not being able to vote on an issue in Parliament – probably a bill backed by his or her government – simply because he or she represents a Scottish constituency.

     This of course, would be the natural concern of pro-Union folks who do not want to see Scotland’s voice in any way diminished at Westminster or have top ministerial posts denied to them by the effects of EVEL.

     However, the self-righteous outrage by the SNP was nothing less than rank hypocrisy and an attempt to engage in grievance-mongering about Scotland’s place in the UK. The SNP deputy leader Stewart Hosie, who was recently owned in an interview by Andrew Neil last Sunday, mockingly referred to the campaign last year to save the Union with his remark that, “When they said ‘Better Together’ they meant second class. When they said ‘lead, don’t leave’ they meant Scots votes don’t count.”

     For a party that likes to claim that pro-Union parties are behind the curve on the changes wrought by devolution (like on matters such as the BBC and taxation), it is somewhat amusing that they are the ones getting all hopped-up here, especially when their former leader Alex Salmond once said:

If you’re asking me should people in England be able to run their own health service or education system, my answer is yes. They should be able to do it without the bossy interference of Scots Labour MPs. We had that in reverse through the 1980s.

     That last sentence refers to when the Conservatives had a majority throughout the UK as a whole, but not in Scotland where Labour held the majority of seats, which led to the idea of English MP’s “overruling” the will of the Scottish people. Back then, there was only one parliament which represented all of the British people in full and laws were made on the behalf of and for the British people from Shetland to Land’s End. For that reason, the idea of English MP’s overruling Scottish ones made little sense, and was more about stoking grievances. Nevertheless, the eventual response was devolution and the establishment of the Scottish Parliament in 1999, but there was no corresponding action in England. Now that this has occurred with EVEL, the Nationalists are outraged.

     Never mind that this is the consequence of devolution and forget their own previous statements. It’s at this point where I defer to Alex Massie of The Spectator, who wrote:

“There is something irksome about all this gurning; a reminder that grievance is the nationalists’ reserve currency. Ignore them and they will howl; give them what they want and they will find a reason to complain too.

And what of Scotland, poor old Scotland? As always, she is the victim. Whatever happens, she will be molested. The only thing worse than London’s interference in her affairs is London’s indifference to those affairs. And vice versa.”

     Let us not forget: the SNP wants see Britain broken up, which is why for all of the indignation they show, they actually welcome EVEL because it gives them yet another ax to grind which they can use for separation. After all in their eyes, it’s just another example of Scotland being mistreated by big bad Westminster. If anything, their decision back in the summer to announce that they would vote on the issue of fox hunting in England and Wales may well have been an attempt to goad David Cameron to ensuring that EVEL became a reality, so that they can use it for their never-ending campaign for secession. They know that since their economic case for secession is tenuous at best, the biggest asset to their ultimate and overriding aim is making Scotland to be the victim, and if that means inconsistency on the issue of English votes, so be it. Stoking up grievance and resentment is their stock and trade, and if it means poisoning relations between England and Scotland for the sake of an independent Scotland, then so be it.

     It is partly for this reason that I believe EVEL is a bad idea. Despite the Natpocrisy, it plays into their hands with the charge that Scottish MP’s – along with their Northern Irish and (at times) Welsh counterparts – have been reduced to second class status at Westminster, which feeds into the belief that only English voices matter and that Scots are not wanted (and need not be heard) in what is supposed to be the UK Parliament, despite the claim of being “better together.”

     Indeed, I expect that the SNP will be all too happy for the Speaker to declare something as English-only so that they whine about it and crank up the grievance machine.

     Then again, the West Lothian Question had to be solved, for the alternative would have been for it to be a festering contention for some people in England who saw non-English MP’s voting on what had effectively become English matters, due to devolution.

     After all, if devolution was brought about to address a “democratic deficit” with regard to Scotland’s place within the Union, and to lessen “English influence” on “Scottish affairs,” logic follows that some people in England may wish to lessen “Scottish influence” on “English affairs.”

     Joyce McMillan, a columnist for The Scotsman, said that this ignores the “brute fact” that the UK is an asymmetrical union in which 85% of the population resides in one part of the country – England, and that EVEL will shut Scotland out of critical decisions that affect the UK as a whole – including Scotland.

     However, some pro-Union supporters say that this an admission that devolution – at the very least – is a flawed concept whose architects failed to think through its implications on Scotland and the United Kingdom as a whole, and its implementation in a piecemeal manner failed to engage the UK as a whole on constitutional matters.

     They also contend that the asymmetry to which McMillan refers did not exist before devolution, for with a single sovereign parliament in London, all of the British people were represented by MP’s who could equally participate in the parliamentary process in full without question. This allowed for many Scots to take their rightful place in powerful and prominent positions in government – defense secretaries, home secretaries, foreign secretaries, chancellors of the Exchequer, and prime ministers – and representing the interests of the UK as a whole (including Scotland).

     In other words, if EVEL had been enacted without devolution – with Scottish representation cut or downgraded for no reason at all – then that would provide more legitimacy to the case for separation. But with devolution, the constitutional dynamics had changed, even has the politicians struggled to come to terms with it, and to some extent, attempted to ignore the issue and pretend it did not exist.

     Indeed, Alex Massie wrote in The Spectator that “the best answer to the West Lothian Question was always to stop asking it” and hope that it would just go away quietly, but recent events – the extraordinary success of the SNP in winning 56 of 59 Scottish seats in the Commons and the prospect of further devolution (including the full devolution of setting income tax) to Edinburgh – have meant that this approach will no longer work.

     From this perspective, he believes that EVEL is a “milquetoast” reform and the “least bad option available.” Other people I know on Twitter and Facebook have referred to it as “a very minor measure”, “hardly the equality of devo”, and “a wee breeze in teacup”.

     Indeed, Massie does not believe that the EVEL procedures will be used very often because he believes that the current Speaker, John Bercow, will “take an inclusive approach to these matters; an approach that will please SNP members more often than it does English MPs.” He further makes an example of how adding a third runway at Heathrow – while appearing to be an “English-only” issue – is more likely a UK-wide issue because airport capacity is something which affects the whole country. Furthermore, the aforementioned “Barnett Consequentials” also mean “that there are fewer England-only bills than often appreciated”, and if the Speaker takes these things into consideration, then EVEL may well “prove a constitutional earthquake so tiny most people will scarcely notice it.”

     Using this point of view, EVEL may be a symbolic gesture to assure most people in England that there are procedures in place to ensure that MP’s representing English constituencies will have greater scrutiny on matters deemed to be English-only. Even if the Grand Committee of English MP’s vote for consent of an England-only bill to go through to the full House of Commons, it is still possible that the bill can be defeated there. And of course, it is possible that the procedure may only be used to a such a limited extent as Massie suggests, so that the overall effect is moot, and even Chris Grayling, the Conservative Leader of the House of Commons, said that he anticipated that only three or four upcoming pieces of legislation may be subjected to EVEL.

      Nevertheless, Westminster is the parliament of the whole United Kingdom, and there should be no debate or question about as to who gets to vote on what, or at a particular stage just because they happen to represent the “wrong” constituency.

     This is why I believe that EVEL is a crude idea that at best is a short-term political answer, rather than a long-term constitutional solution for the United Kingdom. Indeed, the story of devolution thus far is that it was been a series of ad hoc processes with no real unifying concept with regard to the relationship between the UK and its constituent parts, and this has left the country with an unbalanced governmental structure that has eroded the constitutional fabric of the UK, and is prone to misunderstandings and grievance-mongering

     There are no easy answers, but there are ideas which should be taken into consideration. One is the reformation of the House of Lords into a chamber that represents the nations and regions of the UK, which is something about which I have written. Looking back, this probably should have been the way to go in addressing the asymmetries within the UK, which have also been noted by many pro-Union politicians such as Gordon Brown. If this had been achieved long ago, it may have averted the need for devolution, because it would have guaranteed a level of Scottish representation in the upper house that would have been on par – or nearly on par – with England, so that Scotland’s voice (or rather voices, since Scotland is just as diverse as England) could be heard and provide wisdom and scrutiny to government legislation. Even if a reformed Lords did not have the absolute ability to block government legislation, it could – with substantial Scots influence – force the government to think again on its agenda.

     Of course, there would still be people making the case for devolution and decentralization from London. In fact, the idea of revamping the United Kingdom into a federal union like the United States has taken hold in some quarters in the wake of the referendum. But even Gordon Brown has remarked that federalism can only go but so far in a country where 85% of the population lives in one area, and most forms of federalism still mean having a strong central government with the ability to levy and collect taxes, and make an array of laws that directly apply to all people throughout the entire union.

     In essence, federalism means that there are some powers exclusively exercised by the federal government, some powers exclusively exercised by the federated governments, and some powers are exercised jointly. For example, in the US and Germany, the setting of income and corporate taxes are a joint responsibility of federal and state governments. The federal governments and legislatures in both countries are quite powerful – though their power is limited in certain areas.

     Indeed, the authority of the British Parliament at Westminster has already been limited in practice, regardless of the fact that it possesses ultimate sovereignty across the UK. The Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, and Northern Irish Assembly are now semi-permanent institutions to the point where no prime minister or his/her government will dare contemplate abolishing them.

     The issue at hand now is how these institutions, the British Parliament, and potential institutions in England can fit into a federal framework for the United Kingdom as a whole. This will require an end to ad hoc devolution (including the proposal for Full Fiscal Autonomy for Holyrood) as well as the crude answers contained in the proposals for EVEL. Joyce McMillan herself acknowledged that the decision to devolve control of setting income tax rates was “strange and hasty”, for the income tax allows for one of the most transparent forms of redistribution from wealthier parts of a country to another, and the concept of pooling and sharing resources throughout the United Kingdom for the benefit of all was one of the main arguments used for keeping Scotland as part of the Union.

     If the Union is to survive at this point, there needs to be the establishment of a UK constitutional convention that will attempt to sort out the issues of British governance and forge a lasting constitutional settlement that is as “fair” as possible to everybody.  It means looking at the United Kingdom as a whole and having a firm understanding of how it ought to work going forward, which – among other things – means defining the powers of a federal UK Parliament (as Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution does for the US Congress), the limits on the federal parliament (Article 1, Section 9), and the powers and limitations on the federated governments of the nations and regions within the UK (Article 1, Section 10).

     It also means defining the values that bring Britain together as a country, and establishing principles upon which the people and their representatives can build on.

     This effort will require an enormous amount of good faith, tact, skill, statesmanship (likely in the face of political party interest), creative imagination, and a sense of vision and purpose to make such a settlement a success.

     It will also require the participation of people from all walks of life in Britain – including ordinary citizens, civic organizations, and faith groups in an expression of British civic participation that may also facilitate bringing people together and forging a sense of a common identity and common ideals for Britain going forward.

     Balance and fairness must be restored to the constitution, for the integrity and stability of the United Kingdom, is on the line and I believe that excessive and short-sighted devolution combined with similarly short-sighted EVEL only serve to weaken and destabilize it. Indeed, it would be optimal to go back to the way things were before 1999, and start over with such a convention, and alas, we have to work with the current circumstances. Who knows? Perhaps through the debate and discussion of a convention, people may realize that having different tax jurisdictions may not work in a country the size of the UK.

     The brute reality is that Scotland and England have been “interfering” in each other’s affairs for centuries, and they really can't help it, given the island they share. The Union simply made it official, and in my opinion, it is in everyone’s interest for Britain to remain together, for Britain has so much collective potential, and its people can achieve much more together – not just for themselves, but for the world at large – than they could ever do apart.

     Taking all this into account, EVEL may not be either an earthquake or a wee breeze - perhaps something in between. Hopefully, it can lead to a greater understanding of the constitution, as well as a deeper and more meaningful look into how it can best serve the needs and interests of all the people of the United Kingdom going forward.