Et tu, Menzies?

So, after months of plotting against his leadership of the Liberal Democrats, in what will surely go down as one of the most cowardly and messiest political knifings in history, the men in grey sandals came finally for Charles Kennedy.

With speculation over his future reaching fever-pitch last week, Kennedy confirmed what many at Westminster had long suspected. Namely, that he had been battling with a drink problem, and had in recent months sought treatment to overcome it.

This public exposure of what should have been essentially a private matter, gave the green light to plotters with their own reasons for wanting rid of him. Recognising that the politics of the situation ran deeper than mere speculation over his health Kennedy called a snap leadership election, inviting dissatisfied colleagues to stand against him.

Despite getting the help to overcome his illness which so many colleagues claimed to have urged privately, his front bench still threatened to make the issue a matter of confidence. While Kennedy had judged correctly that no-one would be prepared to put up, his final undoing was in assuming that they would then be prepared to shut up.

Even though not a single challenger was prepared to come forward, a full scale walkout of his front bench was threatened if he did not step down as leader. It was then left over the weekend for Kennedy to eat the bowl of poisoned muesli which had been placed in front of him.

We are often invited to believe that the Lib Dems are somehow more truthful and decent than all the other 'grubby' big parties. It is now there for all to see what a bunch of scheming, manipulative, unprincipled chancers they really can be in their pursuit of power.

There is an Arab saying with a particular resonance in politics that 'the dogs bark, but the caravans move on'. As proof of this, one contender wasted no time in announcing his candidacy for the leadership of the party. Somehow, it seems appropriate following the skullduggery of the last few weeks that when used as a noun, the word 'Ming' should be associated with an unpleasant smell.

Much lauded for his 'gravitas', even though there are less kind words which could be used with perhaps equal accuracy to describe his rather grand bearing, Menzies Campbell announced his candidacy before Kennedy's political corpse had even begun to cool. Perhaps this was unsurprising given that his support for Kennedy has been qualified throughout, beingalmost as notable for what he didn't say over this time as for what he did.

Latterly, his support for Kennedy was equivalent to that given by the hangman's rope to the condemned man. He deserves no credit for loyalty and while ambition is no crime, equally he deserves no credit for his rank cowardice in allowing others to do his dirty work for him.

But pride always comes before a fall. Leading for his party at Prime Minister's Questions was Campbell's big chance to show what he could do. Amidst catcalls and shouts of 'Who shot Kennedy?', he began with an ill-judged crack in his tribute to Tony Banks, before going on to ask a question about public services.

It was a perfectly reasonable question, if a little contrived. But alas! He went on to drop an almighty clanger with his follow-up. He got as far as chastising Blair for 1 in 5 English schools having only temporary headmasters, before a shout of 'so have you!' had the place in an uproar and Lib Dem colleagues examining their shoes in acute embarrassment.

Laugh? Hansard records an 'interruption', which doesn't even begin to do justice to the comic value of the moment. Even the normally unflappable Michael Martin struggled to keep a straight face while calling for some order.

But fascinating as watching the greasy pole may be in the weeks ahead, we should spare a thought for the honourable man, who had the misfortune to be leading a dishonourable party in his hour of need. Kennedy is now free to spend more time with his wife and young son, which I hope will lend him the perspective and serenity he will need to contemplate a future away from the vocation to which he has devoted his adult life.

Even though you feel he may be better off out of it, this was still a sad end to the career of one of Scotland's most gifted politicians. I, for one, wish Charles Kennedy all the best whatever he decides to do in future. History will very likely record his departure from leadership of the Lib Dems as the first recorded instance of a ship leaving behind the sinking rats.

The Last Refuge of the Scoundrels
 

The Westminster Government's Department of Culture, Media and Sport launched a new website recently. Called 'Icons', it gives people a chance to highlight what they see as enduring images of England and Englishness.

Routemaster busses, red phone boxes and a nice cup of tea all feature in the list. The King James Bible also appears, which may raise eyebrows south of the border amongst those who remember that James I of England was also James VI of Scotland. Nonetheless, it's all good, clean fun, and gives a fascinating insight into the things which our nearest neighbours
think have done most to help shape their collective character.

Elsewhere, next weekend the Fabian Society will be hosting a conference on national identity. Held under the theme of 'Britishness - who do we want to be?', it aims to 'unpack the highly-charged themes of British identity, citizenship, diversity and integration'.

Heavy stuff. But even if the conference were not taking place, it's possible to detect a new sense of interest amongst the British centre left when it comes to the politics of identity.

Increasingly, the policy of multiculturalism is being seen to have failed, and not just by those who feel that their problems are ignored by governments allegedly more interested in tackling the concerns of minority ethnic groups. Perhaps the most dramatic illustration of this was when
Trevor Phillips, the New Labour sympathizing chair of the Commission for Racial Equality, spoke out against the sense of 'separateness' to which he says multiculturalism has contributed.

It is, claims Phillips, now necessary to 'assert a core of Britishness' for all citizens, which would mean stressing shared values such as believing in democracy and the rule of law. Unfortunately, quite why he thinks the British happen to value democracy or the rule of law any more than a Norweigan or a South African doesn't seem to be recorded anywhere. Had he tried to do so, I'm sure it would have made for very entertaining reading.

It can become very problematic when you start trying to define identity this way. I enjoy Shakespeare and a cup of tea as much as anyone, regard my home as my castle and have been known on occasion to go out in the midday sun. None of this makes me English, any more than a liking for the odd whisky would turn Jeremy Paxman into a rampant Scottophile. However, my flippancy aside, I think we can see and accept the point Phillips is driving at, which is that for any society to function, people need some sense of a shared identity or purpose.

Other Labour sympathizing intellectuals are also beginning to talk of the need for a 'new' form of nationalism which can, in the jargon, incorporate the shared values & belief sets of different ethnic groups. David Goodhart, the editor of the left-leaning Prospect magazine, has perhaps gone furthest, floating the idea of a 'progressive nationalism' which could allow this.

It's very New Labour to talk of nationalism in this way, since it gives the impression of wanting to wipe out every trace of thought on identity politics which has gone before. However, this new nationalism tentatively being sketched out for us will be something which the left can embrace, since it will eschew any hint of colonialism or chauvinism. A guilt-free nationalism, if you like, with extra strength and softness, half the calories and which gets rid of all those stubborn stains too.

Key to this project is the need to 'find new images', which is perhaps where the aforementioned 'Icons' poll will come in. In a recent BBC radio interview on the subject, one contributor offered a London policeman wearing a turban as just such an image of a new Britishness. Amidst all this motherhood and apple pie, I almost felt churlish recalling the young man I saw walking down Edinburgh's Princes Street last year wearing a tartan turban.

But here's the rub. Although they are always in a dynamic condition of forming and re-forming, nations are a natural unit of social cohesion. They don't always coincide with state boundaries and can be poor at resolving the resulting tensions. However, equal tensions nearly always result when the state attempts to get people to conform to a top down national ideal.

Its this very realisation which places the ongoing debate surrounding Scottish identity several light years ahead of next weekend's conference agenda. Very few people talk these days of Scottishness in racial terms as they might Englishness, unless its to describe Scotland's diversity as a 'mongrel nation'. Manifestly to its credit, the SNP long ago did its bit to help bring this about by holding out citizenship of an independent Scotland not just to those born in Scotland, but also those who have chosen to make their lives here.

Although modern Scotland has far fewer immigrants than England, what is more relevant is the positive attitudes displayed towards Scottishness by those who come to live here. For sure, there is intolerance and racism in Scotland, just as you find everywhere else. But while there is no room for complacency, there is a widespread acceptance of alternative cultures, which are seen as strengthening our collective Scottishness. If there is no similar crisis of multiculturalism north of the border, it has much to do with a civic nationalism which does not set out to exclude those who have joined us from elsewhere.

Its an outlook which is far more interested in what you bring to the party than what others think you should aspire to. For that reason alone, developing a similarly inclusive Englishness should have much to commend it to conference delegates. With a latent English identity present, there is surely a much greater risk of exclusion from trying to bypass this in favour of promoting a sense of British identity, to which fewer and fewer nominal Britons feel much affinity.

Shahid Malik, formerly a CRE Commissioner but now a Labour MP, talks of visiting Asian communities in Scotland and Wales and being surprised to find people describing themselves happily as Scots or Welsh-Asian rather than British. It was at that point that he decided to 'out' himself as being English, and he describes a relief at the new outlook this afforded him on his identity and sense of place.

The British left has long had an uneasy relationship with nationalism at home, preferring to disengage entirely or to disparage the Scottish and Welsh varieties with, if they could only recognize it, their own brand of British nationalism. When not viewing society through a class prism, the argument ran that British nationalism was inclusive, while the 'sub-nationalisms' of Scotland and Wales were somehow exclusive. It was, they said, only through a shared Britishness that everyone could feel they truly belonged.

The fact that this conference is being held at all shows just how threadbare these assertions of conceptual superiority have been all along. Maybe a better theme for delegates to consider would be whether anything about Britain, like the monarchy or the BBC, is truly 'British' and if it is, whether it is worth maintaining in its current or indeed any form. A lot of people might be quite surprised at the conclusions which would be drawn.

Instead of trying to breathe life into ideas which no longer command widespread support where they really need to, why not try instead to let a new English nationalism emerge, like the kind Shahid Malik has found? Who knows, if it leads to the end of the British state, we may even find better ways of representing what we have in common than our creaking system of government allows currently.