David Lepper (Labour, Brighton Pavillion) writes:

Thank you for your letter of 21st and 31st October about Daniel Kawczynski’s Early Day Motion on the adoption of ‘Jerusalem’ as the National Anthem of England. I did not support this Early Day Motion.

Personally, I see no reason for there to be a National Anthem for England when there is a National Anthem for the United Kingdom.

However, it does seem to me that any decision on this matter needs a far fuller debate than simply taking sides over a Parliamentary Early Day Motion.

Personally, while I quite like the Poetry of William Blake and find ‘Jerusalem’ a stirring poem, I suspect that there might well be other supporters of the notion of an English National Anthem who might not be happy with that role being taken by a Poem which when it appeared as part of Blake’s longer work Milton, was an attack on the Church, Academic and Literary establishment of his day by a mystic Christian who, it has been argued, subscribed to the Manichean Heresy.

I note that seven days after Mr Kawczynski put down his Early Day Motion another Conservative MP Peter Luff put forward an amendment to replace ‘Jerusalem’ with ‘I Vow to Thee My Country’.

Clearly, both the principle of whether we need an English National Anthem and the details of what that Anthem should be are matters which need more debate by those who feel this is an important issue.

Yours sincerely.

David Lepper MP

Peter Luff’s amendment is here, signed by just Peter Luff. Daniel Kawczynski’s original motion is here, with just eleven names. We face an uphill battle!

Six months after our petition ended the Prime Minister’s Office has finally got around to responding.

You signed a petition asking the Prime Minister to “initiate a Parliamentary debate on the adoption of a national anthem for England that is distinct from the British national anthem.”

The Prime Minister’s Office has responded to that petition and you can view it here: http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page13766.asp

There are currently no plans to introduce an official English anthem, but the Government recognises that the constituent parts of the United Kingdom may quite properly have national songs for which they have a particular attachment. However, the choice of anthem at sporting events is entirely a matter for the sport concerned. The English Cricket Board, for instance, made the decision to play ‘Jerusalem’ when the team took the field. Any such suggestions are best addressed to the relevant sport’s governing body.

So that, we must take it, is the official position of the United Kingdom Government. We will have to adopt another strategy in order to further the anthem4england campaign.

However, it is not inconceivable that the UK Government might be embarrassed into discussing the issue of an English national anthem in the wake of a debate initiated by the SNP administration up in Scotland. In opposition the SNP frequently raised the matter. Possibly this was a way of grabbing headlines, we shall have to wait and see whether in government they have the stomach to take on such a contentious subject.

In other news Radio Four’s Questions Questions broadcast a heavily truncated interview with Stuart Parr in which Stuart mentioned anthem4england. Our thanks to Stuart for his efforts, and our commiserations that they only played a brief snippet of the interview. I can sympathise because I was interviewed for half an hour by BBC Radio Lincolnshire back in March and only five minutes of the interview actually made it onto the radio.

I am pleased to hear of your campaign for a national anthem, and have taken the opportunity to look through your website. My own interest came from my constituents in Shrewsbury, Shropshire. Here being so close to Wales, there is often a feeling that they loose out compared to their fellow Brits across the border in Wales.

I have been petitioned many times, and with the debate over English Votes on English matters raging, thought I would add to the call for a separate English anthem in the way we politicians can. My choice of Jerusalem comes from conversations with constituents, and my own personal opinion. There are of course other songs, ‘I vow to thee my country’, and ‘Land of Hope and Glory’. But Jerusalem to me is the most appropriate for an English national anthem (despite its religious overtones).

I am unsure as to why it has been unsupported; I thought I would at least have greater support than has been forthcoming. Perhaps you could encourage people through your website to ask their MPs to sign.

Yours Sincerely,

Daniel Kawczynski MP

I contacted Hugo Swire MP to ask why he had not signed Daniel’s EDM. This was his reply:

As Shadow Secretary of State I only sign EDMs on the approved Conservative Party list. I am afraid EDM 2791 is not included, so I am unable to sign it.

Email now winging its way to the Conservative Party HQ to find out why they do not approve of this motion.

I recently received some interesting feedback via our contact form:

How can you use quotes from that communist lackey Billy Bragg, it is him and his ilk that have managed to bring England to the sad and sorry state it is at the moment, and quotes from the Daily Mirror, mouthpiece of New Labour who sold us out to Europe and allowed our Parliament to be constantly over ruled by a group of un-elected European federalists. Shame on you.

Andy, some of my best friends are communist lackeys and EU-federalists.

Actually I don’t know any but as it happens I did just read Billy Bragg’s new book ‘The Progressive Patriot’. In it Billy writes:

There is a simple reason why so many ordinary people have recently turned to the St George’s Cross as a means of displaying their support for our national team. It’s the only thing we English have that belongs to us alone. Of the thirty-two countries that competed in the 2006 World Cup there was only one which didn’t have its own parliament or passports or national anthem: England.

Of these three it’s the last which rankles most. It’s been years since our Welsh and Scottish neighbours stopped singing the British national anthem, ‘God Save the Queen’, at sporting events. It didn’t take an Act of Parliament, or the United Kingdom to crumble or the monarchy to collapse, to make the change. When the Welsh sing ‘Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau’ they are sending out a message, and even if the language is unfamiliar, the meaning is clear: ‘Hello, we’re from Wales and we’re very proud of it.’ England’s continued attachment to the British national anthem smacks of a lack of self-confidence, a worry that, without it, we might somehow be a lesser people. The message sent out every time we sing ‘God Save the Queen’ is one of ambiguity: ‘Hello, we’re the English, but we’re not really sure what that means.’

Communist lackey or not he has a point. The Progressive Patriot is available from Billy Bragg’s website.

A reply to my letter asking for an official English anthem:

Thank you for your email of 10 October about national anthems.

As you may know, it is the tune which constitutes the authorised part of the National Anthem in the United Kingdom and not the words. The latter are traditional; and the choice of words and verses to be used on any particular occasion is one for those concerned.

Your suggestion has been carefully noted, but there are no plans to recommend to The Queen that any change should be made.

The National Anthem is the anthem for the whole of the United Kingdom. The constituent parts of the United Kingdom may quite properly have national songs for which they have a particular attachment. However, there are no plans to introduce an official English Anthem.

I appreciate that the playing of national anthems at sporting events is an issue which gives rise to strong feelings in many people. However, this is a matter solely for the governing body of the sport of public entertainment concerned, and the Government has no locus to intervene.
I hope this information is helpful.

Regards

Denis Clarke
Desk Policy Officer
Central Information and Briefing Unit
DCMS

Hmmm…I’m not entirely sure that he understood my letter. I was not asking for a change to the UK national anthem but simply whether the government offered any advice on what is, and what is not, appropriate in terms of the anthem played.

I don’t believe that the Government has no locus to intervene; the power invested in them by the electorate makes them the locus. Daniel Kawczynski’s Early Day Motion and the recent anthems debate in the Scottish Parliament would indicate that I am correct.

My reply:

Thank you for your response. You may have misinterpreted my letter. I am not objecting to God Save the Queen as the UK anthem, I am objecting to God Save the Queen being used as the English national anthem because it is not. And because its use as an English anthem conflates England and Britain and creates unnecessary nationalist tensions between England and Scotland and Wales.

The UK Government is the de facto English government so it must have responsibility to advise on these matters. The Scottish Parliament can debate on the Scottish anthem and Daniel Kawczynski’s Early Day Motion in support of Jerusalem clearly indicates that the Government does have the power to change things.
Are you suggesting to me that the UK Government has no opinion on what the English national anthem should be, and that they are completely happy to let sports governing bodies decide upon what the English anthem should be, regardless of what is chosen?

If so, can you tell me whether they take the same relaxed and enlightened attitude to what British national anthem should be played at the 2012 Olympics?

I rather suspect that the Government may be willing to take a firmer line in regard to British identity.
It will be interesting to see whether the UK Government has differing policies in regard to English and British identity.

Two MPs that have signed the motion in support of Jerusalem have been kind enough to get back to me:

I agree with your reasons for our need for an English anthem (though, as a republican, I dislike God save the Queen). Jerusalem has words that inspire the wish to work for a better country, together with a rousing tune – and I enjoy singing it!

LYNNE JONES MP

It is a great song which has a link with the Labour movement and was sung at Labour Party Conferences in the past.

Mike Gapes MP

Hopefully the others are replying by snail mail.

Watching the live coverage of England -v- Greece on the BBC I was disappointed to see the subtitles describing God Save the Queen as the English national anthem.

England, of course, doesn’t have a national anthem. God Save the Queen is the British national anthem and the BBC is well aware of this.

I wrote to the BBC last night:

Hi,

I have been watching the England -v- Greece match and when the national anthems were played I noticed that the subtitles announced God Save the Queen as the English national anthem. As you are no doubt aware, GStQ is the British national anthem and not the English national anthem. England has no national anthem. Please ensure that GStQ is correctly identified as the British national anthem as I, and many others, find the continuing (deliberate?) confusion of England and Britain by the BBC offensive.

They wrote back to me today:

Dear Mr Parr

Thank you for your e-mail regarding ‘Match of the Day Live: England v Greece’.

I understand you feel ‘God Save The Queen’ was incorrectly referred to on the subtitles as the ‘English’ rather than the ‘UK’ national anthem during this broadcast.

We appreciate that you feel that this anthem was incorrectly described and as such please be assured that your comments have been fully registered and will be made available to the ‘Match of the Day’ production team, the subtitling department and senior BBC management. Feedback of this nature influences future policy and programming.

Thank you once again for taking the trouble to contact the BBC with your concerns.

Regards

Patrick Marr
BBC Information

I replied:

Patrick,

It’s not a matter of opinion as you seem to infer – God Save the Queen is the national anthem of the United Kingdom, not of England. There is no English national anthem – in fact, there is technically no British national anthem as there has never been a royal proclamation or act of parliament designating it as such but that’s irrelevant. Can you confirm that the British national anthem will not be referred to as the English national anthem in future? If Scotland was playing, nationalist nutters would have burned down Broadcasting House in protest.

Stuart

I do feel that things are changing for the better, but still, to anyone English, this passage from The Christian Science Monitor must serve as a damning indictment of lacklustre England:

There is no national dress, no national song. (The English footballers must sing the British anthem before matches.) The national day, April 23 – named for the patron saint of England, St. George – is an utter non-event compared with July 4 in the US, March 17 in Ireland, and July 14 in France. A decade ago, a World Cup run would have been feted with British Union jacks, not St. George flags.

Simon Lee, writing in the Yorkshire Post:

ENGLAND is a strange country, politically speaking.
If it was an independent nation-state, England’s population of 50 million and national income of £861bn in 2004 would make it both one of the largest member-states of the European Union and a prospective G8 member. Paradoxically, as the New Encyclopaedia Britannica acknowledges: “Constitutionally, England does not exist.” England and its political identity have been subsumed within and conflated with the institutions of the British state, symbolised by the playing of the British national anthem at England’s World Cup matches.

Is there any other country at the World Cup without its own national anthem? Is there any other country at the World Cup without its own parliament?

In the Leicester Mercury the Devil’s Advocate argues the case against God Save the Queen.

Dr Chris Harwood is a psychologist from Loughborough University. He knows all about the effects music can have on the sporting psyche.

“Music before a sporting event can play a part in getting the athletes and crowd ready for the game,” he says.

“God Save the Queen is – how can I say this – very consistent. The tempo and melody is the same throughout the song.”

What we need instead, suggests Dr Harwood, is something which rouses to a galvanising, stirring climax; something to fire you up.

What we want, he says, is a tune with a bold rhythm; a song with qualities that represent the toil of the forthcoming battle.

“I would agree that God Save the Queen, from a musical point of view, is not very inspiring,” he says.

“The tempo and melody are simply not very good. I would have thought Land of Hope and Glory and/or Jerusalem are lyrically more suitable and musically more inspiring.”

The Advocate concludes with a statement that is not so far away from the thinking behind this site.

Is it too much to ask that we drop this irrelevant, tuneless, dumb and offensive piece of music for something that actually works: a tune that represents England, all that’s great to be English – and something which gets the hairs on the back of your neck standing to attention when it’s given a public outing?

Everyone knows the Devil has the best tunes.

This Devil wouldn’t object to Jerusalem. That would do. Land of Hope and Glory? Yep, we’d settle for that, too.

We’d even swap it for Don’t Stop Me Now, by Queen, or Gercha, by those stalwarts of Englishness, Chas and Dave. It can’t be any worse than what we have at the minute.

But we have to move quickly. There’s a World Cup looming. And if we’re stuck with this dreadful old dog of a song, then God Save The Team.