Category Archives: English identity

How the Lord Mayor of London undermines Liberalism!

 

What the Lord Mayor of London teaches us about Liberal theory! 

OR

How the Lord Mayor of London undermines Liberalism!


Liberal theory, from John Stuart Mill onwards (and especially in the modern era of ‘Neo-Liberalism’) is based upon the idea that all people are fundamentally the same.  In particular, that everyone’s fundamental nature is to maximise their position in the market-place, as economists put it.  This is the theory that human-beings are “rational economic actors” whose only motivation is to improve their personal position in economic terms – like good economic worker ants!  

I believe this theory to be fundamentally wrong and to be a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature.  

I also believe that this error is important in explaining many of the problems of our country today because it is an error that permeates the thinking of the elite in our society. That is not only the rich elite, but also the political elite, the media elite and the decision-making elite in universities and in most of the key positions of power and influence in our State and in our country. 

This error has led the key policy decision-makers in our society to disregard and disrespect the natural urges of most of our people. 

I started this with headings relating to the Lord Mayor of London.  Above there is a picture of him in all his refinery!  You might ask what is the link?  I think it is this. The Lord Mayoralty of the City of London is the supreme English example of what rich people will do and how far they will go for Status and for Respect within our traditional communities..

In order to be Lord Mayor you have to give up many hours to unpaid work and activity within the City of London Corporation as an Alderman and as a Sherriff.  There is also a three year stretch, in the run-up to and in the year of being Lord Mayor, in which you have no time for any paid work.  During this time you would have to be fully focussed on your ceremonial roles in the City of London hierarchy.  Also even when in office as Lord Mayor, you will have virtually no real power, nor will any of it will gain you any economic advantage.  Indeed a generally held estimate for the cost of being Lord Mayor is that it costs at least £500,000!

In “Liberal” theory of course all this activity is completely irrational.  In fact, so irrational as to be almost utterly inexplicable.

This of course vividly demonstrates that ‘Liberal’ theory is wildly adrift from the reality of human nature because in fact rich people getting involved in such activities are perfectly rationally focussed on the acquisition of status and respect within our traditional communities.

Across the Nation many other people chose other ways of getting such communal status and respect. For example in most English counties there is an equivalent office of High Sherriff.  Also there is the whole “Honours System” in which many people struggle to get OBEs or Knighthoods, etc. 

The oddity is that rich people do not understand that their own urges for status and respect and community are perfectly normal not only for them, but also for everybody else as well!  

Therefore the same rich people are very often perfectly happy to justify low paid, low status and insecure jobs for “ordinary people” and they try to justify this hypocracy using ‘Liberal’ economic arguments.  Such people really should not be as surprised as they apparently are when most of our people don’t like the outcome! 

We need a new politics with a new economic model which does give proper status and respect to our own people in our own most natural and very traditional community, namely our Nation, I mean those people who do all the “ordinary” jobs which are nevertheless, of course, so very necessary to the proper functioning of our society and to our collective English culture and prosperity.  

My New Year message therefore is that we English Nationalists need to focus more on reforms that give English People a justified pride and self-respect as citizens, and as fellow members of our Nation, as well as a fair reward for fair labour.  Also we should focus on attacking the dogma on “economic efficiency” which currently excessively rewards big business and bankers and ‘Liberal’ British Establishment politicians!

SHOULDN’T DEVO SAUCE FOR THE WELSH GOOSE BE SAUCE FOR THE ENGLISH GANDER TOO?

SHOULDN’T DEVO SAUCE FOR THE WELSH GOOSE BE SAUCE FOR THE ENGLISH GANDER TOO?

The devolved Welsh Government has submitted written arguments to the “Supreme” Court in the Brexit case. My eye was caught by part of their submissions:-

“6. As the Welsh Government recently said in its written evidence to the House of Lords Constitution Committee’s inquiry The Union and devolution, devolution has become a fundamental and effectively irreversible feature of the constitution:

(i) Whatever its historical origins, the United Kingdom is best seen now as a voluntary association of nations which share and redistribute resources and risks between us to our mutual benefit and to advance our common interests.

(ii) The principles underpinning devolution should be recognised as fundamental to the UK constitution, and the devolved institutions should be regarded as effectively permanent features of that constitution.

(iii) Devolution is about how the UK is collectively governed, by four administrations which are not in a hierarchical relationship one to another. The relations of the four governments of the United Kingdom should therefore proceed on the basis of mutual respect and parity of esteem.

(iv) The allocation of legislative and executive functions between central UK institutions and devolved institutions should be based on the concept of subsidiarity, acknowledging popular sovereignty in each part of the UK.

(v) The presumption should therefore be that the devolved institutions will have responsibility for matters distinctively affecting their nations. Accordingly, the powers of the devolved institutions should be defined by the listing of those matters which it is agreed should, for our mutual benefit, be for Westminster, all other matters being (in the case of Wales) the responsibility of the Assembly and/or the Welsh Government.”


The whole of their submissions to the “Supreme” Court can be found here >>> http://gov.wales/docs/dfm/minutes/cabinet/161125counselgeneralforwalesprintedcaseen.pdf

It is however bitterly ironic that the ‘Counsel General for Wales’ then makes no mention throughout his 28 pages of legal submissions of the dreaded “E” words – ENGLAND or the ENGLISH! 

He also switches hastily to legalistic detail instead of further general statements of constitution principle. 

I suspect that this is because the above quotation would lead naturally to a discussion of fairness, equality and the unfair anomaly that England has no English First Minister, no English Government and no English only Parliament – unlike Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland!

Consultation on what an English Parliament might look like – what is your view?


Consultation on what an English Parliament might look like – what is your view?

The issue of an English Parliament continues to rise up the scale of answers and of information and in response to this the Constitution Unit of University College London is consulting on it. Here is their briefing. Do complete their form!



What might an English Parliament look like? The Constitution Unit is consulting on the design options

Posted on November 24, 2016 by The Constitution Unit

The Constitution Unit has recently begun work on a new project examining the design options for an English Parliament. This was once seen as an unrealistic proposal but support has grown in recent years and it therefore now deserves to be taken more seriously. Nonetheless many major questions about what an English Parliament might actually look like remain unaddressed. In this post Jack Sheldon and Meg Russell set these questions out and invite views on them through a consultation that is now open and will close on 27 January 2017. 

Calls for an English Parliament have long existed, but frequently been rejected by academics and mainstream politicians. Although a Campaign for an English Parliament was set up in 1998, as the devolved institutions were being established for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the idea did not get off the ground. A central argument has been that such a parliament, thanks to representing almost 85 per cent of the UK’s population, would, in the words of the 1973 Kilbrandon Commission on the Constitution, result in a Union ‘so unbalanced as to be unworkable’ (para 531). As critics such as Vernon Bogdanor (p. 13) have pointed out, no major existing federation has a component part this dominant, and unbalanced federal systems (e.g. the former USSR and Yugoslavia), have tended to fail. Elites have thus often proposed devolution within England, rather than to England as a whole, as the preferred solution to the ‘English question’, and considered an English Parliament an unrealistic proposal. As the Constitution Unit’s Robert Hazell wrote in 2006, ‘An English Parliament is not seriously on the political agenda, and will never get onto the agenda unless serious politicians begin to espouse it’. 

Growing salience of the English question 


But various factors have increased the salience of questions around England’s place in the devolution settlement, and the idea of an English Parliament has gained new friends as a result. One factor is the gradually greater powers of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly beyond those bestowed in the 1990s – including legislative powers in an increasing number of fields and significant tax-raising powers. This means that a growing amount of business at Westminster concerns England (or sometimes England and Wales) alone. In turn, this brings the famous ‘West Lothian question’, concerning the voting rights of MPs elected from the devolved nations, more to the fore. The Conservative government consequently introduced a form of ‘English votes for English laws’ (EVEL) in 2015, through changes to House of Commons standing orders. But the new arrangements have been rejected by opposition parties, so might not survive a change of government. Furthermore, the version of EVEL that has been introduced does not actually prevent Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs from vetoing English-only legislation. It is therefore far from clear that this will prove to be a satisfactory long-term solution. 

Another contributing factor is growing interest in the future of the Union pre- and post- the 2014 Scottish independence referendum. Various unionist politicians, pundits and other political observers have considered how Scottish demands for greater autonomy may be satisfied within the UK, and federalism is being increasingly discussed. The EU referendum result has led some such as Professor Jim Gallagher (Director-General, Devolution Strategy at the Cabinet Office from 2007–10) to suggest that the devolved nations, whilst remaining within the UK, might each pursue different relationships with the EU post-Brexit. Heavyweight political support for something similar has come from former Prime Minister Gordon Brown and former Shadow Foreign Secretary Douglas Alexander. The threat of a second Scottish independence referendum, announced by First Minister Nicola Sturgeon in the immediate aftermath of the Brexit vote and repeated since, means the government needs to take such proposals seriously. This would clearly require the consequences for England to be addressed.

A third factor is a growth in English, as supposed to British, national identity among the population. Professor Michael Kenny argued in his 2014 book The Politics of English Nationhood that politicians needed to ‘accept and speak to the implications of this shift’ (p. 239). Already we know from polling that those identifying as English rather than British were more likely to support UKIP and the Leave campaign, leading mainstream politicians to consider how to increase their appeal among patriotic English voters. The English question has traditionally exercised Conservative politicians in particular, but it is now within the Labour Party that these issues are being most urgently discussed. Recent manifestations include an e-book, Labour’s Identity Crisis: England and the Politics of Patriotism, edited by former Shadow Education Secretary Tristram Hunt, and a new group of MPs, Red Shift Labour, which has published three reports on how the party can improve its English appeal. A central message is that Labour must be more prepared to embrace English identity. As yet there is little agreement on how this should be achieved, but constitutional solutions are among those being discussed. 

Support has grown for an English Parliament, but no detailed blueprint exists 

Hence 10 years on from Robert Hazell’s comments, the idea of an English Parliament commands significantly more political support. On the Conservative side the most persistent advocate has been John Redwood, whilst other prominent supporters include David Davis, now Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, and Lord Salisbury. Within the Labour Party Frank Field, a longstanding exponent of an English Parliament, has recently been joined by the former shadow cabinet members Tristram Hunt and Chuka Umunna. John Denham, who served in Gordon Brown’s cabinet and established a Centre of English Identity and Politics at Winchester University in 2015, is open-minded towards the idea. The Scottish National Party are also favourable, and Paul Nuttall, widely expected to win the UKIP leadership election, has pledged support for ‘an English Parliament for English people’. Of course, many other politicians remain convinced by the case against an English Parliament, and neither the Conservative or Labour leaderships appear close to support. But the growing interest across the political spectrum means that the idea deserves to be taken more seriously than previously. 

Nonetheless, there remains no detailed blueprint for what an English Parliament might actually look like – compared, for example, to the proposals produced by the Scottish Constitutional Convention which formed the basis for the design of the Scottish Parliament. Hence we have recently begun work on a new project at the Constitution Unit, funded by the Nuffield Foundation, that seeks to address this gap. The project follows the Unit’s influential work on the design of the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly in the 1990s. We will not be advocating for or against an English Parliament – there are strong arguments on both sides and it is ultimately for politicians to decide which case they find more convincing. Instead we will undertake an objective analysis of the options for the detailed design of such a body, in order to inform future deliberations. Whilst some proponents have addressed some design questions they often disagree on key points, while other major questions remain largely unaddressed. We will ask (and – as indicated below – are seeking views on) questions including the following: 

Should an English Parliament be established as part of a settlement to bind the UK together in a more stable way, or to facilitate English independence? Many supporters of an English Parliament are motivated by a desire to prolong the Union in the context of pressures for Scottish independence. Frank Field, for example, has written that an English Parliament is ‘the only way to save the UK’. Yet there have been recent moves towards supporting English independence among some of those campaigning for an English Parliament. The English Democrats have come out in support of independence and Eddie Bone, the Campaign Director of the Campaign for an English Parliament, has suggested that ‘English independence might be the only way forward’. 

Should an English Parliament be separately elected, or should it be composed of English members of the House of Commons holding a dual mandate? The first of these is favoured by the Campaign for an English Parliament, and would mirror arrangements in the existing devolved nations, but the second commands significant support among advocates of an English Parliament, including Conservative MPs John Redwood and Andrew Rosindell.
What powers should an English Parliament have? Most proponents agree that these should be equivalent to the powers of the Scottish Parliament, but in some models, for instance that proposed by Conservative MP Teresa Gormanin the late 1990s, an English Parliament would be responsible for everything except foreign affairs and defence. 

How many members should there be in an English Parliament, and within what structure? Under the dual mandate model mentioned above the number of members would clearly be determined by the number of English members of the House of Commons (currently 538). Were a separate English Parliament to be established it might be different – the Wilberforce Society, for example, has proposed a 180-seat English Parliament. The body might also be either unicameral or bicameral. 

What electoral system and boundaries should be used for an English Parliament? Alternatives to first-past-the-post have been used for other devolved parliaments in the UK, but it is not certain that this would also be the case for an English Parliament. The dual mandate model obviously implies the use of first-past-the-post (so long as that system continues to be used for Westminster elections), whilst many leading advocates of a separate English Parliament have not been clear about what electoral system they envisage being used. 

Where should an English Parliament sit? Some supporters of an English Parliament suggest that it would be based at Westminster (either in the House of Commons or House of Lords chamber) but others, including the singer Billy Bragg, have proposed locations outside London. 

Should there also be an English government and First Minister? This is a key demand of the Campaign for an English Parliament and would almost certainly be a feature of any separately elected English Parliament. However, under the dual mandate model the UK government might continue to perform the role of the English government. The Conservative Welsh Assembly member David Melding suggests that, under his version of the dual mandate model (pp. 244–245), a UK government lacking a majority in England could either form a coalition to secure an English majority or seek to govern England as a minority administration. 

How should an English Parliament be financed? The Barnett formula, used to determine the level of public spending in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, would not work for an English Parliament with powers equivalent to those of the existing devolved institutions, as it is based on the UK government’s English expenditure. Hence a new funding model would be needed.
How should an English Parliament relate to sub-national bodies such as city-regions? In debates about how to respond to the English question an English Parliament and regional devolution within England are often presented as alternatives. But in practice might it be desirable to have both? 

What implications would an English Parliament have for the UK parliament and government? Many proponents of an English Parliament suggest that the establishment of an English Parliament should lead to a reduction in the number of members of the UK parliament and perhaps even the abolition of one chamber. Frank Field, for instance, suggests reducing the UK parliament to a Senate of 250 members. In a report published in 2015 the Constitution Reform Group, headed by Lord Salisbury, stated that ‘it will almost certainly be a design specification for any new English Parliament proposal that it results in and accommodates at least a corresponding reduction in the size and cost of the Westminster Parliament’ (p. 23). A separate English Parliament would clearly also have major implications for Whitehall.
We are aware that there will be a range of views on these questions. We are hence today launching a consultation that will close on 27 January 2017. This is not about whether or not there should be an English Parliament but about how such a parliament should be designed were it to be established. It is also designed to tease out the diversity of views, and get a sense for whether there is any viable model around which proponents might unite. 

It should be stressed that our consultation is not an opinion poll where responses will be counted up in order to measure the balance of opinion. We are seeking fairly detailed responses and particularly encourage responses from those who have given these questions considerable thought, and/or who have expertise in areas such as electoral systems, federalism, subnational government or devolution finance. We very much look forward to reading what respondents say, and this will guide our research as well as helping us to formulate our conclusions. We plan to publish our report late in 2017, and before then will include updates on the Constitution Unit blog. 

https://opinio.ucl.ac.uk/s?s=45751
About the authors
Jack Sheldon is a Research Assistant at the Constitution Unit, working on the Options for an English Parliament project. He is also editor of the Constitution Unit newsletter and blog.
Professor Meg Russell is the Director of the Constitution Unit.

Oh dear! It’s Gordon Brown banging on about his bogus “Regions” yet again!

Oh dear! It’s Gordon Brown banging on about his bogus “Regions” yet again!


There are no democratically legitimate “Regions” in England – there is just England. The oldest nation state on earth – united on 12th July 927 AD! Yes just England!

I wonder if Gordon Brown isn’t simply a very old fashioned aggressive Scottish nationalist who wants to see the English Nation broken up in the interests of his Nation?

Have a look at this clip>>> http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/regional-inequality-regions-nations-constitution

What do you think? 

Here is the article:-

How to fix regional inequality

Only a re-working of the constitution can bring the UK back together – By Gordon Brown


Today, the United Kingdom appears united in name only.

Already the strains of the European referendum result are showing, as different nations, regions, sectors and companies desperately seek their own opt-outs from a hard Brexit.

But the demand for an a la carte Brexit is only the surface manifestation of deep divisions across the country.

Lying behind the popular revolt on 23rd June are huge structural inequalities that divide north and south and which the current government is failing to address.

Northern unemployment rates—6.8 per cent in the northeast—are almost twice as high as in the south. Last year, the number of workforce jobs in the northeast fell by 40,000 and rose by only 1,000 in the northwest while, in contrast, London and the south east gained 277,000 jobs.

Since 2010, the northeast with four per cent of the population has produced just three per cent of the country’s Gross Value Added and secured only two per cent of the new jobs. The northwest with 11 per cent of the population has produced only nine per cent of the GVA and delivered only seven per cent of the new jobs. And Yorkshire and Humberside with eight per cent of the population has been responsible for 6.5 per cent of the GVA and only six per cent of the new jobs. By contrast, London and the southeast with 26.8 per cent of the population has 37.7 per cent of the GVA and secured 39 per cent of the new jobs. In fact, half of the new jobs created since 2010 went to London, the south east and the east.

Sadly, the post-referendum optimism felt by “Leave” voters in the north will be short-lived. More dependent on trade with Europe than the south, the north will lose jobs faster.

Economically, Britain is becoming two nations—a prosperous south east and a permanently struggling north—with, at the centre, a London economy which is appearing to decouple from the periphery of the country.

The problem: inequality

The revolt of Britain’s regions on 23rd June was driven by discontent, anger and in some cases resentment at growing inequalities.

A study by Professor Philip McCann has found that the UK’s regional inequalities in income are now among the largest in Europe. The average household adjusted disposable income is almost 60 per cent higher in Greater London than in many regions of England as well as in Wales and Northern Ireland. The most recent data, published in December 2015, shows that more than half of the UK population live in regions whose GVA (gross value added) per capita averaged below £22,335. Meanwhile there are areas of London which, with a GVA per head of £135,000, are richer than any comparable part of mainland Europe. By contrast, GVA per head in Tees Valley and Durham is £17,055 and in west Wales and the Valleys it is £15,745.

The latest Eurostat data shows that the Welsh Valleys and Tees Valley have GDP per capita levels, expressed in Purchasing Power Standard (PPS), which are respectively 69 per cent and 74 per cent lower than the EU average, placing them below Lithuania, Slovakia and Slovenia. Overall the north of England, Wales and Northern Ireland have GDP per capita levels that are lower than Mississippi and West Virginia.

London is decoupling from the rest of the country not just because it is a unique capital with a financial services industry fixed on the global economy, but because, as Professor McCann argues, few benefits other than tax revenues flow out of London to the regions. McCann shows there is little economic spill-over from London—in jobs, in the relocation of industries or in technology transfer. In other words, policy actions that enhance London’s economy do little to strengthen the economies of the rest of the UK.

Of course, we should recognise that London itself has thousands of poor families and economic inequality is a problem within the capital. But while 10 per cent of London’s workers are low paid, the figure in the north is around 25 per cent. And the divide is growing. The Northern Powerhouse policy has obscured a cut in regional aid—which in the last six years has been fallen to around £2bn, a third lower than the average during the first decade of this century. As much as three quarters of Government and Research Council R&D spending is in the southern third of the country and only 7 per cent in the north of England. Historic gaps in infrastructure spending are set to widen: transport infrastructure spending per head is set to be £1,900 per annum in London between now and 2020-21 but less than £300 in the northeast.

A London-centric view of the UK no longer works even for the capital—as it struggles with congestion, overheating and a housing crisis, while the regions face depopulation, forced emigration and deprivation.

A new constitution

Britain needs a more balanced economic policy which releases the initiative and dynamism of each region and nation and seeks to bridge the growing divide between core and periphery.

Regional inequalities will only worsen if we continue to centralise decision-making without being sufficiently sensitive to the needs of the regions and nations.

The centralist constitution that evolved during the first Industrial Revolution—which served the UK in the days of the Empire, when London’s political power was matched by the north and midlands’ economic power—does not suit the new world.

Quite simply a Whitehall-dominated constitution can no longer meet the needs and aspirations of our regions and nations. Only a re-working of the UK constitution that starts from the regions and nations will reunite this divided Kingdom.

In Scotland in 1989, at a time of economic concern and political pressure, a constitutional convention that involved civic society as well as the political parties managed to deliver a consensus on the way forward. Now, again, a people’s constitutional convention—as proposed by Labour—offers the best starting point from which to rebuild.

I have suggested that a convention could start by examining the impact of Brexit on the regions and nations of the UK, and questioning whether it makes sense to repatriate powers from Brussels to Westminster when many of these powers would be best administered in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the English regions. I propose that we consider devolving powers over regional policy, agriculture, fisheries, environmental protection and social funds to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh and Northern Irish Assemblies, the new City Mayors and local authorities.

We should consider the case for devolving further powers from the UK to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in light of the Brexit vote. For instance, as the UK will no longer be part of the EU Social Chapter—and the Tories threaten to abandon workers’ rights—employment law could come within the ambit of the Scottish Parliament. If Brussels repatriates its powers to Westminster and Whitehall, Britain will become even more centralised.

One the same basis, there is an argument for creating areas of co-decision making between the four nations. This would ensure none could be forced out of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) against its will. We should agree that if England wishes to leave the ECHR, Scotland should have the ability either to veto that decision—or to remain part of it.

And there is no reason why the constitutional convention should not examine the merits of giving the nations and regions the power to make agreements with the EU in respect of devolved matters, and to have a presence in Brussels. Few universities want to lose the benefits of the Erasmus Programme and few research establishments want to lose the benefits of Horizon 2020—and it may be that the nations and regions of the UK that wish to remain part of them could do so.

Devolution of power also means devolution of finance and there is no reason why the resources to deliver these services could not be devolved to the regions and nations. The new financial settlement could potentially devolve £2-3bn of the £4bn spent annually by the European Union in the UK.

But any constitutional convention would not just be about Brexit and the complaints of the north were not simply about it either. There is therefore a strong case for the convention looking more broadly at the status of the regions and nations within the UK. A more federal union may be the best way of maintaining links with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Certainly, there is a case for the convention considering codifying the division of powers between the centre of the UK and the regions and nations, and replacing the unelected House of Lords with an elected Senate of the Nations and Regions.

The government should be asked by the Labour opposition to sponsor a convention. If it fails to respond—as happened in Scotland in 1989—then Labour should lead and invite the other political parties to come behind a convention with a remit to engage people outside traditional political parties.

The challenge is how to balance the autonomy communities desire and the cooperation we need. Too much integration and regions and nations lose their power to innovate and to speak for local needs. Too little co-operation and we fail to address big economic and social challenges—financial stability, pollution and inequality—that can only be fully addressed by working together. By starting from the needs of the nations and regions—and getting the balance right between local autonomy and nation-wide cooperation—we can begin to build a fairer Britain.

(Here is a link to the original >>>http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/regional-inequality-regions-nations-constitution)

Muslim protester found guilty of racist abuse crime!

This intriguing item appeared on the BBC website on Friday, 28th October.

Race relations worker guilty of racist abuse at refugee rally


Here is what it said:-

“A race relations worker has been convicted of racially abusing a group of Scots at a rally to welcome Syrian refugees to Scotland.

Shafiq Mohammed, 50, was also found guilty of resisting arrest at a demonstration in Monkton, South Ayrshire, on 15 November 2015.

The former Scottish Refugee Council worker broke through a police cordon to verbally abuse a woman and three men.

The rally took place hours after the Paris terrorist attacks.

Ayr Sheriff Court heard how tempers flared among members of the Scottish Defence League and pro-refugee demonstrators.

It followed 150 refugees being granted emergency accommodation at the Ayrshire town’s Adamton Country House Hotel.

Mohammed denied behaving in a racially aggravated manner which was intended to cause alarm and distress.

He claimed the four witnesses had conspired to make up the allegations against him.

Sheriff Robert Weir QC found him guilty on both charges and sentence was deferred.

The court heard Mohammed had previously worked for property firm Orchard & Shipman, which has been paid more than £60m to house refugees in Scotland.

He is currently involved in the Asylum Seeker Housing (ASH) Project – an organisation campaigning on asylum seeker housing issues in the west of Scotland.”
Here is the link to the original >>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-37803531

So it sounds like we should congratulate the Scottish Police and the Scottish Prosecution service for doing their duty in arresting and in prosecuting this man. If only the police and CPS in England could be relied upon to similarly do their duty when aggressive anti-English racists are active here in England!

The law is quite clear that anti-Englishness (or anti-Scottishness) is just as illegal as any other so call “hate crime”. The difference in treatment is simply a political matter not a legal one.

Here is the section 4A of the Public Order Act which is what “Shafiq” appears to have been convicted of.

“4A Intentional harassment, alarm or distress.

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—

(a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

(2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the person who is harassed, alarmed or distressed is also inside that or another dwelling.

(3)It is a defence for the accused to prove—

(a)that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or

(b)that his conduct was reasonable.

(4)F2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(5)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both.”

Click here for the original>>> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/4A

So what sort of sentence has the Judge deferred the sentencing process in order to consider social workers’ reports? Such deferral means that the Judge is considering imprisonment. Here is the relevant section of the CPS sentencing guidelines:-

“Sentencing

Prosecutors have a duty to present all relevant material to allow the court to pass sentence in accordance with the law. Racial or religious aggravation makes an offence more serious and the court has a duty to take this into account when it sentences a defendant.

Prosecutors must neither minimise nor omit relevant and admissible evidence of racial or religious aggravation.

Prosecutors should also make sure that they are aware of the guideline cases to assist the court in sentencing, in particular R v Kelly & Donnelly [2001] 2 Cr. App. R. (S) 73 CA which adopted the majority of recommendations made to the Court of Appeal by the Sentencing Advisory Panel Advice No 4.

The Court of Appeal endorsed the following approach:

the court should first decide on the appropriate sentence without the element of racial or religious aggravation, but including any other aggravating or mitigating features;

the sentence should then be enhanced to take account of the racial or religious aggravation;

if the offence itself merits custody, that sentence should be enhanced by an appropriate amount to reflect the degree of racial or religious aggravation;

the judge should say publicly what the appropriate sentence would have been without the racial or religious aggravation.

Although the original guidance applies to offences charged as specific racially aggravated offences and to all other offences where section 145 Criminal Justice Act 2003 applies, it should also be taken as applying to religiously aggravated offences, following the amendment to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.”

Click here for original >>> http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/racist_and_religious_crime/

What all this shows is that it is possible to get Leftist agitators arrested, charged and convicted but much more effort by English Nationalists is required in making the police arrest and charge those guilty of any illegal anti-English behaviour here in England.

Then we might have our multiculturalist opponents writing many more items like this one:-

Support Shafiq Fundraiser – THIS SUNDAY


“The Glad Cafe and Glasgow Campaign to Welcome Refugees

Support Shafiq Fundraiser – Sunday 22nd May 2016

An evening of music with Robin Adams, Kathryn Joseph, Alasdair Roberts, DJ Kwaby and others,

Featuring previews from the new album REFUGEE 

Alasdair Roberts + Kathryn Joseph + Robin Adams + DJ Kwaby + more

Sunday 22 May 19:30 £5.00 minimum donation

Entry Requirements: Over 18s only

Line up • Alasdair Roberts • Kathryn Joseph • Robin Adams • DJ Kwaby • more

Shafiq needs your support – legal, moral, financial and physical!

On 15th November 2015, Shafiq Mohammed was arrested at an anti-racist demonstration in support of refugees. He is awaiting trial, charged with Racially Aggravated Breach of the Peace and Resisting Arrest (details below).

Here is how you can help

Witnesses — URGENTLY NEEDED. His lawyer is seeking witnesses. If you saw Shafiq at any point during the demonstration, please get in touch. Contact the lawyer, John Harper of McClure Collins.

Email: john@mcclurecollins.com

Telephone: 0141 423 7181

Several people were filming and taking photos. These could be valuable evidence. Please use your networks to find anyone who might be able to help.

Messages — In circumstances like these, messages of support, from individuals and/ or organisations can make a big difference to an individual’s morale. Please send messages of support to: contact@supportshafiq.scot

Financial — His campaign will need financial support. In particular, legal support is not cheap and will need to be paid for. Please use the Paypal button below to send any donations.

Send cheques to GCtWR, C/o FBU, 52 St Enoch Square, Glasgow G1 4AA

At the courtroom — He will need support on the day of his trial, both inside and outside the courtroom. Given SDL members will be witnesses against him, they are likely to organise some sort of presence. We need to outnumber them substantially. The trial date has been re-set for Tuesday 9 June 2016. We will let you know the time when we have it.

Support Shafiq Mohammed

On Sunday November 15, at the demonstration in Monkton to support the refugees being housed in Adamton Country House Hotel and against the Scottish Defence League (SDL) who had declared their intention to demonstrate in the village, one of the anti-racist demonstrators was arrested. He was Shafiq Mohammed, one of the few black faces there. He was kept overnight in police cells in Kilmarnock and then appeared on the Monday afternoon at Ayr Sheriff Court. Shafiq has been charged with racially aggravated breach of the peace and resisting arrest. Apparently one of the SDL women accused him of calling her child a “white bastard” and the police chose to act on it. He has pled not guilty and John Harper of McClure Collins is representing him.

Due to the rough treatment he received when being arrested, he suffered a burst blood vessel in his eye and permanent facial injuries. The handcuffs caused severe cuts and grazing encircling his wrists. In custody, as a result of indicating his dietary requirement for halal food, he was given 4 cereal bars to eat in 24 hours.

Shafiq is a respected professional advocate and consultant in the area of race relations. He has worked for Orchard & Shipman, Ypeople, Migrant Help and the Scottish Refugee Council. He currently gives advice to and is a crucial part of the Asylum Seeker Housing (ASH) Project, an organisation which campaigns on asylum seeker housing issues in the West of Scotland. He has no previous history with the police and indeed this was the first ant-racist, pro-refugee demonstration he had ever attended, having previously been concerned his attendance at such events would compromise his professional standing.

He is understandably deeply distressed. Bad enough being put through this but more so, having suffered racist abuse all his life, to be attending a demonstration against racism and to be accused by the racists of racism and have the police act upon it, is beyond irony. In his case it is unbearable. Further a conviction for racially aggravated breach of the peace could have a particularly detrimental effect on his career.

We cannot allow the SDL to get away with this tactic of picking out individuals from counter demonstrations and making false accusations against them, even more so, if they are black. Support Shafiq Mohammed.

Jock Morris
Chairperson
Glasgow Campaign to Welcome Refugees”


Click here for original article>>> http://www.supportshafiq.scot/

 
We English nationalists need to take note that the reason that the Scottish Police, Prosecution Service and Courts are taking a more even handed approach to anti-Scottishness is political. Their police authority and those that are appointed to head the prosecution service and in charge of the appointments and promotion systems for the judiciary are all dominated by the Scottish National Party.

So another lesson for English nationalists is that we also need to get people elected to the one similar position that is feasible here in England – Police and Crime Commissioners! Then we too could order the police to be far more robust with the Shafiq’s and Jock Morris’s in their relevant police force areas!

“Home Rule” for England called “Racist”!

“Home Rule” for England called “Racist”!

This is our Press Release:-

It is a measure of the state of England that the disgraceful article below could be published, apparently in all seriousness, here in Essex!

Click here to view the article >>> ‘Racist’ signs appear on Chelmsford roundabout near Three Mile Hill calling for ‘Home Rule’ | Essex Live

Robin Tilbrook, the Chairman of the English Democrats said:- “It is absolutely disgraceful that anyone living in Essex should describe calls for Home Rule for England as “racist”. It is legally a so called “Hate Crime” for these offensive and insulting Anglophobic discriminatory remarks to have been publicly made.

Robin continued:- “The English are as much entitled to Home Rule as any other nation on earth. Any person living here who thinks otherwise should seriously consider whether they really want to live in England!”

Here is the text of the article:-

‘Racist’ signs appear on Chelmsford roundabout near Three Mile Hill calling for ‘Home Rule’


Signs have been spotted plastered around a Chelmsford roundabout, showing a St George’s Cross and calling for ‘Home Rule’.

At least three of the placards are visible on the back of road signs around the Widford roundabout, near Indian Nights restaurant and Three Mile Hill.

A woman, who wished to remain anonymous, reported the appearance of the signs to Essex Live and said: “They are quite high up and I hadn’t noticed them before so I assume they are new.

“I saw the first one and it took me a second to realise they were political, I turned my head round to check the back of the other sign as we headed down Three Mile Hill and was quite shocked to see another one – showing it was an actual campaign of some sort rather than just one person putting up one sign.

“I was quite shocked and disgusted, I know Chelmsford is more right than left, but I’ve never seen something so blatantly inciting racial politics and hatred.

“I was also concerned about who is putting them up – is it a new group in town?

“As someone of Irish descent, the phrase “home rule” and the irony of the whole thing was not lost on me.”

Since Britain voted to leave the European Union incidents of hate crime sharply increased across Essex.

In the week after the vote, 39 hate crimes were reported to Essex Police, up from 21 in the previous seven days and higher than the 31 incidents reported in the same week earlier.

Robin Tilbrook

Chairman,

The English Democrats

LEAVE WINS (ENGLAND VOTES TO LEAVE BUT OTHER NATIONS IN THE UK VOTE TO REMAIN)


Here is the text of our Brexit Press release:-

LEAVE WINS (ENGLAND VOTES TO LEAVE BUT OTHER NATIONS IN THE UK VOTE TO REMAIN)

The English Democrats delightedly welcome the result of the EU referendum as the majority of the People across the whole of the United Kingdom have democratically voted for the sensible option of leaving the EU. We especially welcome the result in England where we have been campaigning. In England the turnout was 73%, the highest of the 4 countries in UK and England has voted by 53.4% to leave the EU.

It is now incumbent upon David Cameron, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, to activate Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty to begin the process of disengagement from the EU. If, despite the result of the EU referendum, he is not prepared to do so then he should resign forthwith and not wait until October.

The important thing is that the democratic vote of the People should be honoured without reservation.

The English Democrats now call for those parts of the United Kingdom, namely Scotland and Northern Ireland whom have voted to Remain to have the democratic Will of that Nation and Province also honoured.

Under the current uneven Devolution arrangements the UK’s membership of the EU is a ‘reserved matter’ which means that has to be decided by Government of the United Kingdom, not by the devolved assemblies or parliaments.

The English Democrats support the right of the Nation and Province which voted to Remain to do so. We therefore call upon the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to not only to activate Article 50, but to negotiate to enable the Remain voting Nation and Province to Remain within the EU whilst England and Wales leaves.

Robin Tilbrook, the Chairman of the English Democrats said:- “I am delighted with the result of the EU referendum vote but concerned that David Cameron and his clique will now try to subvert the democratically expressed Will of the English People and of the Welsh People.”

Robin continued:- “As a democrat I am also calling for the democratic Will of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Peoples be fully honoured without reservation and that their Will to Leave or to Remain should be honoured.”

“For the English Democrats it is very clear that the United Kingdom is now dead. It is no longer possible to argue that Britain speaks with one voice. We will work to ensure that the will of the people of England is carried out. We believe in England not Britain.”

Robin Tilbrook

Chairman,

The English Democrats

Why should English lawyers want England to leave the EU?

As part of my contribution to the campaign to come out of the EU I have been trying to get the English nationalist view across and got this article published in the Solicitors Journal. ISSUE: Vol 160 no 15 19-04-16

In discussion: Brexit

With debate over the UK’s continuing participation in the European Union hotting up, Solicitors Journal invites its readers to explain which way they are voting come the 23 June referendum. Can they persuade you?


Sir,

When asked why English lawyers should want our country to leave the EU, I would respond that lawyers should be the best and most loyal citizens. Any good citizen should be proud of his or her country. In the case of England, we have much to be proud of.

When our English nation state’s great founder, King Alfred, promulgated his great legal code circa 893 AD, he expressly based its legitimacy upon Christian values and upon the free traditions of the English nation. This code set the course of English legal development on a very different jurisprudential path to that of our continental neighbours. Thus, even before England was unified, in 927 AD under Alfred’s grandson, Athelstan, English law was already developing along the path of common law, resting upon the customs of the English people.

Our Anglo-Saxon forbearers also set us on the path towards another English constitutional contribution to the modern world: representative democracy. Their system of representation by means of consultative assemblies, culminating in the great council of the nation, the Witan, is the root of our democratic system.

This was supplemented by Magna Carta’s affirmation of the right to a fair trial, and its arguably more important contribution to the idea of the rule of law. This is unlike the continental jurisprudential legacy of Roman law derived from the Institutes of Justinian, the legacy of imperial tyranny, where individuals’ rights are only those which have been permitted by law. Implicitly, the civil law state is claiming to be antecedent to all rights.

By contrast, we cherish England as the ‘land of liberty’ and of the ‘liberties of the freeborn Englishman’, in which our freedom is only limited by express law as the foundations of our constitution and legal system. The 1689 Bill of Rights completed our unique representative democratic tradition.

It is no wonder, therefore, that all good citizens, patriots, and lawyers who care about England should be united in calling for an exit from an institution founded on jurisdictional principles so at odds with the rights and liberties of Englishmen and Englishwomen.

It was a policy blunder to have gone into the EU in the first place. The aim of the British establishment in doing so was to try to maintain its own pretensions of grandeur – to strut on the ‘world stage’ as a great power. It was misguided folly for ordinary people to have ratified that decision in the 1975 referendum, but now we have the chance on 23 June to triumphantly reassert our freeborn rights and liberties by voting to leave. Let us do so and let the nation stand proud again.

Yours faithfully,

Robin Tilbrook

Robin Tilbrook is principal solicitor at Tilbrook’s Solicitors in Essex and chairman of the English Democrats @RobinTilbrook

Here is a link to the original article >>> In discussion: Brexit | Solicitors Journal

EVEN LABOUR BEGINS TO WAKE UP TO THE ENGLISH QUESTION


EVEN LABOUR BEGINS TO WAKE UP TO THE ENGLISH QUESTION


Those who have been long in the Cause of English nationalism will recall a time even to mention that you were English or that you wanted to preserve England or cared for the English Nation was to be accused by Labour of being racist.

That does still occur but now Labour opportunists are beginning to realise that their career structure may be in ruins if they don’t start at least some English patriotic noises!

Before we move onto the present I think it is worth pausing to remember that John Prescott, when he was Labour’s Deputy Prime Minister of the Blair Government, claimed in an official response:- “There is no such nationality as English”.

We all also had to put up with Gordon Brown monotonously referring to the country as “The Nations and Regions of Britain” with England being the “Regions”.

I could easily come up with many other quotations that show that Labour simply thought that anybody who dared mention Englishness was even more “bigoted” than the poor ordinary Labour supporter who dared to express a bit of concern about the effects of mass immigration, whom Gordon Brown got recorded as privately calling a “bigoted old woman!”.

Now however we have one of the brightest sparks in Labour, Tristram Hunt, calling for a referendum on an English Parliament. This is an interesting development and deserves a bit of nurturing but on the basis as was recently pointed out to me by a Welsh Professor of Politics; who told me that:-

“You’ll recall that the traditional view in Plaid Cymru was that they should say yes to anything that recognised Wales as a unit as that would lead – inevitably – to more. They weren’t wrong!”

In the circumstances English nationalists can unequivocally approve of calls for an English Parliament being taken up by any part of the British Political Establishment.

However this is how George Eaton of the formerly strongly anti-English New Statesmen magazine put the issue. Here is the article:-

Whatever the solution, Labour can’t ignore its English problem

Those who disagree with Tristram Hunt’s proposal of an English parliament must suggest alternatives.


Most of the reasons for Labour’s general election defeat have been well-rehearsed: its leader wasn’t viewed as an alternative prime minister, it wasn’t trusted to manage the economy and it was at odds with voters on welfare and immigration. But there is another failing that has received far less scrutiny: the belief that the party was anti-English. The problem was visible as long ago as 2005 when the Conservatives won more votes than Labour in England and has grown consistently worse. As post-election polling by GQR found, 57 per cent said they were were “quite concerned”or “very concerned” that the party “put people from other countries before the interests of England”. The rise of Scottish nationalism and the concurrent rise of English nationalism have cast Labour adrift.

Despite this, as former cabinet minister John Denham recently wrote on The Staggers, the Beckett Report on the defeat failed to take account of this new political landscape. Its call for a “vision for Britain”, he noted, neglected those “who either don’t see their country as Britain or only partly as Britain”. Unless it accepts this new reality, voters’ alienation from the party will both widen and deepen.

Denham, whose former seat of Southampton Itchen was lost to the Conservatives (leaving Labour with just 12 of the 197 seats south of the Severn-Wash line), has founded the Centre for English Identity and Politics at Winchester University where Tristram Hunt will speak tonight. In his address, the former shadow education secretary will call for a referendum on the adoption of either an English parliament (his preferred option), regional assemblies or English Votes for English Laws (“the jury is still out”). A public vote, he will say, would allow England to “experience the same kind of democratic awakening” as Scotland and Labour should “lead it”. The political logic is clear: by advocating a referendum, the party will signal that it trusts voters (having opposed a vote on the EU) and is at ease with the politics of English identity.

At present, he will say: “Our sense of Englishness matters to us more and more, and the Labour Party has fallen on the wrong side of that cultural divide. According to Jon Cruddas’s review into why the Labour Party lost the 2015 General Election, since 2005 voters who are socially conservative are the most likely to have deserted Labour. They value home, family and their country. They feel their cultural identity is under threat. They yearn for a sense of belonging and national renewal. Tradition, rules and social order are important to them. And, tragically, they feel that Labour no longer represents them, or understands their lives. In short, they felt we didn’t value England, and were not on the side of the English.”

Most Labour MPs will likely disagree with Hunt on the need for an English parliament (“how very silly” shadow leader of the Commons Chris Bryant told me). Many argue that there is little demand among voters for a new political institution and that England’s size makes a separate body incompatible with Westminster. But those who disageee with Hunt’s solution must offer their own. The EU referendum, the SNP’s hegemony in Scotland and the possibility of a second independence referendum will all raise the salience of the English question. And arithmetic alone dictates that Labour must transform its performance in England. With no sign of a revival in Scotland, almost all of the 106 gains the party will need to make after the boundary changes will be here.

But many MPs believe that Jeremy Corbyn, far from answering the English problem, struggles to even recognise it. They lament how often his failure to sing the national anthem is raised by voters and fear that his stances on immigration, Trident and foreign policy are widening the divide between them and the electorate. Corbyn has struck a consciously patriotic note in several speeches, declaring in his Labour conference address: “[It’s] because I love this country, that I want to rid it of injustice – to make it fairer, more decent, more equal.” But as Hunt suggests, far more dramatic intervention will be needed to begin to solve the English problem.

(Here is a link to the original>>>http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/02/whatever-solution-labour-cant-ignore-its-english-problem)

English National Anthem Private Members Bill 2016

English National Anthem Private Members Bill 2016


Last week the English Cause took a useful step forward with a Private Member’s Bill calling for the official establishment of an English National Anthem passing its First Reading to go onto the Second Reading and all to considerable media interest.

The effect of the Bill getting a Second Reading, which has been scheduled for the 4th March, does not mean that it will in fact become law. The text of the draft Bill can be found here >>> English National Anthem Bill 2015-16 — UK Parliament

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-16/englishnationalanthem.html
 
Above there is a useful diagram of the legislative process for a Bill relating only to England as this Bill must implicitly do.

It was interesting to see the British National Mass Media reaction. Some of which was reasonable and at least gave us English nationalist activists a chance of making our point. For example here is a link to my interview on Radio Essex >>> https://youtu.be/Z2-GVqSJ6Uw.

Also here is the BBC Daily Politics discussing the issue with the sponsoring Labour MP for Chesterfield, Mr Toby Perkins.


Watch Melanie Phillips’ reaction which deviates from her usual good sense on a variety of topics including the rising threat of Islamism to European Jews like her and to Israel, here is the link >>> https://youtu.be/Z6X_Sf8pcl8.

Melanie Phillips also wrote this article which was perhaps the most vitriolic of the articles against there being official recognition of a specifically English National Anthem. Here is the article:-

“Encouraging each nation to sing to its own song will fuel the rise of divisive nationalism


The Labour MP Toby Perkins has proposed the introduction of an English national anthem for use at sporting events in place of God Save The Queen.

In the Commons on Wednesday, his private member’s bill was granted a second reading. With the exception of the Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg, MPs nodded the idea through.

Although such bills have little hope of getting anywhere, this is surely how the UK gets dismembered — by MPs nodding along.

What is being urged upon us is a national anthem for England. But our nation is the UK.

Yes, its component countries have ancient histories and distinct cultural characteristics. But we are none of us citizens of England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. We are citizens of the United Kingdom.

Perkins says he is not hostile to God, the Queen or the UK. The Almighty and Her Majesty may be relieved to hear that. Nevertheless, this proposal will make the UK’s break-up more likely.

Perkins says the increase in devolved powers to Scotland means it’s time to establish that the UK is composed of four separate nations. (He implies that Northern Ireland is a separate nation, but let’s not step into that particular minefield.)

He doesn’t seem to realise this will help fragment the British national identity he says he wants to preserve.

The danger of Scottish independence is greatly enhanced by the risk that England will help push Scotland away. Increased powers for Scotland have fuelled the call for an English parliament and a rise in divisive English nationalism. Distinct anthems and flags help to swell that separate sense of identity.

Perkins says that Scotland and Wales have their own anthems in Flower of Scotland and Land of my Fathers. That’s because they have nationalist movements born from their desire to differentiate themselves from England.

England largely defines Britain. When people talk about British characteristics they admire, such as fairness, tolerance, emotional restraint, chivalry, team spirit or old maids cycling to church, they’re talking about England.

As Perkins himself said in the debate, Britain and England are often used synonymously. That’s why England causes such resentment in Scotland and Wales.

It’s because of that English dominance that Scottish or Welsh “national” songs can’t hurt the UK. But if England starts asserting its separate identity, that will be a powerful force for fragmentation.

Advocates of an English anthem say that now Scotland and Wales have abandoned God Save the Queen, England is out of step. Well to put it another way, if the England teams were no longer to sing the national anthem, who would?

The Union Jack, they note, has virtually disappeared from Wembley in favour of the cross of St George when the English football team is playing. But that is surely a matter for alarm and regret. It means the union is fading.

The national anthem is not a team song. It is a statement of allegiance to the Crown, a declaration of loyalty by teams or individual competitors to something bigger than the England they represent. It is an acknowledgment of the ties that bind us all.

Teams reflect the distinct national cultures that make up the UK. These cultures have important parts to play in making up Britain’s national story. The UK binds them together precisely because it sublimates their separate identities. More separateness will only disunite the kingdom.

Maybe, though, it’s just too late to stop this progressive fragmentation. Perkins’ bill is the third parliamentary attempt in recent years to introduce an English anthem.

Jerusalem, with words by William Blake and music by Hubert Parry, was the song chosen by the public for English athletes competing in the 2010 Commonwealth Games in Delhi. And it’s the favoured candidate for the new anthem.

But this merely illustrates the incoherence of the proposal. For Jerusalem is as much misunderstood as it is (rightly) beloved. If anything, the poem was a satire on nationalism. To all the questions it asked about whether Jesus built Jerusalem in England the answer was emphatically “no”.

Blake, a visionary and prophetic genius, battled the church, the monarchy and the army, denigrated reason and expressed a revolutionary desire to transform England. In 1803 he was charged with having “uttered seditious and treasonable expressions”, although he was acquitted.

Nevertheless, his poem was set to Parry’s stirring music during the First World War at the request of the poet laureate, Robert Bridges, to “brace the spirit of the nation” because he was worried about collapsing morale due to the carnage in the trenches.

It is therefore an anthem claimed by both Corbynistas and conservatives. It is a source not of unity but of ambiguity, argument and division.

The proposal reflects the crisis over British national identity. People no longer know what that is. A national English song won’t tell us.

In his witty contribution to the debate, Jacob Rees-Mogg coyly alluded to the Flanders and Swann song, The English. Its words include these: “The rottenest bits of these islands of ours/ We’ve left in the hands of three unfriendly powers/ Examine the Irishman, Welshman or Scot/You’ll find he’s a stinker as likely as not/ The English the English the English are best/ I wouldn’t give tuppence for all of the rest.”

Here is a link to the original >>> Save our anthem from these knavish tricks | The Times

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4665772.ece#commentsStart