Category Archives: regions

Labour conspiring to break-up England at Cardiff meeting on 29th March 2017

Anti-English conspirator?


Even long-term Labour Party stalwarts now realise that Labour is set on conspiring to break-up England!

Here is what a former MP and minister, who is now a Director of the Centre of English Identity and Politics at the University of Winchester, Prof John Denham wrote on the 30th March 2017:-

“There can be no Labour recovery unless Labour wins England. Labour’s wipe out in Scotland and it’s current third place in the polls there leaves the party in an even weaker position than in England. It will actually be easier to win an English majority than in Britain as a whole.

What Labour says and does about England is critical. Which is why yesterday’s devolution summit looks like such a bad move. The plan is clear. A federal Union of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales and the regions. These regions – that virtually no one in England wants or recognises – will not have the same powers as Scotland or Wales, but some limited devolution from the UK federal government. I’m in favour of a federal UK based on the four nations. I’m in favour of devolution within England. But it should be the English people who decide how this is to be done.

I must admit that I’m unclear how official this taskforce is, though the presence of Jon Trickett and Jim McMahon give it front bench endorsement. But it is a curious body to decide on the carve up of a nation.

The leaders of Welsh and Scottish Labour are there. As are three English male mayoral candidates who have yet to be elected. The women mayoral candidates were not present. One man represents all of English local government. No one present has an unambiguous brief to represent the interests of England as a whole. And little has been said about consultation within the party, let alone the promised, wider, constitutional convention.

Those involved have been studiously vague about the details of their plans for England, but we can glean quite a lot from Gordon Brown’s recent speech, Jeremy Corbyn’s interviews and other policy statements.

I hope I’m wrong but this seems to be how Labour’s 2020 manifesto for England is shaping up:

England will be divided into regions that few support and were rejected in the North East in 2004
These regions will be under the rule of the UK government (made up of MPs from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland as well as England) and will only get limited powers devolved from it.
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will get new powers as of right. England will get no new powers.
The English regions will not get the same legislative powers as Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland currently enjoy.
No elected body will speak for England as a whole
Laws affecting England will continue to be made by MPs from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. English Votes for English Laws will be repealed.
There will be no executive dedicated to implementing policy for England as a whole.
English regions will be denied control of their own resources.
England will still pay for the Barnett formula and and the use of English resources will be determined by the UK federal government
Scotland will gain new fiscal powers but England will still underwrite the UK’s social security bill.
Scotland will be able to sign international treaties; England will have international treaties signed for it by the UK federal government. 
The dynamic leadership being shown by Labour English councils will be marginalised in favour of new regional assemblies.
English local authorities will not gain any additional powers as of right

It’s clear how this works for Scotland. Much less clear who in England would vote for it. And that is where, in the immediate future, Labour’s recovery must come…. Instead we seem to be drifting towards the dismemberment of England and the undermining of its legitimate interests.”

Here is Labour’s own report on that meeting (or should I say anti-English conspiracy?):-

“Labour say constitution “no longer fit for purpose” as devolution taskforce meets


Labour has said the UK’s constitution is “no longer fit for purpose” as the party’s devolution taskforce meets in Cardiff today (29th March 2017)

The taskforce which will look at how to redistribute powers and resources across all nations and regions after Brexit.

“As leading Labour figures from across the UK, we reject this Whitehall power grab – and call on the UK Government as part of the Brexit negotiations to agree to the transfer of powers over agriculture, fisheries, regional policy and environmental protection to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh and Northern Irish Assemblies.”

The proposals developed through the taskforce with form the basis of a Labour-led Constitutional Convention, which will look at a federal framework of nations and regions.

The taskforce includes former prime minister Gordon Brown, Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale and former Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott. Jon Trickett, Labour’s Cabinet Office Spokesperson will be involved in helping draft the plans.

Shadow Welsh Secretary Christina Rees, shadow local government and devolution minister Jim McMahon are also members. As are Andy Burnham, Steve Rotheram and Siôn Simon – the party’s mayoral candidates for Greater Manchester, the Liverpool City Region and the West Midlands.

The ideas that come out of the taskforce will be shared in a nationwide constitutional convention.”

Take note of the role of Andy Burnham, that long-term enemy of England, of Englishness and of English patriotism! Burnham is standing as Labour’s candidate for Mayor of Greater Manchester (against our Stephen Morris).

Here is what he said in a recorded, televised interview of Andy Burnham, uploaded to YouTube on the 21st August 2010 entitled:-

“Andy Burnham not in favour of an ‘English’ Parliament”

This is a verbatim transcript of the whole of that uploaded interview with Andy Burnham. The Interviewer asked Andy Burnham:-

“A recent survey returned 68% of English People in favour of an English Parliament. The Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish are all benefiting from their own Parliament and Assemblies working in their interests. Isn’t it time the people of England were consulted on an English Parliament working in the interests of the People of England?”

Andy Burnham replied:-

“What I see around Europe is a trend towards nationalist or even regional based politics and politics based on geography and I must say I don’t like it. It doesn’t speak to me. It’s happening in Belgium, the Belgium’s are becoming very fractured along regional lines. It is happening in the Netherlands. It has obviously happened in Wales and Scotland with the both nationalist parties in those places gaining support and I don’t have that view on politics.”

“Politics for me is about values, not about geography, it is not about defending territory. It is about what kind of person you are and what kind of society you are going to build and what message do you send out about yourself. Are you open to working with other people, other places and not having a narrow nationalist view of politics and no I don’t tend towards an English Parliament.”

“I do want to see more power vested in the English “Regions” and I campaigned for Regional Assemblies to give more democratic power to the “Regions”. I would have a democratically constituted House of Lords, elected House of Lords, where the “Regions” would have their voice drawn from regionalists.”

“The Lords should be a true voice of the “Regions” rather than London. It is a London dominated House of Lords at the moment and I would change it in that way, but no I wouldn’t have an English Parliament. I am born in Liverpool, of Irish ancestry, of Scottish links in the past and close to Wales. I consider myself British and I as Culture Secretary campaigned for a British football team at the Olympics because I consider myself to be British first and foremost. I am proud to be British and I don’t like this trend towards the break-up of the United Kingdom.”

The link to the original uploaded interview can be found here >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTjgz6Dr8Ns

So there we have it. Now we know why Andy Burnham is one of Labour’s conspirators trying to break up England in collusion with Leaders from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland!

In Burnham’s own words:-

“I wouldn’t have an English Parliament.” “I am born in Liverpool, of Irish ancestry, of Scottish links in the past and close to Wales. I consider myself British”!

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)

The British Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Right Honourable George Osborne MP is anti-English – shock?

The British Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Right Honourable George Osborne MP is anti-English – shock?


The article from the Telegraph below is about the admiring reaction of one of Labour’s “thinkers”, Jon Cruddas MP, who is commenting on George Osborne’s adoption, as he sees it, of the latest version of the British Establishment’s efforts to try to break England up into “Regions”, viz “City Regions”.

For any English Nationalist, the fact that a leading “Conservative” politician would want to break England up into Regions, will cause no surprise whatsoever, after all it was the Conservatives who introduced the whole concept of regionalising England and implemented their original scheme under John Major under the EU Maastricht Treaty.

For the general public however the problem with the Conservatives is of course their “skill” in misleading the public and lying about what they are trying to achieve.

They are a party whose electoral appeal depends strongly on people’s patriotism but they are not actually a patriotic party. On the contrary, they are a party of globalisation and international capitalism and are generally the big business party.

Their vote also depends strongly on ordinary peoples’ Euro-scepticism, but in fact the Conservative leadership, whilst willing to make plenty of noises of a Euro-sceptic variety, are arguably the most Europhile of all the parties in what they actually do in office. They are a party that took us into the EU on a deliberately dishonest prospectus by Edward Heath, and thereafter cemented us into the EU both under Mrs Thatcher (one of the leaders of the pro-EU group in our 1976 referendum) and then John Major with the Maastricht Treaty.

All the noises that Cameron and Osborne make about Euro-scepticism now are for blatantly obvious reasons, a combination of increasing problems with their genuinely Euro-sceptic back-benchers and fear of the electorate now given a genuinely Euro-sceptic option, i.e. UKIP, which although seems unlikely to get many MPs, nevertheless seems very likely to cut short David Cameron’s and George Osborne’s time in office at the General Election next year.

So the problem with the Conservatives is the fact that they are much more likely to be successful in deceiving voters into thinking that they are patriotic Euro-sceptics and for those that don’t think very deeply at all they may even think that the Conservatives care something for England.

For those who are that confused the antidote is this clear statement from the then leader of the Conservative Party, William Hague (who David Cameron recently described as the greatest living Yorkshire man!). Here is what he said in 2003:- “English nationalism is the most dangerous of all forms of nationalism that can arise within the United Kingdom, because England is five-sixths of the population of the UK. Once a part of a united country or kingdom that is so predominant in size becomes nationalistic, then really the whole thing is under threat.”

So far as Labour is concerned, I think increasingly few people believe that Labour is patriotic, let alone pro-English. Emily Thornberry and the overreaction to her demonstrated, for all those who needed such a demonstration, that Labour’s leadership is not only anti-English but very nervous about being found out as being anti-English and somewhat incompetent about it.

The article also shows another instance of where the “mainstream” parties in the traditional democratic model are supposed to be competing, are in fact not competing, but instead are somewhat conspiring against the interests of the public and, in particular, the English Nation.

Here is the article. What do you think?

Jon Cruddas praises Tory adoption of Labour’s cities agenda


Labour’s head of policy review says the chancellor has made successful land grab of Labour’s agenda on cities and English devolution

The chancellor, George Osborne, has made a significant and successful land grab for Labour’s agenda of re-empowering English cities as the new engine of economic growth, the head of Labour policy review, Jon Cruddas, has admitted.

He has also conceded that Labour had probably not been as agile as its Conservative opponents in projecting its English devolution policy, adding that the party still faced its biggest challenge to build a movement for national renewal and optimism in a cold economic climate.

His remarks to a meeting held by Progress, the New Labour pressure group, in Westminster may reflect a frustration that one of the central themes of his policy review has not been given the prominence he wanted, allowing Osborne to reach a devolution deal with Labour northern cities, notably Manchester.

At one point in the summer it appeared Labour might have monopoly ownership of the English devolution agenda, especially after similar plans put forward by the former Conservative cabinet member, Lord Heseltine, had apparently been spurned by Downing Street.

Cruddas said: “On this I have been very impressed with what Osborne has done. They parked the Heseltine project for a couple of years. Then they realised from late July what was happening and for the last few months they have tried to backfill around this policy agenda, and I think they have done that very effectively. Personally, I think it is good for the country that the Conservative government is going there just as Labour is going there.”

He explained that Labour had spent two years re-engineering a growth strategy and solving the English democracy question through devolution to cities. “Osborne has been agile enough to see that and has made a major land grab about a lot of our policy. The question of England has been central to a lot of our thinking in our policy review and maybe we have not been as agile as our some of our opponents in putting that up in lights in the way that we should.”

He said the model of devolution to Greater Manchester was very attractive. He added: “I congratulate the government on what they have done, and, most important, I congratulate them on learning about the innovations of great Labour leaders – we should be speaking very confidently to that agenda because it is our agenda. It resets what we are about.”

He said Labour-led English local government in the past four years had saved lots of money and yet innovated the delivery of public services, claiming this represents a new model for social democracy. “Labour nationally should be incubating the best practices in English local government and distilling it into a new story of where the future of the country lies.

“Osborne was very successful in the past three months in grabbing hold of this agenda and our response should be we welcome this change in direction and working alongside this Labour innovation across our cities.”

Cruddas has also become an enthusiast for the way in which technology can empower citizens and innovate public services. He also praised another Conservative figure, singling out cabinet office minister Francis Maude, saying: “I must admit Maude has done a great job for the first couple of years in his department re-engineering government digital services.” He said the issue was how to take Maude’s reforms to the next stage using open data to codify new forms of citizenship as “the foundation stone of a new wave of radical public service reform”.

Discussing the politics of despair represented by Ukip, Cruddas said: “You have to confront it by a totally different story about national renewal of a country, especially in England. That is the only option available to us. It has to be based around a story about what this country could be rather than what it was in danger of becoming if these forces are incentivised by people running from them.”

Cruddas also aligned himself with those who favoured a bold manifesto offering a big picture of a new country, rejecting those who say “keep our mouths shut, turn up the dial on immigration and welfare and then we are in”.

Any cursory reading of Labour history is that it wins when it is bold, he added, claiming “we are in an epic era of change”.

He added: “My view is that you cannot waste opposition. It’s disrespectful to the electorate.”

Here is the link to the original Guardian article>>> Jon Cruddas praises Tory adoption of Labour’s cities agenda | Politics | The Guardian

The English do not want England divided up to suit politicians

Daily Telegraph reports on IPPR findings


The Brit/Scot Telegraph journalist Iain Martin writes below about a key finding of the IPPR report. Here is the link to that report >>> http://sites.cardiff.ac.uk/wgc/files/2014/10/Taking-England-Seriously_The-New-English-Politics.pdf

This finding is that there is virtually NO popular or democratic demand from the English People for any form of devolution which involves the break up of England.

There is however a clear agenda from the British Establishment, as well as from the EU, which calls for England to be Regionalised. Fortunately for the English nation they can’t agree on the details!

The purpose of the Establishment agenda is clear as Charles Kennedy let slip when he said, while he was Leader of the Liberal Democrats back in 1999, that he supported Regionalisation because “in England Regionalisation is calling into question the idea of England itself”.

As English Nationalists the real question about the Union of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is:- Should we accept that England must be broken up to allow the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish to feel comfortable and unthreatened by alleged English dominance?

An example of this thinking is what Jack Straw said when he described the English as “potentially very aggressive, very violent” and also claimed “that the English had used their “propensity to violence to subjugate Ireland, Wales and Scotland”.

OR should we, as English Nationalists, loudly, forcefully and uncompromisingly say that we would prefer the UK to be broken up rather than allow England to be broken up?

I know where I stand on this issue. United England first, second and third! Where do you stand?

Here is Iain Martin’s article:-

The English do not want England divided up to suit politicians


By Iain Martin

While Gordon Brown was burbling on in the Commons yesterday about the constitution, and in his usual fashion taking no responsibility whatsoever for the mess he helped cause, a fascinating report was being discussed elsewhere.

The Future of England Survey was produced by constitutional specialists and is based on in-depth polling on attitudes.

It is worth reading it in its entirety, particularly now that all manner of schemes are being suggested by politicians for the creation of regional government in England in the wake of the Scottish referendum. Whatever the merits of such proposals, and the need for some larger cities to be given the powers that booming London enjoys, the report makes clear that there is almost no enthusiasm on the part of English voters for the country being divided up into regional assemblies.

It looks as though English voters grasp what Gordon Brown and some of his Labour colleagues cannot. England is a country. Even with regional government – which isn’t going to happen – there would still be English laws on justice, education health and so on, which voters understandably do not see as the business of MPs sent by the Scots, Welsh or Northern Irish.

The option which attracts most support, which avoids the creation of a new and expensive English parliament, is some form of English votes for English laws in the Commons.
As one of he authors of the report, Professor Charlie Jeffrey of Edinburgh University, puts it:
“People in England are not just reacting against their ‘others’ in Scotland and the EU. They are also searching more positively for an institutional recognition of England that can express their concerns better than the current political system, which submerges the representation of England within the wider UK’s institutions in Westminster and Whitehall. From the various alternatives, the most preferred one is – as David Cameron now seems to have recognised – English votes on English laws in the House of Commons.”

With some compromise by all parties at Westminster, with new protocols and cooperation with the devolved assemblies and the Scottish parliament, such an arrangement is perfectly workable, as I explained here.

The risk now for Labour, as it bizarrely allows its position to be dictated by Brown and the other Scots who spoke so loudly in the Commons yesterday against English votes for English laws, is that it ignores a critically important development. That is the emergence of a distinct English identity requiring constitutional recognition. If the party continues down this path – with the direction dictated by Scots – it is not inconceivable that in time it could come to be seen as innately anti-English. Some Labour MPs in England see the danger, even if the party leadership does not.

A more self-confident UK Labour party would recognise the English demand for fairness in a new constitutional settlement, accept English only votes in the Commons and set about winning a majority of seats in England again.

Unionist Nigel Farage ducks the English Question. At a meeting of the Institute for Government his keynote speech was followed by questions. Listen to what he says!

Nigel Farage ducks the English Question! Again!

English Nationalists take note!

Here is the key clip >>>>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqQe3KJDhQY&list=UULXT-HuPORYWUC57YbKryQg&index=1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqQe3KJDhQY&list=UULXT-HuPORYWUC57YbKryQg&index=1

At (the 23rd June 2014) event, Nigel Farage … spoke at the Institute for Government on the role of the state and how (UKIP) would run a government.

Mr Farage opened by acknowledging that …. UKIP was highly unlikely to form the next government (but he claimed) it would be in a position to affect other parties’ manifestos and may even gain some MPs at the next general election. Its view on the role of government was, he said, potentially very important.

See more at: http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/events/nigel-farage-keynote-speech-role-state#sthash.sNZSFzyr.dpuf

No Murdo! Keep your nose out of English Business!

PRESS RELEASE

No Murdo!  Keep your nose out of English Business!

Murdo Fraser, the Conservatives’ “Enterprise spokesman” in the Scottish Parliament told Glasgow University on Thursday that devolution to the UK nations must be balanced with greater powers to the English regions.

He claimed it would be “straightforward” to create a federal system for the nations by devolving tax-varying powers but full UK federalism would not work “on the basis of England as a single unit”.

“It is quite possible to envisage a network of strong cities, or city regions, emerging to which powers could be devolved.”

“We can then add into the mix historic counties with a strong local identity, such as Yorkshire or Cornwall.”

“We do have areas such as the North-East or North-West, or East Midlands, which already have a coherent regional identity, and very quickly the map of England is filled up with a patchwork of local units, maybe not identical in geographic size, population or wealth, but all having an identifiable local focus.”

Federalism would also resolve the “West Lothian Question” – the right of non-English MPs to vote on purely English matters – and reform of the Lords, Mr Fraser claims.

According to the Government’s own MacKay Commission Report there is much less support for breaking England up into such “Regions” than for outright English Independence from the UK. 

Perhaps Murdo Fraser MSP is promoting this new attempt to break up England for the same reason as the Liberal Democrats, “Charlie” Kennedy told Dunfermline Lib Dems in 1999 that he supported Regionalisation for England because it was “bringing into question the idea of England itself!”

Robin Tilbrook, the Chairman of the English Democrats said:-  “We don’t want Scottish politicians telling the English that England should be broken up. My message to any such Scottish politicians is keep your nose out of English business.”

Robin continued:- “The sooner the UK is dissolved the quicker the Nations of the former UK can live as friendly neighbours!”

Robin also said:-  “Dissolution of the UK is why the English Democrats are supporting a ‘YES’ vote for Scotland on the 18th September.  Mr Murdo Fraser claims that “UK federalism would not work on the basis of England as a single unit”.  I say ‘so be it’!  Let’s dissolve a Union which  is in any case well past its sell by date!”

Robin Tilbrook

Chairman,

The English Democrats

Shhh! Lib Dems are about!

There seems to be something about Liberal Democrats that makes them hate England. At the moment they are, I don’t think the word is too strong to use, conspiring to find another way of breaking England up into “Regions”.

Their behind the scenes activity in think-tanks and discussion groups is all about trying to find another way of energising the “Regionalisation” of England. Their talk is all about trying to confuse people between talking about counties and “Regions” in the same breath so that people do not look at the small print to see that in fact what is intended is nothing to do with counties but everything to do with “Regionalisation”. In their desperation they are even trying to say that the North-east referendum result was not a vote against “Regionalistion”!

Now we have two Liberal Democrat Lords, Lord Purvis of Tweed and Lord William Wallace of Saltaire who arranged a debate for Monday, 16th June in the House of Lords entitled “Plans for further de-centralisation of the UK in the event of a “No” vote in the Scottish Independence Referendum”. Observers of the oily disingenuousness of our LibDem political masters will find no surprise that the key element of the discussion was about how to break up England.

The names that they have chosen to give their titles suggest that these two noble Lords loyalties might lie North of the Border, but Lord William Wallace of Saltaire is in fact an academic who has spent most of his life in England, but has distinguished himself politically by his desire to advance the cause of European integration for which reason he has been awarded the Légion d’Honneur.

So far as Lord Purvis of Tweed is concerned, the Scottish newspaper, the Sunday Post, reported on the 20th October 2013 that “Purvis returns as Lord Jazzer despite ballot box defeat” who reported that “Purvis, a MSP until the SNP landslide in 2011 is a man steeped in constitutional concerns. Nick Clegg has made him Lord Purvis of Tweed to act as a bridge-man between the Westminster and Holyrood parties. Even his title straddles the border. Said Purvis:- “I’ll bring the respect of someone who has been a Member of the Scottish Parliament as a fan of the procedures in Holyrood. It will provide a platform to work on the growing middle ground as an alternative to independence.”” The paper rightly continues “The problem for Purvis, with his talk of accountability, democracy and constitution, is that on Tuesday he will don an outrageous ermine cloak and take his place in the least accountable or democratic place in British politics. This is, after all, a man rejected by the voters returning to front line politics without the need for an election.”

So there we have it, the classic Westminster farce in which people talk about democracy, accountability, citizenship and community, whilst trying to work to deny the English their sense of a national community.

Never forget that a former LibDem leader, Charlie Kennedy told an enthusiastic meeting of Liberal Democrats in Dunfermline in 1999 that he supported the break-up of England into Regions because he said “In England Regionalisation is calling into question the idea of England itself”!

So what should an Englishman do when the LibDems are about? Perhaps we could use US President Teddy Roosevelt’s famous saying: “speak softly and carry a big stick”? 

What do you think?