Tag Archives: Regionalisation

LABOUR’S DEVIOUS DAN JARVIS AND HIS DODGY DEVOLUTION DOSSIER

LABOUR’S DEVIOUS DAN JARVIS AND HIS DODGY DEVOLUTION DOSSIER
In the best Blairite traditions, the EU Remainiac, Dan Jarvis, who ironically is the MP for the strongly Leave constituency, Barnsley Central, got his debate on Yorkshire devolution last Wednesday afternoon in the Westminster Hall annex to Parliament.  Here is a link to the record of that debate from Hansard >>>
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-01-09/debates/A258E72B-52AF-4DC3-9513-3AE8AF89AF03/YorkshireDevolution
It is lucky for Dan Jarvis that the debate took place in Westminster Hall rather than on the floor of the House of Commons, as then he might be in trouble for misleading the House of Commons. 
In the debate he said:-
“Barnsley and Doncaster made their voices heard. Some 85% voted in favour of a wider Yorkshire deal, 
The marching orders are thus: go back to the Government and get the deal the people want.
It is absolutely right that we listen to what the people have told us”
“My constituents were very clear about what they were voting for—a wider Yorkshire deal—because they believed that that would be in their economic interests.”
“Indeed, if we are prepared to ignore an 85% majority, what does that say about the state of our democracy?”
“They were very clear in what they said, and it would be wrong for them to be ignored”
“I do not say for one moment that Yorkshire and the Humber should be a special case, but I do believe—I make no apologies for stating it in these terms—that it is a special place. There is something special about what John Sentamu described this morning as God’s own county.  There is a huge strength in our diversity. If we could create an arrangement that brought together 5.3 million people into an economy bigger than 11 EU nations, we would truly be a force to be reckoned with, not just in this country but around the world. In the far east—China, Japan or wherever—people know about Yorkshire.”
Mr Jarvis is referring not to a “democratic” vote, like a referendum or an election, but to what would normally be called a consultation.  (Here is a link to a report on this >>>http://www.itv.com/news/calendar/2017-12-21/barnsley-and-doncaster-voters-overwhelmingly-in-favour-of-one-yorkshire-devolution-plan/).  This consultation only offered two options, neither of which were very attractive to any patriots.  The options were a South Yorkshire Region, based around Sheffield, or alternatively a “One Yorkshire” Region.
Since the last thing that Barnsley and Doncaster people want is to be dominated politically by Sheffield it is not surprising that many of them voted for their county to be the devolved body. 
Even so out of a total electorate of Yorkshire and the Humber region of 3,835.075 only 41,952 “votes” have now been made for “One Yorkshire” devolution. 
In Barnsley, 40,280 residents took part in the “community poll” – that’s 22.4% of the electorate. Of those, 34,015 (84.9%) chose “One Yorkshire”, while 6,064 (15.1%) opted for Sheffield City Region.
Meanwhile in Doncaster, 45,470 residents voted – a turnout of 20.1%. Of those, 38,551 (84.7%) came out in favour of “One Yorkshire”, with only 6,685 (14.7%) preferring “Sheffield City Region”.
For Mr Jarvis to talk about 85% as if that was of the whole electorate and to make remarks about democracy, can only be sensibly described as disingenuous and deceitful.  The total number of people who participated in the consultation was only 85,750, the total number people who voted for “One Yorkshire” devolution was 72,566.  That is not only less than 85% of the consultations but also is just over 1% of the electorate of Yorkshire and Humberside!
It is also interesting, when considering Dan Jarvis’ deviousness and disingenuousness, to pick up the way he jumps from talking about the county of Yorkshire, which even so is not all the historic county of Yorkshire to “Yorkshire and the Humber”.  Yorkshire and the Humber is of course the name of the EU “Region” which includes North Lincolnshire, but does not include, for example, Middlesbrough. 
In doing this he, of course, gives his game away.  He as discussed in the previous article on this blog, is not a patriot or even a Yorkshire nationalist but is a “Europeanist” or Europhile who is looking at ways to try to break up the integrity of not only the UK, but also England, in continuing to push for Regionalisation, as per the EU’s Regionalisation project. 
Mr Jarvis not only has no care for our Nation in pursuing this project, but also he would appear not to even care for his own constituents in Barnsley Central, since if England was in fact effectively Regionalised there would be every chance that the politicians of each “Region” would be wanting to hang onto all the tax take of their “Region” and this would be very likely to mean that there would be a dramatic reduction in the Government subsidy to people in Yorkshire. 
Again Mr Jarvis is deceitful in his use of the statistics as to what way Yorkshire stands on the level of subsidy, since he quotes a comparison to UK subsidies and thus the vastly inflated subsidies of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland under the Barnett Formula rather than looking at the average level of Government spending across England only.
The other thing about Mr Jarvis’ focus on devolution for Yorkshire and Humber is that he and his other “Europeanists” do not seem to have learnt from the fiasco of their attempt to try and entrench Regional Assemblies in “Yorkshire” and in the “North East”.  It was the very fact that the proposed regionalisation for Yorkshire was not the traditional county but instead the EU Region of Yorkshire and the Humber which led to the proposal for Yorkshire and the Humber being so unpopular that John Prescott did not even try to have a referendum there, but instead went for the only “Region” where he thought he had any chance, which was the “North East”.  Even then his proposal utterly flopped at the ballot box – getting only 29% support!
As it says in Proverbs, Chapter 26, Verse 11:- “As a dog that returns to his vomit, so is a fool who repeats his folly”.  So can we say to devious Dan “Ay up lad! Sup up!?”
Here are all the comments which Mr Jarvis said in the debate which I found to be “interesting”. 
What do you think? 
Here they are the extracts from his comments:-  “All of us here have a responsibility to work co-operatively together to best serve the interests of our region. 
A constructive way forward for a future devolved settlement for Yorkshire
people of Barnsley and Doncaster made their voices heard. Some 85% voted in favour of a wider Yorkshire deal, 
The marching orders are thus: go back to the Government and get the deal the people want.
It is absolutely right that we listen to what the people have told us.
The status quo is not delivering. People are disillusioned, and they have a right to feel that way.
Not only do the people of Yorkshire receive an income that is 80% of the national average, but they also receive £300 per head less in terms of public spending, 
Secretary of the State to send the strongest signal of intent to the north of England that they are listening to what people are saying, and are prepared to make decisions that best serve those people’s interests.
This Friday in York, the coalition of the willing—leaders from across our area—will meet to reaffirm their support for the wider Yorkshire proposal.
I do understand why people in our region are disillusioned and angry.
We need a new economic and political settlement that involves genuine devolution of political and economic power that will spread prosperity and opportunity to towns and counties of all regions.
The solution must be as ambitious as the challenge is profound. That is why I believe that a wider Yorkshire deal is the way forward. By working together across the whole of our county and, like in the west midlands, not being confined to just one city, we would have the collective clout and the brand reputation to co-operate and compete not only with other parts of the UK, but with other parts of the world.
My constituents were very clear about what they were voting for—a wider Yorkshire deal—because they believed that that would be in their economic interests.
Could not have agreed more. Both nationally and internationally, a single Mayor would provide the single voice required to unlock the much-needed new investment. That is critically required in areas such as our transport system.
A wider Yorkshire combined authority directing investment decisions and using its purchasing power to negotiate
Devolution is about more than just transport infrastructure. It is about accessing funding for skills and training, building affordable homes, and preserving our unique culture, countryside and heritage by working together, harnessing our talents, combining our energies and maximising our influence, all of which is in reach.
The sense of place, community and belonging that comes from identifying with Yorkshire is, in many ways, our greatest asset. 
That will take more time, so first we need an interim solution not only to preserve the goal of a wider Yorkshire deal,
Indeed, if we are prepared to ignore an 85% majority, what does that say about the state of our democracy?
They were very clear in what they said, and it would be wrong for them to be ignored, not least because the Secretary of State was right when he told the Local Government Association that the driving force behind devolution is the desire to bring decision making to a more local level. 
This is not a political argument, in the sense that there is cross-party support.
As part of the coalition of the willing, some people have said to me that we should press for a wider Yorkshire settlement earlier than 2020,
I do not say for one moment that Yorkshire and the Humber should be a special case, but I do believe—I make no apologies for stating it in these terms—that it is a special place. There is something special about what John Sentamu described this morning as God’s own county.  There is a huge strength in our diversity. If we could create an arrangement that brought together 5.3 million people into an economy bigger than 11 EU nations, we would truly be a force to be reckoned with, not just in this country but around the world. In the far east—China, Japan or wherever—people know about Yorkshire. It means something to them, and it means something to us. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to put in place an arrangement that could be really meaningful for the people we represent, and I very much hope that we will not miss out.
Where there is political will to make changes, it should be entirely possible to do so”.

Regionalisation exposed by the CEP as a devious EU tactic to destabilise the UK

Regionalisation exposed by the CEP as a devious EU tactic to destabilise the UK (& England!)
 
Many thanks to the Campaign for an English Parliament for this intel:-

“Many initial responses to hearing that there is a Yorkshire independence movement and a Yorkshire Party is to pour scorn on the idea as being fiscally irresponsible or plainly unworkable. This is because it is obvious that without the British government’s subsidies Yorkshire Services wouldn’t function properly.

However, to simply dismiss these two organisations that have the same Liberal Democrat leadership is to underestimate the manipulation and the devious actions of the EU in supporting a new sounding name for the old EU Regionalisation project for Britain and for England. http://www.e-f-a.org/about-us/

First it is important for any patriots to realise that the EU is supporting the Yorkshire Party as it belongs to an EU umbrella organisation, called the European Free Alliance (EFA). That EU organisation gathers together 45 “Progressive nationalist, regionalist and autonomist” parties throughout Europe. This grouping can only be conceived as an EU attempt to break-up and digest those nations that the regionalist organisations work within. This is because the EU supports the Regionalisation agenda because it makes resistance to their EU federalism agenda difficult if the nation state is fighting on two fronts. (the EU commission and EU supporting regionalist voices within).

The structure in Catalonia and Spain is a good example showing how devious the EU truly is:- The EU has openly distanced itself from those Catalonian parties that have called for full independence but it fails to mention that some of these parties are also included in their EU, European Free Alliance organisation. In effect, they are funded encouraging Regionalisation behind the scenes but are publicly slapping down independence. That is because the regionalist within the nation state is an EU regionalist patsy!

Once you accept that Regionalisation is all about pushing the EU Federalist agenda then you realise that The Yorkshire Party is not about benefiting the people of Yorkshire but about promoting EU federalism. This makes the Yorkshire party dangerous because it is about creating internal divisions and arguments within England and the UK whilst the British Government are engaged in full Brexit negotiations.

The British Government is weakened by the Regionalist pro-EU parties of the SNP and Plaid Cymru but now the EUs promoting a Regionalist political party within England that is for continuing to stay in the EU.
http://www.yorkshireparty.org.uk/europe, http://www.yorkshireparty.org.uk/sign_our_petition_support_the_rights_of_eu_citizens_in_yorkshire

This is not new and any person should be able to see the 4 EU stages that have and are being attempted to create destabilise the UK:-

(1) Under the Blair Labour government the EU promoted regionalisation of the UK and of England but the idea failed to gain any momentum in England and they lost at the ballot box in the North East of England. (You only need to look at the EU zealot, Tony Blair’s current EU stance to realise what his regionalist agenda was not about better governance. It was about destabilising the UK for EU advantage by creating a Welsh Assembly, a Scottish Parliament, and a Northern Irish Assembly and English Regional Assembly*). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Free_Alliance#Full_members

(2) Thus with Tony Blair’s help the EU had been successful in creating an unbalanced constitutional situation. Having created Regional Parliaments that could challenge the British government, the EU began to focus more on England. They started to support the term ‘Localism’ which really meant Regionalisation of England. If you break England up into EU Regions then you really have created an internal political and constitutional crisis for the UK.

Initially, it was Mebyon Kernow, the Cornish nationalists getting far more pro-EU media exposure than the actual support for their party would have commanded and now it’s the turn of the Yorkshire Party to be promoted. http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/15787239.Councillors_vote_to_back_devolution_move/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-england-leeds-42427906 ;

(3) Now we need to look forward to 2018, having helped establish the idea that Yorkshire can stand alone as a Region within the EU, they could allow the Yorkshire party to push for their own parliament with more fiscal autonomy and claim that Yorkshire doesn’t have any connection with the south of England and that the British Government has no more right to speak for them than for Scotland. http://www.yorkshireparty.org.uk

(4) Then Yorkshire Party will demand the same powers as Scotland and it’s own independence referendum which states it wants to remain in the EU!
https://en-gb.facebook.com/voteyorkshire/

To fully corroborate the Regionalist agenda it is worth noting that the Leader of the Yorkshire Party, Stewart Arnold, was previously a liberal Democrat Councillor and Parliamentary candidate and he also worked as a Policy and Communications Director for the European Parliament between 2001 -2012. Mr Arnold was involved in establishing the “Yorkshire Independence Movement” and is its Vice Chairman as well as becoming the Yorkshire Party’s as its leader. Also added to this is Nigel Sollitt’s comments as, The Yorkshire Independence Movement’s Chairman, states that their aim is:- ‘a Yorkshire empowered to make her own decisions and determine her own destiny’. https://yorkshiredevolution.co.uk/current-executive-committee.html

In conclusion, by not discouraging Regionalism, the British government is sleepwalking into the same problems that Spain now has with Catalonia but with the major difference being that the British government is about to start negotiations to leave the EU, Spain isn’t. The Spanish Government must therefore seem as an enemy of the EU whereas the British Government is.

Regionalisation is a process that the EU uses to promote its Federalist policy, if English Regionalism is encouraged then “dissolution” of the UK will occur. This puts the EU Regionalist party, Yorkshire party in direct opposition to the British government and the British State itself as well as in opposition to the continuance of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland!”


*

 United Kingdom Mebyon Kernow  Cornwall 2003
 United Kingdom Plaid Cymru  Wales 1983
 United Kingdom Scottish National Party  Scotland 1989
 United Kingdom Yorkshire Party[28]  Yorkshire 2015/2016

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)

Five reasons for English Independence (of many!)


I was recently challenged for reasons to justify our call for English Independence. In reply I drew these up.

What do you think?

Five reasons for English Independence (of many!):-

1. Democratic Self Government – the natural state for a modern democratic nation >>> http://robintilbrook.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/my-evidence-to-mckaywlq-commission.html ; and

2. Fiscal autonomy – to end the “Barnett Formula” subsidies which the HofL report of 2009 stated were then over £49 Billion per year >>> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldselect/ldbarnett/139/139.pdf; and

3. End “Barnett Consequentials” ie For every £10 Billion spent by the UK in England on a Capital project a further £1 Billion has to be given to Scotland eg HS2 £50Billion = £5 Billion bunce! and

4. Prevent Unionist plans to beak up England into “Regions” because “England is too big”! eg >>> http://stv.tv/news/politics/1371867-gordon-brown-sets-out-vision-of-more-federal-constitution/ and >>> http://robintilbrook.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/my-submissions-to-local-government.html

5. Dissolution of the UK equals automatic and immediate exit from the EU >>> http://robintilbrook.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/uk-to-be-python-esque-dead-parrot-after.html

EVIL BE TO HIM WHO EVEL THINKS IT?


EVIL BE TO HIM WHO EVEL THINKS IT?


There is the famous story of how, in a fit of petulance, Edward III decided that his Order of Knighthood wasn’t going to be of the Arthurian Roundtable but rather of the Garter, when his courtiers sniggered at a garter falling off Edward’s mistress’s stocking and which he had bent down to pick up. He is said to have responded ‘Honi soit qui mal y pense’, the motto of the garter (meaning evil be to him who evil thinks it).

The Conservative’s House of Commons procedural EVEL tinkering which gives predominantly Conservative MPs a veto in the House of Commons over Bills which the Speaker of the House certifies as being English only has caused a flurry of comment. Some of it utterly hysterical, especially from the Scottish contingent, whether they be SNP or Labour; also, indeed, some Scots representing English seats for the Conservative Party and also the Northern Irish Unionists and Welsh MPs commentators. Generally English commentators tend to think that it is a fairly minor alteration which is merely a nod in the direction of English interests.

As English Democrats we of course say it is far too little to give a proper voice to our Nation’s interests. However one of the more interesting and thoughtful articles written about this has come from the Economist’s constitutional commentator, writing as Bagehot’s Notebook. I reproduce his article below but I think the importance of the article is that it highlights two significant issues.

One is that there is a fundamental choice facing English people in the fairly near future. This is whether the English Nation is happy to be broken up into some sort of bogus regions; whether they be the nine EU “Regions” or Osborne’s half baked “Northern Powerhouses”. What the article shows is that the only viable alternative to Regionalisation is Independence. That is very much the English Democrats’ analysis too and that is, of course, one of the reasons why, as English nationalists, we support English Independence.

The other point that he mentions, but has not yet fully thought through, is the new politicisation of the role of Speaker.

The current Speaker, John Bercow, with his background considering himself to be British not English, will be very likely to certify that any bill where there is any doubt is a British Bill and therefore all MPs have equal rights over it. But when John Bercow stands down or is replaced there will inevitably be a much more hotly contested election than before to be the next Speaker. English MPs, who are moving in the direction of English nationalism, will want to make sure that the next Speaker is much more concerned about English interests than John Bercow is.

On the other hand the Scottish contingent is certain to want a Scot, whether he represents a Scottish seat or an English seat, to try to make sure that there is never a veto on Scottish MPs having a full say on anything which they want to have a say on.

In the meanwhile here is the Bagehot article from the Economist :-

English-only votes set Britain on the path to federalisation—or break-up

Oct 22nd 2015, 17:54 by BAGEHOT

THE House of Commons has just voted in favour (by 312 MPs to 270) of English votes for English laws (EVEL). Superficially a piece of legislative housekeeping—it became law by standing order—this measure fundamentally changes the way the United Kingdom functions. The country should be an unwieldy, unstable beast: few multi-part polities in which one segment is much mightier than the other work out. But Britain’s union, 84% of which is England, has lasted for three centuries because the English have for centuries allowed their political identity to be blurred into that of the British state (as I argued more fully in a recent column, pasted below this post). Today’s vote draws a line under that; a faint one, perhaps, but a line nonetheless.

Its roots lie in the febrile final days of the campaign leading up to Scotland’s independence referendum last September. Polls suggesting that the Out side was narrowly ahead panicked unionists in London, who issued a “vow” promising extensive new powers for Edinburgh. On the morning after the In victory David Cameron, in a speech outside 10 Downing Street, argued that it was also time for England to gain some self-determination. The moment had come, he argued, for EVEL: a system giving MPs for seats in England precedence in parliamentary votes no longer relevant to the devolved parts of the United Kingdom that now control swathes of their own domestic policies (most notably Scotland). The Conservatives used this pledge to tar Labour, opposed to EVEL, as the vassal of the pro-independence Scottish National Party (SNP) in the run up to the election in May. Duly elected with a majority, the Tories have now enacted it.

I struggle to find the measure particularly offensive. It is wrong that Scottish MPs get to rule on bills concerning, say, only English hospitals. Banning them from participating in such votes would create the risk of two separate governments; one English, one British (in the event of a Labour government reliant on its Scottish MPs, for example). So EVEL rightly gives English MPs a veto, but also requires all bills to pass the House of Commons as a whole. As compromises go, it could be worse.

Still, the risk of a “two-tier” Commons is real. In a chamber where all are notionally equal Scottish MPs will be less powerful than English ones. EVEL greatly inflates the role of the speaker, whose job it will be to decide whether a bill is English-only—and thus whether the English majority should wield a veto. In practice, he will generally rule on the side of Britishness. This, and the fact that further fiscal powers will soon travel north to Edinburgh (meaning that even budget votes could generate expectations of an English veto), will eventually render EVEL insufficient. It seems to me that this movie has two possible endings.

The first, happier one is federalisation. Giving England power over things that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland already control would clear the way to a Parliament and government in Downing Street responsible only for matters affecting all British citizens equally: foreign affairs, defence, monetary policy and so forth. An English Parliament risks exacerbating the problem that for centuries has been smothered in the mushy blur of Englishness and Britishness: the unworkable rivalry between any English government and a British one. But English devolution could yet take different forms. Sub-national authorities in England are already assuming powers unthinkable a few short years ago: Greater Manchester will soon run its own health service, for example. The long-term solution to Britain’s constitutional quandaries is probably a federal system in which Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, Newcastle, Bristol, Cardiff, Southampton, Edinburgh and Belfast meet together, on equal terms, in London.

The second and more likely possible outcome is separation. English self-denial has been the glue holding the union together. It is melting. Both EVEL and the broader rise in an English sense of identity (comprehensively outlined in a 2012 paper by the IPPR, a think-tank) suggest that the United Kingdom is experiencing a great normalisation. Its constitutional imbalance is finally asserting itself. A ship that has sailed forth for many years despite a strong tilt is finally listing towards the waves. Last year’s Scottish referendum—and the strong appetite for a rerun evinced at the recent Scottish National Party conference—suggests that it is already taking on water. EVEL may prove the point at which it tips too far; at which England’s reemergence accelerates and at which the ship capsizes.

Bagehot

MY SPEECH AT THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2015 ENGLISH DEMOCRATS’ CONFERENCE

MY SPEECH AT THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2015 ENGLISH DEMOCRATS’ CONFERENCE


Ladies and Gentlemen I am delighted to welcome you to our Annual General Meeting and Autumn Conference here in Leicester.

There has been a little dispute between me and Steve Uncles as to the numbering of this conference. We launched at a General Meeting of Members at Imperial College in August 2002, which I am counting as our first General Meeting. Whereas Steve wants to start our count with the next Annual General Meeting on September 2003. But whether you count this as our thirteenth or fourteenth Annual General Meeting and, of course, we have also had Spring meetings for almost all of those years, we are nevertheless a party which has been established long enough for even our slapdash and complacent British Establishment to have fully recognised our existence. For example when the issue of English Votes for English Laws was being debated in the House of Commons, before the Summer recess, we were mentioned as the principal campaigners for an English Parliament.

Not only have we established ourselves over these years and made an enormous contribution to keeping the English flag flying politically, having distributed well over 30 million leaflets and appeared on television, radio and in newspapers on innumerable occasions, with several Party Election Broadcasts, but also there are a number of us who were present at that first meeting who are still active in the Party.

Ladies and gentlemen over the course of the last year the scene for English nationalism has been in some ways improving. I think this is particularly so since we last met at the Spring conference in York, as since then we have seen the continuing surge of support for the Scottish National Party in Scotland which has been transformed politically with Scottish National Party MPs winning 56 out of 59 Scottish parliamentary seats with an unprecedented almost clean sweep, leaving the British Establishment and Unionist parties only clinging on with one seat each. It looks quite likely that a similar clear out may occur in the Scottish Parliament elections next May! This surge bodes well for a similar nationalist surge here in England.

Breaking off there, did you see the clash between UKIP’s Suzanne Evans and Alex Salmond on Newsnight a few weeks ago? Suzanne Evans used the expression ‘Regional Assembly Elections’ to describe the Scottish Parliament elections. This was a remark which had Alex Salmond literally gibbering and spluttering furiously that Scotland wasn’t a Region but a “Nation”. It was hilarious!

But Ladies and Gentlemen seriously let’s make sure that we are here to tell idiotic Unionists like Suzanne Evans that England isn’t a series of Regions – England is a Nation! What do you say Ladies and Gentlemen? Is England a series of Regions? Is England a Nation like Scotland? 

Ladies and Gentlemen you may be interested to know that a while before the Scottish referendum, at the time when Douglas Carswell was about to stand in Clacton, having left the Conservative Party to join UKIP, I had a meeting with the Conservative’s election guru, the so called Wizard of Oz, Lynton Crosby, and I briefed him about the English question.

Ladies and Gentlemen I make no apology for doing so as I think it is important for the English Democrats and for The English nationalist campaign to work with anyone who may help to further our Cause. I think that is a lesson that could usefully and forcibly be pointed to the Scottish National Party and to Plaid Cymru, neither of whom are willing to work with any English organisation, not just the English Democrats, but also, for example, the Campaign for an English Parliament because they are simply blinded by their hatred of the English. Despite this neither of them could hope to achieve what they say they want to achieve without support in England for independence.

Anyway Lynton Crosby, being Australian, wasn’t aware particularly of the distinction between English and British, nor was he aware of the rising support for English National Identity, as shown in the 2011 Census, in which, I am sure you need no reminding, over 32 million people, that is 60.4% of the entire population of England stated that they were English-only and not British. A fact which British Establishment spokesmen and politicians are very keen to play down, so much so there is even talk of pulling the rug from under the Office of National Statistics because they even dared to ask that question!

Anyway after our meeting, Lynton Crosby went away and did some opinion poll and focus group research which showed, he reported to me, that we would get great support if we could once marshall the resources to campaign on a more or less level playing field with the richer parties. He also confirmed rising support for English issues and of a rising English political demand for recognition, also a rising concern amongst English people that the Scottish National Party might go into coalition with Labour and so be able extract even more unfair advantages for Scotland from a Labour led coalition government to be paid for by us English.

I think my conversation with Lynton Crosby and his subsequent research was very important. He has recently confirmed this in a televised interview in Australia, in which he confirmed that their polling and focus group research was what I was expecting and that it therefore showed figures that Englishness was potentially an important factor.

It was for this reason that David Cameron, a man whom I would remind everyone, had never previously shown any interest in the English question and, indeed was on record as saying that he was going to ‘fight little Englanders wherever he found them’, suddenly came out on the morning after the Scottish Referendum with his suggestion of English Votes for English Laws!

EVEL was then put into the Conservative Election Manifesto and there was much public talk about what the English nation wanted in the way of a new constitutional settlement – much to the horror of Labour and Liberal Democrats and almost all the British nationalist media!

During the General Election campaign the English Question was often discussed and the Conservatives made big headway with the threat that the Scottish National Party might get undue influence in a coalition Labour Government.

Every time that was mentioned, not only was Labour’s vote undermined in Scotland with more people deciding to vote SNP in order to get such a result, but in England people were increasingly hesitant about voting for Labour with that as a possible outcome.

Indeed where I live, in a rock solid Conservative constituency, whose MP is Eric Pickles, Eric actually got a higher vote in terms of the numbers of people who voted for him than he had previously obtained because people, like my local sub-postmaster, Mick, voted for him. Mick told me that he had been getting increasingly worried about the SNP threat and when he actually got into the voting booth, despite the fact that he and his family had always been Labour and he had been a Trade Unionist, he just couldn’t bring himself to vote Labour and so he voted Conservative!

Ladies and gentlemen the significance is that for the first time in his life that man voted not according to his family tribal political tradition and custom, but he voted as an English patriot and in what he saw as the interests of England.

Of course those like Mick that voted Conservative in such a way are going to find that the Conservatives let them down and that English Votes for English Laws is a completely inadequate and frankly bogus proposal which does very little to settle the English Question. Also of course, it doesn’t even touch the Executive side of the English Question and is only a bit of tinkering with the Representational side.

In discussing matters with Lynton Crosby I also pointed out to him that UKIP had a weakness on the English Question. Although UKIP depends for much of its support upon people who are basically English nationalists, according to the research that has been done by the Institute for Public Policy and Research. The IPPR, in their papers on the rising sense of English political identity, had clearly identified that many of UKIPs supporters were English nationalists.

Nevertheless UKIP’s leaders, especially Nigel Farage, are old style British nationalists (with many of their funders being City Brit/Scots) and consequently were almost certain not to satisfy the English nationalist calls for an English Parliament and for proper representation for England and were not even likely to have a separate manifesto for England! Lynton Crosby was very surprised about this and went and did his research which confirmed it.

In the event, as many of you will know, UKIP lived up to my prediction exactly. They produced a British manifesto which barely mentioned England or the English. They then went on to produce specific Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish manifestos, but nothing specifically for England.

This was despite the Campaign for an English Parliament specifically lobbying them and directly lobbying Suzanne Evans. She point blank refused to have any English manifesto.

Having been forewarned, the Conservatives were then ready to triangulate UKIP by launching a specifically English manifesto, which although it was a thin document, confirmed peoples’ views that the Conservatives were the big party that was most interested in English nationalist questions in the General Election.

In the event, as Lynton Crosby indicated in his televised interview, the English Question may well have been the issue which tipped the Conservatives into an outright majority in the House of Commons (albeit on the back of course of only 26% of the electorates’ votes!). It may also have been the issue which halved UKIP’s representation in Parliament. If they had gone full throttle for English nationalism I think they would have won quite a few of those seats where they came second.

Instead UKIP were over confident that they were going to win many seats, so much so that Nigel Farage had not even prepared a speech to give at his count in Thanet in the event that he failed to win the seat.

It is also why, with his usual weakness for ill-thought-out grandstanding, that he announced that he was standing down with immediate effect as Leader of UKIP and appointing Suzanne Evans, as the temporary Leader, who wasn’t, he misguidedly thought, as dangerous to his position as Paul Nuttall would have been, who as their Deputy Leader ought to have been the person to lead in the interim.

It was only when Nigel Farage spoke to Suzanne Evans and she refused to confirm that she would stand down, so that he could be re-elected at their conference next weekend, that he started the whole ridiculous scenario of trying to un-resign.

I don’t think of Belgium politicians as being usually particularly funny but the Belgium ex-Prime Minister and MEP, Guy Verhofstadt, got it absolutely right when he said:- “He is a man of his word. Nigel Farage has sent a letter to Nigel Farage saying “I resign”, and Nigel Farage has responded to Nigel Farage saying “I refuse” … That’s the way it works there”. Ladies and Gentlemen what about that?

In fact I gather that at UKIP’s next NEC meeting, Nigel Farage told them that they must refuse to accept his resignation and he then refused to leave the room whilst they discussed it.

I am afraid that UKIP’s leadership has been left with its credibility badly damaged. With the Conservatives becoming ever more clearly committed to an In/Out Leave or Remain referendum on EU membership by the end of 2017 UKIP’s purpose is coming to an end. Ladies and Gentlemen I predict that, when we have had that EU referendum, whether we are in or we are out, UKIP will be finished as its one and only purpose will have ended.

We on the other hand, whilst we are of course strongly interested in England coming out of the EU, nevertheless we have an overriding objective and indeed mind-set of being English Nationalists seeking what is in the best interests of the English Nation in respect of any given problem.

It is for this reason that we are today launching our own English nationalist referendum group to leave both of the Unions. We offer two bites of the cherry, not only the referendum on the EU, but also dissolution of the UK which automatically puts us outside the EU.

There is also what has happened to Labour. For those of what they refer to as the “white working class”, but who mostly think of themselves as “English”, who were already concerned that Labour cares about everybody more than they have found it by electing the anti-English Jeremy Corbyn. We have also seen the whole strength of the Far-Left throughout the UK turn out and vote for him. The number is 251,417. That isn’t such a big number, less than the number who voted for us in the 2009 EU election when we got 279,801!

Ladies and Gentlemen whilst there are therefore various reasons for English nationalists to feel optimistic about the future, there are of course various reasons to be concerned and issues to campaign against. One of which is the flood of immigration that we are being subjected to in England.

An extraordinary amount of sentimental nonsense is written and spoken about what “Britain” should do about these problems. Whilst it is true that David Cameron and William Hague have made the situation worse by causing the collapse of the Libyan State. The dramatic scenes that we have seen of migrants in unseaworthy vessels on the Mediterranean have often set out from the anarchic civil war zone that was Libya. In the main however the crisis has little or nothing to do with the United Kingdom.

As a small country on the periphery of the European continent with a living standard which is already quite low down the pecking order of “the developed world” (and sliding!) there isn’t realistically anything that this country could do to completely sort out what is likely to be an ever growing problem; as the population of the world spirals well out of the ability of the earth’s natural resources to provide adequate lifestyles, let alone comfortable lifestyles for its ever vaster human population.

Within the UK the vast majority of migrants (and a disproportionate proportion) prefer to stay in England and are both not willing to be dispersed into Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland but also are made very unwelcome by local people. It is the English who have been peculiarly tolerant towards immigrants over the last 50 years in which more migrants (and a larger proportion of population) have come here than in the entire previous history of England.

Last year alone the official statistics said that we took in 330,000 migrants. Given the inadequate collection of statistics of those coming in and going out of the country these figures should be viewed with extreme scepticism. The true figure may well be more than double the official one!

It is in the interests of the Government and the State generally to down play the size of immigration as the people of England become ever more concerned that this whole issue is being grossly mishandled by our so-called leaders.

Discussion of the number of Eastern Europeans that have come has been framed by a figure of 600,000 Poles being regularly touted. In fact this figure only represents those Poles that have signed up for employed status with an employee national insurance number. The Polish Government does keep statistics of whose going in and going out of their country and where they are going to and they think that we have over 1.5 million Poles here.

It is worth bearing in mind that the Government of the day claimed, when they opened our borders to Eastern European immigration, that only 13,000 Eastern Europeans would come. Now officials talk disingenuously as if the claimed 600,000 Poles was the equivalent to the 13,000. Actually if the official figures are out to the extent which seems to be the case with Poles, then you can probably add another one million other Eastern Europeans here!

Some years ago one of the main supermarket chains published their estimate of the total population on the basis of the amount of food eaten. They estimated that there was at least another 10 million people in the United Kingdom over and above those officially thought to be here. A similar discrepancy emerges if the amount of effluent produced by the population is considered.

If all the calls for “Britain” to do something were answered, then the county’s infrastructure would simply be unable to cope. I think it is no exaggeration to say that it is already creaking at the seams. There is also the question of our peoples’ living standards, their access to jobs and their facilities and our culture and our countryside.

Just as a reality check, 330,000 people coming in in a year requires a building programme equivalent to building nearly two Colchesters just to house one year’s migration. It is also more than a new Doncaster or a new Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

Then there is the 8 million migrants that the Government has now admitted are here. This means that a new Greater London must be built and, given the migrants’ preference for England, that is going to be built in England. Such levels of migration are totally “unsustainable”.

So when British politicians say that we should take more migrants, whether they be refugees or economic migrants or EU citizens, bear in mind that they are asking us all to treat the UK State as if it were in fact a private charity rather than an organisation the purpose of which is to look after the interests of our Nation and our People.

My answer to those who would like to see something done for migrants, is that those people should do it themselves out of their own money and using their own time and effort.

The English are already by far the most charitable people on Earth so go and do it yourselves but don’t expect to use the State, the taxpayer and our fellow citizens’ futures to subsidise your consciences!

Ladies and Gentlemen also there is the question of Regionalisation which has again reared its ugly head with George Osborne’s proposals to try to produce different levels of Regionalisation in different parts of England. Although this is clearly a threat, as it is part of the British Establishment’s agenda to try and break up England, which is, of course, the very threat that is one of the reasons why English Democrats think that the only way in which England can be properly looked after in the future, and protected, is by Independence. Nevertheless this has been done very much on a very top-down basis, rather than as a result of a democratic mandate.

This can be seen most clearly in Manchester, which only recently voted in a referendum not to have a Metro Mayor, but it is now in the process of having to create one in readiness for elections in perhaps two year’s time.

It is for that reason, the lack of democratic mandate for the break-up of England, that I am not as worried about this wave of attempted Regionalisation, as I must say I was ten years ago now with Labour’s proposals for referenda and regional assemblies. That would have been much more difficult to reverse once people had voted in a referendum for Regionalisation.

Interestingly the IPPR research shows that there is virtually no support for any form of Regionalisation in England outside, of course, the British political class. Regionalisation is however a threat that we need to constantly bear in mind and fight against. The main point to make however is that any local government reorganisation is not “Devolution” like what has happened in Scotland and Wales, instead it is merely “Decentralisation”.

Ladies and Gentlemen I am pleased therefore not only to welcome you to this 13th or 14th Conference or Annual General Meeting, but also to say that I think our Cause is making good progress. Over the coming year we have some interesting challenges, not only, of course, probably the EU referendum, but also some significant elections. In particular the Police Commissioner elections on the 5th May 2016.

I would remind everyone that these are elections that we have previously done quite well in, having spent next to nothing on it. Our total spend across all five county forces that we previously stood in was less than £1,000 on campaigning, but we still saved every deposit, getting over 5% of the vote and we also came second in South Yorkshire. Ladies and Gentlemen make no mistake these are important elections that give a position of actual power and decision making to the Police Commissioner. I think it is an opportunity for us to focus on something where we could make a real difference if we got our people elected and could change the way that the Police in England behave.

This is perhaps particularly important when the Government is starting to turn its anti-terrorism strategy, known as CONTEST, against those of us that they consider to be “extremists” because the word “extremist” is now to be used against anyone who opposes the status quo. Those of you who are nurses, doctors, teachers, social workers and police will know that this is a new target for the Government.

To show how far they are prepared to go, consider the fact that recently a “Conservative” MP, the unmarried Mark Spencer. The MP for Sherwood surprised many of those who had not been paying attention to direction of travel of British politics by enthusiastically endorsing the idea that “Extremist Disruption Orders” should be used against any teacher (and shortly, no doubt, any public speaker) that dares to teach traditional Christian morality by indicating disapproval of “gay marriage”. In my view such a comment could never have been made by anybody who had any belief in civil liberty, whatever their views on gay marriage.

So Ladies and Gentlemen I hope that we English Democrats will all leave here re-enforced and with a new determination and resolve to fight for England and the English Nation and against our enemies, whether they be Islamist, EU’ish, Regionalist, Scottish or British!

As part of that process we have got important resolutions for you to decide today whether to adopt for our Party and also some interesting speakers and presentations for you this afternoon.

Thank you very much Ladies and Gentlemen.

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