Clinging On...

Gareth over at the CEP News Blog points us in the direction of various interesting discussions taking place about devolution across the web, and makes the following point:

Far be it from me to gatecrash the party but surely the only question that needs to be asked is "What do the English want?" Any change in England's constitutional status within the Union should come about through consultation with the people (as it did in Scotland and Wales).

Exactly. The people of England need to be treated in exactly the same way as the people of Scotland, and offered the same options. That is of first importance.

Wales, which was offered a watered-down version of what Scotland now has, deserves nothing less.

THEN we discuss the role of the Union (if any). I'm not anti-Union, in fact I favour a federal UK with domestic parliaments for each nation and a vastly slimmed down UK government taking care of issues like defence. But I don't regard the Union as being essential to life or as more important than one of the UK nations (the country on the sacrificial slab is always England).

Some people on the web seem to cling to the Union like Linus to his security blanket. What is that about? The last vestiges of Imperial pride? Fear? A desire to perpetuate the plight of the people of England as democracy goes down the pan at the behest of a "UK" government?

It has me fogged.


This blog is supportive of the aims of the Campaign for an English Parliament, but is in no way connected.

Oh Janet Street-Porter - Please Help Me To See The Light...

Just where does Saint Janet of Street-Porter get off? Looks like Horsham, to me...

From 20th Century Words by John Ayto, 1999:

chattering classes n (1985) a social group consisting of articulate members of the educated middle class, typically seen as holding liberal opinions (notably opposition to the Thatcher government of the 1980s) and given to debating social, political or cultural issues amongst themselves. British colloquial, and usually used with dismissive contempt (generally by someone who might him - or herself be regarded as belonging to the group). Reportedly coined by the journalist Frank Johnson in the early 1980s, and popularised by Alan Watkins in the "Observer".

Back in the 1980s, when the "chattering classes" tag was first applied, those lovely people in their cumfie wumfie homes, complete with Betamax or VHS video recorders and some even with microwave ovens (well beyond the pockets of many of us back then), seemed to be on the side of those of us who called ourselves "working class" (quaint, eh?) and viewed ourselves as being victims of Thatcherism.

As well as chuntering on about a load of insignificant crap, those paragons of virtue were anti-Thatcher, anti-capitalism, anti-cutbacks... caring sharing lovelies, many of whom prided themselves on having been teenagers/twenty-somethings in the 1960s. In those days we didn't bother to mention the 1970s - they were far too recent and far too unpleasant to be crowed over at that point.

"Vote Labour, Vote Labour, Vote Labour, Vote shiny new Lib Dems," chanted the chatterers.

Fast forward to now, and we have a New Labour government which has reduced the health service in England to tatters; is planning controversial education reforms; is making our police and emergency services larger and more unaccountable to the localities they serve; is foisting legislation on us via the West Lothian thingie; is under funding England at every opportunity, and imposing undemocratic regional assemblies on us.

New Labour is obviously very different to Old Labour. It doesn't take a clever clogs to see that. So what do the chattering classes say now?

"Vote Labour, Vote Labour, Vote not-so-new-and-shiny Lib Dems!"

Many of their members still pride themselves on having been trendy hipsters in the 1960s, but nowadays many also pride themselves on having been 60s hippie leftovers or retro 1950s Fonzie clones in the 1970s. The 70s have been rewritten - with the aid of the BBC, of course. Auntie's "I Love The 1970s" series took a grim decade, poured in loads of pop culture from the 1960s and 1980s, and made it better.

Whatever their vintage, the chattering classes think they're rather supah.

So, are their voices raised at the democratic deficit suffered by the people of England under this government? No, sadly not. They haven't the insight to adapt to the situation. Many of them remain loyal to Labour, although the Labour Party they first supported has ceased to exist.

But the chattering classes have spotted some new villains to take the place of the Thatcher mob. Yep, it's you there or me here, flying the Cross of St George flag in support of the England football team or in protest at this government's actions against England. The chattering classes just KNOW that we are racist, moronic thugs. Unsavoury blots on the landscape.

So they have adapted to different times. And now look down their noses at us, the great unwashed. Don't try to protest. They know. They are educated people, idealists, liberal thinkers of the first order.

Some of them write newspaper columns.

What do we do, eh?

Them up there, us down here.

I suppose that's progress.

Oh, Janet Street-Porter, I fly the England flag, I want my country to be acknowledged, I want a fair deal for its people. I grovel at your knowledgeable pixie boots for forgiveness. Please explain to me where I am going wrong...

From my viewpoint, the so-called "enlightened" views of you and your ilk, the disparaging comments about "white van man" and the national flag, seem to be powered by nothing more than old fashioned, unenlightened class snobbery...

Now, that surely can't be the case. can it?

This blog is supportive of the aims of the Campaign for an English Parliament, but is in no way connected.

Neil Kinnock On Football: "I Hope You Lose, England!"

Here's Neil Kinnock, a man who feathers his nest from "British" politics. A man who absolutely can't bear England at any cost, it seems.

Remember what he said at the "Values of Britishness" conference in November 2005?

"I am pro-Britain in everything I do. I always support Britain. I support the British Lions on every occasion. I support any and every Welsh team on every occasion. And I support any and every team on every occasion when they are playing against England. "

So, you won't be joining the majority of people in Britain crying "Come on, England!" once the footie starts, eh, Neil? In fact you'll be supporting the opposing teams?

Absolutely charming.

Perhaps it's not so surprising, Mr Kinnock is, after all, Welsh. But did he have to make his smug and unkind declaration at a junket largely paid for by England's tax payers? And did he really think we'd all have forgotten it by the time the footie season loomed again?

This blog is supportive of the aims of the Campaign for an English Parliament, but is in no way connected.

The Sunday Herald: People In England Who Want Equality And A Return To Democratic Rule Are Anti-Scottish Racists!

The CEP News Blog highlights the latest anti-democratic and anti-English ramblings of the Sunday Herald newspaper, in response to an article in The Economist, highlighting the UK Government's anti-England spending bias.

A quote from the Herald:

Yet countless polls over the years have detected latent resentment at a Scottish “Raj” running English affairs. Like all racism, this has remained latent despite attempts by the Daily Telegraph, Jeremy Paxman and the Campaign for an English Parliament to inflame it. And indeed by The Economist, which portrays Scotland as dependent and parasitical on the UK economy. “Like teenagers on an allowance”, as Grimond describes it. I suppose Scotland’s oil is just pocket money then.

We're racists then, simply for wanting equality? Good grief, I'm half Scottish, half English and I think the current set-up stinks to high heaven.

The Herald's argument is not strong on logic. It's Scotland's oil? But some is in English waters and if they seriously believe that Gordon Brown can rule England, though not democratically accountable, surely they must believe in the concept of "Britain"? So England is "Britain", and it's fine for an MP representing a Scottish constituency to rule it, but the oil is "Scottish"?

Does not compute.

The article also quotes Robert Hazell, Mr "I'm in the Government's pocket" of the Constitution Unit. I've heard more sense from Gilbert the Alien.

I had hoped for an attempt at serious, responsible journalism from the Herald. An attempt by this newspaper to pull itself out of the gutter. It is with great regret that I demote it from fish 'n' chip wrapper to the dustbin.

This blog is supportive of the aims of the Campaign for an English Parliament, but is in no way connected.

The BBC - We Are Not Biased - You Are Silly! It Is Important To Consult Scotland On Everything, Even Things That Don't Affect It...

Oh dear. Recently, this blog and the CEP news blog highlighted the government's latest proposal to cover up the concept of England, thus continuing the devolutionary nightmare of inequality levelled against every man, woman and child in England, by proposing the teaching of "core British values" - but only in schools in England.

Well, the BBC news website saw fit to seek out the views of one David Eaglesham, of the Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association, although Scotland will be unaffected by the proposed legislation. No view was sought from an English teaching association.

It seems that the Beeb was also seeking to paper over the facts of devolution.

Drew wrote an e-mail of complaint and got the following, part evasive nonsense, part pro-forma:

Thank you for your e-mail regarding bbc.co.uk.

I appreciate that you objected to the way in which the story in question allowed a Scottish spokesperson to give his views regarding the Government's proposed citizenship classes in schools. I note that since you felt that since Scotland has a devolved government that this constituted a pro-Scottish bias.

Firstly, I should state that David Eaglesham's comments were only 1/8 of the comments presented on the web page. Part of our role as an impartial observer is to report every side of the argument and in this occasion we felt it was important to discuss the views of a Scottish spokesperson.

Our website editors are charged to ensure that over a reasonable period they reflect the range of significant views, opinions and trends in their subject area. The BBC does not seek to denigrate any view, nor to promote any view. It seeks rather to identify all significant views, and to test them rigorously and fairly on behalf of the audience. Among other evidence, audience research indicates widespread confidence in the impartiality of the BBC's reporting. I recognise, however, that you may not share this view. Therefore, please be assured that your comments on this matter have been registered and added to a daily log that is made available to senior management within the BBC, as well as website editors.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to contact us with the strength of your concerns.

Paul Hunter,
BBC Information

Firstly, the mailing states that the Beeb felt it was "important" to seek a Scottish viewpoint on this non-Scottish matter. No explanation of why. That seems completely illogical and there is more than a slight display of arrogance in declining to justify the decision.

We'll squander your licence money on what WE deem important. We don't have to explain - that seems to be the attitude.

Secondly, later in the mailing, the BBC refers to "significant views". Significant views usually relate to those held by people affected by an ongoing situation or proposal.

Thirdly - "among other evidence, audience research indicates widespread confidence in the impartiality of the BBC's reporting".

Well, that sounds rather smug - and rather far removed from reality. I hear things to the contrary every week, particularly when it comes to the BBC's covering of matters relating to England and the democratic deficit post-devolution.

There is more than a suggestion that the BBC is above reproach, so it must be Drew's viewpoint that is at fault.

In reality, what sane person would call the BBC impartial? Its PC preaching and distortion of the news, coupled with its refusal to cover the affects of devolution on England, smells like an overloaded dustbin in the summer sun. The briefest inspection would send most people reeling away.

The BBC e-mail is an absolute disgrace, and illustrates just how unaccountable this so called accountable organisation is to the vast majority of people in the UK - the people of England.


This blog is supportive of the aims of the Campaign for an English Parliament, but is in no way connected.

Joseph Harker, The Guardian: Flying England's National Flag? Go On, Admit It - You're A White, Pot Bellied, White Van Driving Racist...

The Guardian is at it again. Joseph Harker writes...

Is it just me, or is anyone else slightly worried about the number of St George’s flags flying from road vehicles right now?

Well, no. I think it's fun. You don't?

I’ve been looking at the drivers of these flag-waving vehicles, and - OK, I admit this isn’t exactly scientific - half of them are in white vans, and the rest are white, male, tattooed, pot-bellied 35 to 55-years-olds: exactly the type I’ve been seeing on TV for the past month complaining about “our houses going to the asylum seekers”, or that “we’re losing control of our country”. I can’t tell if these drivers come from Barking and Dagenham, where the BNP gained 11 seats, but that borough is just a short drive from where I live, so who knows?

The suggestion is ridiculous, the stereotyping is racist and snobbish and the whole thing is yet another out-of-touch attempt to demonise England's flag by some bigoted, classist idiot sitting smugly up there in Guardian Towers.

Drew, formerly of CEP Cambs and part-time advisor to this blog, wrote to Mr Harker:

Dear Mr Harker,

In answer to your question, I think it is "just you". Pre-1990s, it was hard to buy a St George's flag here and the BNP (BRITISH National Party, not ENGLISH) were mainly waving the Union flag. Do you want that banned?

I do not know a single member of an ethnic minority group who flinches at the sight of England's national flag. There may be a few, certainly people like you encourage it, but the rest is just pure invention on your part.

Post-devolution, we find that there is a heightened awareness of England as a country in its own right. It has certainly got the worst deal from devolution thus far - the lowest public spending, non-democratic regional assemblies, non-representative MPs, etc.

Racism exists, and in large amounts, in Scotland and Wales - and they still wave their flags. Are all, or the vast majority of, flag wavers racists in your opinion? Or does this only apply to ""white van" working class English people?

I have a small St George's flag flying on my house, in protest at New Labour's biased devolution settlement. I am not a racist, but are you saying that if somebody read your article, decided that I was and threw a brick through my window, that action would be justified?

You are the one guilty of stirring up bad feeling.

Your article makes for very unpleasant reading. You make an excellent Guardian contributor, the finest purveyor of priggish, PC nonsense in the UK.

Yours sincerely....

We must all protest at these repeated attempts to demonise our flag. Gruniad writers should stop their priggish and bigoted nonsense, take a look at the issues surrounding uneven devolution in the UK, and start living in the 21st century.

Like Drew, I fly the Cross of St George flag as a protest against this government and its cruel and totally undemocratic actions towards England and ALL its citizens.

The Guardian is apparently a paper which vehemently opposes non-democratic rule.

Well, you fine upstanding, caring Guardian journalists, put up or shut up.

This blog is supportive of the aims of the Campaign for an English Parliament, but is in no way connected.

Simon Heffer on England's Democratic Deficit...

Simon Heffer writes in today's Telegraph about the democratic deficit facing England and the government's plans to reorganise the Home Office:

Mr [John] Reid is the MP for Airdrie and Shotts. The people whom he represents in the United Kingdom Parliament will, however, be completely unaffected by any reforms he makes to the criminal justice system or to the police.

This is because those policies are, in Airdrie and Shotts, the preserve of the Scottish Parliament. Mr Reid can therefore act with whatever abandon he chooses as Home Secretary in these respects, and can make whatever hideous errors of policy he likes, in the full knowledge that those on whose votes he depends for his parliamentary career will never suffer one jot because of it.

Accountability, as we understand it, has been shorn from him. He might, for all the comeback any group of English electors - however small - can have towards him have been parachuted in from Burkina Faso or Ultima Thule.

Until some other Labour minister makes a dog's breakfast of his department, and Mr Reid is sent off there with his legendary charm, integrity and intelligence to give it the Glasgow Kiss and sort it out, Mr Reid will be an alien figure, dictating to sanctionless people how they must be regulated in matters of policing and criminal justice.

Mr Brown is the MP for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath. As he goes about his new mission to reform the Home Office, he might well argue that some of its key responsibilities - such as immigration or the much-hated intention to introduce identity cards - will affect the entire kingdom, and therefore give him the right, as one of the Queen's ministers, to become involved in that area of government.

Equally, the English might argue that, as many of the Home Office's most crucial responsibilities affect only England, it would be nice to have in charge of reforming it someone who in the end will be answerable to English constituents. Instead, they have Mr Brown.

Again, he can act with absolute abandon, knowing that, in the pubs of Kirkcaldy, they will merely be hooting at what he has inflicted on the English, and preparing, as his reward, to vote for him in even larger numbers at the next election.

Why does Blair persist in appointing unaccountable Scots MPs to deal with English business? "This is one United Kingdom," insists No 10. Yes it is. If you ignore devolution. But that is impossible.

No 10 is living in Cloud Cuckooland.

Blair insists he appoints "on merit" - so does an area of the UK with a population smaller than an English county really have such superior MPs, so great that they stand head and shoulders above any in England?

It certainly looks like it.

Or is Blair simply an anti-English/anti-England prig, looking after cronies from his homeland and punishing the electorate in England for giving him such a rough ride at the recent local elections?

Answers on a postcard, please...

Thanks to the Cross of St George Forums and The England Project for pointing the way to the Telegraph article.

This blog is supportive of the aims of the Campaign for an English Parliament, but is in no way connected.

SOS - Democratic Rule Sinking Fast...

What makes the Labour Party think that the English would cheerfully submit themselves to rule by either of these old-school Scottish socialists?

A poll for the BBC at the weekend reported that 52 per cent of us are unwilling to accept a Scottish Prime Minister. The result is unsurprising, given that Labour lost the popular vote in England at the last election.

More and more people are asking why we should be governed by ministers who sit for Scottish constituencies. They shouldn’t be allowed to pass laws affecting only the English, when their writ doesn’t even run in their own backyard, since most powers north of the border have been devolved to the Scottish parliament. And the polls show that most Scots agree with us.

That's Richard Littlejohn writing in the Daily Mail. Andy Simpson must have been having fifty fits.

Richard has often highlighted the democratic deficit facing England in his previous columns and on his Sky News show, Littlejohn.

Thanks, Richard.

We need more like him. And the voices must be raised LOUDER. John Reid is about to force through police mergers in England. You can't vote him out. New Labour is about to destroy our ancient counties. With the amount of gerrymandering they've done, it would be EXTREMELY DIFFICULT to vote them out.

It's time to protest. Write. Wave banners. March. Scream and howl.

For democracy's sake.

This blog is supportive of the aims of the Campaign for an English Parliament, but is in no way connected.

"Core British Values" - But Only In English Schools

There is now a possibility that something called "core British values" might be taught to 11-16 year olds. But only in England. Why only in England? England alone is not Britain. Because the government likes to shove "Britishness" down our throats as it fogs the issues surrounding the unfair devolution settlement, West Lothian Question etc., that's why.

Gordon Brown has been particularly vocal. But there is a man with ambition. He's not about to let a little thing like democracy get in his way.

The BBC has run with the story, and consulted all sorts of worthies - including David Eaglesham of the SCOTTISH Secondary Teachers' Association. But the legislation won't apply in Scotland. So, why, if seeking irrelevant views, didn't the BBC consult a French or German or Russian or Australian or South African or Hungarian or Italian teaching organisation?

Because the BBC is in the government's pocket and likes to blur the facts of devolution, too.

The BBC's Scottish fixation is getting beyond a joke. Even their complaints department is based in Scotland - so people making points about this matter, and instances of anti-English bias in general, get short shrift, as I and several friends have found to our cost (one friend of mine contacted the Beeb about the lack of a national broadcasting service for England, and was ranted at by a chap called Fraser who stated that the BBC "did not want an England-only service").

Scotland, a country with a smaller population than an English county, let alone one of the undemocratic government regions we've had foisted on us (and which are shortly to replace our ancient counties), is dominating us and our national broadcasting service.

Creepy.

See the Beeb story here.

This blog is supportive of the aims of the Campaign for an English Parliament, but is in no way connected.

The Herald - The Beano of Scottish Newspapers

The Herald is actually The Beano of Scottish newspapers. If you want a giggle, then have a read. It's different from day-to-day, but I've recently enjoyed the ramblings of a correspondent who questioned what mandate Thatcher had to govern the UK pre-devolution, another who believed that Thatcher was PM for 17 years, and another who believed their region... sorry, I mean "nation", was suppressed by England for 300 years.

But recently a Herald article appeared in a slightly different vein, in response to a poll commissioned for the BBC's Politics Show. The question was "Should the UK have a Scottish PM now that Scotland has its own parliament?" and 52% of those polled said no. So, the Herald started wittering on about something called "Scottophobia"...

Today’s Scottophobia also reveals a complete misunderstanding of the devolution settlement. It was intended to strengthen the Union by promoting constitutional diversity. If jealousy and suspicion are as prevalent as they were more than 300 years ago, and these attitudes are held over a wider social base, Britain is not the mature society, at ease with itself, we had hoped was the case.

This, from a country which was over represented in the old UK parliament, and bayed and whined for its own parliament. A country which is now even more over represented, with a Secretary of State at Westminster, MPs voting on UK and English issues AND its own parliament at home. A country whose politicians force through legislation for England, although not democratically accountable. A country which supports any other country against its nearest neighbour and fellow Union member in sporting events.

Very mature, I'm sure.

What disturbs most people in England and Wales about the idea of an MP with a Scottish constituency being UK PM is that a great deal of the legislation passed under his/her government would not apply to his/her own constituents. The whole foundation of democratic government would be compromised to an alarming degree. More than it has been already by the bizarre appointments of various non-democratically accountable health and transport ministers for England over the last few years.

The Herald article is funny - there is nothing more twisted than a bitter Little Scotlander twisting the facts. In fact, there is nobody better at painting themselves and their country as saint, victim or martyr. If it was a national sport, Scotland would be top every time. YOU are at fault. WE are perfect, you get their drift.

But, on the negative side, the article could actually help to stir up ill feeling both sides of the border.

Not that it needs stirring up in Scotland.

Stick to being harmless and funny, Herald.

Or the fish and chips.

UPDATE

An e-mail from Sue Campbell:

I thought that the Herald article was pathetic. The impression it gives is that the Scots are mature and the English are not! The impression it gives is that the English discriminate against the Scots, have done so for centuries, but the Scots have a perfectly reasonable attitude towards the English.

The impression it gives is that the current state of devolution in the UK and the Scottish people in general are beyond reproach.

Like you, Chris, I'm half English, half Scottish and you should hear the way my old dad carries on about the English at times. Despite the fact he married an Englishwoman and lives in England!

And as for devolution thus far being fair!!

My carefully considered opinion on the Herald article?

Laugh?! I nearly passed me ciggies round!

This blog is supportive of the aims of the Campaign for an English Parliament, but is in no way connected.

Citizens of England Stand Up!

This is a non-racist blog. If you are an English citizen, regardless of race, colour or creed, you are welcome here (or if you are not and are simply interested, ditto!), but in this country the word "English", apart from in reference to our language, is often frowned upon. Not as much as ten years ago, but it still is. It's OK to be Scottish and Welsh, but not English. It's OK for Scotland and Wales to have democratic representatation and higher public spending, but not England.

Why? Let's explore the issues...

New Labour makes a great thing of not mentioning England. It wasn't always so. Scottish-born Tony Blair was talking about St George's Day and England in 1997, the year he was elected. He was touting for votes then. But not now. Tony apparently supports our national English sports teams, but witness the message he wrote to the Scottish football team a year or two back - "You deserve to win" and the message he wrote on the England flag during the last World Cup - "Everybody is behind you". One sounds a little more passionate than the other, does it not?

It is implied by New Labour and their politically correct hangers-on that to be English is to be an Imperialist. Why? The Scottish, Welsh and Irish (the whole of Ireland) were equally involved in the British Empire, indeed the Scots were disproportionately involved and the BBC recognised that recently with the show Scotland's Empire. But to say you're English will probably lead to cries of "Jingoist!", "Racist!", "Little Englander!"

What a load of tripe.

In the meantime, Tony Blair, born in Edinburgh, declares Scotland a "proud, historic nation" and gives it its own parliament. Jingoist? With Scotland's Imperialist past, one might be forgiven for thinking so. This man is supposedly a Christian - isn't pride a sin in that religion?

England gets broken up into regions, at the behest of the new Scottish Raj and its Welsh-born performing monkey John Prescott, despite a massive "NO" vote in the North East of the country, the only area allowed a referendum.

England endures lower public spending, via the Barnett Formula, which its creator, Lord Joel Barnett, says is unfair to England. Lord Barnett has further declared that he is "ashamed" that his name is associated with the Formula.

England's population of 50 million people is being dictated to by MPs representing a population of 8 million (Scotland and Wales combined).

The politically correct crowd (largely composed of comfortably off, white people) fully believe that England owes the world something. They sit up there in their ivory towers, whilst the government destroys our schools, police forces and health service, our traditions, our counties - the very essence of England.

Resident Anglophobes like Yasmin Alibhai Brown are a rarity but she squawks so persistently that she does the work of a dozen. Alibhai-Brown claims that immigrants to this country are more comfortable with a "British" than an "English" nationality. That is surely because there is no encouragement of an inclusive English civic identity in this country, although such identities are encouraged for Scotland and Wales. New arrivals in England have "Britain" and "British" rammed down their throats right from the start.

To be of "British" nationality on this island simply means that you are a permanent resident of England, Scotland or Wales. I recently read an article written by a Scot which stated that: "You can be born in Scotland and not be a Scot". This is racist, of course, and you will find examples of this attitude in England and Wales, too. But such comments are to be treated with contempt. If you are a citizen of England, Scotland or Wales, wherever you were born, then you are entitled to be classed as English, Scottish or Welsh.

Do not let the "You have to be of Anglo-Saxon/Celtic origin to be English/Scottish/Welsh" arguments blind you either. The English are not purely Anglo Saxon and the Scottish and Welsh are not pure Celts (in fact recent genetic research indicates that the Celts never made it to these islands en masse).

Likewise, the BNP is not an English racist party - it is British.

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown blames the English for the Empire and has a huge chip on her shoulder. She is infantile and hysterical in the extreme and her grasp of the true facts of English/British history is far from perfect. But she never attacks the Scottish or Welsh. Probably because she knows they would answer back.

Alibhai-Brown chooses to be non-English and to do us down at every opportunity. New Labour loves her for that very reason. She suits their agenda in England of divide and rule.

If you live in England you are entitled to be English, whatever else you are. You are entitled to wave the Cross of St George; you are entitled to tell this government that you want a fair deal; that Scottish and Welsh jingoist politicians must pull in their horns; that politicians with EU career aspirations must remember the simple rules of democracy at home first, and that you are entitled to see more of your taxes spent on your own country. The money funnelled off to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the EU is currently at a ridiculously high level.

Fight enforced, unelected regionalisation - a divided England has a far weaker voice. Question this undemocratic government at every opportunity - ask your local New Labour campaigners why the government hates England so much. Ask Tory and Lib Dem campaigners why they sit by and do nothing.

But above all get together. The people of England, regardless of race, colour or creed, must join together and fight for a return to democratic rule.

This blog is supportive of the aims of the Campaign for an English Parliament, but is in no way connected.