Assisting The Electorate To Wake Up To The UK Government's Discrimination Against The People Of England.

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Neil Harding - The English Are Ignorant, Impure Mongrels Who Do Not Qualify For Democratic Rule

How odd that Neil Harding, of Brighton Regency Labour Party, thinks that the English should not have a national parliament because they are not pure enough.

“There is a certain irony to nationalist calls for an English ‘parliament’ and their calls to leave the EU - to be ruled by the ‘English’, when in fact the public school dominated ruling classes in London are probably more French than those in Brussels in terms of their ancestry”

Mr Harding then goes on to cite things that (apparently) arrived here from abroad and just how "mongrelised" we are.

This is apparently justification for us not having a say on the EU or having our own national parliament.

We're not "pure" enough!

Mr Harding has no such difficulties with the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish, of course.

We doubt the accuracy of some of Mr Harding's statements, but we fully accept that England is a mongrel nation. Aren't all/most nations?

The UK Government/EU regions are not based on, nor correspond to, ancient Anglo Saxon kingdoms as Mr Harding states either.

Neil Harding's argument all boils down to the fact that we're not clever enough, innovative enough or PURE enough to qualify for democratic rule.

Neil Harding - fascist!

Big hat tips to The Secret Person, via The England Project.


  1. Thanks for the hat-tip. There's plenty of comments on his site, hopefully he'll see reason. After all, if all foreigners are better than English people then our mongrelness (aka diversity when its a positive Labour thing) is a good reason for us to have a parliament?

    No logic amongst the PC left.

  2. 'Mongrel' is a very emotive word with sometimes negative racial connotations but I was not using it in that context at all - just to mean 'mixed origins' - which of course (as you suggest) all nations are. Perhaps in hindsight I should have used the term 'hybrid'.

    An English Parliament poses many problems - a federal UK system with one parliament having 85% of the population would just not last very long - it would inevitably lead to the breakup of the UK. Maybe that is what some people want, but not the majority I imagine. I could live with an EP elected by PR (but it would still signal the end of the UK), but one where 35% of the English vote would give a majority to one party is as unjustifiable as Labour currently having a majority on 35% of the UK vote. Whichever party dominated, either the Tory South or Labour North would be alienated just as socialist voting Scotland, Wales and London were alienated by Tory UK rule and led successfully to their own devolved governance. How much better to have regional assemblies - give them the same powers as Scotland and this just as easily solves the west lothian question. What is the problem with this?

  3. Firstly, Mr Harding, the UK Government has never suggested regionalising England to the extent that each region has parliaments with the same powers as Scotland.

    The regions on offer are tinpot talking shops, designed to muddy the waters and stop the English from asking questions about devolution. "You ARE a region! You HAVE devolution!" is the UK Government's stock argument. But nobody voted for these regional bodies. And the North East, the only area allowed a referendum, voted 78% AGAINST!

    Would the type of devolution you suggest, each English region on a par with Scotland, really work? All these NATIONS with different health, education transport policies, etc? Because that is what it would take to bring the so-called English regions onto a par with Scotland. Each would have to its own fully fledged, national parliament. Enormously expensive. Rather nonsensical. England would cease to exist, of course, which would please you no doubt, but the UK would be a very odd and fragmented place indeed.

    No, the only route forward is for the UK Government to give the people of England all the facts and let them decide if they would like a national parliament via a referendum. This is what happened with Scotland.

    Useless to go on about the Scots being tired of "Tory" governments foisted on them by England. The old unitary system sometimes worked against England, too. It was flawed but did not involve health apartheid, etc.

    We were old Labour supporters, Mr Harding, and now we support no party. We are care workers and we see what the UK Government is doing to care services and the NHS in England via the likes of the odious "Supporting People" organisation. Did you know that care and NHS workers in England are now gagged as part of their contracts so that they cannot speak out?

    Nope, England needs a parliament. It may not suit you, or other "UK rump" politicians riding the gravy train, but England needs national recognition within the UK. It's needed it ever since Scotland and Wales were awarded it. And now Northern Ireland is following suit.

    The UK is a union of nations. The UK Government should serve those nations, not seek to abolish one of them just because it doesn't suit!

    New Labour is not a Socialist party. That's nonsense. We see what's happening on the ground in health and social care, we know that people die in England for want of medication available on the NHS in Scotland, we know that people in England scrimp and save for prescriptions free to millionaires in Wales.

    England needs its freedom to decide its own future. The UK needn't break up. But if it is the will of the people, so be it.

    UK politicians are all about suppressing the will of the people of England, to preserve a status quo that is no longer fit for purpose.

    But please don't tell us that you are a Socialist. Your party's uncaring attitude, skewed devolution settlements and your own rantings against England and the English prove that both you and your party are very far from being Socialist.