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

Wednesday, June 16, 2021

Hey - We Don't Want A Parliament Which Represents England! - Michael Gove

What Michael Gove seems to be saying: 'Democratic rule for the largest and most ethnically diverse UK country? No, no, no. We want our "UK" Government gravy train to continue forever. Stuff England.'

 From the Daily Express:

Scottish MPs to get power to vote down key English laws - Gove's desperate bid to save UK

They added: “We want to create a Parliament which is representative of the whole of the UK, not just England.' 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1450434/english-votes-for-english-laws-scottish-mps-veto-scotland-michael-gove-england-uk#conversation-wrapper

So, where IS the parliament that represents England? After all, Scotland has its own. Why do the vast majority of UK voters have to be submerged into something that is clearly undemocratic? That's how we got foundation hospitals in 2003.

EVEL was never enough, of course, but now Michael Gove (without consultation with the electorate in England) is set to get rid of even that so non-representative MPS from elsewhere in the UK can vote on England-only issues.

Of course, the SNP, mired in racist, exclusive White Celtic Myths (dating from the 1700s) and Scots bigotry, applauds this.

So, the largest and most ethnically diverse UK country once again loses the small amount of representative democratic rule it has.

But surely, if the SNP is NOT racist, it should be shouting for democratic representation for this far more ethnically diverse country? In fact, it should be SCREAMING. MPs whose constituents have their own parliament should not be voting (unaccountably) on issues only affecting the country next door.

Particularly when they have the Barnett Formula, deemed highly unfair to England (and to Wales to a lesser degree) by its own creator, the late Lord Joel Barnett.

England IS NOT the UK.

It needs its own parliament.

And if that is at the cost of a 'union' that is NOT a union, so be it.

Anything else is highly racist.

Monday, June 07, 2021

Kristiina Cooper of the BBC: A Very Anti-English View Of Parliamentary History...

                
Kristiina Cooper of the BBC: She lists herself on LinkedIn as a 'Senior Broadcast Journalist'. The BBC sets its bar exceedingly low. She works on Radio 4's 'Today In Parliament'. 

Dear me! It's taken us a few years to spot this smelly little piece of the BBC's anti-English agenda - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29252332  but it's so dreadful and so typical - the sort of thing written by a 16-year-old SJW apprentice on a vape break or similar, that we had to feature it.

Here's Kristiina (https://twitter.com/KristiinaCooper), who plainly doesn't like the English. Nothing positive here. And yet she's writing about the country which is the main reason for her employer's existence and its main funder:

Parliament started life as an English affair. It was not much of a Parliament - more of a talking shop for the king and rich men. The king asked their advice, but did what he wanted. These meetings morphed into a formal arrangement which eventually became the House of Lords. In those days - and for several centuries later - England was busy fighting with Scotland and raiding Wales. 

Crumbs! Poor Scotland! Totally innocent! Poor Wales - totally innocent! 

By the 13th Century, a parliament was when kings met up with English barons to raise cash for fighting wars - mostly against Scotland. Thanks to Magna Carta of 1215, kings were now obliged to ask before taking anyone's money. That did not stop the rows though. Some barons got fed up with Henry III - not least because of his failed, expensive battles in Wales [Henry was partly of Welsh origin, by the way, Kristiina. Did you know? WENAP). The ambitious Simon de Montfort sidelined Henry and made himself ruler. De Montfort was a big fan of Parliament. The one in 1265 was the first to involve "ordinary" folk - knights, not just the super-rich. And it was the first time elections were held - the first stirrings of the House of Commons we know today. The venue was usually Westminster, where one enterprising monarch had built a massive hall on a swamp, which grew into the Palace of Westminster. Westminster Hall is still in use today. 

I'm afraid the picture is much more nuanced than this. But - once again - the ghastly English! 

 Scotland had its own parliament from the 13th century, which was occasionally held in open air. In those days, though, the king had the real power. So one of the early campaigns for independence was sparked by an English king declaring himself king of Scotland. William Wallace led the rebellion. In those days campaign weapons were bows and arrows. Wallace was eventually found guilty of treason. He was dragged through the streets of London naked before being hanged, drawn and quartered. 

Heavens! William Wallace - hero! Been watching Braveheart, Kristiina, dear? 

At the end of the 18th Century, there was a powerful campaign for Irish independence from England. The English response? To crush the rebellion brutally and bring Ireland firmly into the UK with another Act of Union. That was the end of the Irish Parliament. A hundred Irish MPs turned up at Westminster. By now, the Commons chamber was getting pretty crowded. 

Oh heavens! The ENGLISH response? But we no longer had an English Parliament, did we, Kristiina? Did they want independence from Britain? And what did Welsh Prime Minister Lloyd George do in the 1920s? 

 For the first 800 years or so Parliament was a club for men. Women finally got the vote in 1918 after the campaign by the Suffragettes. The first woman elected to the Commons, in 1918, was Countess Constance Markievicz but as a member of Sinn Fein she refused to take her seat. The first woman to take her seat was Viscountess Nancy Astor in 1919.

Um, Parliament was run by gentlemen. And things tended to be a great deal more bloody and turbulent for several centuries - not the place for 'ladies'. Very different times. But Parliament took representations from women very seriously - which is how we got the highly unfair 'Tender Years Doctrine'. Working class men had accountabilities - like giving their lives and total financial responsibility for their families - which helped motivate their fight for male suffrage. It was only achieved after World War One. Millicent Fawcett knew that parliament was happy for LADIES to have the vote (with none of the accountabilities foisted on men) very early on. But this didn't happen because it would have meant a permanent Tory Government. Feminist underpinnings, Kristiina, dear? How pale, female and stale you are! And the suffragettes? With their bombings (harming working class voteless men) and White Feather Campaign? Oh, PURLEASE! Try this: https://antifeministpraxis.com/2017/03/31/feminism-was-never-not-rotten/

I recommend you read the entire BBC article - no mention of the Barnett Formula and West Lothian Question, no mention of the fact that the UK Parliament discriminates against the largest and most cosmopolitan UK country (England) financially and democratically. No mention of the fake white Celtic myth, dating from the 1700s. No mention of the IRA killing innocent people. Shame on you, Kristiina. I'm sure you'll be welcome at the BBC for a very long time...