2000 labour party delegates got to their feet in Brighton in the county of Sussex to applaud the repudiation by Gordon Brown of the very fundamentals of England's democratic tradition.
Yesterday afternoon the delegates to the Labour Party Conference -Cabinet Ministers, MPs, Peers, Party officials and 2000 delegates from across the United Kingdom got up and clapped and shouted their approval as Gordon Brown, MP for Kirkaldy and Cowdenbeath in Fifeshire in Scotland, announced measure after measure of new legislation for England, and only for England, in defiance of the very fundamentals of what the people of England founded their parliament for 800 years ago.
The CEP National Council has circulated its membership with a statement on this matter.
'Gordon Brown announced new legislation to place new teenage mothers in hostels rather than council houses; to provide free personal care for the very elderly in their homes, to limit pub opening hours, to control broken familes unable to control their children, to bring in additional controls on wild disruptive youngsters, to provide 250,000 free childcare places and to delay the introduction of ID cards. Very many people will indeed agree with these measures. That is not an issue that the CEP as such involves itself with. The CEP is concerned with democracy for England. When England gets its own parlament, its parliament will concern itself wholeheartedly with the welfare of the people of England.
'These measures concern matters which affect England only. The fundamental nature of English democracy as founded with the English Parliament in the 13th century and developed by the people of England over the past 800 years is that it is representative democracy. Law makers are accountable to the people who elect them. They are elected to be their representatives in their parliament. But Brown is not elected by any English voters. He is not accountable to any English voter for any of these specific measures. His action, and the conference applause for it, is a repudiation of this most fundamental aspect of the English democratic tradition.
Contact:
Michael Knowles
CEP Media Unit. Tel: 01260 271139
Email: michael-knowles@tiscali.co.uk
This blog is not right wing or left wing. It is old style Socialist, true Socialist, and simply points out the facts regarding asymmetric national devolution, which is based on Edward Lhuyd's 1707 'Celtic' labelling of certain languages and historical revisionism, and how it disadvantages ALL people in the largest and most ethnically diverse UK country of all - England.
Showing posts with label New Labour hypocrisy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New Labour hypocrisy. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Thursday, February 28, 2008
More From Neil Harding
Thanks to Neil Harding for writing again:
No federal system in the world would propose one federation having 85% of the population.
We already have regional government in the UK - except it is unelected quangos that are spending £130bn of our money in eight regions. Only one region is elected - (London). Scrapping these quangos and replacing them with elected assemblies needn't cost anything.
If government can work so well for Scotland and Wales with 5m and 3m populations respectively, why not the South East and North West etc, with 8m and 7m populations etc. respectively?
Look at any national organisation - regions of roughly this size are the way they organise, because it is the most efficient way of providing services. The counties are too small and England too big.
A good example is the 32 boroughs in London. Before devolution, transport policy was a disaster with petty politics between the boroughs destroying any strategic overview. Recycling and waste collestion still is poor because it needs to be organised London wide, like transport is, if it is to improve. Film makers in London for example regular restrict filming or go elsewhere because of the infamous rigmarole of having to get approval from each and every borough. How many other businesses have been put of by this needless petty bureaucratic mess?
We reply:
With a honed down UK Government to oversee matters there is no reason why England should not have a national parliament - its powers would be confined to England. There is no reason at all why it should not work.
The problem is, New Labour has already awarded NATIONAL devotion to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. And it is not up to the UK Government to dictate that England should not have parity, and indeed, dissolve that country. And the people of London have never voted for "regional devolution", that was never placed before them at the ballot box.
Internal governance of England, be it regions, counties, both or neither, should be decided by a nationally representative English parliament. There are also issues regarding rivers, North Sea oil, etc, which Scotland is dealing with as a nation but there is no corresponding English voice, leading to accusations of unfairness. The UK Government does not see its role as looking after England's national interests in the UK.
Regional assemblies are unwanted within England, 78% voted NO in the North East, and yet you still seem to think they should be introduced, against the will of the people.
Mr Harding, to be honest we think that your views are rather changeable. We think your original article on English nationalism was dispicable, making out that we were all ignorant racists whose nation, because of diverse influences, had no right to national representation anyway.
You then acknowledge our point that all/most nations are mongrel and suggest that each English "region" should have parity with Scotland. We point out that that would mean national parliaments for each region, another correspondent points out to us that each parliament should cover only five million people, and of course each budget must match Scotland. If not, Scotland would still be getting preferential treatment as a NATION.
In this latest e-mail, you revert to the tried and trusted Nu Labour chant of "regional assemblies". You seem to have ignored our previous points that these regions are unwanted and unvoted for, that 78% in the North East voted NO to regionalisation, and that several recent polls, including one for the BBC (here), show that over 60% of the electorate want an English parliament.
It is not the UK Government's right to restore democratic national representation to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and dissolve England. You also ignore our point about Gordon Brown having no mandate to govern England, the fact that much of his government's legislation does not apply to his own devolved constituents with their own devolved, national government.
It is up to an English parliament to decide to on the internal government of England, be it regions, counties, both or neither, as we have said before.
The other option, of course, is to dissolve the national bodies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, abolish the Barnett Formula, and create a different system of regionalisation, which does not recognise the nations, or have a unitary system again.
That will never happen.
And England deserves and needs parity - national representation within the UK on a par with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
If the UK does break up, that's one of those things.
But we see no real reason why it should.
And it's no reason to deny the people of England a voice.
No federal system in the world would propose one federation having 85% of the population.
We already have regional government in the UK - except it is unelected quangos that are spending £130bn of our money in eight regions. Only one region is elected - (London). Scrapping these quangos and replacing them with elected assemblies needn't cost anything.
If government can work so well for Scotland and Wales with 5m and 3m populations respectively, why not the South East and North West etc, with 8m and 7m populations etc. respectively?
Look at any national organisation - regions of roughly this size are the way they organise, because it is the most efficient way of providing services. The counties are too small and England too big.
A good example is the 32 boroughs in London. Before devolution, transport policy was a disaster with petty politics between the boroughs destroying any strategic overview. Recycling and waste collestion still is poor because it needs to be organised London wide, like transport is, if it is to improve. Film makers in London for example regular restrict filming or go elsewhere because of the infamous rigmarole of having to get approval from each and every borough. How many other businesses have been put of by this needless petty bureaucratic mess?
We reply:
With a honed down UK Government to oversee matters there is no reason why England should not have a national parliament - its powers would be confined to England. There is no reason at all why it should not work.
The problem is, New Labour has already awarded NATIONAL devotion to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. And it is not up to the UK Government to dictate that England should not have parity, and indeed, dissolve that country. And the people of London have never voted for "regional devolution", that was never placed before them at the ballot box.
Internal governance of England, be it regions, counties, both or neither, should be decided by a nationally representative English parliament. There are also issues regarding rivers, North Sea oil, etc, which Scotland is dealing with as a nation but there is no corresponding English voice, leading to accusations of unfairness. The UK Government does not see its role as looking after England's national interests in the UK.
Regional assemblies are unwanted within England, 78% voted NO in the North East, and yet you still seem to think they should be introduced, against the will of the people.
Mr Harding, to be honest we think that your views are rather changeable. We think your original article on English nationalism was dispicable, making out that we were all ignorant racists whose nation, because of diverse influences, had no right to national representation anyway.
You then acknowledge our point that all/most nations are mongrel and suggest that each English "region" should have parity with Scotland. We point out that that would mean national parliaments for each region, another correspondent points out to us that each parliament should cover only five million people, and of course each budget must match Scotland. If not, Scotland would still be getting preferential treatment as a NATION.
In this latest e-mail, you revert to the tried and trusted Nu Labour chant of "regional assemblies". You seem to have ignored our previous points that these regions are unwanted and unvoted for, that 78% in the North East voted NO to regionalisation, and that several recent polls, including one for the BBC (here), show that over 60% of the electorate want an English parliament.
It is not the UK Government's right to restore democratic national representation to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and dissolve England. You also ignore our point about Gordon Brown having no mandate to govern England, the fact that much of his government's legislation does not apply to his own devolved constituents with their own devolved, national government.
It is up to an English parliament to decide to on the internal government of England, be it regions, counties, both or neither, as we have said before.
The other option, of course, is to dissolve the national bodies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, abolish the Barnett Formula, and create a different system of regionalisation, which does not recognise the nations, or have a unitary system again.
That will never happen.
And England deserves and needs parity - national representation within the UK on a par with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
If the UK does break up, that's one of those things.
But we see no real reason why it should.
And it's no reason to deny the people of England a voice.
Monday, November 05, 2007
Trevor Phillips Says Everything's Lovely - Let's Have Loads More Immigrants, Peter "Apartheid" Hain Slags Off Nigel Hastilow... Hypocrisy Rules...
Peter Hain - only backs apartheid when it is levelled against the electorate in England.I believe that Nigel Hastilow was an absolute twit. Sorry, Nigel, not that I imagine my thoughts will cost you a wink of sleep, but it seems to me that apparently condoning a speech perceived by many to be racist is a fool way of going about opening up the issue of mass immigration. And plays right into New Labour's hands.
"You racist!" screams that party, which has put into place a system of devolution which ensures you can die in England for want of medication available on the NHS in Scotland. "You racist!" screams that party which has put into place a system of devolution that ensures you can scrimp and save for prescription charges free to millionaires in Wales. "You racist!" screams that party which has put into place a system of devolution that ensures non-representative MPs, MPs representing a privileged elite outside of England, including Gordon Brown, Prime Minister, can dictate policy for England.
-
And apparently Peter Hain, digging up cricket pitches in his native South Africa in 1969 in protest at apartheid, but fully backing it when it is levelled against the electorate in England, has also been having his two penny worth.
How sickening. The hypocrite's hypocrite.
But I find comments like this from NuLabour "Equality" quango poodle Trevor Phillips far more worrying...
Speaking of David Cameron's speech on immigration, Mr Phillips said:
"He is asking the 21st Century question about immigration. But unfortunately, he is giving the 20th Century answer in proposing that all of these issues can be solved by capping numbers.
"Rather, we need to meet head on the challenges of rapid and diverse population growth.
"We need to find ways to capitalise on the injection of energy that new migrants bring and bolster our infrastructure and public services to cope with the new demands."
Words like "small island" and "jobs" and "financing" come to mind. Also, employers paying slave wages to immigrants. This is not a desirable state of affairs. This is not how things should be.
And just what are the practicalities and the impact on our environment of Mr Phillips' desire to play Lord Bountiful? Just how does he know that everything in the garden is/will be lovely when he hardly ever experiences real life as lived by the vast majority of us?
Something else that springs to mind, as with Mr Hain and the NuLabour Party in general, is Mr "Human Rights" Phillips apparent complete approval of the health and democratic apartheid levelled against England, post-devolution for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Like Mr Hain, Trevor Phillips is a complete and utter hypocrite. I wonder how these New Labour minions sleep nights.
Evil, deceitful, self-serving bunch.
Rant over.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
David Cameron: Scottish Poll Tax Lies
Tory leader David Cameron's speech was basically an anti-English rant, designed to appeal to the most insensitive and bigoted of Scots bigots, and its references to the Poll Tax, the idea of a Scot, as an "experiment" imposed on Scotland a year before England, as already pointed out on this blog, were pure myth, but added fuel to the anti-English flavour.
Now, Tory MP Malcolm Rifkind has put the record straight in a letter to The Scotsman -although a well-known anti-English bigot himself, and therefore agreeing with the majority of David Cameron's bile, Mr Rifkind does not let the Poll Tax myth pass unchallenged. Will David Cameron now have the good grace to apologise for his disgraceful outburst, for misinforming the Scots, and fuelling further anti-English hatred in Scotland?
Or will it take further incidents of seven-year-old kids being thumped or disabled people being dragged from their cars before Mr Cameron realises that inciting hatred against the English in Scotland is simply not on?
Mr Rifkind's letter from The Scotsman (22/9/2006)...
I have read your report (16 September) of David Cameron’s remarks, and I very much agree with his general observations. But you report him as saying, on the community charge or poll tax, that “the decision to treat Scotland as a laboratory for experimentation in new methods of local government finance was clumsy and unjust”.
It has sometimes been suggested that the decision to introduce the poll tax in Scotland a year earlier than in England was to enable it to be tested. This is untrue, as those active in Scottish politics at the time will confirm.
The background is well known. Scotland, which had suffered a rates revaluation, was in uproar about the unfairness of the domestic rates system. Rates were also unpopular in England and the government decided to abolish them and replace them with the community charge or poll tax throughout Britain.
For various technical reasons it was going to take much longer for the legislation to be prepared in England than in Scotland. George Younger, who was then Scottish secretary, persuaded the Cabinet that the legislation should be introduced as soon as possible in Scotland and should not have to wait until the English were ready. His Cabinet colleagues accepted this request.
At no time was its timing pressed on Scottish Office ministers by Margaret Thatcher or English colleagues.
I, and my colleagues, have long recognised that the introduction of the poll tax throughout Britain was a serious political mistake. Introducing it a year earlier in Scotland was also a mistake, as we should have anticipated the damaging claim, however incorrect, that the government was using Scotland to test the new reform.
That does not alter the historical reality that the earlier introduction in Scotland, wise or foolish, was decided by Scottish Office ministers because of the unpopularity of domestic rates and not because of any pressure from Mrs Thatcher or other colleagues.
(SIR) MALCOLM RIFKIND, MP
House of Commons
London
Cameron should apologise to everybody in England. For a start, the Poll Tax was the brainchild of a Scot, Douglas Mason, who came up with the idea in the mid-1980s. Apologies, please Scotland? Crickets.
And then Cameron should resign. His raging English-phobia makes him unfit to be Conservative party leader. Perhaps he could join New Labour? But why are they so anti-English? Shouldn't they be representing the working classes? Or is it a little matter of votes? Well, Labour, you're hardly likely to win more voters in England by sweeping things under the carpet and demonizing the country.
Now, Tory MP Malcolm Rifkind has put the record straight in a letter to The Scotsman -although a well-known anti-English bigot himself, and therefore agreeing with the majority of David Cameron's bile, Mr Rifkind does not let the Poll Tax myth pass unchallenged. Will David Cameron now have the good grace to apologise for his disgraceful outburst, for misinforming the Scots, and fuelling further anti-English hatred in Scotland?
Or will it take further incidents of seven-year-old kids being thumped or disabled people being dragged from their cars before Mr Cameron realises that inciting hatred against the English in Scotland is simply not on?
Mr Rifkind's letter from The Scotsman (22/9/2006)...
I have read your report (16 September) of David Cameron’s remarks, and I very much agree with his general observations. But you report him as saying, on the community charge or poll tax, that “the decision to treat Scotland as a laboratory for experimentation in new methods of local government finance was clumsy and unjust”.
It has sometimes been suggested that the decision to introduce the poll tax in Scotland a year earlier than in England was to enable it to be tested. This is untrue, as those active in Scottish politics at the time will confirm.
The background is well known. Scotland, which had suffered a rates revaluation, was in uproar about the unfairness of the domestic rates system. Rates were also unpopular in England and the government decided to abolish them and replace them with the community charge or poll tax throughout Britain.
For various technical reasons it was going to take much longer for the legislation to be prepared in England than in Scotland. George Younger, who was then Scottish secretary, persuaded the Cabinet that the legislation should be introduced as soon as possible in Scotland and should not have to wait until the English were ready. His Cabinet colleagues accepted this request.
At no time was its timing pressed on Scottish Office ministers by Margaret Thatcher or English colleagues.
I, and my colleagues, have long recognised that the introduction of the poll tax throughout Britain was a serious political mistake. Introducing it a year earlier in Scotland was also a mistake, as we should have anticipated the damaging claim, however incorrect, that the government was using Scotland to test the new reform.
That does not alter the historical reality that the earlier introduction in Scotland, wise or foolish, was decided by Scottish Office ministers because of the unpopularity of domestic rates and not because of any pressure from Mrs Thatcher or other colleagues.
(SIR) MALCOLM RIFKIND, MP
House of Commons
London
Cameron should apologise to everybody in England. For a start, the Poll Tax was the brainchild of a Scot, Douglas Mason, who came up with the idea in the mid-1980s. Apologies, please Scotland? Crickets.
And then Cameron should resign. His raging English-phobia makes him unfit to be Conservative party leader. Perhaps he could join New Labour? But why are they so anti-English? Shouldn't they be representing the working classes? Or is it a little matter of votes? Well, Labour, you're hardly likely to win more voters in England by sweeping things under the carpet and demonizing the country.
We remember Scotland's Darien project, its disproportionate role in the British Empire, and the partitioning of Ireland under a Welsh PM, with avid backing of Protestant Scots MPs, even if you pretend not to.
More on the Poll Tax history here.
Hat tip to the England Project.
UPDATE...
More on the Poll Tax history here.
Hat tip to the England Project.
UPDATE...
Greg from Cumbria - howdy!
I hate the way English MPs and England were blamed for "forcing" the Poll Tax onto Scotland early. I remember that smug Australian Clive James stating on TV that the current situation was "Scotland's revenge for the Poll Tax". Stupid man.
Now at last the truth is being publicised - and, by the way, Cameron is not the only one guilty of blackening the reputation of English MPs in Scotland over the Poll Tax. A few years ago, Tony Blair was up there, going on about the West Lothian Question and saying that it was "not the same as English MPs railroading the Poll Tax through in Scotland". I think it was quoted on the CEP site or News Blog
It's not just David Cameron who should be apologising!
Thanks, Greg. Anybody got a copy of the Blair comment?
This blog is supportive of the aims of the Campaign for an English Parliament, but is in no way connected.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)