David, from Britologywatch, sent the comment below to the Neil Harding thread. It seemed far too interesting to be left there!
Not the least of the ironies of Neil Harding's comments is that, if being 'mongrel' (or even hybrid), in the way he suggests that the English are, disqualifies a people from being a proper nation and having their own parliament, then doesn't this disqualify Britain as a nation and call into question the legitimacy of its parliament? Sounds like the only solution would be to let the peoples (hybrid, remember) of Britain decide democratically what parliament or parliaments they would like; and as Britain is not a nation, I'm sure they'd reject the current set up!
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 Neil Harding. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Neil Harding. Show all posts
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.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Neil Harding
Thanks to Neil Harding for e-mailing us regarding his racist comments about "mongrel" England. Below, Mr Harding withdraws some of his comments, perhaps we, and all nations, are "hybrid"?
We get the usual train of thought - an English parliament would break up the gravy train, sorry, we mean "UK", etc.
Below are Mr Harding's thoughts, followed up with a few of ours.
'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?
We reply...
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 - not a nation! You HAVE devolution!" is the UK Government's stock argument for these areas of England. 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 have 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.
As for the internal governance of England, first we need a national parliament, then other decisions should be made. If you are seriously suggesting to us that Gordon Brown, a non-accountable MP for a constituency in Scotland, should have the main say over the internal governance of England, then we must reply that we do not think you understand what democratic rule is!
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.
Personally, we think a federal system could work very well, if it is the will of the people.
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.
CHRIS ABBOTT, DREW & FIONA
We get the usual train of thought - an English parliament would break up the gravy train, sorry, we mean "UK", etc.
Below are Mr Harding's thoughts, followed up with a few of ours.
'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?
We reply...
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 - not a nation! You HAVE devolution!" is the UK Government's stock argument for these areas of England. 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 have 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.
As for the internal governance of England, first we need a national parliament, then other decisions should be made. If you are seriously suggesting to us that Gordon Brown, a non-accountable MP for a constituency in Scotland, should have the main say over the internal governance of England, then we must reply that we do not think you understand what democratic rule is!
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.
Personally, we think a federal system could work very well, if it is the will of the people.
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.
CHRIS ABBOTT, DREW & FIONA
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.
“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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)