IN March 1989 Gordon Brown signed the ‘Scottish Claim of Right’. It was a pledge made by 132 Scottish MPs and MEPs ‘to make the interests of the people of Scotland paramount in everything they said and did’.
The question that has to be investigated now, the National Council of the Campaign for an English Parliament has stated in its most recent circular to its membership, “is whether that pledge lay behind his cocktail party proposal to Lloyds Bank, and the encouragement and assistance he gave it to take over HBOS when HBOS was on the verge of collapse.” The Lloyds deal saved thousands of jobs in the Edinburgh and Fife area, which contains Gordon Brown’s Kirkcaldy constituency. The deal included a suspension of normal competition rules and it guaranteed a priority to keep jobs for Scottish employees.
The vast majority of Lloyds’ employees are in England. And now we know that the merger has brought huge losses to Lloyds, which threatens its English workforce.’
And now we are informed that the Ministry of Defence, in order to make savings, has transferred the work on two MoD aircraft carriers from Barrow-in-Furness in Cumbria and Tyneside to the Clyde and Rosyth, effecting 500 English workers.
Rosyth is in Fife. Many of the Rosyth workforce are from Mr Brown’s constituency. A&P Tyne of Jarrow and McNulty Offshore of South Shields, when they secured the contract to build the new carriers, looked on the deal as a rebirth of shipbuilding on the Tyne.
So the question which now has to be asked of Gordon Brown is if he has one policy for England and another for Scotland? It’s certainly is starting to look that way.
Fight British Racism - Fight against racism directed against England and the English
Saturday, 28 February 2009
Friday, 27 February 2009
WHEN IT COMES TO DOING SOMETHING FOR FARMERS AND RURAL BUSINESSES IN ENGLAND THE (BRITISH) ENVIRONMENT AGENCY IS A WIMP
CEP Media Unit
Rural businesses and farmers in Scotland and England are faced with the same hostile economic climate. The difference is however that the Scottish rural industry has saved £550,000 as a result of efforts by Scotland's Protection Environment Agency (SEPA) working with the Scottish Government to promote economic recovery. ‘In comparison the (British) Environment Agency responsible for England is nothing more than a wimp,’ is the message which the Council of the Campaign for an English Parliament has sent round to its national membership, urging them to contact their MPs about the issue. ‘In this area the EA has nothing to show but fine words and the British Government not even that.’
‘SEPA was asked by Scottish Ministers to look at ways in which it could ease the financial burden on business and help stimulate economic activity. In response SEPA announced a 10 point plan in November which supports its Government's own Economic Recovery Plan. Now, a mere three months later, this is what SEPA has achieved:
* Its flagship measure, waiving fees for environmental permits, has so far benefited businesses to the tune of £344,000 with 1,545 fees waived * The waiver of licence fees for the disposal of sheep dip has saved farmers around £160,000 (with further savings estimated at £133,000 in 2009-10) * The waiver of fees for water abstraction licences has saved over 70 rural businesses £46,000
Scotland’s Environment Minister Roseanna Cunningham has said: " By waiving these fees SEPA is supporting the farming, fishing, forestry and food industries that are the lifeblood of the rural economy and our rural communities.”
‘And in England? All there has been from the Environment Agency is just a call from its Chairman Lord Chris Smith to the UK government in a speech on February 11th in which he urged a package of green measures on the UK Government:
· Making electricity ‘carbon-free’ by 2030 including decarbonising coal and coal and gas power stations through the demonstration and deployment of carbon capture and storage. (The Government in response is considering a new coal power station in Kingsnorth in Kent without carbon capture and storage)
· Setting an example to business by ensuring all public buildings are fitted with solar or photovoltaic panels and new buildings are fitted with ground-source pumps. Public land should be used, where possible, for wind power generation.
· Electrification of all ground transport so that it no longer relies on fossil fuels
‘Fine words, noble aspirations but that is all,’ states the CEP. ‘No action taken by either the EA or the UK government. What England needs is what Scotland has got: its own parliament with Members elected like in Scotland dedicated to the concerns of England and the power to do something; Members who, like the MSPs do for Scotland, put England first as their expressed constitutional duty. Why should English farmers and rural businesses be denied the advantages Scotland has when we are all in the same United Kingdom?’
Contact:
Michael Knowles CEP Media Unit. Tel: 01260 271139 Email: michael-knowles@tiscali.co.uk
Fight British Racism - Fight against racism directed against England and the English
Rural businesses and farmers in Scotland and England are faced with the same hostile economic climate. The difference is however that the Scottish rural industry has saved £550,000 as a result of efforts by Scotland's Protection Environment Agency (SEPA) working with the Scottish Government to promote economic recovery. ‘In comparison the (British) Environment Agency responsible for England is nothing more than a wimp,’ is the message which the Council of the Campaign for an English Parliament has sent round to its national membership, urging them to contact their MPs about the issue. ‘In this area the EA has nothing to show but fine words and the British Government not even that.’
‘SEPA was asked by Scottish Ministers to look at ways in which it could ease the financial burden on business and help stimulate economic activity. In response SEPA announced a 10 point plan in November which supports its Government's own Economic Recovery Plan. Now, a mere three months later, this is what SEPA has achieved:
* Its flagship measure, waiving fees for environmental permits, has so far benefited businesses to the tune of £344,000 with 1,545 fees waived * The waiver of licence fees for the disposal of sheep dip has saved farmers around £160,000 (with further savings estimated at £133,000 in 2009-10) * The waiver of fees for water abstraction licences has saved over 70 rural businesses £46,000
Scotland’s Environment Minister Roseanna Cunningham has said: " By waiving these fees SEPA is supporting the farming, fishing, forestry and food industries that are the lifeblood of the rural economy and our rural communities.”
‘And in England? All there has been from the Environment Agency is just a call from its Chairman Lord Chris Smith to the UK government in a speech on February 11th in which he urged a package of green measures on the UK Government:
· Making electricity ‘carbon-free’ by 2030 including decarbonising coal and coal and gas power stations through the demonstration and deployment of carbon capture and storage. (The Government in response is considering a new coal power station in Kingsnorth in Kent without carbon capture and storage)
· Setting an example to business by ensuring all public buildings are fitted with solar or photovoltaic panels and new buildings are fitted with ground-source pumps. Public land should be used, where possible, for wind power generation.
· Electrification of all ground transport so that it no longer relies on fossil fuels
‘Fine words, noble aspirations but that is all,’ states the CEP. ‘No action taken by either the EA or the UK government. What England needs is what Scotland has got: its own parliament with Members elected like in Scotland dedicated to the concerns of England and the power to do something; Members who, like the MSPs do for Scotland, put England first as their expressed constitutional duty. Why should English farmers and rural businesses be denied the advantages Scotland has when we are all in the same United Kingdom?’
Contact:
Michael Knowles CEP Media Unit. Tel: 01260 271139 Email: michael-knowles@tiscali.co.uk
Fight British Racism - Fight against racism directed against England and the English
Thursday, 26 February 2009
Where have all the powers gone?
MayorWatch London News
By Damian Hockney ⋅ February 24, 2009
“More local powers”. The cry goes up (yet again). A scattergun of ideal world “why oh why” pieces in national and London newspapers last week, made form (of a sort) by the Tories. But it can’t happen, says former London Assembly Member Damian Hockney.
Not really, not in the way people are being encouraged to think it can: “Don’t the politicians and commentators know where the real powers have gone? Or is it just another cynical political exercise,” he says. “They should at least tell us when they are proposing a policy which would break the law.”
Commentators love the local angle. It’s nice and warm and fluffy, and something we can superficially all agree on. In the past week, both Andrew Gilligan and Tony Travers have written interesting pieces for the Standard about the subject. All good stuff and it all sounds nice and local - paving stones and plant a tree, maybe the need for more local taxes (one idea being a tourist tax…to add a further barrier to visitors coming maybe?…but let that pass) and of course reasonable moans about local problems like care home closures needing the attention of Number 10 when “the community” should decide. Most of the detail of these aspects of government are now stringently controlled from the centre, and that centre is a web of laws upon which Westminster often has little say, and none at all once they are in force.
TOY PISTOLOur local government is indeed, for 80% of the laws which govern its management, the European Union. When politicians and commentators tell us about their cherished ideal world of cheap tickets for Londoners at the Olympics (illegal under EU law) of giving the contracts to local businesses in the lead-up (also impossible under EU law), they surely need to explain those things which might actually break the law and therefore will not get done. These measures are as illegal as funding care homes by raiding the Post Office on your lunch hour with a toy pistol and a little mask over your face. But what commentators do is simply outline the detail of how this great new world can be implemented and tell us all how easy it would all be if only “Gordon” or “Whitehall” would surrender their iron grip.
It’s irrelevant whether or not you support the limitations of the exercise of power at national and local level and the ongoing transfer of actual powers upwards to EU level. I am an opponent, but I have many good friends and contacts who think the other way - however, many of these do at least understand what is happening and know that what commentators are calling for on “local control” is just not possible. But their appears to be an omerta not to mention this elephant in the room.
SEXY SCHEMESIt’s great to read new ideas about what should be done locally. Thinking the unthinkable or even campaigning for something which might even currently be illegal is an important part of the function of the press. But it’s as if they come up with the idea then fade away after bursting into colour with some sexy details about implementing their little schemes - they take the easy road, often depending upon who they support politically, of blaming “Gordon” or “Tony” or “Dave” (and of course the Men from the Ministry…Whitehall Mandarins) for no trees and paving stones and closures of care homes.
But those being criticised cannot devolve what is not theirs to devolve. So many of these things are “competences” of the EU and it is forbidden to interfere with that which has been so acquired. Where commentators miss the point is that they assume that those who now manage are still making the rules. They are not. And they can’t bend them either, on pain of having enormous law suits land on them or unlimited fines from the EU. Andrew Gilligan comments on the “pathetic image”of the pensioners getting off a bus from Potters Bar and demonstrating outside Number 10. Well, yes it was pathetic, but largely because they all got on the wrong bus. They needed to get on the train and go through the Channel Tunnel to where the laws are really made. Indeed a member of the “ruling party” in Scotland today makes exactly that point about care homes and EU rules.
Every time a new EU Directive specifies the minutiae of how to deal with waste (locally), operate road pricing (locally), make Routemaster buses illegal to operate (locally), manage, staff and fund care homes (locally), then the power to make any laws (locally) in the area in question passes upwards to the EU and away from even Westminster, never mind City Hall. And the role of those lower bodies like Westminster and City Hall is to obey and administer. This is happening on an ongoing basis and at great speed.
BEASTS & MINNOWSAnd here we see the stark insularity among all the commentators, an inward looking reference only to London, Westminster, Gordon and Dave, Boris or Ken…and a total failure to see where UK laws are actually made, and how little is the room for manoeuvre among even the Big Beasts, never mind the minnows floating about and gasping for legislative life in the “local” ponds. You do not have to be a dyed in the wool eurosceptic to grasp that almost four fifths of our laws are now made directly by the EU, and rubberstamped into law by enabling acts and Statutory Instruments. And these laws may not under any circumstances be changed, amended, altered or repealed in any way by any new government that comes into office, not even a newly elected one which has a mandate to change them.
The German Constitutional Court - always the driest and most reliable of bodies on the hard facts of constitutional implications for its own nation and others - has written very straightforward accounts of the impotence of national parliaments to make laws any longer, and the great impact on regional and local government. Now ignore for the benefit of this argument whether this is a good idea, or not. If you are happy that no elected government either at Westminster or City Hall can change London’s waste policy, or remove VAT on domestic fuel, then great for you! You have your wish. But those who talk about ‘local powers’ need to just answer the core question every time they say “why oh why can’t we…”. How can these powers, now competences delivered upwards to EU institutions, be “devolved”? Whether to the Mayor, local authorities, parish councils…or even Westminster? They cannot. They’ve all recently gone the other way.
Any devolved body would have as little power as the Prime Minister to alter the closure of care homes. The parish council couldn’t, the local authority couldn’t, a mayor couldn’t and Westminster can’t. Set up 100 new bodies and shower them with billions. They still can’t do anything except act as a “champion”. And that is what, in this regard, the Prime Minister is. He is the ultimate “champion” - he can (still) wage war or raise taxes but he can’t stop the antics in Potters Bar. Without begging those who are, in this regard, his bosses.
WRONG BUSThe real crime is that the people are now totally confused as to where real power lies (so they get on the wrong bus), and this is because of their politicians obscuring the facts, not because the people are stupid. It just remains a surprise that so few commentators really get to grips with this - it is, one suspects, much more fun acting as a chorus for the politicians’ game of blaming each other for cheap points within the narrow little world of increasingly irrelevant national politics, so obscuring from the public how powerless we are to change our laws. They might as well call for “locals” to land a man on the moon. It may also be incomprehension that the all powerful Gordon cannot with a majestic sweep of the hand make such a seemingly minor and trifling change. And never do they say “alas my hands are tied…” - otherwise why are we paying them all these perks and salaries? The fiction of being all-powerful has to be maintained…
Devolution has in reality come to mean the power to administer and (slightly) vary according to strict Directives and laws, enforced from the centre (usually the EU but occasionally still Westminster). The ideal worldism talked up by commentators may be just a feelgood diversion from reality but it misleadingly chimes in with what people actually want. The absurd Jobs for British Workers issue was an aspect of this fraudulent cod localism, the tip of a very strange iceberg - in content more like the lumps of ice which fall from aircraft toilets onto homes in West Sussex from time to time than the purity of an iceberg. When I was on the London Assembly, the Tory candidate for London Mayor came up with the wizard wheeze of these cheap tickets for “locals” to the Olympics, and commentators kept on examining the entrails of the idea (”good idea…bad idea…how shall we colour code the entry tickets…who should qualify…how do we set up a register”) long long long after we had pointed out the laws which bar all this - it appeared to us at the time that commentators felt it was inconvenient to point out the truth: it spoiled the party and sort of wasn’t fair. Much better to keep up the fiction that it was possible as it was a sexy idea. But this type of false promise which is never delivered is one of the keys to the collapse in regard for the political class and its acolytes. Yes, those who propose it had a point. Yes, it would help draw the sting for certain groups in having to pay for the Games. And it would be a credible and serious suggestion. If it were permitted, or if those who trailed it said: “Ah but of course this is barred from being introduced anyway”. And of course it’s “Europe”: and that’s “foreign news” so it’s “irrelevant”.
CHAMPIONS“Have local referenda” is another one. Er, precisely why?
The best summing up of this whole issue of the role of referenda in current local democracy was the marvellous tv interview in Switzerland which took a dramatic turn when it focussed on the local referenda for which the country is well known, at the time when the politicians were trying to persuade the electorate to join the EU. A hapless EU official was asked about the Swiss tradition of having referenda whereby units of local government can even set their own tax rates etc - ie true devolution of power. “This of course will be barred,” he declared, ruling out every referendum the Swiss had held since the year dot and waking us all up with a start. And he went on to describe local government as basically a load of ‘champions’ for its locals, enforcing the glorious centrally ordained laws with smiles and much flag waving and loads of highly paid (local) politicians. And ‘taking back ideas’ to the centre. Yeah right. And of course anyone who opposed this idea was an opponent of democracy. But if you have a centralised machine, which tightly manages the minutiae of every rule and law, how can it be otherwise? No wonder the Swiss told their politicians that they did not even want them to start discussions about membership, never mind join.
The only local referenda you can have in the UK are so meaningless now that they simply “put things on the agenda”. Sounds like a lot of money and effort to “put things on the agenda”. But you can’t have a binding referendum on offering free tickets to pensioners or Londoners for the Olympics. You can’t have one on keeping the Potters Bar care home open. You couldn’t have had one on the Routemaster bus. Because even if it was a 99% turnout and a unanimous Yes, the result would simply still be No according to ‘the law’.
DEVOLVING UPWARDSAnd having lived through a farcical revision of Mayoral powers in my term on the London Assembly (2004-2008), I can see why it is easy to fool people into believing there is a commitment to devolution. The changes, dressed up as devolution, by and large took powers away from local government and passed them centrally to the Mayor, begging the question of how you can ‘devolve’ powers upwards to a more remote and central authority - but even these are not so much powers as delegated responsibility within a tightly guided framework and backed up by ultimate sanction…the threat to withdraw the central authority’s cash handout (or a small but marginally crucial part of it) if the individual accountable to Government (which is what the Mayor is) does not do as he is told in these areas of ‘powers’.
And the idea of more city mayors does not assist the process of devolution. The city mayor concept is part of the ongoing process of centralising power on individuals responsible to central government. They would remove power from local communities, while assuming some administrative responsibility from above. They are the mirror opposite of true devolution. Of course there is a case for such a structure, but it is not devolution or bringing powers down to local level. It is the opposite. Strangely, commentators describe the London Mayor model as ‘flawed’ because of the issue of control of the cash levers by the centre. No it isn’t. It is perfect in that regard, in that it achieves exactly what was intended. It has been successfully designed in exactly that way to ensure maximum accountability to the centre in a centralised structure. Something can only be flawed if it is not achieving what it is designed to do. The only amazement is that the commentators with all their contacts have not seen that this was the intention from the outset. But really, do they not?
The Mayor is not accountable to the people of London or the London Assembly. Not really. He is held to account by the executive in government, to implement laws which he is given sanction - mostly by the EU through rubberstamp in Parliament. In actual fact, what is so extraordinary is that since supposed devolution, central government now makes MORE decisions about how London’s services are run, not less. While devolving responsibility for carrying out those decisions.
DEATH BY DIRECTIVEThe Congestion Charge could only be introduced after our central government in that area - the European Union - permitted or sanctioned road pricing. The EU is now examining ways in which these road pricing schemes must be altered. But of course commentators will not tell you this. So here’s a prediction. During the next couple of years you will hear talk about the need for changes to the system. When the EU issues a Directive (that’s an Order), or amends the rules, London will simply have to do as its told via Parliament. The Order will be rubberstamped in Parliament (because we cannot just decide whether to obey a Directive, or amend it - it is mandatory) and Parliament will then impose “its” will on London. But you will hear very little about this. You will be told that “the Mayor has decided…” and that “he is in discussions with Government…”. You will hear the opinions of “experts” who will talk about how they have lobbied the Mayor to introduce these things. You will read of how government bodies are making it more efficient and that this shows how responsive City Hall is and how it is taking decisions. You will hear of votes on the London Assembly. You might even hear a bit of outrage that Gordon (or maybe Dave) is telling London what to do (cue for more “why oh why “local” articles from Great and Good). But what you will not hear is that the reason the rule is changing is that an EU Directive or rule has specified that it must or is about to. Those of us in the past who have worked on Directives years before they have been put in force are often astonished at how the process is almost never mentioned anywhere, except in the occasional place like the EUReferendum site or in Christopher Booker’s columns. All this other stuff is what Alexei Sayle used to have a word for (well 3 actually)*
Very like the ending of the Routemaster. Decided by EU Directive. Indeed, if the EU were to declare the C Charge no longer acceptable, then London’s scheme would have to end. Period. That is why whatever powers you give to the Mayor, they will essentially develop as powers to administer others’ laws and rules - whether the EU’s (enforced through Parliament on rubberstamp) or those declining powers of Westminster itself. So more “powers” have to be seen in this light. Sideshows about personalities (Sir Ian Blair) and grandstanding over political stances disguise this relative lack of power.
DICK EMERYHaving quoted the abrasive Alexei Sayle, it is perhaps time to cite a comedienne of an earlier gentler age. Everyone reading this under the age of 90 is permitted to switch off. When the late Pat Coombs used to be appear in the Dick Emery Show in the 60s and 70s, she had a catchphrase: “Coo what a whopper”. I am not sure she was referring to UK politicians and their comments about local power, but she could have been. Time to end the whoppers and time to start being frank. It has nothing to do with being for or against a system of governance, which is a diversion. It is about acknowledging the truth and trying to develop a structure in which people can take part in how their lives are run, “locally”. And if the political class wants to stick to the developing structure, then to let voters know what they can and cannot do. The politicians may fear the people knowing how little control they now have. But one day they will know. Don’t let it all burst out in extremism and anger when the people prise the information out of the political class and then vent serious aggro against them. This is happening in some countries in a limited way already. “Power to the community” over local affairs should not mean “the European Community”, and if it does, we all need to know where we can go to change things. It should not stop at Gauleiter Gordon, ‘Champion’ of Potters Bar.
Fight against British Racism - Fight against racism directed against England and the English
By Damian Hockney ⋅ February 24, 2009
“More local powers”. The cry goes up (yet again). A scattergun of ideal world “why oh why” pieces in national and London newspapers last week, made form (of a sort) by the Tories. But it can’t happen, says former London Assembly Member Damian Hockney.
Not really, not in the way people are being encouraged to think it can: “Don’t the politicians and commentators know where the real powers have gone? Or is it just another cynical political exercise,” he says. “They should at least tell us when they are proposing a policy which would break the law.”
Commentators love the local angle. It’s nice and warm and fluffy, and something we can superficially all agree on. In the past week, both Andrew Gilligan and Tony Travers have written interesting pieces for the Standard about the subject. All good stuff and it all sounds nice and local - paving stones and plant a tree, maybe the need for more local taxes (one idea being a tourist tax…to add a further barrier to visitors coming maybe?…but let that pass) and of course reasonable moans about local problems like care home closures needing the attention of Number 10 when “the community” should decide. Most of the detail of these aspects of government are now stringently controlled from the centre, and that centre is a web of laws upon which Westminster often has little say, and none at all once they are in force.
TOY PISTOLOur local government is indeed, for 80% of the laws which govern its management, the European Union. When politicians and commentators tell us about their cherished ideal world of cheap tickets for Londoners at the Olympics (illegal under EU law) of giving the contracts to local businesses in the lead-up (also impossible under EU law), they surely need to explain those things which might actually break the law and therefore will not get done. These measures are as illegal as funding care homes by raiding the Post Office on your lunch hour with a toy pistol and a little mask over your face. But what commentators do is simply outline the detail of how this great new world can be implemented and tell us all how easy it would all be if only “Gordon” or “Whitehall” would surrender their iron grip.
It’s irrelevant whether or not you support the limitations of the exercise of power at national and local level and the ongoing transfer of actual powers upwards to EU level. I am an opponent, but I have many good friends and contacts who think the other way - however, many of these do at least understand what is happening and know that what commentators are calling for on “local control” is just not possible. But their appears to be an omerta not to mention this elephant in the room.
SEXY SCHEMESIt’s great to read new ideas about what should be done locally. Thinking the unthinkable or even campaigning for something which might even currently be illegal is an important part of the function of the press. But it’s as if they come up with the idea then fade away after bursting into colour with some sexy details about implementing their little schemes - they take the easy road, often depending upon who they support politically, of blaming “Gordon” or “Tony” or “Dave” (and of course the Men from the Ministry…Whitehall Mandarins) for no trees and paving stones and closures of care homes.
But those being criticised cannot devolve what is not theirs to devolve. So many of these things are “competences” of the EU and it is forbidden to interfere with that which has been so acquired. Where commentators miss the point is that they assume that those who now manage are still making the rules. They are not. And they can’t bend them either, on pain of having enormous law suits land on them or unlimited fines from the EU. Andrew Gilligan comments on the “pathetic image”of the pensioners getting off a bus from Potters Bar and demonstrating outside Number 10. Well, yes it was pathetic, but largely because they all got on the wrong bus. They needed to get on the train and go through the Channel Tunnel to where the laws are really made. Indeed a member of the “ruling party” in Scotland today makes exactly that point about care homes and EU rules.
Every time a new EU Directive specifies the minutiae of how to deal with waste (locally), operate road pricing (locally), make Routemaster buses illegal to operate (locally), manage, staff and fund care homes (locally), then the power to make any laws (locally) in the area in question passes upwards to the EU and away from even Westminster, never mind City Hall. And the role of those lower bodies like Westminster and City Hall is to obey and administer. This is happening on an ongoing basis and at great speed.
BEASTS & MINNOWSAnd here we see the stark insularity among all the commentators, an inward looking reference only to London, Westminster, Gordon and Dave, Boris or Ken…and a total failure to see where UK laws are actually made, and how little is the room for manoeuvre among even the Big Beasts, never mind the minnows floating about and gasping for legislative life in the “local” ponds. You do not have to be a dyed in the wool eurosceptic to grasp that almost four fifths of our laws are now made directly by the EU, and rubberstamped into law by enabling acts and Statutory Instruments. And these laws may not under any circumstances be changed, amended, altered or repealed in any way by any new government that comes into office, not even a newly elected one which has a mandate to change them.
The German Constitutional Court - always the driest and most reliable of bodies on the hard facts of constitutional implications for its own nation and others - has written very straightforward accounts of the impotence of national parliaments to make laws any longer, and the great impact on regional and local government. Now ignore for the benefit of this argument whether this is a good idea, or not. If you are happy that no elected government either at Westminster or City Hall can change London’s waste policy, or remove VAT on domestic fuel, then great for you! You have your wish. But those who talk about ‘local powers’ need to just answer the core question every time they say “why oh why can’t we…”. How can these powers, now competences delivered upwards to EU institutions, be “devolved”? Whether to the Mayor, local authorities, parish councils…or even Westminster? They cannot. They’ve all recently gone the other way.
Any devolved body would have as little power as the Prime Minister to alter the closure of care homes. The parish council couldn’t, the local authority couldn’t, a mayor couldn’t and Westminster can’t. Set up 100 new bodies and shower them with billions. They still can’t do anything except act as a “champion”. And that is what, in this regard, the Prime Minister is. He is the ultimate “champion” - he can (still) wage war or raise taxes but he can’t stop the antics in Potters Bar. Without begging those who are, in this regard, his bosses.
WRONG BUSThe real crime is that the people are now totally confused as to where real power lies (so they get on the wrong bus), and this is because of their politicians obscuring the facts, not because the people are stupid. It just remains a surprise that so few commentators really get to grips with this - it is, one suspects, much more fun acting as a chorus for the politicians’ game of blaming each other for cheap points within the narrow little world of increasingly irrelevant national politics, so obscuring from the public how powerless we are to change our laws. They might as well call for “locals” to land a man on the moon. It may also be incomprehension that the all powerful Gordon cannot with a majestic sweep of the hand make such a seemingly minor and trifling change. And never do they say “alas my hands are tied…” - otherwise why are we paying them all these perks and salaries? The fiction of being all-powerful has to be maintained…
Devolution has in reality come to mean the power to administer and (slightly) vary according to strict Directives and laws, enforced from the centre (usually the EU but occasionally still Westminster). The ideal worldism talked up by commentators may be just a feelgood diversion from reality but it misleadingly chimes in with what people actually want. The absurd Jobs for British Workers issue was an aspect of this fraudulent cod localism, the tip of a very strange iceberg - in content more like the lumps of ice which fall from aircraft toilets onto homes in West Sussex from time to time than the purity of an iceberg. When I was on the London Assembly, the Tory candidate for London Mayor came up with the wizard wheeze of these cheap tickets for “locals” to the Olympics, and commentators kept on examining the entrails of the idea (”good idea…bad idea…how shall we colour code the entry tickets…who should qualify…how do we set up a register”) long long long after we had pointed out the laws which bar all this - it appeared to us at the time that commentators felt it was inconvenient to point out the truth: it spoiled the party and sort of wasn’t fair. Much better to keep up the fiction that it was possible as it was a sexy idea. But this type of false promise which is never delivered is one of the keys to the collapse in regard for the political class and its acolytes. Yes, those who propose it had a point. Yes, it would help draw the sting for certain groups in having to pay for the Games. And it would be a credible and serious suggestion. If it were permitted, or if those who trailed it said: “Ah but of course this is barred from being introduced anyway”. And of course it’s “Europe”: and that’s “foreign news” so it’s “irrelevant”.
CHAMPIONS“Have local referenda” is another one. Er, precisely why?
The best summing up of this whole issue of the role of referenda in current local democracy was the marvellous tv interview in Switzerland which took a dramatic turn when it focussed on the local referenda for which the country is well known, at the time when the politicians were trying to persuade the electorate to join the EU. A hapless EU official was asked about the Swiss tradition of having referenda whereby units of local government can even set their own tax rates etc - ie true devolution of power. “This of course will be barred,” he declared, ruling out every referendum the Swiss had held since the year dot and waking us all up with a start. And he went on to describe local government as basically a load of ‘champions’ for its locals, enforcing the glorious centrally ordained laws with smiles and much flag waving and loads of highly paid (local) politicians. And ‘taking back ideas’ to the centre. Yeah right. And of course anyone who opposed this idea was an opponent of democracy. But if you have a centralised machine, which tightly manages the minutiae of every rule and law, how can it be otherwise? No wonder the Swiss told their politicians that they did not even want them to start discussions about membership, never mind join.
The only local referenda you can have in the UK are so meaningless now that they simply “put things on the agenda”. Sounds like a lot of money and effort to “put things on the agenda”. But you can’t have a binding referendum on offering free tickets to pensioners or Londoners for the Olympics. You can’t have one on keeping the Potters Bar care home open. You couldn’t have had one on the Routemaster bus. Because even if it was a 99% turnout and a unanimous Yes, the result would simply still be No according to ‘the law’.
DEVOLVING UPWARDSAnd having lived through a farcical revision of Mayoral powers in my term on the London Assembly (2004-2008), I can see why it is easy to fool people into believing there is a commitment to devolution. The changes, dressed up as devolution, by and large took powers away from local government and passed them centrally to the Mayor, begging the question of how you can ‘devolve’ powers upwards to a more remote and central authority - but even these are not so much powers as delegated responsibility within a tightly guided framework and backed up by ultimate sanction…the threat to withdraw the central authority’s cash handout (or a small but marginally crucial part of it) if the individual accountable to Government (which is what the Mayor is) does not do as he is told in these areas of ‘powers’.
And the idea of more city mayors does not assist the process of devolution. The city mayor concept is part of the ongoing process of centralising power on individuals responsible to central government. They would remove power from local communities, while assuming some administrative responsibility from above. They are the mirror opposite of true devolution. Of course there is a case for such a structure, but it is not devolution or bringing powers down to local level. It is the opposite. Strangely, commentators describe the London Mayor model as ‘flawed’ because of the issue of control of the cash levers by the centre. No it isn’t. It is perfect in that regard, in that it achieves exactly what was intended. It has been successfully designed in exactly that way to ensure maximum accountability to the centre in a centralised structure. Something can only be flawed if it is not achieving what it is designed to do. The only amazement is that the commentators with all their contacts have not seen that this was the intention from the outset. But really, do they not?
The Mayor is not accountable to the people of London or the London Assembly. Not really. He is held to account by the executive in government, to implement laws which he is given sanction - mostly by the EU through rubberstamp in Parliament. In actual fact, what is so extraordinary is that since supposed devolution, central government now makes MORE decisions about how London’s services are run, not less. While devolving responsibility for carrying out those decisions.
DEATH BY DIRECTIVEThe Congestion Charge could only be introduced after our central government in that area - the European Union - permitted or sanctioned road pricing. The EU is now examining ways in which these road pricing schemes must be altered. But of course commentators will not tell you this. So here’s a prediction. During the next couple of years you will hear talk about the need for changes to the system. When the EU issues a Directive (that’s an Order), or amends the rules, London will simply have to do as its told via Parliament. The Order will be rubberstamped in Parliament (because we cannot just decide whether to obey a Directive, or amend it - it is mandatory) and Parliament will then impose “its” will on London. But you will hear very little about this. You will be told that “the Mayor has decided…” and that “he is in discussions with Government…”. You will hear the opinions of “experts” who will talk about how they have lobbied the Mayor to introduce these things. You will read of how government bodies are making it more efficient and that this shows how responsive City Hall is and how it is taking decisions. You will hear of votes on the London Assembly. You might even hear a bit of outrage that Gordon (or maybe Dave) is telling London what to do (cue for more “why oh why “local” articles from Great and Good). But what you will not hear is that the reason the rule is changing is that an EU Directive or rule has specified that it must or is about to. Those of us in the past who have worked on Directives years before they have been put in force are often astonished at how the process is almost never mentioned anywhere, except in the occasional place like the EUReferendum site or in Christopher Booker’s columns. All this other stuff is what Alexei Sayle used to have a word for (well 3 actually)*
Very like the ending of the Routemaster. Decided by EU Directive. Indeed, if the EU were to declare the C Charge no longer acceptable, then London’s scheme would have to end. Period. That is why whatever powers you give to the Mayor, they will essentially develop as powers to administer others’ laws and rules - whether the EU’s (enforced through Parliament on rubberstamp) or those declining powers of Westminster itself. So more “powers” have to be seen in this light. Sideshows about personalities (Sir Ian Blair) and grandstanding over political stances disguise this relative lack of power.
DICK EMERYHaving quoted the abrasive Alexei Sayle, it is perhaps time to cite a comedienne of an earlier gentler age. Everyone reading this under the age of 90 is permitted to switch off. When the late Pat Coombs used to be appear in the Dick Emery Show in the 60s and 70s, she had a catchphrase: “Coo what a whopper”. I am not sure she was referring to UK politicians and their comments about local power, but she could have been. Time to end the whoppers and time to start being frank. It has nothing to do with being for or against a system of governance, which is a diversion. It is about acknowledging the truth and trying to develop a structure in which people can take part in how their lives are run, “locally”. And if the political class wants to stick to the developing structure, then to let voters know what they can and cannot do. The politicians may fear the people knowing how little control they now have. But one day they will know. Don’t let it all burst out in extremism and anger when the people prise the information out of the political class and then vent serious aggro against them. This is happening in some countries in a limited way already. “Power to the community” over local affairs should not mean “the European Community”, and if it does, we all need to know where we can go to change things. It should not stop at Gauleiter Gordon, ‘Champion’ of Potters Bar.
Fight against British Racism - Fight against racism directed against England and the English
Monday, 23 February 2009
CEP: The British-Irish Council is the perfect example of how both the British state and the BBC deny England even its own existence
Monday, 23, Feb 2009 12:00
On Friday February 20th the ‘British-Irish Council’ met in Cardiff. It is a body set up when Tony Blair was the UK Prime Minister to discuss, and where possible deal with, matters which affect the relationship of the UK, the Irish Republic, the Isle of Man, and the Channel Islands.
The Feb 20th Council was hosted and chaired by the Welsh First Minister Rhodri Morgan. In attendance were Alec Salmond the Scottish First Minister, Brian Cowan the Irish Taoiseach, Ieuan Wyn Jones the Welsh Deputy First Minister, Paul Murphy the Secretary of State for Wales, Martin McGuiness deputy First Minister for Northern Ireland, representatives from Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man and representatives of the UK government. There were no representatives from England. Since its inception there never have been.Yet decisions taken at the British-Irish Council affect England. 'Of all the historic nations of these islands only England had no representation. But the UK is not England. The UK is England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Mr Stuart Parr, member of the National Council of the CEP and its Shropshire organiser has written a formal complaint to the BBC over the way it has reported the meeting.
‘Nothing better illustrates the way the UK government identifies the UK with England. It is as if England is not a distinct nation within the UK like Scotland and Wales are,’ said Mr Parr. ‘And nothing better illustrates the way in which the BBC likewise conflates England with Britain as if England does not have its own distinct national identity, culture, history, national events and needs. It is deliberate official BBC policy to refuse to have a BBC England and to refuse to treat England as a unity and a nation, while it has a BBC Scotland, a BBC Wales, a BBC NI and an Asian Network.'
Mr Parr has made a formal complaint to the BBC. ‘It is significant that the BBC failed to list the British ministers that attended in place of England, indeed failed to make mention of England at all, let alone to tell its listeners and website readers that the British-Irish Council is a UK & Ireland-wide organisation that discriminates against the English by denying them direct representation. I believe this was a deliberate omission by the BBC to avoid its responsibility to accurately report on events affecting England.’
Contacts:
Mr Stuart Parr. Tel: 01273 452201 email: stuart.parr@thecep.org.uk
Fight against British Racism - Fight against racism directed against England and the English Nation
On Friday February 20th the ‘British-Irish Council’ met in Cardiff. It is a body set up when Tony Blair was the UK Prime Minister to discuss, and where possible deal with, matters which affect the relationship of the UK, the Irish Republic, the Isle of Man, and the Channel Islands.
The Feb 20th Council was hosted and chaired by the Welsh First Minister Rhodri Morgan. In attendance were Alec Salmond the Scottish First Minister, Brian Cowan the Irish Taoiseach, Ieuan Wyn Jones the Welsh Deputy First Minister, Paul Murphy the Secretary of State for Wales, Martin McGuiness deputy First Minister for Northern Ireland, representatives from Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man and representatives of the UK government. There were no representatives from England. Since its inception there never have been.Yet decisions taken at the British-Irish Council affect England. 'Of all the historic nations of these islands only England had no representation. But the UK is not England. The UK is England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Mr Stuart Parr, member of the National Council of the CEP and its Shropshire organiser has written a formal complaint to the BBC over the way it has reported the meeting.
‘Nothing better illustrates the way the UK government identifies the UK with England. It is as if England is not a distinct nation within the UK like Scotland and Wales are,’ said Mr Parr. ‘And nothing better illustrates the way in which the BBC likewise conflates England with Britain as if England does not have its own distinct national identity, culture, history, national events and needs. It is deliberate official BBC policy to refuse to have a BBC England and to refuse to treat England as a unity and a nation, while it has a BBC Scotland, a BBC Wales, a BBC NI and an Asian Network.'
Mr Parr has made a formal complaint to the BBC. ‘It is significant that the BBC failed to list the British ministers that attended in place of England, indeed failed to make mention of England at all, let alone to tell its listeners and website readers that the British-Irish Council is a UK & Ireland-wide organisation that discriminates against the English by denying them direct representation. I believe this was a deliberate omission by the BBC to avoid its responsibility to accurately report on events affecting England.’
Contacts:
Mr Stuart Parr. Tel: 01273 452201 email: stuart.parr@thecep.org.uk
Fight against British Racism - Fight against racism directed against England and the English Nation
Tuesday, 17 February 2009
Olympic Football - Team GB
Last week we reported about Sandwell council denying the English the right to celebrate their English identity with a St.George’s Day Parade, I hope this week we are not going to find out about the British in the English Football Association trying to do the same?Andy Burnham, the British Culture, Media and Sport Secretary talking about the 2012 Olympic football squad to the Telegraph said that while it was “disappointing” that the three Football Associations of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland have decided not to play a part in the British Team, he respected their “independence, autonomy and right to make this decision.”The reason the 3 unions gave for not taking part in the British Team was the fear that it could threaten their future sporting existence as stand alone nations, and have threatened to ban their players from future international squads if they agree to take part.This is not a valid reason by any means; the 3 unions have been given categorical assurances in writing by Mr. Burnham that there is no threat to the nations’ individual participation in events like the World Cup. Fifa, the world governing body, has also given written and verbal clarification too.Mr. Burnham added however that the “The British Olympic Authority have made it clear that they intend to enter a team in the 2012 Games,” which can only mean a team without their participation, an England Team.It looks very much like another British plot to deny us our English identity, are they going to make an England Football Team play with a British identity, which it would be stuck with no doubt from then on?Is the English FA going to let an England Team play with the British name that is the million dollar question, and it is a question most definitely must be NO
AN ENGLAND TEAM MUST BE ALLOWED TO PLAY WITH A BRITISH IDENTITY.
Fight against British Racism – Fight against discrimination against England and the English
Posted by stano at 13:20 0 comments Links to this post
AN ENGLAND TEAM MUST BE ALLOWED TO PLAY WITH A BRITISH IDENTITY.
Fight against British Racism – Fight against discrimination against England and the English
Posted by stano at 13:20 0 comments Links to this post
Is Gordon Brown responsible for a Black Country council banning an English St. George’s Day march.
Last September Prime Minister Gordon Brown with his New Labour Party cabinet held a meeting here in the West Midlands, the first time a cabinet meeting had been held outside of London for 90 years. Why would a Prime Minister, a confirmed British Nationalist who refuses to give the political and constitutional recognition to England and the English Nation, want to hold a cabinet meeting in the heart of England’s English community, if was not to rally his British forces and plan against an English revival that was taking place in the regions Black Country towns. There is no greater English revival in the country to match that of the Black Country, and the Borough of Sandwell is seeing its local town of West Bromwich St. George’s Day parades reach numbers in excess of 15,000 on a regular basis, so has the Scot Gordon Brown had a hand in stopping it? Why did he Gordon Brown choose Sandwell as the place to begin his Schools Britishness and citizenship programme Sandwell calls ‘Rewind’, and give them a £500.000 grant out of the government's ‘Preventing Violent Extremism Fund’ when by their own admission the councillors admit there is no problem or recorded problems in the area, if it was not because he knew that British Nationalists in Sandwell council would be able to force his policies through. It is this same Sandwell council and British Nationalists that are leading the campaign to support Gordon Brown’s programme of destroying England’s unity and Nationhood, by breaking up England into a Britain of British Regions, and supporting his call for a Birmingham City Region.The council that fought a campaign to Kick Racism out of Football now perpetrates racism itself.
What is this Sandwell ‘Rewind’ project anyway, according to the council’s safer communities chief, Councillor Derek Rowley said “This is a really good project; Rewind goes into schools and does things like DNA tests and family trees” WHAT! This sounds like a policy of the Third Reich and Nazi Germany, and didn’t millions die to prevent this sort of atrocity happening again, is this a British plan to get a DNA data base of future citizens by the back door , or it is a plan of English genocide. Councillor Yvonne Davies another British Nationalist said “The parade created an unhealthy atmosphere and inspired young boys to be racist” what she is actual implying is that it is against Gordon Brown’s British policy for anyone to recognise their country to be England and not Britain, and anyone who goes against this policy and wants to celebrate an English identity she considers them to be a racist. What she failed to say was that the whole Britishness and Rewind project of Sandwell was being funded and operated by British Nationalists, in as much that Gordon Brown, elected from a Scottish constituency and self appointed First Minister of England was forcing this British policy only onto England, and not onto his own people that elected him.
If the British political parties believed in a United Kingdom this project would apply across all our nations.
She like other British Nationalists have no problem accepting that it is possible to celebrate both a British and another national identity, like they do in Scotland, Wales, and Ireland, so long as it is not an English identity they want to celebrate, they will fund and support it. I myself have attended most of Sandwell’s parades and I agree with Trevor Collins of the Stone Cross St. George’s Association which organises the parade, that to suggest the parade is racist is offensive and ridiculous, and I am sure people like Rustie Lee, and Carl Chinn who support the parade will not look kindly on being called racists either, banning the parade will encourage racism not prevent it. The parade is attended by people of all races and creeds who mix in and have a good time and nobody has been prevented from attending, and I speak the truth when I say neither me my family or relations have ever seen any trouble on the march, and it has been great fun for residents along the route to decorate their houses, in other words the problem for the British is there isn’t a problem, they want to create one, because the English are at last waking up to their discrimination.
The organisers are free to contact the West Midlands CEP who will help in any way possible.We call upon the Express & Star Black Country newspaper, to do what is has done in the past, and pledge its support for the English St. George’s Day march.
http://englandparliament.blogspot.com/2009/02/yvonne-davies-of-sandwell-council.html
http://www.wigantoday.net/wigannews/Parades-to-make-comeback.4973054.jp
Fight against British Racism – Fight racism directed against England and the English
Posted by stano at 11:31 1 comments Links to
Tuesday, 10 February 2009
Who speaks up for England ?Cameron’s promised ‘fix’ on devolution ignores his own constituents.
The Conservative leader, writing in ‘Scotland on Sunday’ (Jan.8th), has pledged that as prime minister he will end the cross-border war between the UK and Scottish Governments, He insists he will introduce a new "maturity and respect" for Scotland. He criticised the Labour government for allowing its hostility towards the SNP to frustrate cooperation between Westminster and Edinburgh. "If we win the next election at Westminster, we would govern with a maturity and a respect for the Scottish people. I would be a prime minister that would work constructively with any administration at Holyrood for the good of Scotland .’
Scilla Cullen, Chairman of the Campaign for an English Parliament, has responded by stating that the Conservative leader needs to start giving equal consideration to his own country as well. ‘It’s time he introduced a new maturity and respect for England into his party’s policies. England is the only country in the West without national governance; England have none of the immense benefits Scotland and Wales are getting out of devolution, yet it’s them who are paying for it all through their taxes; and Cameron is perfectly well acquainted with the political absurdity and injustice of the West Lothian Question. His policy of English votes for English matters is a complete fudge and well he knows it. It amounts to no more than an insult to England ’.
‘There is that one great question now hanging all over UK politics: Who speaks for England?’ said Mrs. Cullen. ‘I would remind David Cameron that he represents English people in an English constituency; and it is the English people who are both his and his party’s core constituents. The only Tory MP left in Scotland David Mundell (Dumfriesshire) may have declared only last week that future Conservative government will put the interests of Scotland first and foremost. To date Mr. Cameron hasn’t repudiated that statement. As I have said, he would do well to look to his core constituents.’
Contacts:
Scilla Cullen: Tel: 01433.833155. email: scilla.cullen@thecep.org.uk
Michael Knowles (CEP media unit) Tel. 01260 271139 michael-knowles@tiscali.co.uk
Fight against British Racism – Fight racism directed against England and the English
Scilla Cullen, Chairman of the Campaign for an English Parliament, has responded by stating that the Conservative leader needs to start giving equal consideration to his own country as well. ‘It’s time he introduced a new maturity and respect for England into his party’s policies. England is the only country in the West without national governance; England have none of the immense benefits Scotland and Wales are getting out of devolution, yet it’s them who are paying for it all through their taxes; and Cameron is perfectly well acquainted with the political absurdity and injustice of the West Lothian Question. His policy of English votes for English matters is a complete fudge and well he knows it. It amounts to no more than an insult to England ’.
‘There is that one great question now hanging all over UK politics: Who speaks for England?’ said Mrs. Cullen. ‘I would remind David Cameron that he represents English people in an English constituency; and it is the English people who are both his and his party’s core constituents. The only Tory MP left in Scotland David Mundell (Dumfriesshire) may have declared only last week that future Conservative government will put the interests of Scotland first and foremost. To date Mr. Cameron hasn’t repudiated that statement. As I have said, he would do well to look to his core constituents.’
Contacts:
Scilla Cullen: Tel: 01433.833155. email: scilla.cullen@thecep.org.uk
Michael Knowles (CEP media unit) Tel. 01260 271139 michael-knowles@tiscali.co.uk
Fight against British Racism – Fight racism directed against England and the English
Thursday, 5 February 2009
A DEMAND FOR THE END-OF-FEBRUARY LIBERTY CONVENTIONS TO ADDRESS THE INJUSTICES THE UNION GOVERNMENT IS INFLICTING ON THE ENGLISH NATION.
The latest figures of UK expenditure in Scotland as provided by the economist Fraser Nelson in the recent issue of the Spectator reveals an immense gap between what is raised in taxation by the Scottish nation and what it actually spends. ‘The financial disparity raises very serious constitutional and human rights issues’, states Scilla Cullen, chairman of the Campaign for an English Parliament, ‘which must be addressed at the coming Liberty Conventions in London, Bristol, and Belfast on February 28th.
The gap amounts to £17 billion. Even when revenue from oil produced in Scottish waters is counted as Scottish revenue, the gap is £8 billion. English taxpayers make good the difference. Per head of population Scotland receives an extra £1600 per head each year over what the English receive for health and education, with free university education, free personal care of the elderly, free prescriptions, free hospital parking etc . ‘They (the Scots) should be mindful of how lucky they are that the English taxpayer gives them so much to spend’, writes Mr Fraser.
‘The issue is not just a financial one; it is also one of denial by the United Kingdom government of equality of rights and benefits to the English population which is 85% of the UK population,’ stated Mrs Cullen in her February 1st message to the CEP membership. ‘Yes, it certainly is financial. Thousands upon thousands of English families are having to pay fees and charges which are harsh, at times crippling, certainly when they have children at university or family members in hospital.
‘However, there are also two fundamental issues of human rights and liberties involved. The first is that the English people are entitled as citizens of the same state to the same benefits. Not least because they pay for them while they are themselves denied them. And secondly, they have never been asked by the Labour Government since the 1998 devolution legislation if they want to pay for them for Scotland while not receiving them themselves or if they would like England to have the same degree of self-rule that Scotland has
‘Pressure groups like Liberty, the Fabian Society, Unlock Democracy, Open Democracy which are organising the Liberty Conventions about the erosion of our liberties by this government are certainly well meaning, well intended, and benevolent organisations. These conventions is now their opportunity to broaden their understanding of what constitutes justice and its denial. They could include on the Convention agenda certain very basic questions, like: Why should an English student pay tuition fees and top-up fees and emerge from their university courses with debts of £20K when Scottish students don’t? Why should an English family visiting their children in hospital pay parking charges of up to £2 an hour when Scottish and Welsh families don’t? Why should the English pay towards £8 per prescription when the Scots and the Welsh don’t? Why shouldn’t the English have the same degree of self-rule within the Union as the Scots have? If these injustices were inflicted by the State on ethnic or religious minority groups, there would be uproar -and conventions without number. These wrongs are issues of equality, liberty, civil rights and justice as important as any other the Convention has already set itself to consider.
Contacts:
Michael Knowles CEP Media Unit. Tel.01260 271139. Email: michael-knowles@tiscali.co.uk
Scilla Cullen CEP Chairman: Tel: 01438 833155 Email: Scilla.cullen@dsl.pipex.co.uk
Fight British Racism - Fight against racism directed against England and the English
The gap amounts to £17 billion. Even when revenue from oil produced in Scottish waters is counted as Scottish revenue, the gap is £8 billion. English taxpayers make good the difference. Per head of population Scotland receives an extra £1600 per head each year over what the English receive for health and education, with free university education, free personal care of the elderly, free prescriptions, free hospital parking etc . ‘They (the Scots) should be mindful of how lucky they are that the English taxpayer gives them so much to spend’, writes Mr Fraser.
‘The issue is not just a financial one; it is also one of denial by the United Kingdom government of equality of rights and benefits to the English population which is 85% of the UK population,’ stated Mrs Cullen in her February 1st message to the CEP membership. ‘Yes, it certainly is financial. Thousands upon thousands of English families are having to pay fees and charges which are harsh, at times crippling, certainly when they have children at university or family members in hospital.
‘However, there are also two fundamental issues of human rights and liberties involved. The first is that the English people are entitled as citizens of the same state to the same benefits. Not least because they pay for them while they are themselves denied them. And secondly, they have never been asked by the Labour Government since the 1998 devolution legislation if they want to pay for them for Scotland while not receiving them themselves or if they would like England to have the same degree of self-rule that Scotland has
‘Pressure groups like Liberty, the Fabian Society, Unlock Democracy, Open Democracy which are organising the Liberty Conventions about the erosion of our liberties by this government are certainly well meaning, well intended, and benevolent organisations. These conventions is now their opportunity to broaden their understanding of what constitutes justice and its denial. They could include on the Convention agenda certain very basic questions, like: Why should an English student pay tuition fees and top-up fees and emerge from their university courses with debts of £20K when Scottish students don’t? Why should an English family visiting their children in hospital pay parking charges of up to £2 an hour when Scottish and Welsh families don’t? Why should the English pay towards £8 per prescription when the Scots and the Welsh don’t? Why shouldn’t the English have the same degree of self-rule within the Union as the Scots have? If these injustices were inflicted by the State on ethnic or religious minority groups, there would be uproar -and conventions without number. These wrongs are issues of equality, liberty, civil rights and justice as important as any other the Convention has already set itself to consider.
Contacts:
Michael Knowles CEP Media Unit. Tel.01260 271139. Email: michael-knowles@tiscali.co.uk
Scilla Cullen CEP Chairman: Tel: 01438 833155 Email: Scilla.cullen@dsl.pipex.co.uk
Fight British Racism - Fight against racism directed against England and the English
Monday, 2 February 2009
Heathrow' Third Runway: Flying in the face of English Democracy
The reverberations around the house last week at the undemocratic stance of the government on the Heathrow Airport extension that led to the subsequent eviction and banning of Labour MP John McDonnell, drew a Conservative protest that resulted in 132 MPs signing an early day motion against the extension. Theresa Villiers told MPs “We are giving the House the opportunity to have the vote the government wouldn’t give them”
PM Gordon Brown’s government narrowly won the subsequent vote on the third runway extension by 297 votes to 278 but not before losing two of their ministerial aides who had earlier resigned in disgust over the plan.
When you look at the result of the vote all seems fair and democratic, but on closer inspection it shows something entirely different and highlights another political deficit England finds itself in when confronted with a Labour Whip. Labour's British MPs from the devolved nations are then said to be encouraged or more or less forced by PM Gordon Brown a Scotsman, to vote on issues that does not concern his or their own nations constituents in law, but their nations could all gain economically in money from the “Barnett Formula.” Rather than these MPs being forced to vote, this looks very much more like they will be queuing to vote, and the whipping tool could be being used as an excuse to exclude these MPs from personal criticism for voting on English only legislation.
The CEP have issued the following press release
The Campaign for an English Parliament has noted that Wednesday's vote on a third runway at Heathrow Airport was won for the Government by MPs elected outside England. English constituency MPs rejected the third runway by a margin of 20 votes but a phalanx of Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs trooped through the lobby to win the day for the Government, overturning, in the process, the democratic will of England.
According to one Labour rebel a “tearful and dewy eyed” Prime Minister had called wavering Labour MPs into his office to tell them that losing this vote would “de-stabilise the Government and de-stabilise the markets”. In the event 52% of English MPs voted against the Government, 48% with the Government. But MPs elected outside England were a different matter altogether, of these MPs only 29% voted against the Government, with a whopping 71% supporting the building of a new £13bn runway on top of the ancient English village of Sipson.
Across the country the general public opposed the third runway by a margin of 13% (YouGov), so English MPs appear to be better reflecting public opinion than non-English MPs who fly in the face of it. So why the disparity? The Constitution Unit at University College London may have the answer. Between May 2005 and June 2007 CU researchers analysed data from almost 500 votes in the House of Commons. It revealed that Scottish Labour backbenchers rebelled in an average of 1.8% of votes, compared to an average of 3.4% for their English counterparts and 1.9% among Welsh MPs.
According to the Constitution Unit the “most significant factor” in explaining this phenomenon is that Scots MPs vote through unpopular Government measures that do not apply north of the Border because they face no external pressure from their constituents or local party.
“It would be wrong to suggest that Scottish electors do not care about the issues surrounding the Heathrow debate”, said Gareth Young, in a message to CEP members, “but we have to recognise that they elect a Minister to the Scottish Parliament to represent them on Transport, Planning and the Environment (planning is a devolved matter); so a Scottish Westminster MP looking to advance his career by voting with the Government can be reasonably sure that his constituents will disregard his voting record on these matters.
“There is the small matter of the Barnett consequential too; Scotland stands to rake in up to £130 million from this, to spend on whatever they want without the interference of English MPs.
“The presence of non-English MPs in the parliament that governs England not only allows them to foist unpopular measures on England, but also helps to stabilise an unpopular and unwanted government; compromising England's right to pick the government of its choosing, and lessening our chances of kicking out a government that we don’t want.”
Contacts: Michael Knowles.CEP Media Unit.Tel: 01260 271139
Email: michael-knowles@tiscali.co.uk
Fight British Racism - Fight against racism directed against England and the English
PM Gordon Brown’s government narrowly won the subsequent vote on the third runway extension by 297 votes to 278 but not before losing two of their ministerial aides who had earlier resigned in disgust over the plan.
When you look at the result of the vote all seems fair and democratic, but on closer inspection it shows something entirely different and highlights another political deficit England finds itself in when confronted with a Labour Whip. Labour's British MPs from the devolved nations are then said to be encouraged or more or less forced by PM Gordon Brown a Scotsman, to vote on issues that does not concern his or their own nations constituents in law, but their nations could all gain economically in money from the “Barnett Formula.” Rather than these MPs being forced to vote, this looks very much more like they will be queuing to vote, and the whipping tool could be being used as an excuse to exclude these MPs from personal criticism for voting on English only legislation.
The CEP have issued the following press release
The Campaign for an English Parliament has noted that Wednesday's vote on a third runway at Heathrow Airport was won for the Government by MPs elected outside England. English constituency MPs rejected the third runway by a margin of 20 votes but a phalanx of Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs trooped through the lobby to win the day for the Government, overturning, in the process, the democratic will of England.
According to one Labour rebel a “tearful and dewy eyed” Prime Minister had called wavering Labour MPs into his office to tell them that losing this vote would “de-stabilise the Government and de-stabilise the markets”. In the event 52% of English MPs voted against the Government, 48% with the Government. But MPs elected outside England were a different matter altogether, of these MPs only 29% voted against the Government, with a whopping 71% supporting the building of a new £13bn runway on top of the ancient English village of Sipson.
Across the country the general public opposed the third runway by a margin of 13% (YouGov), so English MPs appear to be better reflecting public opinion than non-English MPs who fly in the face of it. So why the disparity? The Constitution Unit at University College London may have the answer. Between May 2005 and June 2007 CU researchers analysed data from almost 500 votes in the House of Commons. It revealed that Scottish Labour backbenchers rebelled in an average of 1.8% of votes, compared to an average of 3.4% for their English counterparts and 1.9% among Welsh MPs.
According to the Constitution Unit the “most significant factor” in explaining this phenomenon is that Scots MPs vote through unpopular Government measures that do not apply north of the Border because they face no external pressure from their constituents or local party.
“It would be wrong to suggest that Scottish electors do not care about the issues surrounding the Heathrow debate”, said Gareth Young, in a message to CEP members, “but we have to recognise that they elect a Minister to the Scottish Parliament to represent them on Transport, Planning and the Environment (planning is a devolved matter); so a Scottish Westminster MP looking to advance his career by voting with the Government can be reasonably sure that his constituents will disregard his voting record on these matters.
“There is the small matter of the Barnett consequential too; Scotland stands to rake in up to £130 million from this, to spend on whatever they want without the interference of English MPs.
“The presence of non-English MPs in the parliament that governs England not only allows them to foist unpopular measures on England, but also helps to stabilise an unpopular and unwanted government; compromising England's right to pick the government of its choosing, and lessening our chances of kicking out a government that we don’t want.”
Contacts: Michael Knowles.CEP Media Unit.Tel: 01260 271139
Email: michael-knowles@tiscali.co.uk
Fight British Racism - Fight against racism directed against England and the English
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
