The English Question

Redknapp a shoe in?

2012-02-09T01:07:00.001-08:00

What happens they offer the job to 'Arry and he insists (as he should) on the right to select his own captain? Presumably the F.A. would then have to withdraw the offer.

A very prompt and pleasing reply from Helen-Mary Jones AM

2011-02-06T12:04:00.000-08:00

Dear Andrew,
Thank you for your message.
I am, of course, fully aware of the exact constitutional position, but it is rather hard using the term "the UK parliament legislating on England only matters"' or "the UK government acting on England only matters" each time one has to make a distinction between England only policies and those of devolved governments. English Parliament or English government is useful shorthand.
I cannot speak for other nationalists on this but it is my personal belief that it is most unfair for MPs from Scotland to vote on matters that have no effect on their constituents and only on communities in England. I will feel the same way about MPs representing Welsh constituencies if the referendum on March 3rd is passed and the National Assembly's lawmaking powers are effectively clarified. In this context I am pleased with the decision of my colleagues in Westminster, the Plaid Cymru MPs who have not spoken or voted on England only matters since devolution. I support the idea of an English Parliament in principal, though I can understand that at this point there would be some difficulty in putting this in to practice because the current model of devolution is so asymmetric, with each of the three devolved administrations having such different powers. Hopefully that will change.
I hope this clarifies position on this matter.
Yours sincerely
Helen Mary Jones AM
Sent from my BlackBerry

Email to David Cameron

2011-02-06T11:39:00.000-08:00

Dear Prime Minister,
I note that in your speech yesterday at the Munich Security Conference you stated your view that some young Moslem men "find it hard to identify with Britain... because we have allowed the weakening of our collective identity."
I believe that one aspect of this weakening of our collective British identity is the unfair distribution of democracy resulting from an unequal devolution process that gives a degree of independence to some of the nations of the UK while leaving England without a national parliament and subject to legislation made by MPs representing constituencies unaffected by the very legislation they are helping to enact. This has led to a situation whereby many people in England are no longer as willing as they once were to identify themselves as British but prefer to identify as English, a term that for some people has primarily ethnic rather than civic overtones.
Do you agree that an important step towards creating a unified, inclusive, civic British identity would be to end the fragmenting effects of unfair devolution by, at the very least, bringing in legislation allowing only MPs from constituencies in England to vote on matters that are handled by the devolved parliament/assemblies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?
Yours sincerely,
Andrew

Email to Helen-Mary Jones (deputy leader of Plaid Cymru in the Welsh Assembly and the party’s spokesman on Health and Social Services)

2011-02-06T03:18:00.000-08:00

Dear Ms Jones,

Yesterday on Radio 4's 'Any Questions', while discussing the UK Government's proposal to sell much of the woodland overseen by the Forestry Commission to private companies, you expressed your gladness that the Welsh Assembly Government had no intention of introducing similar proposals for woodlands in Wales and then stated that as far as woodlands in England were concerned, this was a matter for 'the English Government'. You used this term, 'the English Government', two or three times in the ensuing discussion.

Obviously you are aware that there is no such entity as the English Government, England being governed by the UK Government through parliament which is made up of MPs from England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I am interested to learn whether your reference to 'the English Government' was merely a slip of the tongue, or is this how you and perhaps other nationalists in Wales and Scotland now characterise the UK Government at least as far as its competencies in regard to devolved issues are concerned?

I would also be interested to learn whether you support the idea of a genuine English Government and parliament, made up purely of MPs from constituencies in England, to handle matters of legislation relating only to England.

Yours sincerely,

Andrew

In defense of PR

2010-05-01T14:08:00.000-07:00

Further to my one-before-last post, in which I advocated voting for the Liberal Democrats in order to help bring about a situation where a hung parliament might lead to the introduction of PR, and in light of the fact that both Labour and Conservative campaigners have been frantically highlighting the perceived dangers of hung parliaments (and therefore, by implication, of PR, which tends to lead to a hung parliament [or, more positively, a balanced parliament]), I intend, in this post, to address the main criticisms that I have heard people make about the concept of proportional representation as a means of electing the national parliament.

Criticism 1: PR is less likely to deliver an overall majority to any party, and therefore leads to coalition governments which are both weak and impossible to vote out.
- One of the advantages that many people claim for the first-past-the-post system is that it usually delivers a government with a majority of seats in parliament, thus enabling it to get its planned programme of legislation enacted into law without too much difficulty. But surely the notion of one party holding a majority of the seats in parliament is only justifiable if that party is supported by the majority of the electorate. If it is not supported by the majority of voters then effectively what we have is a group of people representing a minority of the population, forcing their will onto the majority. That doesn't seem very democratic to me. A coalition government may be weak, in the sense that no one party within the coalition may be able to achieve everything it would like to, and in the sense that its actions must involve negotiation, bargaining and compromise, but that is inevitable in a situation where politicians are representing a public with a diverse range of political viewpoints, and must surely be preferable to one party lording it over the legislative chamber without a genuinely democratic mandate from the voters. Decisions arrived at through negotiation and compromise may even sometimes be better than those which originate with one party and then enjoy free passage through parliament by virtue of a majority. As for the argument, which is sometimes made, that a coalition government can never be voted out, this is only true to the extent that the electorate can never be 'voted out'! A coalition government, elected using proportional representation, needs to hold the confidence of a parliament which reflects the political 'shape' of the electorate as a whole and, unlike the zero-sum game of first-past-the-post elections - where the representatives of one part of the electorate hold total power for a period and then lose all power, to be replaced by the representatives of another part of the electorate - under PR a coalition government, while it may not necessarily be so easy to vote out, will, if it wishes to continue in power, change it's composition to reflect the changing political demographics of the electorate. Of course, if a large enough part of the electorate become completely disenchanted with the coalition government then, following a general election using PR, the new government (whether it was a coalition or not) would, no doubt, look very different to the previous one.

Criticism 2: PR would lead to political stalemates, with governments unable to act because of the lack of a clear parliamentary majority.
- This is really a very similar criticism to the last one and, while it's true that under PR it is often harder to get legislation passed, this is, in my opinion, no bad thing. It is felt by many people that there are already far too many laws on our statute books and, as mentioned in my previous answer, the need for negotiation and compromise is an important way of ensuring that any legislation which is passed is as acceptable as it can be to the public as a whole. In the devolved parliaments and assemblies of the UK the various parties involved in coalition governments are learning to thrash out compromises and come to agreements which, though they sometimes do take a long time to arrive at (eg. the decisions involving the handing over of police powers to Stormont) do, as a result of the compromises involved, tend to have the support of a broader section of the electorate than they would do had they been foisted on the public by a government which, while not being supported by the majority of voters, nevertheless held a majority in parliament.

Criticism 3: PR would allow minority parties, such as the BNP, to hold a disproportionate amount of power.
- It's true that under PR a situation could arise where a minority government might need to strike a deal with an unpopular minority party in order to get a proposed piece of legislation passed through parliament. This does mean that small parties could potentially hold a very small amount of power (though only to the extent that the more mainstream parties would be prepared to compromise with them - the more extreme ideas of parties like the BNP would almost certainly not be up for discussion) but it would not be a disproportionate amount of power. The ability any small party had to influence decisions made in parliament would be in direct proportion to the level of its electoral support, and that is how it should be!

Criticism 4: PR takes away the connection between MPs and local areas as MPs do not represent particular constituencies under PR.
- This is, in my opinion, the strongest argument against PR but also the most easily dealt with. The system of PR which I am most in favour of (and which is, I believe, the one favoured by the Lib Dems) is the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system, which delivers a result which is both proportional in party terms and keeps the connection between individual MPs and local constituencies. For a detailed explanation of how STV works, see here.

In my opinion there are four major democratic deficits facing the people of England today: Firstly, the lack of properly representative democracy in the UK - something that would be remedied by the introduction of PR; secondly, the lack of direct democracy, ie. referenda, when it comes to major constitutional issues (such as the giving away of significant powers to the EU, or issues around devolution within the UK); thirdly, the lack of an English Parliament and the consequent 'West Lothian' anomaly; fourthly, our subservience to the inherently undemocratic European Union. The introduction of PR into the UK electoral system would not only solve the first of these problems but could, perhaps, be an important step on the way to resolving the other three.

Money too tight to mention

2010-04-30T14:53:00.001-07:00

I don't follow the news as closely as I perhaps should these days, much of my time being taken up with work and family commitments, so I'm probably displaying huge political ignorance here, but there are some things that have been puzzling me as I think about the issues involved in this election campaign.
As a country, we owe huge amounts of money; according to some of the panel on this week's question time the national debt amounts to the equivalent of £90,000 for each household in Britain, or £1.1 million for each day since the birth of Christ!
Whenever he's questioned about the financial mess we are in and the consequent need for public spending cuts and savings (the scale of which, many commentators say, are currently being hidden from the electorate by the three main parties) Gordon Brown shrugs off any personal blame by pointing out that we are in a global financial crisis which originated in America and affects the whole of the worldwide economy (as he did, for example, on tonight's interview with Jeremy Paxman).
But wasn't the global financial crisis originating in America originally referred to as a 'credit-crunch'? And didn't it largely consist of banks losing lots of money through dodgy investments (mainly in the sub-prime mortgage market) and in some cases going out of business, while those that remained batoned down the hatches and became extremely cagey about lending money to businesses? It wasn't about national debt.
So the huge debt we're saddled with is not directly connected to the global financial crisis - unless, of course, it was incurred as a result of the extremely costly bailouts that the government so generously undertook to prevent crucial businesses from going bust as a result of the worldwide crunch. But the recipients of those massive bailouts were, almost exclusively, the banks.
In which case, from whom did we borrow these vast sums needed to effect the bailout?
Presumably, from other banks! Ones that, clearly, weren't in such dire financial straits at the time. In which case, why couldn't the struggling banks have just borrowed the money directly from the financially healthy banks? Why did the government (and, ipso facto, the taxpayer) have to be involved at all? And anyway, if these apparently financially robust banks existed, why was it so crucial to the economy that the failing banks didn't go under? Okay, some bank customers might have lost their savings, but the government could far more easily have bailed those customers out rather than racking up huge debts getting the whole banking sector back up and running, fat salaries, hefty bonuses and all.
Anyway, like I said, these are probably stupid questions born of ignorance, but they've been puzzling me so I thought I might as well mention them.

Why I'm going to vote Lib Dem

2010-04-27T14:14:00.000-07:00

I'm not a fan of Nick Clegg or the Liberal Democrats. I disagree with many of their policies and particularly with their highly pro-EU stance.
I'm not particularly enamoured of the Labour party either, with their tendency to waste money on quangos, bureaucracy and politically correct causes. And, as a low-paid worker and recipient of Working Families Tax Credits, I don't fully trust the Tories to care about people like me. I originally intended to vote UKIP - not in any expectancy of them winning the seat, but merely as a protest vote against the lack of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Increasingly, however, it's come to feel as if a vote for UKIP could just as easily be interpreted as a protest vote against burkhas or against immigration, and that's not the protest I want to make. As for the English Democrats, I completely support their vision of a Parliament, Executive and First Minister for England but, even if they were standing in my constituency, their small size and low profile would probably put me off through fear of wasting my vote.
But it's precisely because of this last point - the notion that to vote for a small party (ie. any party other than Labour or Conservative or apparently, now, the Lib Dems) is to waste one's vote - that I have decided to vote for the Liberal Democrats; not out of any desire to see that party form the next government but in the hope that, in the event of a hung parliament with the Lib Dems holding the balance of power, they will use that power to push for a system of Proportional Representation to be brought in for future general elections. The introduction of PR would completely change the nature of politics in this country and would break the stranglehold of Labour and Conservative, making room for those who dissent from the views of the major parties to have their own ideas and opinions taken seriously within the political arena.
In other words, people such as myself, who would, all things being equal, be inclined to vote for one of the smaller parties, should, in my opinion, give serious thought to refraining from voting for the natural party of their choice in this election and consider instead voting tactically in order to bring about what would be far more amenable circumstances for said party at the next general election. Call it an electoral investment, with a very worthwhile dividend to be reaped in 4 or 5 years time. A vote for the Liberal Democrats in 2010 could be the springboard for a far more meaningful vote for one of the smaller parties in a few years time.

Votematch

2010-04-03T01:54:00.001-07:00

You are reading this because your browser doesn't support Iframes.

Try this link instead.

Three cheers for the 'Expenses Crisis'

2009-05-29T13:11:00.001-07:00

Here are three good things about the so called 'expenses crisis':

1) Okay, so it turns out that most of our politicians are brazen chancers with their snouts well and truly buried in the taxpayer-funded trough - what a surprise that is! Still, it's very reassuring to see one of the vital checks and balances of our political system in action and working extremely well; namely, the free press. Corruption has not been allowed to continue indefinitely and the public still have enough power that the politicians have had to sit up and take very serious note of public outrage. This says a great deal for our political system and indeed, the very fact of public outrage at the greed and underhandedness of many members of our political class is a very healthy sign for our political culture; in many countries, including in mainland Europe, politicians' profligacy with public money is expected and tolerated.

2) BBC's 'Question Time' moved to peak viewing hours; Civic Halls packed to the rafters for public meetings with constituency MPs - the British public have not been this animated by politics for decades! Admittedly there seems to be a 'Jerry Springer' element to the masses' new found passion for politics - the thrill of venting righteous judgement on the low-life miscreant squirming on the public stage - but the fact that the issue of financial corruption and the waste of public money seems to have become so important to the British electorate can only be a good thing for the anti-EU movement, bearing in mind that the EU is the institution whose accountants have refused to sign off the accounts for the past 13 years and that MEPs financial packages are notoriously over-generous.

3) The massive level of public contempt for the three main British parties means that UKIP now have a very good chance of achieving a very significant percentage of the vote in the upcoming EU and council elections - perhaps even better than in 2004.

So, it's not all doom and gloom for UK politics after all!

Nothing wrong with Regions

2009-03-27T13:19:00.000-07:00

In an earlier post I admitted that I do not have a problem with thinking of myself as British and that I am quite happy to be a citizen of the United Kingdom. I have a further, more shocking confession to make now. The fact is that I see no problem with the idea of regional government for England.
Before anyone denounces me as a heretic, let me just make two qualifications to what I've just said: firstly, said regional bodies would have to be elected by the populations they serve and to be accountable to their electorates and to the UK parliament, not appointed by central Government or directly accountable to Brussels. Secondly, they would have to have at least the same powers as the Scottish Parliament, with a Government and a First Minister for each region.
The 'West Lothian Problem' would be solved and, in fact, the power of each citizen would in a sense have increased as government would have been brought that much closer to the people.
The main arguments that I have heard or read against regionalisation (aside from the fact that the regionalisation proposed by New Labour was basically the imposition of an EU plan to bypass national government) are (a) that it would 'break up' England and (b) that it would create a situation whereby various parts of England are forced to compete with each other for favour or funds from central government.
As far as argument (a) is concerned, we would be in a situation where there was no overall government for England, but where all parts of the UK were subject to the ultimate authority of the UK Parliament. This is basically the situation we were in for almost 300 years until 1999 and most people in England didn't have a problem with the fact that there was no one political body representing England during that period. It was only the creation of the democratic deficit caused by unequal devolution that led to the desire of many people for an English parliament as a way of addressing the unfairness. With the deficit resolved by powers equal to those of the Scottish Parliament being given to the English regions, I believe that demand for an English parliament would fall away once again.
As for objection (b), that regional government would lead to competition for favour or funding from the UK Government, well, isn't that what already happens with local government? And don't different parts of England already compete for these things, anyway, through their elected representatives in the UK Parliament? Competition isn't always a bad thing anyway, and much of the problem could be resolved by giving the power to raise taxes to the Regional Parliaments, enabling them to be largely locally funded rather than having to get money from Westminster.
I'm not in favour of central government imposing regions on the English against their will and I realise that the people of the North East of England overwhelmingly rejected the idea of regional government when John Prescott tried to sell the idea to them. However, I think the objections may have been in part to do with the fact that the form of regional government that New Labour were proposing involved taking powers away from local councils, and also with the involvement of the EU in Labour's plans to regionalise England. In principle though, I see no reason why people might not be persuaded to support a truly democratic, fair and accountable system of regional government for England as a way of returning fairness to the UK constitution, and I certainly would have no problem with such an arrangement.

Email to Department of Health re: NHS Constitution

2009-03-19T11:03:00.000-07:00

Dear Sir/Madam,
as an employee of the NHS I am currently reading the 'Handbook to the NHS Constitution for England'.
I note from the 'Overview' section at the beginning of the handbook that "the NHS Constitution applies only to the NHS in England. The devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are responsible for developing their own health policies." Yet the overview also states that the the Health Bill, introduced in Parliament on 15th January 2009, proposes that "all NHS organisations, as well as third sector and independent organisations providing NHS care, should be legally required to take account of the NHS Constitution in performing their NHS functions." Since, in actual fact, the constitution only applies in England, it seems unfair that MPs from constituencies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should be entitled to participate in debating and voting on legislation to enshrine it in law. Is there any mechanism in place to prevent MPs whose constituents will not be directly affected by the NHS constitution (as it does not apply in the UK countries in which they live) from participating in the passage of this legislation through Parliament and, if not, how is their participation justifiable?
I look forward to hearing from you in regard to my concerns,
Kind regards
Andrew

Cameron wants to play Happy Families with the UK

2009-03-17T14:21:00.001-07:00

Last night David Cameron came to Watford to speak to members of the local community in an unscripted question and answer session as part of a series of meetings under the banner of 'Cameron Direct' which are being broadcast live over the internet on the Conservative Party website. Incidentally, I think this is a healthy development, a return to 'hustings' type politics and away from the stage-managed, spin-ridden performances we have come to expect from the current regime.
I am not a resident of Watford, but I work there and one of my colleagues is a Tory councillor so she managed to smuggle me in. I was determined to ask Cameron a question in connection with his recent decision to adopt Ken Clarke's proposal for an English Grand Committee to make unchallenged amendments to laws affecting only England (a treacherous sell out, in my opinion, of the English people) and after half an hour or so I managed to catch Mr. Cameron's eye and was allowed to ask my question.
The question I put to him was, "If you win the general election, will you be fair to the people of England and bring in 'English Votes on English Laws', or will it just be 'English Votes on English amendments' that Kenneth Clarke is proposing?"

Now, I realise that the idea of 'English Votes on English Laws' (EVoEL) is not entirely fair to the people of England - the only thing that would be truly fair would be a referendum on how we should be governed, just as the Scots and Welsh were given. However, I wanted my question to be brief and concise, and to highlight the fact that what Clarke has recommended falls short of straightforward EVoEL (because I think the Conservatives are trying to palm it off to the public as being the same thing as EVoEL) and that as such, even compared to the former Tory policy of EVoEL, the new policy is grossly unfair to England.
Here is the full text of Cameron's response to my question, interspersed with my thoughts in italics:

"Well, I think the Kenneth Clarke plan is the right one, I mean let me first say what I won't do. I don't want to have an English Parliament. We've got, frankly, enough politicians, paid enough, with enough big salaries and all the rest - we do not want a whole new English Parliament alongside the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Parliament (sic) and the existing Westminster Parliament.
- Thanks for telling us what we do or don't want, Dave. No need for a referendum, then -
So, how do we deal with this issue that you rightly raise of when, um, English - given that Scottish MPs (sic) in the Scottish Parliament deal with health, education and housing
- erm, don't forget policing, justice, the environment, arts, agriculture etc -
- how do we deal with the issue that when the Westminster Parliament is looking specifically at English health, education and housing, that English MPs have the decisive say. How do we that? Well, I think the Ken Clarke plan is a very good one. We don't want to create a situation where there are two classes of Member of Parliament, and make it too divisive.
- I'm so fed up of hearing this pathetic argument. There are already two classes of MP. Those who can vote on domestic matters affecting their own constituents, ie. English MPs, and those who can't, ie. MPs for Scottish or Welsh constituencies -
We want to keep the United Kingdom together, I think that's important. But what Ken has said in his proposal to me is, look, when the Westminster Parliament's talking about education you just make it sit as a Grand Committee with just English MPs that discuss that bill, and have a convention that when it comes to the whole House of Commons at the end of the process that they don't overturn what the English MPs have done,
- He's trying to make it sound like Scottish / Welsh / Northern Irish MPs won't be able to vote on English legislation, but that's not true, it's only the amendments made by English MPs that will be protected -
and I think this idea of conventions and processes working in our flexible constitution has worked very well over centuries and I think we can make this work as well. What I don't want to do is kind of have a big row between England and Scotland.
- Who said anything about a row? Dave, do you really think the Scots are going to get that stroppy if they're not allowed to participate in governing England's domestic affairs, even though they have their own Parliament and Government to run their country? -
This is the United Kingdom, it's like a family, and I want to keep the family together. Families fall out over lots of things like money and arrangements like this and I don't want to inflame the situation so actually we end up seeing the United Kingdom become the disunited Kingdom. I want to try and keep the family together
- Surely the best way to keep a family together is to treat all the members fairly. Not to disadvantage one at the expense of the others -
because I think we are more together - England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland - than we are if we start to break up."

I sat politely through all this, waiting for Mr. Cameron to invite me to respond to his answer, as he did with all the other questioners, both before and after me. I wish now that I'd just butted in and interrupted him, because when he'd finished his response he just moved straight on and took another question. To me, this is a sign that he is aware of the weakness of his position and doesn't really want to discuss it.
I genuinely believe that the Tories are trying to pretend that the policy they have decided to adopt is not really any different from straightforward 'English Votes on English Laws', in order to give the impression that if they come to power then the West Lothian Question will have been satisfactorily answered. This fraud must be shown up for what it is.

The whole question and answer session can be viewed here. My question is at approximately the 32 minute mark.

There is power in a Union

2009-03-07T14:49:00.000-08:00

I used to think that my support for an English parliament made me an English Nationalist, a term which I don't feel entirely comfortable with. The enemy, I thought, were the Unionists, those who continued to believe in the idea of Britain, so beloved of and endlessly (and sick-makingly) trumpeted by Gordon Brown. Which was a shame, because I quite like being British and I'm quite fond of the concept of the United Kingdom.
But the architects and supporters of the unfair devolution settlement have not just done harm to England, they have also done great damage to Britain and to the UK as a whole. Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Charlie Falconer et al are not, I now realise, true Unionists - they're nationalists. They are the ones who have seen to it that the 'United Kingdom' is no longer united. They are the ones who have ensured that the UK parliament now contains two classes of MPs - those who can legislate on domestic matters affecting their own constituencies and those who cannot because such matters are now the remit of the devolved parliament/assemblies. They are the ones who refuse to extend equal privileges to all the constituent nations of the UK and who have created a situation whereby the degree of democratic influence a UK citizen has over how he/she is governed depends on whether or not he/she lives in one of the 'proud, historic nations' of the UK or merely in one of the 'regions'.
The people responsible for asymmetric devolution have put the interests of individual UK nations above those of the UK as a whole and in my book that makes them nationalists (Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish). To wish to help limit the damage and remedy the unfairness by advocating equal constitutional rights for the people of England makes me, I now realise, not an English nationalist but a believer in, and supporter of, the United Kingdom.

Great minds think alike

2009-03-05T13:12:00.000-08:00

Not too long ago, the Conservatives were a divided party, riven by disagreement and factions. Under David Cameron's leadership, however, they have found a new unity of mind and purpose - so much so, in fact, that on the matter of England's democratic deficit it seems that some Tory minds think completely and utterly alike. Just look, for example, at the similarity between the response of Shadow Justice Minister Dominic Grieve to a letter from the CEP's Gareth Young and the letter I received on the same day (3rd March) from my MP, Mike Penning (Conservative, Hemel Hempstead) in reply to an email from me.
And, even more amazingly, this article on the website conservativehome by Shrewsbury and Atcham MP Daniel Kawczyinski contains a passage which is completely identical to one in the letters mentioned above ("I do agree with David Cameron on this issue. Ken Clarke’s proposals strike a balance between giving the English electorate the accountability they deserve, and preserving the UK as a single state.")
How refreshing to see such unity and togetherness amongst politicians. Looks like David Cameron really has put an end to 'Punch and Judy politics', at least within his own party.

My MP toes party line

2009-03-04T13:45:00.000-08:00

On 3rd March I received this letter in reply to the email I sent to my MP, Mike Penning (Conservative, Hemel Hempstead) on 21st February:

Dear Andrew
Thank you for your recent correspondence about Conservative proposals for an English Grand Committee.
I do agree with David Cameron on this issue. Ken Clarke's proposals strike a balance between giving the English electorate the accountability they deserve, and preserving the UK as a single state.
An English Parliament would move us towards a federal state and would lead to the creation of a new tier of politicians. The federal arrangement it would create would be lop-sided and unstable as England would dominate by virtue of its size - in terms of population and wealth. And it would be both expensive and unneccessary at a time when we should be looking at cutting the cost of politics.
Regional assemblies are also not the answer. They represent artificial areas to which people have no local or emotional ties, and they too would be expensive layers of additional bureaucracy that people in England do not want.
Once again, thank you for taking the time to write to me with your thoughts. If you have any further views on this matter or any other please don't hesitate to get in touch.
Yours sincerely,
Mike Penning

Cameron's EVoEL deception

2009-03-02T14:15:00.000-08:00

I have just been reading this post on the British Democracy Forum where David Cameron's endorsement of the recommendations of Ken Clarke's 'Democracy Task Force' in relation to the West Lothian Question is discussed. Throughout the discussion it seems to be assumed that what David Cameron is claiming will be in the Tory manifesto for the next general election is a straighforward system of 'English Votes on English Laws'.
I have also read various news items and articles which claim, without elaboration, that the Tories are now planning to bring in EVoEL.
It seems that David Cameron has managed to get away with giving the impression that his party are offering a solution to the West Lothian Question which, while by no means perfect, will at least prevent further interference from non-English constituency MPs in matters affecting only England, and could even be a 'halfway house' (to quote Iain Dale's description of EVoEL) on the way to a full-blown English Parliament.
In fact, what Ken Clarke's outfit has recommended and David Cameron has enthusiastically endorsed is not 'English Votes on English Laws' as such. It is merely the creation of an 'English Grand Committee' with the power to make amendments to 'English only' Bills at the second reading without interference from MPs representing non-English constituencies. Bills would then be voted on by all Westminster MPs at the final reading, although amendments made at the second reading could not be voted down.
This mess of a policy is not a proper solution to the West Lothian Question and still leaves the people of England in an unfair situation with regard to the other nations of the U.K. Under this system, as with straightforward EVoEL, there will be no English First Minister or executive to propose legislation. But on top of this problem will be the added disadvantage that once the English Grand Committee has tinkered with an 'English only' Bill at the second reading and made any amendments it feels necessary, the Bill will still not pass into law if it doesn't meet with the approval of the House of Commons as a whole, even if it has the support of the majority of MPs from English constituencies.
English MPs would be able to block any bill that they did not approve of, by adding amendments at the second reading which they knew would not be acceptable to the House as a whole. But there would be no guarantee that legislation favoured by the majority of England's representatives would be passed into law as, if it was not supported by the UK parliament as a whole (including the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish members), then it would be rejected at the third reading and thereby would not become law.
David Cameron has, it seems, succeeded in appearing to be addressing the problem of England's democratic deficit while in fact merely adopting an unsatisfactory, half-baked and confusing policy which still leaves the people of England as victims of constitutional discrimination.

Email to my MP

2009-02-21T15:40:00.001-08:00

Dear Mr Penning,
On 17th July 2008 I wrote to you to express my concerns about the possibility of David Cameron endorsing the recommendations of Kenneth Clarke's 'Democracy Task Force', involving the creation of an 'English Grand Committee' with the power to make amendments to 'English only' Bills at the second reading without interference from MPs representing non-English constituencies. Bills would then be voted on by all Westminster MPs at the final reading, although amendments made at the second reading could not be voted down.
In your reply of 23rd July, you reminded me that these ideas were "nothing more than proposals" and that that they did not "reflect a policy commitment from the Conservatives". While this was true at the time, an article last Monday in Scottish daily newspaper 'The Herald' stated that on Sunday 15th February, David Cameron said that "The solution in the Clarke paper is the solution I'm most attracted to. For English-only legislation, we would have a sort of English Grand Committee. That is our intention and what is likely to go in the manifesto."
It seems clear to me that Clarke's proposal is not a proper solution to the West Lothian Question and still leaves the people of England in an unfair situation with regard to the other nations of the U.K. Under the system proposed by Ken Clarke (and which now seems almost certain to be adopted as party policy) there will be no English First Minister or executive to propose legislation. Also, once the English Grand Committee has tinkered with an 'English only' Bill at the second reading and made any amendments it feels necessary, the Bill will still not pass into law if it doesn't meet with the approval of the House of Commons as a whole, even if it has the support of the majority of MPs from English constituencies.
The people of England will still be shortchanged as far as their democratic rights are concerned (and compared to the other nations of the U.K.) under a future Conservative government. Are you going to support the adoption of this policy by the Conservatives as part of their platform for the next general election, and if so, how can you justify this clear unfairness and discrimination against all people living in England?
I look forward to hearing from you on this matter,
kind regards,
Andrew.

Brown bottles it (again)

2009-02-12T14:04:00.000-08:00

Geert Wilders called Gordon Brown the most cowardly man in Europe today, after the UK government refused to let the Dutch parliamentarian and film-maker into the country for a screening at the House of Lords of his film, Fitna, about what Mr Wilders sees as the connection between certain verses in the Quran and the violence and terrorism of some Islamic extremists.
I find it shameful and embarassing that the government of a country such as Britain, with such a strong tradition of free speech and political freedom in general, should be initmidated by the prospect of controversy and divisive debate and afraid of the possibility of protests and demonstrations, to the point where it would rather try to suppress the debate altogether.
Not only that, but, by using the excuse that Mr Wilders presence would potentially incite racial hatred, the government are, presumably, saying that any attack on Islam is to be construed as an attack on those races amongst whom Islam is the predominant faith. And by taking this stance the government are, by implication, making it clear that certain races are to be accorded the privilege of freedom from having their religious traditions criticised.
This government failed in it's attempt (a year or two ago) to get its proposed legislation against incitement to religious hatred passed through parliament. In true New Labour style, however, it seems to be pressing on regardless with the enforcement of policies for which it has no democratic mandate.

10:49pm
Just watched a discussion of this issue on Question Time. I was genuinely shocked by the fact that most of the panel (the Labour minister Liam Byrne - okay, I suppose it's to be expected in his case - the Tory shadow minister Justine Greening and even the Sun columnist Kelvin MacKenzie) while all claiming to believe in freedom of speech, believed that the government were right to ban Geert Wilders from entering the UK because his views were "unhelpful" and "offensive". Liam Byrne even said that, while he believed in free speech, this film was too "divisive" at a time when the country should be "all pulling together" (perhaps he would rather this country was a one-party State).
The celebrity gardener (Monty Don) very hesitantly suggested that probably "censorship doesn't really work" but the only panel-member who seemed to have any grasp of what freedom of speech is for and why it is so valuable and important was Salma Yaqoob, the leader of the militantly left-wing Respect Party and, ironically, an adherent of the very faith that the government, with this latest ban, are so keen to appease. Perhaps she is more able than the other panellists to think straight because, as a non-white non-Christian, her brain has not been so addled by political correctness.

Jonathan Porritt is a miserable, misanthropic advocate of infanticide...

2009-02-05T15:34:00.000-08:00

...pass it on.

Oh, and here's why.

Interesting times

2008-12-06T15:51:00.000-08:00

This morning on Radio 4's Money Programme I heard Michael Coogan, director general of the Council of Mortgage Lenders, explaining that, as a result of the Bank of England slashing interest rates and the government putting pressure on banks to do the same, the incentive for people to save will be significantly reduced, resulting in banks having less money available to invest which means that they will be less willing to take risks on lending money to potentially risky borrowers. In other words, far from the intended consequence of making credit more easily available, thereby getting the economy moving again, the government's actions are actually contributing to the very stagnation they are trying to remedy. Funny that, since we keep being told that the free-market is the cause of the current economic problems and that it's government intervention that is going to save us.

Speechless

2008-12-06T15:44:00.000-08:00

I hope I am misunderstanding this article and that the report referred to isn't seriously recommending that money raised from top-up fees levied on students at Universities in England (thanks to the votes of MPs from non-English constituencies) be shared with Universities in the other nations of the UK where students receive free higher education. I am wrong, right?

Dunkirk Spirit Needed

2008-12-04T14:15:00.000-08:00

This evening on British Brainwashing Corporation's Analysis programme on Radio 4, former Labour MP Tam Dalyell stated that Scottish devolution has increased the momentum towards Scottish independence because of the fact that politicians of whatever hue, inevitably desire and seek more power for the institutions in which they find themselves 'serving'. I think he is absolutely right and what he said reminds me of a quote I once read from Alexis de Toqueville which went something to the effect that revolutions always occur after a period when the situation of a given population (such as the French in the 1780s) has recently become relatively easier and freer than previously, rather than in response to a period of increased hardship and oppression. The Scots have had a taste of autonomy; it's only natural that they should want more.
Given the inevitability of further Scottish and Welsh freedom to govern themselves (eg. in the form of fiscal autonomy for Scotland or increased legislative powers for the Welsh Assembly) the unfairness of England continuing to be governed by the UK parliament will become increasingly stark and it seems likely that the call for some form of redress will become ever louder and more difficult for politicians to ignore. However, I think there is a real danger that England will still not be treated fairly. Former shadow home secretary David Davies, speaking on the aforementioned Radio 4 programme, made the point that, while the English are at their best when backed into a corner (the famous 'Dunkirk spirit'), the converse is also true; as long as things aren't really bad, the English simply aren't that bothered. I think the apathy that David Davies describes could mean that England ends up being fobbed off with (and tolerating) some sort of partial solution to unfair devolution, designed to simply take the edge off of the problem: For example, regionalisation of England, with the regions being given some powers (similar to those of the London Assembly) but not as great as those of the Scottish Parliament; or a partial version of English Votes on English Laws, such as that proposed by Kenneth Clarke's Democracy Task Force.
It is essential that the people of England refuse to be shortchanged by whichever government is in power in the coming months and years as the other nations of the UK start to become increasingly independent of Westminster. We have been backed into a corner and 'Dunkirk spirit' is required.

Frankenstein's Monster Lives!

2008-12-03T12:44:00.000-08:00

Today I read this fascinating article, the best blog post I've read for a long time. The first part is a very interesting analysis of the relationship between Englishness, Britishness and Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irishness. I particularly liked the idea of Britain as a kind of power-hungry monster, created by, but now having turned on, England.
The second part is a suggested framework for a federal UK. It's very similar to the proposed UKIP model of having one set of MPs doubling as both national parliaments for the 4 UK nations for part of each month and as a UK parliament for the remainder. The article explains very well the benefits of this system and also proposes that it function on the basis of the Single Transferable Vote system of proportional representation, something that I have long believed in myself, as a much fairer system than 'first past the post' and one that avoids many of the problems of other types of PR.
All in all, the article is well worth reading both as an incisive analysis of the present state of the Union and as an inspiring vision of a possible better future for the constitution of the United Kingdom.

It's the economy, stupid

2008-11-25T11:56:00.000-08:00

I must be stupid because I just don't get it. Everyone from Chancellor Darling to Bank of England governor Mervyn King is saying that in order to 'kickstart' the economy and climb out of depression, we need to somehow get the banks to start lending more money.

Banks will always lend money when they think that by doing so they will make a profit (ie. that they will get their money back, with sufficient interest). The only time a bank is not willing to lend money is when it thinks that the loan will not be fully repaid and that the money will therefore have to be written off as 'bad debt'. So, if the government succeeds in pressuring banks into lending money when the banks are reluctant to do so, surely the result is likely to be an increase in bad debt. But isn't that exactly what got us into this mess in the first place - too much money being lent to people who proved unable to make the necessary repayments?

Clearly, I must be missing something.

Reply from my Local Council

2008-11-17T13:13:00.000-08:00

Unfortunately, my council must have watched the Godfrey Bloom video as well, so they were well prepared (see previous post):

17 November 2008

Thank you for your FOI request Andrew. The information you require is asfollows :
Our recyclables go for reprocessing :
Plastic Alternative Waste Solutions in Warrington
Steel London Metal Company in Essex
Aluminium Tom Martins in Leeds
Glass British Glass in Essex
Newspaper Holmen Paper in Sweden
Organic Waste Envar in Cambridgeshire
So far this year we have despatched 250t Steel, 50t Aluminium & 450tPlastic.
Kind Regards
David Austin
Environmental Services Manager

Recycling: Letter to my Local Council

2008-11-16T06:35:00.002-08:00

In this video, UKIP MEP Godfrey Bloom says he suspects that local councils don't really recycle the waste that we are all made to separate so meticulously into various categories. So I decided to write to my council and catch them out:

Sunday 16th November 2008

Dear Sir/Madam,
I note from the page of the Dacorum Borough Council Website entitled "What happens to your recyclables" (http://www.dacorum.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=4132) that both plastic bottles and aluminium cans are first baled and then "kept in a storage area until there is enough stock to send to a reprocessor". I would be most grateful if you could inform me of the location of the reprocessor to which the baled plastic and aluminium briquettes are sent. Also, I would like to know how much plastic and aluminium has been sent to this re-processor so far this year.
I also note that the web page makes no mention of what happens to the steel cans once they have been separated from the plastic bottles and aluminium cans. Please could you inform me of the process by which steel cans are recycled by the Council.
Thank you in advance for your co-operation in this enquiry.
Yours faithfully,
Andrew

Reply from Diane Abbott

2008-11-16T06:35:00.001-08:00

06 November 2008

Dear Andrew,
Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding my tabling of an amendment to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill to give women in Northern Ireland the same abortion rights as in Britain.
I understand that the intervention of a London MP into the matters of a culturally sensitive topic in another country of the United Kingdom may come across as arrogant. However, I felt that it was absolutely the right thing to do. (Aren't you getting sick of this latest labour catchphrase?) The United Kingdom is a union, and it is entirely nonsensical that women in Northern Ireland are not afforded the same rights as women in England, Wales and Scotland and even fewer rights than women from the Republic of Ireland.
My constitutional right is to speak on behalf of all women in the UK, in the same way that Northern Irish MPs have the right to speak and vote on matters that affect people in England, Wales and Scotland, as they did only last May when they tried to restrict the access of English, Welsh and Scottish women to abortion when they voted to ban abortion at 13-24 weeks gestation in Great Britain. So MPs from Northern Ireland have neither a legal or moral case for expecting British MPs to ignore the plight of Northern Irish Women (sic). I believe that this particular issue does indeed raise the so called West Lothian question (the overlap between Westminster and the devolved assemblies). This matter requires careful attention since it is not only politically but constitutionally sensitive.
By tabling this amendment I was not trying to raise the issue of the democratic deficit however I was trying to help create equality for all women in the United Kingdom. Once again thank you for your correspondence.
Yours sincerely
Diane Abbott MP

(Non-italics mine [Andrew])

Letter to Diane Abbott MP

2008-10-22T02:55:00.000-07:00

Wednesday 22nd October 2008

Dear Ms Abbott,
I heard you speaking on radio 4 on Tuesday and on the BBC News on television on Wednesday of this week, explaining your wish to have the provisions of the 1967 Abortion Act extended to Northern Ireland. Your main arguments were that the current situation is undemocratic and that, by treating the women of Northern Ireland differently from those of the rest of the United Kingdom, it makes them into second-class citizens of the UK.
While I do not share your views on abortion, I do share your concern for both democracy and equality of status for all citizens of the United Kingdom and so I was very pleased to learn of your passion for these principles.
I wonder if, like me, you are equally concerned by the fact that UK citizens residing in England are subject to legislation made by MPs representing all constituencies of the UK, while those residing in Scotland, Wales and, indeed, Northern Ireland are, in relation to a whole raft of areas such as education, healthcare and transport, represented through their own national assemblies (or, in the case of Scotland, the Scottish Parliament) and beyond the legislative reach of MPs for English constituencies.
In other words, residents of England are disadvantaged by a democratic deficit in relation to residents of other parts of the UK and, as such, are effectively second-class citizens of the UK.
I would be interested to know your feelings about this situation and whether you are opposed to it at least in principle even if it is not, perhaps, as close to your heart as the issue of the availability of abortions in Northern Ireland.
Yours sincerely,
Andrew

P.S. – I realise I am not one of your constituents but, with all respect, neither are the women of Northern Ireland.

Reply from my MP

2008-09-04T13:17:00.001-07:00

On 23rd July, I received this reply to the letter I sent to my MP on 17 July:

Dear Andrew
Many thanks for your recent further email regarding the West Lothian question. I can certainly understand your concern on this issue, and I am grateful for your kind words about my work as a constituency MP. It is an honour to serve the local community.
You refer to proposals placed before the Party by Ken Clarke's democracy task force. At present, I should emphasise that these remain nothing more than proposals, and do not reflect a policy commitment from the Conservatives. I have taken up this matter with colleagues, who have informed me that we will set out our intentions firmly in our Manifesto for the next election.
I would like to assure you, however, that the issue as a whole is one that the Party takes extremely seriously; Nick Herbert, the Shadow Justice Secretary, has acknowledged that, if left unanswered, the West Lothian question is liable to provoke frustration in England, highlighting as it does problems implicit in the exercise of power without accountability.
Many thanks again for taking the time to write to me on this issue. As you know, I strive to make a commitment to all of my constituents, whether they feel able to agree with my political persuasions or otherwise, so please do let me know if you feel I may be able to help further with this, or any other matter.
Yours sincerely,
Mike Penning

GB in Glesgie

2008-09-04T12:53:00.000-07:00

Just watched live coverage of Gordon Brown in Glasgow giving a speech to the CBI. What a mealy-mouthed hypocrite! He had the front to say that he "would never do anything to harm the Union". He also said that he could only see one problem so far with devolution in Scotland, and that was to do with the relationship between revenue and spending. He went on to say that the second problem (??!) was that people might think devolution was intended to weaken the Union, whereas in fact it was a source of added strength and benefit to the United Kingdom as a whole. The man is so full of hot air I had to open my windows, even though it's raining outside.

Letter to my MP

2008-07-17T12:45:00.001-07:00

Dear Mr Penning,
Since moving to Hemel Hempstead some years ago I have always voted Conservative and had intended to continue doing so.
One issue that has concerned me for a number of years is the unfair devolution settlement implemented by New Labour - the so-called 'West Lothian Question'. I have written to you about my feelings on this matter before and you replied saying that you agreed with me that the current situation is unfair and that you felt an appropriate solution would be some form of 'English votes on English Laws' procedure in the House of Commons. While I don't think this solution would be fully satisfactory, it would at least be a major improvement on the current situation and so, believing (as many people did) that this would be Tory policy should they come to power at the next general election, I was happy to continue in my intention to vote Conservative.
It is with great disappointment that I now find out that the so called democracy task-force's recommendation for a 'solution' to the West Lothian Question is to be to only allow MPs from English constituencies to make amendments to proposed legislation, which will then be voted on as a whole, in amended form, by MPs from all nations of the UK. This is, in my opinion, a pathetically weak compromise which does hardly anything towards balancing up the democratic deficit (although I suppose that is no surprise coming from a task-force headed by an enthusiast for giving away UK government powers to Brussels).
If it is confirmed that the Conservatives will be adopting this abortion of a policy then unfortunately I feel strongly enough on this issue that I will have to refrain from voting Conservative in future elections and instead will give my vote to UKIP, who do have a policy to address the West Lothian Question and return fairness to the UK constitution (with the added bonus that they would also take us out of the EU!)
As for you personally, I believe you have served Hemel Hempstead very well as an MP and regret that I may not be able, in all conscience, to vote for you in the future.
Kind regards,
Andrew
On 23rd July I received a reply to this letter, which you can read here

Cup Fever

2008-05-16T14:10:00.000-07:00

On the BBC News this evening it was announced that both the Welsh and the English national anthems would be played before kick-off at tomorrow's FA Cup final between Cardiff City and Portsmouth. As far as I'm aware, there is no English national anthem. I presume the newsreader was referring to 'God Save the Queen', which is the British anthem and so should be equally applicable to both teams.
I think this might be something to do with trying to boost the TV viewing figures by turning the match into a quasi-home-international.

George and the Red, White and Blue Dragon

2008-04-20T09:10:00.001-07:00

Here is a story I wrote and posted on the Cross of St George forum last year for St George's day. It's a bit over the top but, hey, it's only a story! Also, my views have evolved considerably since writing it, as explained here.

George and the red, white and blue dragon.

Once upon a time there was a small island in the middle of an ocean. The Island was ruled by a great red, white and blue dragon, whose name was Old Jack. In his younger days, Jack had flown far and wide across the world, breathing fire and scaring the people of many lands into acknowledging him as their ruler. But now he was 300 years old – which is very old for a dragon. His once gleaming red, white and blue scales were faded and instead of breathing fire, the most he could manage to sputter out these days was a bit of dirty smoke and gas. He still occasionally flew to far away lands but the people would merely taunt him and throw rocks at him and he usually came back battered and bruised and with his pride considerably dented. So these days Old Jack preferred to spend most of his time on the small island in the middle of the ocean, where he had been born. He felt safe on the island because the people of the island still believed in the dragon’s power. They still acknowledged him as their ruler and were still prepared to feed him and pay him tribute (everyone on the island had to give the dragon some of their money – he was a greedy dragon and the amount of money he demanded from the people seemed to get higher and higher over the years).
The people of the island were made up of several tribes who had once, long, long ago before the dragon came, been separate nations. In the wild mountains to the north of the island lived a tribe called the Skits and in the hills and valleys to the west lived another tribe called the Wellish. Most of the people, however, lived in the flatter, main part of the Island and they, too, belonged to a tribe. The people of this larger tribe were called the Anglish, although most of them had all but forgotten that name. This was partly because the dragon had put a spell on the Anglish to keep them in his power. He would fly up and down the island breathing his poisonous gas into the air and this gas had the effect of making the Anglish people forget that they were an ancient tribe with a proud shared history – they would simply think of themselves as Old Jack’s people and this made Old Jack very happy. He only wished that his poisonous gas would have the same effect on the Skits and the Wellish, but for some reason (perhaps it was something to do with the mountain air) the tribes of the north and west, while still grudgingly acknowledging Jack as their ruler, never forgot who they were.
For some time now the Skits and the Wellish had been complaining about the dragon’s rule. They knew he was getting old and that his power was waning and they had become increasingly bold in their demands to be left alone to mind their own business. ‘Why should we continue to pay tribute to the red, white and blue dragon’ they would ask, angrily. ‘It might have been good for us in the past to have such a feared and powerful ruler, but now he is nothing but a feeble old bag of faded scales. And on top of all that’, they would snarl, ‘he is an Anglish dragon!’ (They said this because the dragon’s main home was in the flatter part of the island where the Anglish people lived, and many of the Skits and Wellish were none too fond of the Anglish.)
Now, Old Jack had a team of servants whose job was to help him rule over the people of the island and to collect the tribute money from them. When he heard the grumbling and complaining of the Skits and the Wellish, the dragon became worried that they would soon refuse to acknowledge him as their ruler, so he asked his servants for their advice. Many of these servants themselves came from the northern mountains and so they encouraged the dragon to listen sympathetically to the demands of the Skits and the Wellish. ‘Give them a bit more freedom’, they said, ‘and they’ll stop complaining about you and let you carry on being their ruler.’
So Old Jack flew to the wild mountains at the north of the island and summoned all the Skittish people to hear him. ‘You are a proud historic nation’, he announced, ‘and so I am going to allow you to manage your own affairs, as long as you continue to acknowledge me as your real ruler.’ The people seemed pleased with this proposal and so Jack then flew to the western hills and summoned all the Wellish people to a large valley where he told them that they, too, as a distinct nation, would from now on be allowed much more control over their own affairs.
When some of the people in the Anglish part of the island got to hear about the arrangements that Old Jack had made with the Skits and Wellish people, they were angry that they had not been given the same freedoms. ‘Are we not also a historic nation?’ they asked. ‘Why should we continue to think of ourselves as Old Jack’s people, when the other tribes of this island have become self-governing nations?’ But whenever he heard them complaining, Old Jack would fly up and down breathing his poisonous gas all over the people and making them forget their roots and their pride and their desire for freedom. However, as time went by, the dragon’s spell began to weaken. It seemed that as he was getting older, not only were his famous red, white and blue scales beginning to fade and even to drop off, but he was also running out of gas!
Now, there was a young lad named George who lived in a remote corner of the Anglish part of the island, in the middle of a wood whose thick trees protected him from most of the effects of the dragon’s noxious gas. He was very proud of his Anglish heritage and had no love for Old Jack. Once a week he would mount his horse and ride to the nearest town (which was quite far away) to buy food and to have a few drinks in the pubs where he would often chat with the other drinkers. He had noticed that recently people had become increasingly fed up with Old Jack’s rule and angry at the way the dragon had refused to recognise the Anglish as a nation in their own right. He decided it was time to challenge the old dragon’s power and so he buckled on his sword and over his shoulders he draped his old white cloak. The cloak had belonged to his father, and to his father before him (and probably to his father before him) and on it was emblazoned a large, bright red cross, the ancient symbol of the Anglish nation.
George rode into the town and stood in the town square and announced to the people that he intended to ride to the cave where Old Jack lived and demand that the dragon leave the island and let the Anglish people finally rule themselves, just as they had done in the old days, hundreds of years ago, before the dragon came. Some of the people laughed when they heard George’s intentions. They did not think he stood a chance against the dragon, even if Old Jack wasn’t as scary and strong as he had once been. But many of them cheered and clapped and shouted ‘Good on yer!’, ‘Good luck, lad!’ and other encouraging things.
‘Will anyone ride with me to challenge the dragon?’, George shouted. The crowd fell silent now. Then, an old man stepped out of the crowd and went to stand next to George. ‘I’ll come’, he said quietly and George smiled at him and turned back to the crowd. ‘Anyone else?’ he asked. This time a young woman stepped forward, then another man and then a small child. Soon almost all of the townspeople (including many of those who had initially laughed at George’s speech) were gathered around George and together they rode from the town, heading in the direction of the Dragon’s cave. On the way they were joined by the people of other towns and villages and by the time they reached the cave they had become a mighty throng, too numerous to count.
Standing on a hill overlooking Old Jack’s lair, the Anglish people began to shout and chant. “Old Jack out! Old Jack out!” they chanted. “Go! Leave! We don’t want you anymore!” The noise was deafening, but there was no sign of the dragon and they began to wonder if perhaps Old Jack was not at home. Then, suddenly, a hush fell across the crowd as figures started to emerge from the cave. The dragon’s servants had come outside to see what was going on.
The Head Servant, shaking with anger, walked slowly forward to address the crowd.
“You go away!” he shouted, shaking his fist at them. “You have no business here, disturbing the peace of the Great Dragon. He is your rightful ruler and you are merely his subjects. Now go back to your farms and your jobs and earn some money. It will soon be time for us to collect Old Jack’s tribute money.”
The people had never had much time for the dragon’s servants, with their high-handed, condescending manner, and now they were enraged by the servants’ refusal to listen to their demands. They jeered and hurled abuse at the servants (the Anglish tongue contained some very sharp and effective terms of abuse) but then they fell silent again as young George stepped forward to address the Head Servant.
“I don’t think you understand,” said George, calmly but firmly. “We aren’t asking for the dragon to leave. We’re demanding it. We are the Anglish, and we were here long before Old Jack ever came to this island. He was only able to live here because we let him. We own this land and we are terminating Old Jack’s tenancy with immediate effect. He must go. Now.” George’s eyes were steely and now the servants, for the first time anyone could remember, looked genuinely afraid.
“Please try to be reasonable”, said one of the most senior servants, an edge of panic in his voice. “The Anglish are not like the Skits and the Wellish. They are not a nation, they are a mongrel people and their land is merely a collection of regions. And they think they're better than everyone else. They need old Jack to keep them in their proper place. Frankly, they cannot be trusted to rule themselves. They are an arrogant and warlike people.” (This from the servant of a dragon who had once terrorised much of the world with his flaming breath!)
“We don’t like war,” growled George, drawing his sword and brandishing it at the servants who moved quickly away from him. “But we will no longer tolerate being bullied, humiliated and insulted by you or that rotten old creature you work for… where is he?” George moved towards the mouth of the cave, shouting. “Come out, Old Jack, the Anglish are here and we’d like a word with you!”
The rest of the crowd started slowly down the hill behind George, but all of a sudden everyone froze as there was a movement at the cave mouth. Two dirty looking yellow eyes were peering from the shadows and slowly, shuffling forward an inch or two at a time, a huge red, white and blue shape emerged and drew itself up to it’s full height, towering above George who stood impassively, sword drawn, just in front of it.
George started forward again, his sword pointing straight at the old dragon, his face a grim mask of determination. Then Old Jack opened his mouth, baring his yellow, crumbling fangs, and breathed a black, stinking cloud of noxious gas straight at the young Anglish lad. George hesitated, then stopped walking. He tried to pull himself together, but he could feel his mind starting to turn hazy, his courage deserting him along with his Anglish pride. Then he had an idea. Struggling to concentrate, he pulled the old white cloak, with the red cross on it, from his shoulders and wrapped it around his face. The dragon continued to breathe smoke at him but now the cloak was covering his mouth and nostrils and protecting him. He could feel the sense of pride and purpose returning to his mind and heart.
Old Jack looked confused, then frightened, as George continued to advance towards him. He took a very deep breath, summoned all his strength and breathed out a huge, dark, foul-smelling cloud of gas. It filled the air, blocking out the sunlight, but still George, protected by the cloak wrapped around his face, marched menacingly towards him. In desperation, Old Jack breathed in again but this time, when he exhaled, all that came out was a thin stream of hot air. Panicking now, he tried again, but all he could manage was a hollow wheeze. He had finally run out of gas.
Under the effects of the poisonous gas, the crowd of Anglish men, women and children on the hillside had begun to forget why they were there. They had forgotten their disdain for Old Jack and many of them had begun to wander off. Now, as the fumes cleared, they started to regain a feeling of brotherhood (and sisterhood) and the anger they had felt towards their old tormentor, Jack the dragon, started to return. As a huge gust of wind blew the last traces of poison from the air, they looked down the hill and saw a huge red cross on a white background fluttering in the breeze where George had taken off his cloak and was waving it like a flag. They began to shout and chant and move, slowly at first, then faster and faster until they were charging down the hill, towards the place outside the cave where Old Jack, looking terrified now, spluttered impotently at the triumphant George.
“Your glory days are over,” George shouted at the cowering dragon. “Now go, before you lose any dignity you might still possess!”
Slowly, Old Jack lifted his huge red, white and blue wings and, with a last frightened glance at the crowd charging angrily towards him, took off into the air and flew up towards the clouds. Soon he was out of sight and, not surprisingly, was never seen on the island again.
The people cheered and danced and sang. They lifted George onto their shoulders and chanted his name and declared that he was nothing less than a saint. And once again the Anglish, that proud, historic nation, who had lived together on the island for hundreds of years, were free.

Class sizes in England and Scotland, compare and contrast

2008-03-24T03:32:00.000-07:00

TEACHERS TO VOTE ON CLASS SIZES, BBC 21.03.08

The National Union of Teachers (NUT) is to vote on a proposal to limit classroom sizes in England and Wales.
Schools Minister Jim Knight provoked teachers' anger this week when he said classes of 38 and even 70 pupils could be managed with teaching assistants... read more

'PROGRESS MADE' OVER CLASS SIZES, BBC 26.02.08

The Scottish Government has gone some way towards achieving its target to drive down primary school class sizes, ministers have claimed.
The Holyrood administration wants a maximum of 18 pupils in P1-P3 classes, but has not set a specific deadline for achieving the target.

Official figures showed 12% were in classes of 18 or under in the first few months of the SNP administration... read more

Unlike the Scottish Government, which governs education in Scotland, the UK Government, which governs education in England, thinks that class sizes are not as important as the ratio of adults to pupils; in other words, large classes are okay as long as there are enough teaching assistants. This is a bad argument because teaching assistants are clearly not as highly trained or as able to benefit children educationally as teachers are. The real issue is money, and considering the fact that, according to 'The Scotsman' newspaper of 20.01.06, state education spending in Scotland is £1,000 per pupil higher than it is in England, it is no surprise that Scottish schools are able to maintain considerably lower class sizes.

The man in Whitehall knows best‏

2008-03-04T11:40:00.000-08:00

In yesterday's debate in the House of Commons prior to Wednesday's vote on whether or not to ratify the Lisbon Treaty already signed by Gordon Brown, Europe Minister Jim Murphy dismissed calls for a referendum, saying that "the place to make these decisions is in this chamber - not on a crane half way above the city sky of London (referring to protesters who had earlier scaled a crane and unfurled pro-referendum banners)."
What he really meant was, even though 88% of the public apparently want a referendum, it should not be up to the public to decide these crucial matters concerning the country's future because the Government knows what is best for us. This, in spite of the fact that even a Labour MP (Gwyneth Dunwoody) has stated that the debate on the various aspects of the Treaty was being "cut short in the most brutal manner" and the Europhile Lib-Dem foreign affairs spokesman Ed Davey described the Government's rushing through of the bill as "damaging to the pro-European position."
How it's possible to be "half way above" something, I have no idea.

More NHS unfairness

2008-03-03T02:36:00.001-08:00

From the Britsh Brainwashing Corporation News website:

NHS parking in Wales 'to be free'

Patients, staff and visitors will be able to park for free at almost every NHS hospital in Wales by the end of 2011, it will be announced later.
The Welsh Assembly Government is expected to confirm free parking will start from 1 April this year...read more

In England, decisions about these types of matters are generally left to the individual Primary Care Trusts (PCTs). It may be that most people in England wouldn't want hospital car-parking fees to be abolished and are happy for the Department of Health to take a 'back seat' and allow decisions to be taken locally. However, the PCTs are unelected bodies and it seems only right that the public should have the final say in how the NHS is run, since it is the taxpayer that funds it. In Scotland and Wales, the public, through their Parliament/Assembly, have this ability. The people of England, who have no dedicated parliament, do not. In England the NHS is run by the Department of Health of the UK Government, elected, in part, by people who will never be affected by many of the decisions it takes (or chooses not to take).

88% want EU referendum

2008-03-02T22:55:00.000-08:00

From today's Guardian:

Local polls say 88% want referendum on EU treatyPatrick Wintour The Guardian, Monday March 3 2008

Campaigners for a European referendum on the EU Lisbon treaty were encouraged before this week's Commons votes on the issue when unofficial postal ballots in 10 constituencies revealed an 88% majority in favour of a referendum on surprisingly high turnouts...read more

When I heard this result being announced on Radio 4's Today programme this morning, the presenter (Ed Stourton, I think) was talking as if we should all be totally gobsmacked. What is so surprising about the fact that people would like politicians to keep their promises?

Who is English?

2008-03-02T08:48:00.000-08:00

Just for the record and to avoid any misunderstanding; as far as I am concerned, anyone who has grown up in England, speaks English as their first language and considers themself English is English - be they pink, brown, black or yellow, Christian, Moslem, Jew or Jedi.

Gaunty to stand for European Parliament

2008-03-01T15:37:00.000-08:00

A couple of months ago, the 'Talk Sport' radio presenter and Sun columnist Jon Gaunt announced that he will be standing for election as an MEP in the 2009 European Parliament elections although he hasn't yet said which party he will be standing for. I am a regular listener to his show (and therefore familiar with his views) and so, despite the fact that he has always avoided overtly betraying any party allegiance, I am fairly sure that he will be running for either UKIP (since he is very opposed to the EU [and, in fact, has a massive downer on politicians in general] particularly since a recent visit to the European Parliament in Brussels) or possibly (though less likely) the Conservatives. The only other possibility I can think of is the English Democrats, but, even though yesterday he discussed the Counterpoint Research thinktank's report into alleged anti-English racism in schools, he has never shown any great appreciation of the post-devolution democratic deficit and is very much a British patriot.
If he is standing for UKIP, I hope they don't live to regret it. Mr Gaunt, while he is a very talented broadcaster, has some rather extreme views that I don't think would necessarily be approved of by the UKIP leadership. For example, he is a vociferous supporter of ID cards and also of the expansion of the DNA database used by the police. He has also stated that he thinks it is okay to torture people suspected of terrorism!
Gaunty's popularity would no doubt be an asset to UKIP, but potentially it could come at a price that, in the end, may not be worth paying.

UKIP Solution?

2008-03-01T14:13:00.000-08:00

Originally posted on my other blog, UK Current Affairs, 28.2.08.

On the UK Independence Party website, UKIP Deputy Leader David Campbell Bannerman states,

"We need to replace all national assembly members, the 129 MSPs in Scotland and AMs in Wales, with Westminster MPs from those nations who sit one week a month in their own national assemblies. The same week every month, English MPs would form an English Parliament. The other three weeks would see them all together in Westminster.

"The Scottish Parliament meets only eight days a month now and goes home early. One hard-working week could replace the MSPs and save a whole layer of politicians in the process.

"And since 75% of our laws are made in Brussels, clearly MPs in Westminster need more to do, or else they just seem to run up enormous expenses."

I think this could be a very good solution to the current constitutional asymmetry. A fair devolution settlement for each of the British nations, without the expense and added bureaucracy of new buildings and extra politicians. Having checked out their website, I like UKIP's other policies too.

Posted by Andrew at 14:22
4 comments:
The Secret Person said...
I can understand supporting this position, but practically it would be unworkable. Can you imagine trying to take away the Scottish parliament? It would only push them even further to independence. If we in England are to stay in the UK, I think it would only be workable in a very loose federation, with the House of Commons becoming an English parliament and a Federal second chamber replacing the Lords, and dealing, in collaboration with the National parliaments, with foreign affairs, immigration and that's about it.

Of course if Scotland wanted the EU and England didn't, which isn't hard to imagine this would be difficult to sustain.

28 February 2008 15:31
Andrew said...
It's not a case of taking away the Scottish parliament, just making it less expensive and bureaucratic by having it constituted of the Scottish Westminster MPs.
I agree that foreign affairs and immigration are really the only things that a UK government is needed for now.
It's true that the EU is more popular with the Scots than with the English but even if staying in the Union (UK) meant leaving the EU, I don't think that would be enough to make the Scots wish to leave the UK.
We really need a public debate and some referenda on the UK constitution and the question of EU membership.

28 February 2008 16:02
wonkotsane said...
I'm a UKIP member even though they don't support devolution. I think they'll change their mind soon.

The UKIP solution is possibly workable if it wasn't for:

1. The fact that British MPs elected in England don't have England's interests at heart.

2. The fact that Scotland will never give up its parliament.

3. English people want a parliament.

29 February 2008 13:41
Andrew said...
In an ideal world I think the UKIP position is the best one - certainly the cheapest and least bureacratic. In the real world, however, I suppose you (Secret Person and Wonkotsane) are right that it is too late to take away the seperate Scottish Parliament at Holyrood or the Welsh Assembly in Cardiff. That being the case, I think the best solution would be an English Parliament with the UK parliament being greatly reduced in size since it's workload would be greatly reduced (although hopefully it would be taking back many of the powers now ceded to Brussels!)
The English Democrats' proposal for a EP within a Federal UK is probably closest to this idea. The only trouble is, the English Democrats do not have as high a profile (as far as I am aware) as UKIP.

01 March 2008 07:52

British Values

2008-03-01T13:47:00.001-08:00

Originally posted on my other blog, UK Current Affairs, 6.1.08.

Gordon Brown, as everybody knows, is always banging on about 'British values' of fairness, tolerance etc. This annoys many people, I believe, for three main reasons:

Firstly, there is the sheer hypocrisy of someone who is partly responsible for the unfair devolutionary settlement described in my previous post, having the audacity to preach about Britain's 'shared values', with 'fairness' or 'fair play' always being at, or near, the top of the list.

Secondly, one senses that Mr. Brown's understanding of the term 'British' involves the idea that it should replace the word 'English'. I believe most English people understand the concept of Britishness to INCLUDE, rather than replace, Englishness, just as the Island of Britain includes the country called England. I'm sure most Scottish and Welsh people see things this way as well.

Finally, if we really are a people held together by our shared belief in, and devotion to this deeply rooted, timeworn set of British values, we really don't need Gordon Brown to keep reminding us of the fact.

West Lothian Question

2008-03-01T13:36:00.000-08:00

Originally posted on my other blog, UK Current Affairs, 6.1.08.

In 1997 the Labour government held referenda in Scotland and Wales which led to the creation of the Welsh Assembly in 1998 and the Scottish Parliament in 1999. The Northern Ireland Assembly has also recently been re-established. This has led to what has become known as the West Lothian Question (named after the constituency of Tam Dalyel MP, who first asked it): How can it be right that in the House of Commons at Westminster, MPs representing Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish constituencies can vote on matters which affect England, but which do not affect their own constituents, as the latter come under the jurisdiction of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly or the Northern Ireland Assembly?
The situation has led to several bills being passed into law (eg. the Act which allowed for the creation of Foundation Hospitals and the Act which introduced university top-up fees) which were only passed as a result of the votes of MPs for Scottish constituencies (even though in Scotland, top-up fees have been rejected by the Scottish Parliament!)
In 1998, Labour's Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine, said that the best answer to the West Lothian Question was to stop asking it. The government has duly continued to ignore the obviously unjust and undemocratic nature of the situation ever since.
There have been a number of opinion polls carried out which have asked people's views on the unjust devolution settlement and in recent years all have shown that a majority of the Scots and Welsh people, as well as of the English, consider the current constitutional situation to be unfair to the people of England. The Conservative Party are proposing, should they achieve power at the next general election, to introduce a 'solution' whereby legislation affecting only England could be voted on only by MPs representing English constituencies.
This policy of 'English votes on English laws' is, in my opinion, unworkable, for a number of reasons, the main one being that it could lead to a situation whereby a Labour government (for example) is in power in the UK as a whole, while the Conservatives have the majority of MPs in England. The Conservatives would effectively be the ruling party in England and yet have no access to the necessary trappings of government, eg. the power to run the various government departments and, of course, the ability to implement a planned programme of legislation.
Recent polls have suggested that the people of England's favoured solution to the West Lothian Question is the establisment of an English parliament with similar powers to the Scottish one. In my humble opinion, the people of England should be offered nothing less than what was given to the people of Scotland; a referendum on the question of whether or not they would like their own national parliament.

Posted by Andrew at 01:48
1 comments:
Tally said...
Your humble opinion is also the opinion of many people in England.
Welcome to the Witangemot.

http://crossofstgeorge.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=28&sid=8eaa4e18d830b53002cd08cb0f869fd807

07 January 2008 00:20