England: the last country in the British Empire?

Here is a recent article by Graham Allen who is the Labour MP for Nottingham North and the Chairman of the House of Commons’ Political and Constitutional Reform Select Committee. Before coming out with the usual tired Regionalism he makes this striking statement:-

“England is the last country in the empire – still ruled, like some untrusted colonial backwater, from Whitehall. As Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland enjoy the fruits of devolution, England remains the most centralised country in western Europe.”

As Jeremy Paxman once said we English are living in the “Scottish Raj”. Although it is true that Scots are hugely over-represented in the British Government; and the British political and media class I think that the colonialism in question may be more of a British structural and institutional issue rather than one that is nationality based.

The characteristic of “Britishness” for years now has been an over centralised state which is obsessed with administrative considerations to the exclusion of all others (like democracy, peoples’ feelings of community, etc.).

The article first appeared in Public Servant magazine and here is the link to the original. Click here >>> http://www.publicservice.co.uk/feature_story.asp?id=21852
Here is the text of the article:-

England: the last country in the Whitehall empire

19 December 2012

Local government has been little more than the delivery arm of Whitehall. Now it must be allowed to get on with finding solutions to local problems and stimulating community growth, says Graham Allen

England is the last country in the empire – still ruled, like some untrusted colonial backwater, from Whitehall. As Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland enjoy the fruits of devolution, England remains the most centralised country in western Europe.

But it doesn't have to be like this. In a recent debate in parliament I argued that independence for local councils is a powerful answer to what we are now calling the English question: what form should devolution take in England now that other nations in the Union have their devolved settlements?

Local government is ready to start its own exciting and challenging journey of independence. As we look across our borders and see the legislative and financial powers available to the devolved legislatures and assemblies, English citizens are right to start asking: "If Wales can agree to provide free prescriptions, why can't my city or my region?" If local government were independent, local areas could make that choice for themselves – and local elections, local parties and local interest would be rejuvenated at a stroke.

The Political and Constitutional Reform Select Committee, which I chair, is conducting an inquiry into the prospects for codifying the relationship between central and local government. The committee did not simply want to produce another lament about local government's lack of autonomy, so we commissioned a draft code from an academic expert. The draft code would fundamentally alter the balance of power in the relationship between central and local government, making local government an equal partner with a guaranteed share of the income tax yield. This would mark a huge change from the present situation where local government is little more than the delivery arm of Whitehall.

The committee has received a record 90 responses to its consultation on the draft code, most of them from councils or councillors eager to be able to enact solutions that develop their communities, rather than have top-down solutions imposed on them by central government.

Alongside LGA chairman Sir Merrick Cockell, I have also been running a campaign for independent local government to raise awareness of the draft code. Travelling around the country, we have been overwhelmed by the support for the principle of localism.

Unless the rights of local government are codified in statute in a way that successive governments cannot easily repeal, power will always drift slowly back towards the centre. Local government should benefit from constitutional protection and be given an inviolable right to exist. This is something that local government in most other European countries takes for granted. We are the odd ones out.

The coalition government has said that it wants to see a radical shift in the balance of power, and more decentralisation. The commitment to localism is laudable, but much remains to be done to make this aspiration a reality and to give it permanence. City deals are an important new step in allowing city regions to set local priorities, but we have to ensure that areas suffering from economic deprivation can also involve themselves in the localism agenda to improve their communities.

Despite the best efforts, the Whitehall default position of micro-management automatically produces legislation which further centralises power. To take just one example: £150m is being nationalised from the local early intervention grant. Whitehall just can't help it. We need to stop the centre from meddling in matters that are best decided locally. Temptation has to be put beyond its reach. That way, local government will have the scope to put forward the solutions that best suit local areas and local economic circumstances.

An amendment to the Parliament Act would be the simplest way to protect a new settlement for local government. The draft code, which can be found on the committee's website, does not pretend to be perfect. It would need work in order to be turned into statute, but it encompasses the broad principles of equality and autonomy that are essential for a harmonious working relationship to flourish. It is a start, an important step in the right direction. I want to create a dialogue among citizens across England about what independent local government could do for them.

In the current economic climate, it is clear that central government cannot provide all the answers for growth and prosperity. Giving those who are experts in their local areas the independence and the power to shape and develop the future of their communities is paramount to a successful economic recovery.

This article first appeared in Public Servant magazine

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

 

Whilst I would give my best wishes to everyone for a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year, we should not forget that the fight goes on!


Consider this gem from what should be England's National Gallery.


The above image is the nativity panel from the medieval Wilton Diptych. A diptych is a painting, carving or piece of metalwork on two panels, usually hinged like a book. The panels on the Wilton Diptych are made of oak, but have been transformed by immaculate painting and gilding, into a heavenly vision.



The Wilton Diptych was painted as a portable altarpiece for the private devotion of King Richard II, who ruled England from 1377 to 1399. The diptych is thought to have been made in the last five years of Richard’s reign, although the artist remains unknown. It is called The Wilton Diptych because it came from Wilton House in Wiltshire, the sear of the Earls of Pembroke.



The original Wilton Diptych can be seen at the National Gallery in Trafalgar Square, London, England. When it first came to my attention the National Gallery were selling cards of the Diptych but they had edited the Cross of St George Flag from their cards. Apparently the Cross of St George might have offended some customer!


The English Democrats served a Race Relations Act Questionnaire and threatened legal action. After our actions, the National Gallery is now selling its cards with the Cross of St George on it. The above is the original image unexpurgated by political correctness!


So if you see or hear of any attempts to belittle our nation even in the small insidious ways don't ignore it! Happy Christmas!

 

“CONSERVATIVES” SUPPORT “LABOUR” OVER “GAY FLAG”

As all regular readers of this blog will be aware, after the bully-boy tactics employed by Merseyside Police against Paul Rimmer, who had merely dared to utter a squeak of protest about the flying of the gay flag over Merseyside Police stations, we took up the case and we prosecuted the Merseyside Police Authority for illegally flying this flag without the required planning permission. We successfully got the Summons issued.

In the meanwhile, as a panic measure in response to this case, that bogus "Conservative", the “Communities Secretary", Eric Pickles MP, rushed through a statutory instrument to make it legal for the police to fly the gay flag without obtaining planning permission.

So here we have a classic case of a “Conservative” Minister in office changing the law with exceptional speed to protect/back-up a political initiative by Labour's Liverpool Council. Is this the Lib/Lab/Con in action or is it a glaring example of Peter Oborne’s 'political class' which acts solely in its own interests?

Now we have received a letter from the CPS taking over the prosecution and discontinuing it. The interesting thing about the letter is that the only point that is either factually correct or legally valid is the point that they make arising from the change of the law.

The Chronology of this change is significant. We 'Laid the Information' at Liverpool Magistrates Court on the 29th August. The Court listed a hearing as to whether to issue the Summons for the 14th September. Pickles issued his Statutory Instrument on the 13th September and it was laid before Parliament on the 17th to come into force on the 12th October. The court issued the summons on the 14th September. The CPS discontinued the case on the 27th November!

When, after the War, Labour Ministers were heard crowing that “we are the masters now!” who would have thought that matters would have gone so far?

When it came out that Eric Pickles was taking this action I had this letter published in the Brentwood Gazette:-

Dear Sir

Re: Eric Pickles MP Article “Fly flags free under my change of the rules” – October 17th

Your readers might like to know the background to Eric Pickles “Change of the Rules” because these rules are being changed for reasons which I suspect most of your readership would not approve of.

The reason for the ‘change of the rules’ is to enable public buildings to fly politically partisan flags to demonstrate the State’s support for the current politically correct causes. Mr Pickles’ decision has come about because the English Democrats’ Police Commissioner candidate for Merseyside, Paul Rimmer, went into a police station in Liverpool to question why the police, who are supposed to be impartial and independent, were flying the “Rainbow or “Gay Rights” flag. For his troubles he was arrested, allegedly on a public order offence, but despite being held for 6 hours and questioned, the police had no case against him and they abandoned any attempt to charge him.

We are now however prosecuting the Merseyside Police Authority for flying the Gay Flag. In fact they were doing so illegally, having not applied for planning permission on any of the 42 police stations that they flew the Gay Flag over.

In the opinion of the English Democrats it is outrageous that the Police of all people should commit a criminal offence and use bully boy tactics against anyone who dares to criticise them.

We are currently appealing for funds to help in our prosecution of Merseyside Police. If any of your members would like to help, please could they ring 07834 543 505 to donate.

Yours faithfully

R C W Tilbrook

57.7 % are ENGLISH!

The Census shows that when the English People fully wake up to what the British Establishment is up to then there will be a decisive shift!

www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/census/2011/index.html
Follow the link to the Census page, click on Ethnicity and Nationality and then National Identity on the left hand side.

National identity in England and Wales

The 2011 Census introduced a question on national identity for the first time. This was due to an increased interest in 'national’ consciousness and demand from people to acknowledge their national identity. National identity is multi-dimensional, so the 2011 Census respondents were allowed to tick more than one national identity. 91.0 per cent of the population identified with at least one UK national identity (English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish, and British).

English identity (either on its own or combined with other identities) was the most common identity respondents chose to associate with, at 37.6 million people (67.1 per cent). English as a sole identity (not combined with other identities), was chosen by 32.4 million people (57.7 per cent).

British identity (either on its own or combined with other identities) was a common identity chosen by 16.3 million people (29.1 per cent). 10.7 million people (19.1 per cent) associated themselves with a British identity only.

Welsh identity (either on its own or combined with other identities) was chosen by 2.4 million people (4.3 per cent). 2 million people (3.7 per cent) associated themselves with a Welsh only identity.

A small percentage of people in England and Wales associated themselves with a Scottish or Northern Irish identity (1.0 per cent and 0.3 per cent respectively). 5.5 million people (9.8 per cent) said they had a national identity which was classed as ‘Other’.

Get all the tables for this publication in the data section of this publication .

ENGLISH DEMOCRATS' CHRISTMAS DINNER, 8th December 2012

 

ENGLISH DEMOCRATS' CHRISTMAS DINNER, 8th December 2012.

Ladies & Gentlemen and fellow English Democrats

Welcome to our Christmas dinner. We intend this to be a regular annual fixture and we will have our meetings in various different hotels, clubs etc. Around the country some of our branches are holding other Christmas celebration events and I know the South Yorkshire branch are also holding one today.

This is part of a regular cycle of our social events, including celebrations for St George’s Day, a summer social and, of course, our main conference and AGM and our Spring Conference. A date for your diary ladies and gentlemen, March 9^th is the date for our Spring Conference which will be in Doncaster and our Annual Conference will be on the 21^st September.

To add to these events we are intending to set up the Chairman’s dining club which will be known as the 927 Club. 927 is the year in which England became a unified Nation State under King Athelstan on the 12^th July 927 AD at Eamont in Cumberland.

This year we have also been working on improving our membership arrangements. We have set up a new membership category, the Sterling membership along the lines of the traditional English hallmark of sterling quality. We have had a successful run of our England Awake magazines and our appeals for financial help have been successful too.

So as we reach the end of 2012, it is time to ask has it been a successful year for the English Democrats?

Well we started the year in January having triggered a referendum to democratise the running of Salford City Council to a Directly Elected Mayor and we then won that referendum. So in Salford we have made a lasting change for the better in their system of local government. We hope in due course that will bear electoral fruit.

In January we also had the Institute of Public Police Research come out with their paper about the right of English Nationalism – “The dog that is beginning to bark”!

Over the course of the year we have started to be invited to speak at University debating societies and I was asked to speak at the University of Nottingham’s Politics Society. I was also asked to do a BBC Daily Politics Soap Box film and in April I gave evidence to the West Lothian Commission, which is the Commission chaired by Sir William McKay that is supposed to be considering what the Government should do to adjust the constitution to take account of the process of devolution.

In April and May we stood 101 candidates in the local elections and London Assembly elections. In the London Assembly elections we spent less than £1,000 on the campaign but still got 22,000 votes.

Ladies and gentlemen I ask you to consider what we could have done if we had had the £200,000 which the less well resourced of our rival parties spent on that election? I bet we would have got more than the 2½% that the BNP got for that money. Indeed we would have got more than the 5% that UKIP got for their far bigger spend!

At the same time we also won the Doncaster Mayoral Referendum, much to the dismay of the local Labour Party. As a consequence Ed Milliband started to talk up the idea that Labour needed to re-engage with English Nationalism!

Quite recently we had the Police Commissioner elections which we went into as the only Party with a consistent record of supporting direct elections for the Chief of Police. All our candidates saved their deposits and in South Yorkshire we came second. Unfortunately Labour managed to get just over 50% of the vote which meant that our second preferences were not counted, but I am told that the vast majority of second preferences in South Yorkshire were for the English Democrats.

At the same time we stood for the first time in the Corby Constituency by-election and now have a functioning branch in Corby.

Since then we have also stood in the Rotherham by-election and got our best percentage of vote yet in a fully contested parliamentary by-election and now have a functioning branch in Rotherham as well.

So yes ladies and gentlemen I do think 2012 has been a good year for the English Democrats.

The future looks bright for us as we head towards the New Year which will be a year in which we have County Council elections. I hope that we will be able to manage to stand the 300 or so candidates which we require for us to qualify for a Party Election Broadcast. We also have the election campaign for the Doncaster Mayoralty, which we currently hold and I am already in discussions with Peter Davies about our plans for that election.

Labour’s dirty tricks department “Hope not Hate” have made getting Peter out their top priority. This is what they have said:- “Removing Peter Davies as Mayor of Doncaster is really important. Since being elected he has attacked and undermined trade unions, he has blocked funding for Gay Pride, invited the co-founders of the Campaign Against Political Correctness onto his cabinet to get rid of ‘politically correct non jobs’ and has attacked Black History Month and International Women’s Day.”

It might interest you to know ladies and gentlemen just how much more effective we are on a level playing field than winning votes than UKIP. In the Police Commissioner elections in Essex I managed to have distributed less than 20,000 generic national leaflets and in total, including notional expenditure, spent less than £1,000 on the election. I saved my deposit and got 11,500 votes. The UKIP candidate told me at the count that he had had distributed getting on for 250,000 leaflets. I suspect that we will find when the accounts are published that he and UKIP spent many multiples of what the English Democrats spent and even so he only managed to get just over 15,000 votes. When we can equal the resources and equal the spend of UKIP then we will beat them hands down!

Another interesting item is that, in May, in the Wheatley Ward, Doncaster, our candidate conducted an experiment to see whether our candidates were winning votes because of their personal reputation or whether the votes were coming in because of the English Democrats’ branding.

The candidate, Roy Penketh, is well known in Doncaster, having previously been Chairman of the local Conservative branch and a long serving Conservative Councillor. He is also on various governing bodies.

Roy’s suspicion was that the 786 (23%) vote that he got last year as an English Democrat wasn’t radically affected by his relatively high personal profile, so this year he used only our general recruitment leaflet rather than a personalised leaflet – such as he had used in last year’s election (Doncaster being one of those local authorities that has elections three years out of four in multi-councillor wards).

It is interesting that the results of his experiment show that it was clearly English Democrats’ branding that was bringing in the votes. This year he again came second with 806 votes (28.25%).

Next year we English Democrats need to work harder at raising funds and increasing our brand awareness. We also need more focus upon the nuts and bolts of electioneering, but we can do this with some confidence that if we are able to get the necessary organisational, logistical and resource issues sorted out, that it will be possible for us to achieve a genuine and sustainable electoral breakthrough! I shall be focussed on doing so – please help!

As we continue to grow and mature as a Party and our brand awareness grows amongst the electorate, I expect that the superiority of our brand will become ever more apparent.

Then consider where this shows that our Cause is on Mahatma Gandhi’s famous scale of steps towards political victory? Gandhi said:- “First they ignore you , then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.”

Our route is through the electoral system and there is no magic bullet that will enable a short cut. We need hard work and plenty of volunteers to stand! That is the one and only path that is within our power to progress. It is also the only path that has led to us getting any coverage at all by the media, almost all of which hate the very idea of us and of English nationalism. So please help in whatever way you can!

England to be free of EU in 2014?

The Daily Telegraph has started to get a bit alarmed over the EU status of Scotland after Independence. The article below shows that the point is being used against the SNP because of their Europhile stance. As usual the status of England is underepresented but Ian Campbell's letter on Saturday has sparked some interest.

The terms of the Act of Union 1707 are clear. What was created by the fusion of the Kingdoms of England and Scotland was a new Kingdom:- "The united Kingdom of Great Britain”. The current full title of the UK is the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".

So it is obvious to anyone who has a basic understanding of constitutional law that if the Kingdom of Great Britain is dissolved then, whatever our political masters might try to cobble together, the result will be a constitutionally different State. That new State will not have been a signatory State to the European Union. This is why as Mr Barroso has stated the new or “successor” States will be outside of the EU.

Focussing just on Scotland's position this was made clear by Lord Mackenzie-Stuart, a judge on the European Court of Justice (1973 -1988 ) and and the court's first British president (1984 - 88) "Independence would leave Scotland and something called 'the rest' in the same legal boat. If Scotland had to reapply, so would the rest. I am puzzled at the suggestion that there would be a difference in the status of Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom in terms of Community law if the Act of Union was dissolved." (Scotland on Sunday, 8 March, 1992).

Such an outcome would be very good for any Eurosceptics (who are not fanatical Unionists!) because the end of the United Kingdom would therefore automatically result in the other "Successor States", like the newly independent England, also being out of the EU! This would apply to Northern Ireland too.

So if Scotland becomes independent, England would be free of the EU and free of paying our EU membership subs, currently £19.2 billion per year, and also free of paying Barnett Formula etc subsidies to Scotland of £32 billion per year (as calculated by the House of Lords)!

There is one curious wrinkle in the consequences of Scottish independence, which is that the Kingdom of England that would be left independent and as a "Successor State" incorporates Wales this is because the 1536 Act of Union between England and Wales predates the 1707 Union with Scotland.

"SNP acting like 'scoundrel' for rejecting Barroso's EU warning

SNP ministers have been accused of acting like a “scoundrel” as they refused to accept the European Commission president’s confirmation that a separate Scotland would be outside the EU.

John Swinney, the SNP Finance Minister, told a Lords committee that Jose Manuel Barroso’s statement it was “obvious” that an independent Scotland would have to apply from scratch was “without foundation”.

Despite holding no legal advice on the issue, he said there was nothing in EU treaties to support the president’s ruling that Scotland would lose the UK’s opt-out from the euro and the rebate negotiated by Baroness Thatcher.

But peers accused him of relying on “irrelevant” and “implausible” arguments, with one lord comparing the SNP’s objections to Mr Barroso’s reasoning to the “last refuge of a scoundrel”.

Lord Lipsey, a Labour peer, said it was “bizarre” the SNP expected them to believe a Scottish minister who had admitted taking no legal advice over the “considered” view of the commission president.

In another shift in policy, Mr Swinney claimed Scotland could negotiate membership in the “window” between a ‘yes’ vote in the autumn 2014 referendum and actual separation from the UK in 2016.

However, European Commission sources told the Daily Telegraph negotiations on EU membership could not begin until Scotland had become an independent country.

President Barroso wrote this week to the Lords economic affairs committee confirming a separate Scotland would "become a third country with respect to the EU and the treaties would no longer apply on its territory."

Mr Swinney claimed there was nothing in the EU’s treaties to support this view and it was significant the president had not specified the provisions under which Scotland would leave.

But Lord Lipsey pointed out EU treaties only apply to member states and it is therefore “not relevant whether there's a treaty reference because Scotland is not then a member state.”

“To retreat into clearly implausible references to what is referred to in the treaty to which you would no longer be a signatory because you are no longer part of the EU seems to me to be the last refuge of a scoundrel,” he said.

He questioned whether the SNP’s claims the president was wrong “can be sustained for a single second”.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, the former Tory Scottish Secretary, said the SNP was suggesting that the European Commission chief “doesn’t know what he’s talking about”.

Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market, the committee’s chair, questioned why the SNP had not approached the commission on the issue and said its rejection of the president’s opinion seemed to have been dreamt up “overnight”.

But Mr Swinney said: “Essentially, I don't agree with the contents of President Barroso's letter for the reason that I do not see the basis within the treaties upon which that remark is founded.”

He claimed it was “interesting” that the president’s letter made reference to the section of EU treaties that deals with applications from prospective members but not to the part that deals with countries leaving."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/9738312/SNP-acting-like-scoundrel-for-rejecting-Barrosos-EU-warning.html

Cameron to back gay weddings in church

The English Democrats haven't got a specific manifesto item on "Gay Marriage" but then neither have any of the other parties!

Cameron has no democratic mandate at all for this proposal and therefore the very least that should happen in a real democracy is a referendum. Otherwise we are into a battle of semantics whose sole purpose is the cynical and blatantly political one of diversion tactics to spin/divert attention from the Cameron government's abject failure to tackle the deficit and also their drastic devaluation of our currency.

Gay Marriage is not an issue that has any significant popular demand behind it either. There have only been 22,000 "Civil Partnerships" and no doubt many less gay couples would actually wish to "marry" especially when by doing so they might entangle themselves in the legal snarl up that is modern divorce.

English people traditionally call a table:- a "table"; and a formalised union between a man and a woman, we call:- a "marriage". If someone with no mandate to do so decides to call a table:- a "chair" they merely make themselves look silly and arrogant - just like Cameron over this issue!

This is what we have got in our manifesto:-
3.1 Families
3.1.1 It is often overlooked that our society is founded on the institutions of marriage and family life. The family is the place where cultural and moral values are most successfully passed from one generation to the next.
3.1.2 The English Democrats favour the promotion of marital families, consisting of mother, father and children, as the preferred building block of our society.
3.1.3 The English Democrats wish to create a social and financial environment where men and women can enjoy the opportunity of a career and also raise a family.
3.1.4 New attitudes and practices are needed so that raising a family is no longer seen as a second best option to the maximisation of wealth and leisure.
3.1.5 We need families with children because without them our nation and way of life will cease to exist.
3.1.6 We need young people to train as nurses, doctors, police, teachers, soldiers and all the many other occupations that a society requires.
3.1.7It is English Democrat policy to strive to make family life culturally desirable. We will advocate taxation and welfare policies that are conducive to family life".


Here is an article about this issue which mistakes it as a serious attempt at reform rather than a misconcieved Cameron spin operation trotted out whenever he needs to divert attention away from a serious policy failure:-


Govt goes back on word over gay marriage in church

Fri, 7 Dec 2012

The Government has turned back on its promise not to allow same-sex marriages in church.
 
Its consultation repeatedly promised that same-sex weddings would only take place in civic, not religious settings.

But under plans to be revealed next week, the Government will give its backing to religious organisations that wish to conduct same-sex weddings.

Damage

It claims “locks” will prevent churches from being forced to host same-sex marriages. But there is concern that this will not be sufficient.

Tory MP Peter Bone said the news will “hugely damage the Government in electoral terms”.

And Coalition for Marriage (C4M), which has seen over 600,000 people sign a petition against redefining marriage, criticised the decision.

Freedoms

Colin Hart, Campaign Director of C4M, said: “The Government say they have a double lock for churches but in practice a double lock could become a double jeopardy.

“Churches could be embroiled in legal actions.

“The Government seems to have decided that it’s better for churches to be sued than for the Government to be sued in the European court.

“Surely they need to reconsider this rushed legislation which is jeopardising the freedoms of those who believe in traditional marriage.”

Vulnerable

Paul Goodman, the Executive Editor of influential blog ConservativeHome, wrote, “if some churches, say, agree to conduct same-sex marriages, but others refuse, what happens to the latter when a legal case is brought against them?”

He added: “I’m not a lawyer, but it seems at least possible that a church which refuses to conduct same-sex marriages was vulnerable before the Prime Minister’s change of heart – and is even more vulnerable after it.”

A spokesman for the Government said: “We are committed to bringing equal civil marriage forward and the consultation results will be announced next week.

‘Locks’

“We are very clear that religious organisations must be protected and that none will be forced to conduct same-sex marriage.

“EU law is very clear that this is the case and we will additionally bring in very strong legal locks to ensure that this is watertight.”

Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband have both previously backed same-sex marriage in churches.

Here is a link to the original article:-
http://www.christian.org.uk/news/govt-goes-back-on-word-over-gay-marriage-in-church/?e071212

British Ministers rape English Countryside!

England's Countryside is under attack from Conservative Ministers anxious to pay back their developer backers.

The Conservatives took many millions in donations from developers to fund their General Election campaign. Now its pay back time! 

But of course the only part of the "UK" that the British Government have direct rule over is England. So guess where all the concrete must go! 

Here is an email from the Campaign for Rural England urging action on this topic. It is very worthy and no doubt worth supporting but they don't understand the political dimension of this threat to England! 

Only the English Democrats are seeking to solve that!

I’m sorry for this emergency email - only we’re really worried by the Planning Minister’s latest announcement that he wants to increase England’s built up area by a third.
This could equate to building over every square inch of a county the size of Devon.

We need your help to persuade the Government that this isn’t necessary – please write to your MP today.

There’s a bill that’s being debated in parliament – the Growth and Infrastructure Bill – that will allow the countryside to be damaged and erode local democracy unless we ask MPs to improve it.
We agree we need more houses – but there are already enough previously developed sites for 1.5 million new homes.

Take action: Please email your MP now asking him or her to stand up for a Growth Bill that protects the countryside

At the moment, the Growth Bill threatens to take planning powers away from councils if they don’t make decisions fast enough – this would make it easier for developers to build on green field sites.
The Bill could also allow England’s Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and National Parks to be damaged by intrusive communications paraphernalia – as well as prevent local communities from protecting their village greens from development.
Email your MP now

Thank you very much,



Laura Jansen

Very worthy but they don't understand the political dimension to the threat!