Leadership of the No to EU Campaign
In the coming months the Electoral Commission will be deciding who to “designate” as “Leader” of the “No” Campaign in the EU referendum. The Leader of the campaign will also get the public funding for the Campaign of about £1,000,000!
Below is what the Electoral Commission say are the rules. I expect that the Electoral Commission will however be looking to appoint a Leader who they think is credible enough to pass muster but not credible enough to win! That is what John Prescott tried to do in his North East Assembly Referendum. The Electoral Commission no doubt now forgets that it is the Minister who appoints them!
“There is a statutory test in PPERA that the Commission must apply when assessing applications for designation:
* If there is more than one applicant for an outcome, the Commission shall designate whichever of the applicants appears to the Commission to represent to the greatest extent those campaigning for that outcome.
When we assessed applications for the Referendum on Independence for Scotland, we used a decision making process to apply a test, based on the criteria set out below. Based on the legislation for the referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union as it is currently drafted, we expect the Commission to take similar consideration into account during the designation process for the EU referendum.
* How the applicant’s objectives fit with the referendum outcome it supports
* The level and type of support for the application
* How the applicant intends to engage with other campaigners
* The applicant’s organizational capacity to represent those campaigning for the outcome, and
* The applicant’s capacity to deliver their campaign (including its financial probity)”
British counter-terrorism strategy to be used to enforce political correctness
Recently a “Conservative” MP, the unmarried Mark Spencer, surprised many of those who are not paying attention to direction of travel of British politics by enthusiastically endorsing the idea that “Extremist Disruption Orders” should be used against any teacher (and shortly, no doubt, any public speaker) that dares to teach traditional Christian morality by indicating disapproval of “gay marriage”.
It therefore suddenly became apparent to some of the newspaper reading public that the focus in combating “extremism” was shifting from what most members of the public had thought was the objective, which is to deal with the Jihadist threat from fundamentalist Muslims, to one where the Government was in fact focusing on crushing opposition to political correctness by using blatant and increasingly heavy handed Police State tactics.
For those prepared to do a little bit of research it is worth considering the elements of “CONTEST” which is the rather silly jargonistic name that the government has given to its “Counter Terrorism Strategy”.
"CONTEST" and its agenda is part of the reason why the police are now so busy, that in the words of the Head of the National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC), Chief Constable Sara Thornton, that police should no longer be expected by the public to turn out for burglaries!
Instead of doing what the public would want our police to do, which is tackling old-fashioned crime and criminals, instead they are being used as part of the UK State's enforcement of radical secularism, political correctness, multi-culturalism and diversity. That is the reason why so many people who have often merely made unpleasant or over-the-top remarks on Facebook are being treated more seriously than burglars.
One of the core elements of "CONTEST", is "PREVENT". Here is what the Government says "PREVENT" is about:-
“The Prevent strategy:
responds to the ideological challenge we face from terrorism and aspects of extremism, and the threat we face from those who promote these views provides practical help to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism and ensure they are given appropriate advice and support works with a wide range of sectors (including education, criminal justice, faith, charities, online and health) where there are risks of radicalisation that we need to deal with
The strategy covers all forms of terrorism, including far right extremism and some aspects of non-violent extremism. However, we prioritise our work according to the risks we face. For instance, following the death of soldier Lee Rigby in Woolwich, the Prime Minister is leading a task force on tackling extremism and radicalisation. The special committee, which includes senior members of the cabinet and security chiefs, builds on the Prevent strategy.
The Home Office works with local authorities, a wide range of government departments, and community organisations to deliver the Prevent strategy. The police also play a significant role in Prevent, in much the same way as they do when taking a preventative approach to other crimes.
We use a range of measures to challenge extremism in the UK, including:
where necessary, we have prevented apologists for terrorism and extremism from travelling to this country
giving guidance to local authorities and institutions to understand the threat from extremism and the statutory powers available to them to challenge extremist speakers
funding a specialist police unit which works to remove online content that breaches terrorist legislation
supporting community based campaigns and activity which can effectively rebut terrorist and extremist propaganda and offer alternative views to our most vulnerable target audiences - in this context we work with a range of civil society organisations
supporting people who are at risk of being drawn into terrorist activity through the Channel process, which involves several agencies working together to give individuals access to services such as health and education, specialist mentoring and diversionary activities - more information on Channel can be found in the Channel Guidance and Channel Vulnerability Assessment”
Click here for the full article:- CONTEST, the government’s counter-terrorism strategy.
It should also be noted that ‘Extremism’ is now defined…. "as vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values". The "Fundamental British Values" are being defined as "democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs". It is the state enforcement of the last clause which is at odds with traditional values and traditional English Liberty.
In this new wort should perhaps therefore not be surprising that NHS workers for example are reporting that they have been forced to attend seminars on "PREVENT" with the entire focus of their being expected to deal with is the threat of “Far-Right extremists” such as the EDL. In refocusing "PREVENT" on attacking the EDL and, no doubt, shortly any expression of Englishness, the authorities are in full conformity with the way that various EU bodies have been urging that these counter attacks should be deployed across the whole of the EU against those with “Right-wing” views.
It is a salutary thought to remember that the first “terrorists” were in fact the “Left-wing” French revolutionaries using the coercive powers of the State to transform France through La Terreur! No doubt soon "Fundamental British Values" will be the revolutionary "declaration of the Rights of Man"!
"Diversity" in 15th Century England?
It seems that even the 15th Century English nobility must be presented as being “Diverse”!
The article below is from the “Right on” Leftist newspaper “The Independent”. It illustrates perfectly the extent of historical untruthfulness and disinformation that the "Arts Council for England" and "Equity" and the "Actors Union", insist upon going to propagandise their political ideologies of “multi-culturalism” and “diversity”.
The reported row shows that to the publically funded Arts Council for England considers it more important to cast plays in a “diverse” and “inclusive” fashion than to present either a vision of the truth to audiences or even to present a play focussed on doing its best for the audiences’ benefit. On the contrary every play this unaccountable quango thinks should be an opportunity for multiculturalist propaganda!
I would suspect that any local theatres which receive public funds will refuse to allow the play to be presented there. So if you want to see it you may need to go to Kingston!
Here is the article. What do you think?
“Trevor Nunn defends all-white Shakespeare histories
One of Britain's most celebrated theatre directors, Sir Trevor Nunn, is embroiled in a furious row over the all-white cast chosen for his latest Shakespearean production, The Wars of the Roses. The distillation of four history plays, which opens at the Rose Theatre in Kingston next month, will be performed by a 22-strong cast led by Joely Richardson and Rufus Hound.
The casting has been condemned by the actors’ union Equity and drawn criticism from Arts Council England and diversity campaigners who are angry at what they describe as a “whitewashing” of history. Malcolm Sinclair, the president of Equity, said: “Whilst wishing every individual actor in the production well, can it be acceptable best practice in 2015 to cast a project such as this with 22 actors but not one actor of colour or who apparently identifies themselves as having a disability?”
And in a statement, Equity’s minority ethnic members committee said: “To present this benchmark of British heritage in a way that effectively locks minorities out of the cultural picture [literally] flies in the face of the huge conversation taking place in British media at present, of the very real progress made in recent years to increase diversity in our industry.”
Responding to the criticisms, Sir Trevor told The Independent on Sunday said he was a longstanding member of the movement to “cast, whenever possible, according to the principle of diversity”, but in this case of The War of The Roses he had made an “artistic decision” to cast according to “historical verisimilitude”.
He added: “The connections between the characters, and hence the narrative of the plays, are extremely complex, and so everything possible must be done to clarify for an audience who is related by birth to whom. Hence, I decided that, in this instance, these considerations should take precedence over my usual diversity inclination.”
That explanation was confirmed by a spokesperson for the Rose Theatre, who said: “A creative decision was taken by the director that a naturalistic historical approach in casting was required.”
Critics have questioned the “verisimilitude” of the production, which amalgamates Shakespeare’s Henry VI trilogy and Richard III and is sponsored by Norway’s largest financial services group, DNB. Norwegian actor Kare Conradi was chosen to plays Edward IV. And two British actresses, Joely Richardson and Imogen Daines, play the French characters Margaret of Anjou and Joan of Arc.
Simon Mellor, executive director of arts and culture, Arts Council England said: “This production seems out of step with most of British theatre where casting that ignores an actor’s race is increasingly the norm."
He added: "Whilst we do not fund the Rose Theatre, we expect organisations we fund to actively ensure their programme, and the artists that create it, reflect the people of contemporary England.”
And actor Danny Lee Wynter, founder of Act For Change, which campaigns for greater diversity in the arts, said: “The Wars of the Roses caused us concerns, particularly the justification of historical accuracy which displayed a lack of awareness of the debate ... It’s very hard in this day and age to have a company that size which is all white.” Mr Wynter added: He added: “They have not been ‘historically accurate’ in having a Norwegian actor in the company.
Trevor Nunn, the Rose Theatre Kingston, and Ginny Schiller who cast this production have placed themselves in a tremendously unfavourable corner ... worryingly, some will take the Rose Theatre’s whitewashing of history as gospel.”
Ms Schiller, who cast the play, told The Independent on Sunday: “On this occasion Trevor Nunn – a director with a proven commitment to diverse casting – decided that because of the complex family tree and conflicting claims to the throne through direct lineage to Edward III, a naturalistic ‘colour aware’ approach was required.” She added: “All the supporting actors will play many parts, and at some point in the trilogy take on roles who are related to the Houses of York and Lancaster by blood. This is why even those roles with no genealogical link to the families were also cast white.”
In a statement last night, Sir Trevor said: “Having been involved since the early 1970s in the movement to cast, wherever possible, according to the principle of diversity, I am, of course, saddened to discover that Equity has criticised the casting for my current project.” He added: “I took the artistic decision that a trilogy of Shakespeare’s early history plays, telling in documentary detail the story of the English monarchy and English nobility in the second half of the 15th century, should be presented with, as far as possible, historical verisimilitude.”
The row highlights the continuing debate over the lack of diversity in British theatre and comes just months after actor Adrian Lester, speaking during an event at London’s National Theatre, said: “It’s up to us to gather in groups and embarrass the sides of the industry that we can...and to consistently, always, constantly ask for change.”
Diversity is one of the biggest challenges facing the arts today, says Equity, and the union recently issued its first ever policy on ‘inclusive casting’ to tackle what is calls “discrimination across the industry.” This calls for targets for casting actors from diverse backgrounds, regardless of sex, disability, race or sexuality, along with equality monitoring of performers, stage management and creative teams.
Julia Horan, a member of the Casting Directors Guild of Great Britain, commented: “I think that everybody in the industry supports the idea of inclusive casting and it is part of a constant conversation about who we should cast which is taking place in theatres across Britain.” But she added: “There’s a wider issue of a lack of diversity which extends beyond casting to the entire industry itself. Diversity only moves forward when the people doing the picking are diverse and if there’s no diversity in that then there will never be any true diversity in terms of who’s on stage.””
(Here is a link to the original story>>>Trevor Nunn defends all-white Shakespeare histories - News - Theatre & Dance - The Independent )
SHOULD WE HAVE PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION?
There are arguments put up by the, mostly self-interested, defenders of “first past the post”. First past the post is the current system for electing Members of the House of Commons, under which the candidate who gets the most votes wins the seat. These are not to be on the basis that it is a fair system, or even that it is a democratic system, but rather that it is the system of voting which has traditionally produced a strong government. This is said to be unlike many European countries which have proportional representation; Italy being the example often quoted.
There are increasing difficulties with this defence of first past the post. One is that it is not very historic. Before the Second World War there were often coalitions and, in any case, the current party alignment cannot sensibly be considered as going back before the re-establishment of the Conservative Party in 1922 over the issue of Irish Independence.
The defence also suffers from the difficulty that our Nation’s social conditions have now changed and a smaller proportion of the electorate is voting. Even during General Elections the results frequently show no more than about 60% turnout of the registered electorate. This is a registered electorate which probably only represents 80% of those who are eligible to be registered as electors.
Also the support for parties other than Labour and the Conservatives across Great Britain has been steadily increasing. This is not only in the striking cases of the nationalist votes in Scotland and Wales, but also in England.
Also the two main post-war Establishment parties, the Conservative and Labour Parties, have ceased in any meaningful way to be mass membership parties. In the late 1950’s the Conservatives had over 2½ million paid up members and Labour had nearly 2 million, whereas the Conservatives now have perhaps 100,000 paying members (if you allow for all their various concessions) and Labour may now have 150,000 paid up members. The Parties themselves are therefore no longer either representative of, or even in touch with significant strands of public opinion. Indeed both parties are now more representative of what the commentator and journalist Peter Oborn called the elitist “Political Class” rather than of any strand of democratic populism.
In these circumstances it is not perhaps surprising even if regrettable that the leaderships of both of these increasingly unrepresentative parties are anxious to hang on to the increasingly undemocratic first past the post.
To illustrate how undemocratic the system is, it is worth considering that Tony Blair won his last landslide majority in the House of Commons in 2005 with the votes of just 21.6% of the electorate.
David Cameron, despite the current unequal size of some constituencies favouring Labour, has won his parliamentary majority with the votes of just over 26% of the electorate.
It is therefore obvious that the “first past the post system” has a tendency to clothe the Establishment party with the votes of only about a quarter of the registered electorate with the parliamentary appearance of being a democratic majority.
Consider also in the recent General Election the numbers of votes required to elect a Liberal Democrat, a Green, SNP, UKIP, Conservative or Labour.
Here are the figures:-
Party
|
Votes
per seat
|
Conservatives
|
34,244
|
Labour
|
40,290
|
SNP
|
25,972
|
Lib
Dem
|
301,986
|
DUP
|
23,032
|
Sinn
Ffein
|
44,058
|
Plaid
Cymru
|
60,564
|
SDLP
|
33,269
|
UUP
|
57,467
|
Ukip
|
3,881,129
|
Green
|
1,157,613
|
This is a voting system whose democratic credentials are increasingly threadbare.
It is in these circumstances that parties like the English Democrats, and, indeed, all of those who care for the health of our county’s democracy and for the ideal that the political system should deliver policies which are in accordance with the majority of our Nation, are calling for proportional representation.
There are a variety of systems of proportional representation, the details of which could easily run to the contents of a full (and tedious) text book. Suffice to say that almost all of them deliver results which would be much more representative of the political will of the People of our Nation. As most European political systems show, when not tested to destruction by EU idiocies, (such as poor suffering Greece), proportional representation produces reasonably stable governments which are a better reflection of their country’s national will than our current electoral system.
Robin Tilbrook
Chairman
English Democrats
I recently suggested that supporters of our Cause might like to write to the new Minister of English Devolution. Here is a sample of what one has written which is perhaps long for a Lobbying letter but comes from the heart and makes the point well.
Mr Dominic Raab MP
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for English Devolution
Ministry of Justice
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ
7th August 2015
Dear Mr Raab,
Re: English Devolution
I was pleased to learn of your appointment, as resolving the “English question” was a Conservative manifesto pledge, and consequently, I am expecting a resolution acceptable to us English including an English Parliament.
As an Englishman, I, and many of my colleagues, friends, business acquaintances, and family, have strong views on the subject, and have had these for many years, especially as we are now strangers in our own country. My thoughts, and those of others, follow below.
In September 2014 the people of Scotland voted 55% to 45% against independence after a long and sometimes antagonistic campaign by both sides of the divide. Just two days before the people of Scotland cast their votes in the referendum, the leaders of the three unionist parties - David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg made a public vow to give Holyrood more powers. Mr Cameron promised the day after the referendum that if he won the 2015 general election he would deliver on the 'vow'.
The Queen's Speech after the election demonstrated that the 'vow' to Scotland discussed prior to the referendum had indeed been kept by the incoming Conservative Party. The Scottish Parliament will now be able to raise 40% of taxes and decide on 60% of public spending. There are a number of other devolved powers that the Scottish Parliament will receive, including new welfare powers worth £2.5bn. The people of Scotland now have a devolved Scottish Parliament with its own Executive, First Minister and almost full control over how it shapes the future of Scotland.
We must remember that Wales too has its own assembly with a number of devolved powers and there are promises by the new government that there will be a further devolution of powers to Wales, including more powers over energy, transport and local government elections in Wales (pity they can’t run their NHS).
Northern Ireland has control over areas such as agriculture, education, health and social services, economic development and the environment with further devolution of powers in the pipeline.
Many commentators have suggested that the present constitutional settlement in relation to devolution is grossly unfair to England. The English people indeed are the only people in the Union who have no dedicated political representation. It must be remembered that there is no English government or parliament, no devolved English assembly and therefore no one to speak up for the people of England or represent their interests. The unfairness of the present constitutional discrimination against us English has been recognised by David Cameron who wants to introduce 'English votes for English laws', thus ensuring that only MPs representing English constituencies could vote on legislation affecting England alone.
However, what does this mean in practice? English laws will still be proposed by a British government and scrutinised by a House of Lords containing members from across the UK and abroad. There will be no administration devoted to English affairs and British MPs will still vote on British party lines. It simply ends up being a blocking device which can be used by English MPs to stop laws that they do not think are suitable for England. Why can't England be treated like the other constituent parts of the UK? Why not an English assembly like Wales? Why not devolved powers like Northern Ireland? Why not an English parliament with an Executive, First Minister and devolved powers like Scotland?
The British government and the establishment afford England no recognition as a legitimate nation. In many ways they have made every effort to keep England invisible, and discriminate against the people of England at every opportunity; indeed one gets the impression at times that the British state would like to abolish England, e.g., by breaking it up into regions. Many British politicians have expressed their contempt for England and the English and they are very anxious that England should not assert her identity.
It is a matter of fact that the British state refuses to acknowledge that England is a nation like Scotland or Wales. One can discuss whether these are true nations, but it is very clear that if that designation is afforded to both Scotland and Wales then it surely must be to England also.
No other nation is delegitimised and deconstructed in the way that England is. We English are constantly told that there is no such people as the English or that they are just a 'mongrel race', a nation of immigrants. The question, 'What does it mean to be English ?', is constantly thrown at anyone who identifies as English, in a way that it would never be thrown at a member of any other ethnic group. Have you ever heard of a multiculturalist MP asking Pakistanis to explain what it means to be Pakistani?
The British state also, clearly, has no problem promoting Scottish and Welsh identities and indeed celebrates these; however there is no focus on English identity or English culture. Scottish and Welsh children are rooted in their respective heritages in a way that English children have not been for a very long time. English children must make do with British identity rooted in a make-believe multicultural past.
Whilst Scottish and Welsh nationalism is actively promoted, English nationalism is characterised as 'racist' and 'xenophobic'; it's seen as the preserve of the 'far Right'. It has become totally acceptable amongst the middle class metropolitan elites to castigate the English, and they simply do not care what impact these statements have on the collective dignity and psychological well-being of English men, women and children. These politicians are quite willing to undermine our collective self-esteem whilst all the time going to great lengths not to offend minorities.
As long as the British state remains, England will continue to be subjected to second class status within the Union and the people of England subjected to the abuse meted out to them. We English need to develop a sense of Englishness again if things are to change and begin to assert ourselves in the way that the people of Scotland and Wales have done in recent decades. Thankfully, there are signs that this is starting to happen. More and more people living in England are rejecting British identity and simply identifying themselves as English. There is also emerging what might be called an "English political community". This is clearly a response to the gross injustices of the devolution settlement and the privileging of the other constituent parts of the UK, especially Scotland.
Many English people are asking why the people of England must pay ever increasing prescription charges whilst people north of the border don't pay anything! English people want to know why lifesaving cancer drugs are available in Scotland but not in England. They want to know why more money is spent in Scotland per head of population than in England and why this privilege is paid for by the English taxpayer via the Barnett Formula. They also want to know why Scottish MPs can vote on matters affecting England (e.g., the introduction of student fees) but English MPs cannot vote on matters affecting Scotland. Many English people are beginning to wonder whether we would be better off without the Union!
I think that the Union is effectively over. The SNP will use its position in Westminster to manoeuvre for another referendum in the not too distant future - regardless of what Sturgeon and co. are saying at the moment - and I am convinced that if this is held within the next decade Scotland will vote for independence. We English must now seek a constitutional settlement that reflects our interests of us, the people of England. We demand either a devolved English parliament with exactly the same powers as Scotland within a federal UK, as long as the union remains, or they must vote for independence.
It should also be borne in mind that we English have recourse to the UN regarding the elimination of race and cultures and I am aware the certain people are following this up.
My apologies for this rather long letter, but this matter is close to my heart because I no longer recognize the country I grew up in and, like many, feel betrayed and dismissed by a ruling elite who regard us English with contempt. I do not want my country split into regions or “power-houses” and will support anybody and anything that will promote England and Englishness.
Yours sincerely
D P Fair
I have recently been encouraging the lobbying of a new minister.
Here is the text:-
Dear English Patriots
Re: UK Government appoint “Under Minister” responsible for “Devolution” to England
For the first time the UK Government has appointed an Under Minister of State with the remit of “English Devolution”.
This person is Conservative MP – Mr Dominic Raab.
Naturally we are highly sceptical that Mr Raab will give England a Parliament of its own, instead he is very probably focused into breaking England up into “Regions” or “Power Houses” or other similar unwanted authorities.
We have therefore put together 6 suggested letters below, and would ask that that you choose one, or use the contents to inspire your own letter, and top and tail with your address details and name.
We would prefer that you POST the letter, but if you wish to e-mail then please send to his private secretary – Mary.Jones@justice.gsi.gov.uk
As this is a letter to a Government Department you will receive a reply.
Please can you send me a copy of the reply you receive to:-
Robin Tilbrook – 2015 Letter Writing Campaign - English Democrats PO Box 1066. Norwich NR14 6ZJ
Or why not bring the reply along with you to our Conference on 19 September 2015 at the Leicester Hilton Hotel?
We will be reading a sample of the replies we receive out at conference!
Yours sincerely
Robin Tilbrook
Chairman,
The English Democrats
August 2015
Mr Dominic Raab MP
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for English Devolution
Ministry of Justice
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ
Dear Mr Raab
Re: Devolution to England
Despite having 85% of the UK’s population, England alone of the home nations is being denied a national voice and devolved powers. After last year’s Scottish Referendum, David Cameron, as British Prime Minister, promised a fair constitutional settlement for England.
There is increasing awareness of people in England of our unequal treatment and, whilst this anomalous situation is allowed to persist, the call for separation will grow louder. If HM Government wishes to minimize the chances of the UK disintegrating, it will work to remedy this deficiency as soon as possible.
I am now writing to you as the Minister responsible for this aspect of government, to ask when a separate national Parliament for England, together with separate Bill drafting facilities, dedicated Executive and our own annual budget will be instituted?
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely
August 2015
Mr Dominic Raab MP
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for English Devolution
Ministry of Justice
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ
Dear Mr Raab
Re: England’s Democratic Deficit
In your piece in The Telegraph on 12 Jan 2012 “A generous offer to Scotland could keep the Union safe”, you stated: “The Scottish people have a right to self-determination under international law.” Surely the English people also have such a right?
England is the one Nation within the United Kingdom which has not had a referendum on self-determination or independence.
When do you intend to “bridge” this democratic deficit by instituting a national Parliament for the English people commensurate with that in Scotland?
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely
August 2015
Mr Dominic Raab MP
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for English Devolution
Ministry of Justice
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ
Dear Mr Raab
Re: English Parliament
I would like to congratulate you on your recent appointment. I would be grateful if you could inform me about the timetable for the creation of a proper English Parliament with at least the same powers of those as the Scottish Parliament as promised by David Cameron after the Scottish Referendum.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely
August 2015
Mr Dominic Raab MP
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for English Devolution
Ministry of Justice
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ
Dear Mr Raab
Re: English Democratic Deficit
I was pleased to learn of your appointment, especially as you have already stated on your web site:-
“I want to strengthen your democratic voice - including through an EU referendum, the equalisation of constituency boundaries, greater localism, and by bridging the democratic deficit between Scotland and the rest of the UK”
England is the one Nation within the United Kingdom that has not had a referendum on self-determination or independence.
When do you intend to “bridge” this English democratic deficit?
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely
August 2015
Mr Dominic Raab MP
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for English Devolution
Ministry of Justice
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ
Dear Mr Raab
Re: English Want an English Parliament
I was pleased to learn of your appointment to focus on English “Devolution”.
Given that opinion polls now clearly show that over 66% of those living in England wish to have an English Parliament, can you explain why the Conservative Party is obstructing the democratic will of the people of England?
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely
August 2015
Mr Dominic Raab MP
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for English Devolution
Ministry of Justice
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ
Dear Mr Raab
Re: Federal UK
I was pleased to learn of your appointment, as resolving the English Question was a Conservative manifesto pledge. I am expecting you and the Government to deliver your promise.
As a Federal UK is the only possible way of saving the United Kingdom from falling apart, can you explain why the Conservative Party is so adverse to converting the current UK House of Commons into an English Parliament and the House of Lords into an elected British Senate?
With all the brilliant minds in the Conservative Party why is this simple and cost effective solution so difficult to implement?
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely
WHAT IS THE EU REFERENDUM PURDAH CONTROVERSY ALL ABOUT?
When our political masters don’t want the vast majority of people to understand what they are talking about they frequently use the type of words or expressions which are unlikely to be understood. “Purdah” is one such expression.
The word “purdah” is from Old Persian and is one of the words adopted from the days of the British Raj in India. British officers observed that in many Muslim, and some Hindu, households the women were kept formally segregated from the men by, in the main, a system of veils or curtains. On the face of it such a word seems to have little relevance to modern British politics but the basic idea is that the administration of the country should be kept segregated from politics when there is an important election or referendum occurring. There was thus a rule during the Scottish Independence Referendum that the Scottish Government wasn’t allowed to be an active participant in the Referendum and so Scottish Ministers were not allowed to use Scottish Civil Servants to advance their case and, in particular, were not allowed to use public money to fund their campaigning.
It was noticeable during the Scottish Independence Referendum that the rules of purdah were not applied to the British Government which made many publically funded interventions. In some cases, specific civil servants even made political comments, in a way that was fundamentally not only unfair but disingenuous. The current argument over the rule on purdah, in principle, is about fairness and a degree of equality of arms and of opportunity between the Yes and No campaigns in the EU referendum.
This issue particularly important where the Government is proposing different spending limits for the Yes Campaign and for the No campaign, especially when you consider that the media as a whole is run by big business and therefore has very little concern for the democratic rights of our country and much more concerned with profit and the ease by which regulations can be altered to their advantage, concerns which are better served by remaining in the EU.
Indeed the main way in which people get news in the country however is by the taxpayer funded BBC which has already taken more than £20m in subsidy from the EU itself and which shows no signs of shame in its blatantly biased pro-EU editorial slant. Those in the Out Campaign will therefore be faced with considerable structural difficulties in getting their arguments heard.
A true level playing field would probably require the Out Campaign to be allowed to spend several multiples of whatever the In Campaign is able to spend. In fact Cameron’s scheme is to allow the Out Campaign to spend much less than the In Campaign.
Thus the arguments over the purdah rules are of course very important.
It is very instructive that David Cameron and his Government are clearly showing, having been forced to come out into the open by the Backbench rebellion the other day, that they intend to be devious and unfair about the way that the referendum is conducted.
Also that David Cameron’s talk about negotiations within the EU is nothing more than a smokescreen, since, in effect, what he is saying to our European “partners” that even if they offer him nothing of note at all, he is going to campaign to remain in the EU. The whole exercise therefore isn’t so much one of veils or curtains but rather of smoke and mirrors!
