Total Visits

Friday, 28 December 2018

How the Lord Mayor of London undermines Liberalism!


What the Lord Mayor of London teaches us about Liberal theory! 


How the Lord Mayor of London undermines Liberalism!

Liberal theory, from John Stuart Mill onwards (and especially in the modern era of ‘Neo-Liberalism’) is based upon the idea that all people are fundamentally the same.  In particular, that everyone’s fundamental nature is to maximise their position in the market-place, as economists put it.  This is the theory that human-beings are “rational economic actors” whose only motivation is to improve their personal position in economic terms - like good economic worker ants!  

I believe this theory to be fundamentally wrong and to be a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature.  

I also believe that this error is important in explaining many of the problems of our country today because it is an error that permeates the thinking of the elite in our society. That is not only the rich elite, but also the political elite, the media elite and the decision-making elite in universities and in most of the key positions of power and influence in our State and in our country. 

This error has led the key policy decision-makers in our society to disregard and disrespect the natural urges of most of our people. 

I started this with headings relating to the Lord Mayor of London.  Above there is a picture of him in all his refinery!  You might ask what is the link?  I think it is this. The Lord Mayoralty of the City of London is the supreme English example of what rich people will do and how far they will go for Status and for Respect within our traditional communities..

In order to be Lord Mayor you have to give up many hours to unpaid work and activity within the City of London Corporation as an Alderman and as a Sherriff.  There is also a three year stretch, in the run-up to and in the year of being Lord Mayor, in which you have no time for any paid work.  During this time you would have to be fully focussed on your ceremonial roles in the City of London hierarchy.  Also even when in office as Lord Mayor, you will have virtually no real power, nor will any of it will gain you any economic advantage.  Indeed a generally held estimate for the cost of being Lord Mayor is that it costs at least £500,000!

In "Liberal" theory of course all this activity is completely irrational.  In fact, so irrational as to be almost utterly inexplicable.

This of course vividly demonstrates that ‘Liberal’ theory is wildly adrift from the reality of human nature because in fact rich people getting involved in such activities are perfectly rationally focussed on the acquisition of status and respect within our traditional communities.

Across the Nation many other people chose other ways of getting such communal status and respect. For example in most English counties there is an equivalent office of High Sherriff.  Also there is the whole “Honours System” in which many people struggle to get OBEs or Knighthoods, etc. 

The oddity is that rich people do not understand that their own urges for status and respect and community are perfectly normal not only for them, but also for everybody else as well!  

Therefore the same rich people are very often perfectly happy to justify low paid, low status and insecure jobs for “ordinary people” and they try to justify this hypocracy using ‘Liberal’ economic arguments.  Such people really should not be as surprised as they apparently are when most of our people don’t like the outcome! 

We need a new politics with a new economic model which does give proper status and respect to our own people in our own most natural and very traditional community, namely our Nation, I mean those people who do all the “ordinary” jobs which are nevertheless, of course, so very necessary to the proper functioning of our society and to our collective English culture and prosperity.  

My New Year message therefore is that we English Nationalists need to focus more on reforms that give English People a justified pride and self-respect as citizens, and as fellow members of our Nation, as well as a fair reward for fair labour.  Also we should focus on attacking the dogma on “economic efficiency” which currently excessively rewards big business and bankers and ‘Liberal’ British Establishment politicians!

Monday, 24 December 2018

Leading academic analyses why nationalism has a bright future!

Leading academic analyses why nationalism has a bright future!

Professor Matthew Goodwin of Essex University has written frequently on the subject of “Nationalist Populism” as he calls parties that support more direct democratic politics than the tired old elitist so-called “Liberal Democracy”. 

His book is of interest for anyone interested in politics, let alone nationalist politics and, whilst you will not agree with every analytical conclusion that he reaches, nevertheless he makes an interesting and thought-provoking case for his analysis. 

What about this extract?   

“…we have argued that four broad transformations have been key: people’s Distrust of the increasingly elitist nature of liberal democracy, which has fuelled a feeling among many that they no longer have a voice in the conversation, and which is likely to spur their support for a more ‘direct’ model of democracy; ongoing anxieties about the Destruction of the nation that have been sharpened by rapid immigration and a new era of hyper ethnic change, which raise legitimate questions as well as xenophobic fears; strong concerns about relative Deprivation resulting from the shift towards an increasingly unequal economic settlement, which has stoked the correct belief that some groups are being unfairly left behind relative to others, and fears about the future, and the rise of De-alignment from the traditional parties, which has rendered our political systems more volatile and larger numbers of people ‘available’ to listen to new promises, while others have retreated into apathy.

The ‘Four Ds’ have left large numbers of people in the West instinctively receptive to the claims being made by national populism: that politicians do not listen to them, even treat them with contempt, that immigrants and ethnic minorities benefit at the expense of ‘natives’ and that hyper ethnic change and in particular Islam pose a new and major threat to the national group, its culture and way of life.

We have also seen how these are far from fringe concerns.  Sometimes more than half of the populations in the West express views that are broadly in line with national populism.”

The book is somewhat of the nature of “ranging shots” from a First World War dreadnought battleship, since Prof Goodwin is politically an opponent, as he demonstrates in his conclusion. 

However his analysis as an opponent is in many ways as confirming of the shape, dimensions, speed and course as true “ranging shots” should be.

Let’s hope our opponents don’t read his book!

Monday, 17 December 2018

Brexit has reopened two constitutional conflicts which must be resolved

In the heats of the Brexit battle between the elitist and undemocratic Remainers and the few Brexiteers in Parliament there is an occasional glimpse of the wider constitutional implications.  The article below on the Conservative Home website, which describes itself as “the home of Conservatism”, is such a glimpse and deserves wide circulation. 
Those who support what Professor Matthew Goodwin of Kent University is calling “National Populism” will, like me, support unconditionally the idea that our People are the ultimate sovereignty. 
Supporters of so-called “liberal democracy” may talk about popular sovereignty, but they want it channelled through systems which prevent the majority of the People’s Will being even expressed, let alone enacted. 
A good example of that mind-set is the Right Honorable Ken Clarke MP who regularly says that the EU Referendum was merely an opinion poll, which is only “advisory” for MPs, rather than an expression of popular sovereignty which must be put into effect by the political system to be legitimate.  In short you could say that liberal democracy is in effect an open conspiracy against popular democracy! 
Once we are clear about that division we populist democratic nationalists can be more focussed and consistent in our attacks on the short-fallings of the British Political and Media elites in their attempts to shelter behind the ornate structures of British Liberal Democracy. 
Below is the article.  What do you think?

Jonathan Clark: Brexit has reopened two constitutional conflicts which must be resolved

The British have, typically, little interest in constitutional law. Unlike the French, who regularly rewrite their constitution in revolutions or attempts to prevent revolutions, the British tend to assume that little changes and that all is well. Alas, the constitutional problems accumulate nevertheless. Dominic Grieve was right in a recent Commons debate to say that there are areas of the British constitution that need clearer definition. But what exactly are they? Why is the Brexit question so difficult to resolve through the familiar Westminster machinery?
The big issues of constitutional conflict are so fraught because they happen in legal grey areas, in which agreement and definition have never emerged. Today there are two such major areas, though many minor ones.
The first is the question of sovereignty: where does ultimate authority reside? It is many centuries since any significant number of people claimed that it resided with the person of the monarch alone. But the decline of that image was followed by the growing popularity of another, ‘the Crown in Parliament’, that is, the monarch, the Lords and the Commons acting together. This image never went away, but was upstaged by the doctrine of the lawyer A. V. Dicey (1835-1922) that ‘Parliament’ (meaning, increasingly, the House of Commons) was sovereign. Yet from the Reform Bill of 1832 into the 20th century, successive rounds of franchise extension strengthened another old idea, that the ultimate authority lay with ‘the People’, however defined.
From 1973, when the UK joined the EEC, it slowly became evident that the answer was ‘none of the above’: ultimate authority lay with Brussels. Parliament rubber-stamped increasing amounts of secondary legislation from an evolving super-state. In 2019, departure from the EU would remove that layer of command. This prospect inevitably reopens an old debate, which had never really been settled: was Parliament or the People finally supreme? Its re-emergence reminds us that Dicey’s doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty was the opinion of one commentator only. That opinion partly corresponded to contemporary practice, partly not.
Today, the tide is everywhere running in the opposite direction. Deference and duty daily fade; the key word everywhere is ‘choice’, and this means the choices of the many, not just the few. The transformation of communications places steadily more power in the hands of a steadily more educated, better informed ‘People’. But this trend has been matched by another, seen across the West in recent decades and at all levels: in increasingly complex societies, the executive has everywhere grown more powerful vis-a-vis the legislature. Political scientists have largely ignored this tide, but it has swept forwards nevertheless. It means that two powerful social forces now collide. Across western democracies, ‘ordinary people’ find means of complaining that they are ignored by elites who ‘just don’t get it’; elites decry ‘populism’ and exalt the opinion of ‘experts’, expressed to within one decimal point in forecasts of outcomes 15 years hence.
This collision reopens a second, equally old, question. What is a Member of Parliament: a delegate, or a representative? Edmund Burke famously outlined the case for the second: MPs, once elected, represent the nation as a whole; they owe the nation their best judgment; they are in nobody’s pocket. But another idea is just as old, and equally honourable: MPs are sent to Westminster by their electors to redress the electors’ grievances, and are accountable to them. Against Burke, we can set another intellectual, Andrew Marvell, MP for Hull in 1659-78, who was paid by his constituents and regularly reported back to them. Understandably, Burke’s high-sounding doctrine proved the more popular among MPs. But after he framed it, his constituents in Bristol threw him out for favouring Irish commercial interests over theirs, and he represented thereafter only his patron’s pocket borough.
Both ideas in their pure form are unacceptable. But how the balance between the two is to be struck can never be quantified or defined, and a crisis like the present makes the impossibility of a definition clear. ‘The People’ voted by 52 to 48 for Leave, and a larger percentage now says ‘just get on with it’; but about five-sixths of the House of Commons are for Remain.
Among Conservative MPs, something under 100 are evidently for Leave; of the other 200 or so, over half are on the Government payroll in one capacity or another, and more would like to be. So profound a dissociation between elite and popular opinion is rare. Worse still, public opinion polls and the growing practice of referenda quantify the problem as never before; the issue is easily expressed in binary terms (Leave or Remain); and the arguments have been fully rehearsed. Other countries show similar problems of relations between the many and the few, but in the UK these are brought to a focus. Since the constitution has failed to resolve them, public debate is full of expressions of elite contempt for the ignorant, prejudiced, xenophobic, racialist populace on the one hand; of popular contempt for the self-serving, condescending, out-of-touch Establishment on the other.
Before 1914, Conservative peers making technical points over a budget were manoeuvred by Lloyd George into a constitutional confrontation that could be memorably summed up as ‘Peers versus the People’. In this clash, the peers could only lose. Now, the Remainers have been manoeuvred into a constitutional confrontation that, if it goes much further, will be labelled ‘Parliament versus the People’. In such a conflict it can only be Parliament that will lose. In that event, the damage would be considerable.
These great questions of constitutional definition are seldom solved; rather, the issues are defused by building next to them a new practice. The present challenge is to accommodate that new arrival in the political arena, the referendum, and to turn it into a clearly specified, moderate, and constructive institution, as it is in Switzerland. Those concerned about daily policy should think again about a subject, once salient in university History departments but now everywhere disparaged: constitutional history.


Monday, 26 November 2018



Although the “Mainstream Media” (AKA “Legacy Media”) newspapers and broadcasters, such as in the article below by Alan Cochrane, focus on the risk to the Union (of the UK) from Northern Ireland and Scotland, it may well be that the more important longer term “threat” to the Union will be from England and from English Nationalists.  As William Hague when he was the Leader of the “Conservative” Party said:-  “English nationalism is the worst of all nationalisms” for the future of the Union!

The constitutional position about Theresa May’s agreement, if she manages to get it through Parliament and ratified by all the relevant parts of the EU will be interesting, because, if that happens, with the majority Leave vote in England, of well over 15 million English people voting for Leave, can then only be satisfied by the dissolution of the United Kingdom!

From a legal and constitutionalist point of view this works because the dissolution of the UK as the contracting state means that the deal is dissolved too.  This was threatened against the Scottish Nationalists, in the run up to the Scottish Independence Referendum, when the then Commissioner Barosso pointed out that, if Scotland left the United Kingdom then (because the United Kingdom would be dissolved), Scotland would be a new State and therefore not an ‘Accession’ state and so not part of the EU. 

The EU is composed of “Member States”.  If a Member State is dissolved and ceases to exist, then the arrangements with the EU also cease to exist.  The EU is not a territorial entity, nor an entity of individual people, nor of peoples, it is an entity only of accession Member States.  This means that the general legal principles on dissolution or death of a participating entity in an agreement apply.  Generally that means that the agreement itself ceases to exist as well as the dissolved entity upon its dissolution (or death).

I explained this in my Blog article quite a few years ago.  Here is a link to that article >>>

The article below by Alan Cochrane is also interesting but is of course yet again looking at the Union from the Scottish perspective rather than from the point of view of English nationalists. 

In short I think Theresa May’s proposed deal may actually fill the sails of English nationalists and of English nationalism because our way of thinking will then be the only practical way of coming out of the EU. 

What do you think?  Here is Alan Cochrane’s article :-

Warring Tories have put a hurricane in the sail of the nationalists 

With the Conservative Party tearing itself and the government of Theresa May asunder last night, one of its hitherto more successful parts appeared to be also heading for the intensive care ward.

In a bitter, and unprecedented Cabinet-level war, the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party accused resigning Brexiteer ministers of threatening to wreck the United Kingdom. In one of the most outspoken attacks one senior minister has ever launched against colleagues, former or otherwise, David Mundell, the Scottish Secretary, described Dominic Raab and Esther McVey as “carpetbaggers”.

Just for good measure, he claimed that Mr Raab’s departure was more about a future leadership bid than the Brexit deal.
In their resignation letters, the former Brexit and Work and Pensions Secretaries had both cited the threat to the Union posed by the fact that special provisions were proposed for Northern Ireland in Mrs May’s withdrawal deal.

And there is little doubt that this escalation in insults reflected the fact that the Northern Ireland aspect of the deal has put immediate and intense pressure on Mr Mundell and, also to a lesser extent, Ruth Davidson, the Scottish Tory leader.

Their partnership has been largely responsible for the revival of the Conservatives north of the border – leaping from one MP to 13 at the last general election and forming the official opposition to the SNP at the Scottish Parliament.

However, significantly, at least in terms of their current embarrassment, both signed an open letter to the Prime Minister last month in which they threatened to resign if there was a “differentiated deal” agreed for Northern Ireland. And, no matter how you cut it, that is precisely what is contained in the deal Mrs May put to her Cabinet on Wednesday.

I have a great deal of sympathy with the view expressed in Scottish Tory circles that Mr Raab and Ms McVey used the threat to the Union as “cover” for their resignations. And I can also understand Mr Mundell’s intense irritation that many of the most ardent Brexiteers care little for the maintenance of the Union of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Indeed, I can’t remember any of them making an appearance during the Scottish independence referendum campaign four years ago.

That’s neither here nor there now, however. No amount of name-calling and foot stamping will alter the plain fact that, by including a distinctive feature for Northern Ireland after Brexit in the deal, the Prime Minister has done two things: she’s delivered a major boost to the SNP, whose sole aim is the break-up of Britain, and she’s ignored the warnings she received from Mr Mundell and Ms Davidson.

In one of the great ironies of the situation, the nationalists claim that Scotland should be given a different deal from the rest of the UK but haven’t got it, whereas Northern Ireland is getting one but its majority party doesn’t want it. And yesterday First Minister Nicola Sturgeon claimed that Ulster’s special treatment would give it an unfair trading advantage over Scotland.

There is a hope within Scottish Conservative circles that Mrs May might yet be able to retrieve the situation by clarifying and playing down the differences in the deal for Northern Ireland. But given the furious reaction from DUP MPs yesterday, she has a mountain to climb in that direction.

Nevertheless, the Scottish Tories’ main problem is that threatening letter sent to the PM and signed by Mr Mundell and Ms Davidson. It was seen at the time, by some observers, as a silly piece of grandstanding and it has now come back to bite them – hard.

Ms Davidson is on maternity leave and, last night Mr Mundell said he was staying put, insisting that he would fight on for the maintenance of the UK, adding: “That’s what I’m focused on, not being the heart of some soap opera of resignations and I’m not going to be bounced into resigning by carpetbaggers.”

Notwithstanding his determination to fight on and his angry words about his now former colleagues, I’m sure that he wishes he hadn’t signed that letter. It’s boxed him in, good and proper.

Friday, 16 November 2018



The above picture is of a bronze memorial plaque in the grand domed Eighteenth Century Karlskirche in Vienna. The plaque is to the fallen of one of Imperial Austro-Hungary’s Dragoon Cavalry regiments.  The ringing epitaph is “Treu Bis in Den Tod” which means:- “Loyal even unto Death”. 

That loyalty was to the Hapsburg Emperors, Franz Joseph and Karl; the last two Emperors of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.  The Empire was dismembered as a result of one of many of those unwise decisions taken at the end of the First World War which fed into the causes of the Second World War.

Here in England the traditional Remembrance Day service included “O Valiant Hearts”, the words are here:-

O Valiant Hearts, who to your glory came
Through dust of conflict and through battle-flame,
Tranquil you lie, your knightly virtue proved,
Your memory hallowed in the Land you loved.

Proudly you gathered, rank on rank to war,
As who had heard God's message from afar;
All you had hoped for, all you had, you gave
To save Mankind - yourselves you scorned to save.

Splendid you passed, the great surrender made,
Into the light that nevermore shall fade;
Deep your contentment in that blest abode,
Who wait the last clear trumpet-call of God.

Long years ago, as earth lay dark and still
Rose a loud cry upon a lonely hill,
While in the frailty of our human clay
Christ, our Redeemer, passed the self-same way.

Still stands his cross from that dread hour to this
Like some bright star above the dark abyss;
Still through the veil the victor's pitying eyes
Look down to bless our lesser Calvaries.

These were his servants, in his steps they trod,
Following through death the martyr'd Son of God:
Victor he rose; victorious too shall rise
They who have drunk his cup of sacrifice.

O risen Lord, O shepherd of our dead,
Whose cross has bought them and whose staff has led-
In glorious hope their proud and sorrowing land
Commits her children to thy gracious hand.

So here we have encapsulated, both on the Austro-Hungarian side and on the British side, what the generation who had gone to War actually thought about the War that they had been involved in fighting in. 

By contrast those that are now in charge of political and cultural and media institutions that dominate our country, and those in other European countries, did not fight in either War.  Most have not served at all in their country’s forces.  In many cases they also played no role in the Cold War either (which followed the Second World War).  If they had done so I doubt that many of them would now dishonestly claim that the European Union had any role in preserving peace in Europe after the Second World War.  That role properly belongs to NATO and not the European Union at all. 

Indeed the first test of the European Union’s ability to keep the peace occurred in Yugoslavia where the European Union and, in particular, Germany triggered a vicious civil war by their unwise and undiplomatic behaviour.  Also armed Dutch “Peace Keeping” troops stood by whilst thousands of civilians were massacred at Srebrenica.  We are nevertheless now urged that what the European Union actually needs is its own armed forces!

At a more symbolic level there was a mixed German/British choral remembrance event in Westminster Hall recently, which the political editor of the Sun on Sunday, David Wooding, tweeted about saying how wonderful it was.  My email exchange with him went as follows:-

 Oct 31

““Mozart’s C minor Mass performed in Westminster Hall to mark the centenary of the 1918 Armistice. The Parliament Choir teamed up with the German Bundestag Choir and the Southbank Sinfonia.”

 Oct 31
Replying to @DavidWooding

“No 'Hymn of Hate' then?
We have all but a single hate,
 We love as one, we hate as one,
 We have one foe and one alone —  ENGLAND!"

 Oct 31

“This was a classical music concert, not a political rally.”

 Oct 31

“The 'Hymn of Hate' was part of the German First World War propaganda effort; rather a contrast to "It's a long way to Tipperary" don't you think?”

 Oct 31

“As I said, this was a performance of glorious music. You’re on the wrong thread here.”

As you can see he claims that I missed the point. Actually I think that my point was better than his!

Obviously a mixed choral event in Richard II’s great hall which has been at the very heart of English public life for over 600 years is a profoundly political statement.  It is very deliberately symbolising the "reconciliation" of the Nations and is therefore the very opposite of what those wars were about, in which our Fallen are supposed to be commemorated on Remembrance Sunday. 

I think that it is no coincidence that this event took place in a building which is now surrounded by all those well-entrenched Europhiles and Remainers in the British Political Establishment. 

It was no doubt also people like them who decided to give £100,000 worth of “Heritage Lottery Fund” money to a multi-culturalist organisation called “Diversity House” in Sittingbourne, Kent, which is trying to promote the lie that the First World War was fought with millions of black troops!

The subtext of this is the British Political Establishment is trying to downplay the role of the real people of the real nations who actually fought that War. 

It is true that some Indian troops were used from the British Imperial Indian Army.  They were used mostly against the Turks in the Ottoman Empire but some were used on the Western Front for a while but were withdrawn because they could not cope with the awful conditions and especially the cold. 

I think what is striking here is the anachronistic and inaccurate rewriting of history to make current political points.  We have seen this too in France where President Macron falsely claimed that the wars were caused by "Nationalism". 

Just consider that the historic fact was that the British Government entered both the First and the Second World War in pursuit of England’s traditional foreign policy.  That policy was to make sure that no one power dominated in Western Europe.  We had fought numerous wars to stop the French from doing so and the Spanish before them, but in the 20th Century our wars were to stop the Germans from dominating in Western Europe.

The current British Political Establishment surrendered that policy and instead reinforced dominance of one power block over Western Europe.  That power block is the EU of which the most dominant Nation is Germany.  They have therefore put us in exactly the position that English Statesmen for centuries have tried to avoid, with a dominant power block right next to us on mainland Europe!

To anybody who is rationally applying Realpolitik in considering what England’s diplomatic position should be, I would say that the answer is blindingly obvious. 

We should revert to our traditional policy.  We should seek to make every effort to break up the European Union. We should not pursue Theresa May and her Government’s pure-blind policy of friendship with the European Union. 

The EU have never been our friends and are certainly not our friends now.  They are now more like enemies than friends.

There are plenty of Europeans however who would be happy to be friends with us if we were showing any real leadership. 

Whether it is possible for the British Political Establishment however to show any real leadership that is another question.  I do think Brexit has given us a clear and unequivocal answer, that is that they are quite incapable of leadership. The sooner the British Political Establishment are ejected and replaced with proper patriots the better!

Wednesday, 14 November 2018



The Remainer newspaper, The Times, recently published the opinion piece set out below written by the Remainer “Conservative” MP for Aberco, Mr Guto Bebb.  In his article he mourns the impact of Brexit on the Union of the United Kingdom and its “strength and diversity”.  As he says:- “As a Conservative, as a Unionist and someone who loves Wales and our place within the UK I am moved to ask if any of this is worth it?”

I would reply as an English Nationalist and as a Leaver that it is definitely worth it!  

Also I would muse aloud:- ‘hasn’t it long been said that the tears of the vanquished are the sweetest joy of victory?’

Here is Guto Bebb’s article:-

Brexit is a risk to the integrity of the UK

The UK’s success is founded on being a multi-national state where we pool sovereignty and share power while taking as many decisions at a local level as possible.

If that reminds you of the EU, it’s not accidental. People with different national histories, traditions and languages coming together to make a new history in common is a very British idea, indeed you could argue that it is the quintessential British idea.

As any Welshman knows the union that is the United Kingdom was not born easily — the magnificent castles that dominate the towns of North Wales were, after all, not built by a grateful populace to celebrate the English conquest.

Policy editor Oliver Wright and politics reporter Henry Zeffman help you understand the effects of the UK's decision to leave the European Union. 

However, while the history is challenging for many there can be no doubt that today’s UK is democratic to its core. There can now be no question of holding any constituent nation inside the UK if it wants to leave. It is therefore worth noting that before Brexit there was no sign that any majority anywhere supported quitting.

Brexit is putting everything at risk. Recent polling in Northern Ireland showed Brexit would see support for staying in the UK collapse from 52 per cent of the population to just 35 per cent, while support for a united Ireland rises from 39 per cent to 52 per cent.

As well as the damage to our country’s strength and diversity I worry that any attempt, even one based on a majority decision by the electorate, to take Northern Ireland out of the UK would risk a return to violence, mass migration and untold suffering.

It is also clear is that the UK shorn of Scotland would be a shadow of its former self, whether or not it contained Northern Ireland. The complex but often highly constructive relationship between England and Scotland made the UK what it is, something I recognise even though I see myself as a proud and patriotic Welshman.

In Scotland the figures on the impact of Brexit on the independence debate are a concern with a clear pattern. Support for independence rises and support for the UK falls with Brexit and that picture gets more depressing for unionists the harder the form of Brexit delivered becomes.

In a UK reduced to just England and Wales, my own nation’s desire to stay in what would be now a completely unbalanced state would surely become an issue. I can envisage no circumstances under our current constitutional framework where the people of Wales would support independence but it’s one thing to be a partner in a multi-national state of four nations. It’s quite another to be the junior partner in a two nation state where the other party is 18 times larger than you!

As a Conservative, as a unionist, and as someone who loves Wales and our place within the UK I am moved to ask if any of this is worth it? The EU is far from perfect. There is much that needs reforming but surely the unity and the balance of powers developed over the years within our United Kingdom is worth protecting? Surely we can agree that frustration about some rather silly directives often far too easily blamed on Brussels remains a flimsy reason for putting at risk a UK that has served all constituent parts well?

If the price of any of the above was the destruction of the United Kingdom then that is a price that a Conservative and unionists should deem to be far too high.

Friday, 2 November 2018



At the height of Empire, when the British State was thought by vast numbers of people across the planet to be the greatest and most powerful State on earth; Rudyard Kipling wrote his famous poem “Recessional” – the haunting words of which are:- 

“God of our fathers, known of old,
   Lord of our far-flung battle-line,
Beneath whose awful Hand we hold
   Dominion over palm and pine—
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget—lest we forget!

The tumult and the shouting dies;
   The Captains and the Kings depart:
Still stands Thine ancient sacrifice,
   An humble and a contrite heart.
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget—lest we forget!

Far-called, our navies melt away;
   On dune and headland sinks the fire:
Lo, all our pomp of yesterday
   Is one with Nineveh and Tyre!
Judge of the Nations, spare us yet,
Lest we forget—lest we forget!

If, drunk with sight of power, we loose
   Wild tongues that have not Thee in awe,
Such boastings as the Gentiles use,
   Or lesser breeds without the Law—
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget—lest we forget!

For heathen heart that puts her trust
   In reeking tube and iron shard,
All valiant dust that builds on dust,
   And guarding, calls not Thee to guard,
For frantic boast and foolish word—
Thy mercy on Thy People, Lord!”

But who other than Kipling could have thought back then in 1897, that just a bit over a hundred and twenty years later the British State would have reached such a point where it seems to fail at everything it tries? 

We have got very used to hearing over the last two years, just how ineffectual the British Political Establishment has become that it cannot even get its act together to implement the EU Referendum result.  This is despite having made it crystal clear at the time from all sides of the debate that the referendum result would be implemented.  This really is not rocket science.  It is a clear demonstration of the further feebleness of the British Establishment’s Political culture. 

In everyday life we are also used to hearing other instances of just how bad the British State is at delivering on anything that it sets itself to.  Whether it be computerisation projects or even the MoD trying to bring the British Army back from Germany, but then finding that they had sold off so many of the bases that it is no longer possible!

The other day in my professional work as a solicitor I came across a little example of just how bad the administration of one of the most fundamental aspects of the basic institutions of the State has become, namely the Courts. 

It is worth remembering that the courts pre-date almost every aspect of the State’s functions, except for Defence.  The administration of the Courts is therefore far more fundamental to the running of the State than the Welfare system, the NHS, the Transport system, the Education system or any of the other things that the British Political Elite wants to talk about, however ineffectual their deliberations may be. 

I just thought I would share with you some of my woes in dealing with the Courts. 

I have been dealing with a case which was primarily dealt with at Edmonton County Court, but then there was an Appeal which went to the Central London County Court. 

The upshot was that the Assessment of the Costs of the case could theoretically either be assessed at Edmonton or at Central London County Court. I therefore wrote to both asking for them to let me know which.  Only Edmonton replied and even then after quite a long wait.  They said it was the Central London County Court. 

As the papers have to be taken in nowadays with a prior appointment, I then rang Central London County Court to arrange this and to which said that the papers should be taken into Edmonton. 

After some difficulty I managed to get through to Edmonton (who didn’t basically answer the phone!).  They said that it was Central London County Court. 

So I then rang Central London County Court again and they said it was definitely Edmonton.  I pointed out that both courts were now saying that it was the other Court and therefore I needed the Courts to resolve between them which Court the papers had to be handed into.

Central London County Court then issued a direction on the internet Court file. So finally, when I got back to Edmonton County Court, I got an appointment to hand in the papers. 

When I did so Edmonton County Court’s Clerks then moaned about the size of the file!

This particular small version of the Whitehall farce was anything unusual in dealing with the current British State.

The next part of the saga will be a long wait whilst we wait for the Court to actually deal with the Assessment.

This bit of incompetence is the result of typical Conservative ministerial actions, in this case by Chris Grayling.  Who, when he was the “Justice” Minister, not only did the usual “slash and burn” cuts of over 40% to the Civil Justice system, but also pushed ahead with asset stripping by selling off the historic court buildings in town centres. He coupled these actions with raising court fees by over 400%!  Despite the fact that before his intervention the Civil Justice system was actually making a profit for the State!  The results of his unwillingness to think about the consequences of his actions are that we now have a Civil Justice Court system whose administration is truly appalling. 

This of course is just another example of how bad the British State is at managing even its basic responsibilities.

This general incompetence is also partly because of the British Establishment’s addiction to political correctness.  People are no longer appointed within the British State because of their ability to do the job for the country and for taxpayers. They are appointed on the basis of Sovietesque, ethnic, sexuality, tick box “politically correct” tokenism.  So consequently it is no surprise that those appointed this way not only cannot do the job, but have no particular desire or incentive to do it properly.

Many of the key people within the State of course no longer really care to look after the interests of the country or our Nation and in many cases are actively against both the country and Nation. 

All this is symptomatic of the decay of the British State to the point now that it is not just past its “best before” date but well past its “use by” date!

In England we urgently need a rejuvenated State which is both dedicated to, and works efficiently to, promote the interests of England and of the English Nation!

This must be an English State which will confidently make a patriotic appeal for national unity and national pride and which stands against progressive tribalism, which has for too long sought to divide the country into grievance groups and to promote a narrative of shame. We need a State which will reject the decades of the British Establishment’s revisionist history and grievance ideology which have sought to undermine English national pride!