Campaign for an English Parliament- Oxfordshire

The CEP and the Convention on Modern Liberty

2009-01-30T16:04:00.005Z

The CEP blog yesterday said that the Campaign for an English Parliament will be attending the Convention on Modern Liberty.

This is wonderful news.

The fact is that "politics" as we know it has changed faster and further since 1997 than we have known it to for 50 years. A chief concern that has manifested itself in declining electoral turnout and voter participation is the decline in trust in politicians. We can talk forever about why that is, but we all know it is the case. People are fed up of politicians and political parties.

That makes effecting change very difficult indeed. Political parties are the organisations that actually get into power. Before and/or during this, they are vehicles democracy and public engagement - or at least they should be. When the public lose faith in them and respect for them and stops getting involved in them, the very organisations that should allow us to express ourselves stop functioning properly. It's a downwards spiral.

Hence the rise of pressure groups.

By being non-party political, but still political, pressure groups can do what they say on the tin. They can pressure parties to accept things that, as individuals, we cannot convince them to accept.

That is why I'm in the CEP. The CEP is a pressure group that is working to achieve what I believe is justice for England - a fully devolved national Parliament for England.

And so the CEP's involvement in this Convention is great news. All these pressure groups are coming together to speak on a unifying theme. All the big names will be there - Liberty, the Taxpayers' Alliance, the Countryside Alliance. The better-known the CEP becomes, the better the chance of achieving its goals.

Joining this Convention shows the CEP is thinking big. As a pressure group, it can do things that a political party cannot.

And to the individuals from the CEP that will give up their time, money and effort to get there, and be brave enough to get on their feet and speak at the Conference: thank you. I know you will do us proud.

The destruction of the Labour Party

2008-08-12T16:06:00.005Z

Opinion polls over the last 6 months have made grim reading for our beloved Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. With the Tories having consistently above 40% and Labour dipping as low as 24%, Labour could be staring not just defeat in the face, but complete amnihilation.

Were the Conservatives to gain 44% of the vote, with the of 11.5% swing that it would entail, it would see Cameron as PM with a Parliamentary majority of 156. The Tories would have 403 seats and Labour suffering complete wipeout- going from having 347 to 171 (check out this rather nifty little toy).

Can you imagine the effect on the Labour Party of losing almost half of its MPs? It would be devastating- to the point that the Party would be out of power for a generation. And given its financial problems (resulting not only from having over-spent in during the 1997 and 2001 general elections, but its falling membership, loans that need repaying and trade unions feeling miffed), there is no doubt that even if the Party did hold on to 200 or so seats, it would struggle to fund campaigns in these after the Party was out of government.

If it sounds as if I'm revelling in this then you're damn well right that I am. Not because I'm a die-hard Tory (I'm not), not because I think that everything Labour has done is bad (I don't), but because Gordon Brown and the Labour Party tried to destroy England. They tried to destroy it culturally and constitutionally- being destroyed themselves is nothing less than they deserve.

Some of it was for political advantage. Labour thought that by giving Scotland and Wales national assemblies they could dominate these institutions and never be out of power there. That they would harvest England's resources to pay for generous hand-outs to bribe voters there was no problem for them. They also tried to carve up England itself into 9 "Regions", whilst abolishing our historic Counties. Of course there has also been the mass, uncontrolled immigration that affected only England (new arrivals have not settled in Scotland or Wales and it's only recently that they have been encouraged to go to Scotland, where their struggling economy needs the skilled workers). I'm not opposed to immigration, but I do feel that having such high numbers in such a short time has undermined community cohesion and drastically altered the English way of life. At the same time, having large numbers of ethnic minorities was also a great vehicle for pushing "political correctness" further into public life and public institutions. The fact that there are now jobs advertised that English people are not allowed to apply for shows just how far we have come.

But we're moving off the point. Brown and his Labour pals tried to destroy England- the fact that their meddling will see the Labour Party destroyed for a generation is called JUSTICE.

And yet it may be longer than a generation. Part of the Tory revival has been thanks to them being able to present themselves as the Party for people that are disenchanted with the government. They didn't do this in 2001 or 2005. Once the Conservatives are in power, the Liberal Democrats will have a once-in-a-century opportunity to position themselves are the alternative, as the real opposition. Given how far up the creek Labour could be (and going even further), they just might do it.

Personally, I think a return to a Conservative-Liberal politics will do this country the world of good. Not to mention that, of all the three main parties, it is Liberal Democrat members that most strongly support the creation of an English Parliament.

Daniel Hannan

2008-03-12T17:34:00.004Z

Daniel Hannan MEP is such a legend.

Check out his article in the Daily Telegraph today:

"The former Attorney General is confusing causes and symptoms. We don't walk past a Union flag and say to ourselves, "Ah yes, now that I think of it, this is a fine country". We might display the flag because we already believed this".

"Our distinctive features are being eroded. Our legal system is being Europeanised, our counties regionalised, our regiments abolished".

"If Mr Brown's infatuation with Britishness were anything more than a cloak for self-interest - a ruse to distract attention from his anomalous position as a Scottish MP - he would champion the institutional idiosyncracies that make us what we are".

Brilliant. Just brilliant.

The London Marathon

2008-03-09T12:29:00.004Z

Former CEP Vice Chairman Tom Waterhouse is running the London Marathon this year to raise money for the Royal British Legion.

A very worthy cause indeed.

Tom was on the CEP's National Council for 3 years and the Vice Chairman for a year. He used to run this blog before me and you might remember him (back in January last year) giving Lord Falconer a run for his money on Radio 5 Live, and for giving Magnus Linklater a battering on BBC News 24!

He also wrote "Answering the English Question"- which you can buy on the left of this page.

So make sure you sponsor him!

Give him your support by visiting www.justgiving.com/tomwaterhouse

There is hope yet

2008-03-09T12:03:00.007Z

Those of you that have read the post below will know that this blogger has been lucky enough to spend a week in Suffolk recently.

It was just north of Bury St. Edmunds (see post below) that you will find West Stow, home to one of the most remarkable places I have ever been.

The picture on the left here is what it's all about. West Stow was once an Anglo-Saxon village. Archaeologists have been continually excavating the site since 1965, and their discoveries changed how the Anglo-Saxons are perceived (see below).

Since then the Anglo-Saxon buildings have been re-built on the exact places they were excavated. There is a museam hosting all the items found in the village, which is regularly visited by schools and members of the public alike.

Walking around those buildings- with their log fires smouldering, allows you to feel as if you were back in 500AD in a real Anglo-Saxon village. It was remarkable.

Best of all was the museum, which explained that Anglo-Saxons had always been thought of as murderous, brutal savages. Until, that is, excavations like this which proved that, through their pottery, jewellery and artwork, the Anglo-Saxons were cultured and sophisticated people.

The museum told the story of Anglo-Saxon England- ending with this board:

"Norman propaganda denigrated Anglo-Saxon culture and only recently has this been challenged".

All those school children and parents and teachers will read it.

The denigration of Anglo-Saxon culture continues to this day- it's why we can't celebrate our national day or say we're proud to be English without some looney using the word "racist". But this is being challenged. Our cultural ancestors were intelligent, sophisticated people that laid the foundations for what has become one of the finest nations in the world- England.

When you visit places like West Stow, you know that there is hope yet for our young people and for England.

Suffolk

2008-03-06T17:51:00.004Z

Over the last week Mrs. CEP Oxfordshire and I have been in the fine old English county of Suffolk. Steeped in English history, it was rather nice to go to places such as Southwold, and visit churches dedicated to St. Edmund the Martyr, last Anglo-Saxon king of East Anglia.

Edmund was defeated in battle by the Danes in 869 and, on capture, was ordered to renounce his Christian faith. Being English he would have none of it- it would take more than a slow and painful death to get him to disown his beliefs! The Danes were furious, and so tied him to a tree and executed him. This is thought to have taken place at Hoxne in Suffolk. The Danes hid Edmund's head in the woods so as to prevent his followers finding it and giving him a Christian burial. A wicked thing to do in the very real sense of the word.

However, Edmund's followers returned to look for their fallen king. On searching the woods, a voice called out to them. "Here, here!". Edmund's people followed the calls until they found a wolf- craddling Edmund's head as if it were one of its cubs. When they took Edmund's head from the wild animal and brought it out of the woods, the animal followed them until it knew Edmund was to be laid to rest- and then disappeared back into the woods.

Edmund's holy remains were taken to what is now Bury St. Edmunds in Suffolk. A huge Abbey and cathedral were built to honour him, which became one of the most famous pilgrimage sites of the times- the remains of the Abbey stand to this day. However, when the Abbey was disestablished in 1539, the Abbey was stripped of all its valuables. Edmund's holy remains were lost and have still not been found to this day.

Edmund's feast day is 20 November. Last year there was a campaign to have him restored as patron saint of England. Despite how highly I regard St. Edmund- I wouldn't change our St. George for anyone.

Northern Rock- who will really pay?

2008-02-19T18:39:00.003Z

With the whole fiasco over the last couple of days, this English patriot is left asking- "who will really pay?"

Our (Scottish) Chancellor has been accused of incompetence, with the "taxpayer" currently subsidising the bank in loans and guarantees to other lenders to the tune of about £55bn. Apparently this will rise to £110bn, an equivalent of £3,500 per taxpayer.

Meanwhile our (Scottish) Prime Minister hasn't sacked Darling, nor will Darling resign. Neither are accountable to a single English voter- and yet- were Scotland to leave the UK in the next couple of years, what would Brown, Darling and Salmond decide would happen to this incredible burden?

Brown: What about the North Sea Oil?
Salmond: Scotland will have that.
All: Agreed.
Brown: What about this massive national debt?
Salmond: England can keep that!
All: Agreed!

Berwick wants to join Scotland

2008-02-17T10:52:00.003Z

Residents in the English town of Berwick-upon-Tweed have voted in a TV poll to"re-join Scotland".

60% of people who voted wanted to the Northumberland town to become part of Scotland again- the main reason being the better public services available in Scotland.

Organisers of the TV programme said the poll turnout was 1,957 votes- compared to some 3,800 in the last local elections.

There has been pro-Scotland and pro-England campaigns to persuade voters, with both campaigns highlighting the situation whereby services in Scotland are far better than in England.

Former school teacher Barbara Herdman campaigned in the town for a pro-English vote and for a change in how public spending is allocated across the UK. She said: "I think that Berwick should stay part of England because it's so unfair what is happening at the moment.

"The Scots are getting more money than we are. I'm not saying that the Scots should not get what they get, but that we should get the same."

***

Should Berwick actually become part of Scotland, it could be a risky move. Scotland may well have better public services thanks to money from England, but if the UK splits up those public services will undoubtedly become a thing of the past.

Then again, the fickle people of Berwick may then decide that the grass is in fact greener in England's pleasant lands.

I say that any official poll on Berwick re-joining Scotland, regardless of the outcome, should be binding for 50 years.

Back in the game...

2008-01-18T17:41:00.000Z

Sorry for the lack of posts on this site. Heck- the last one was back in September last year!

The reason for this was that our main contributor has now begun a new career and, alas, has not had the time to update this blog. However, he has kindly allowed me to take his place- such a responsibility!

I am someone that loves England, and I'm proud to call myself English. I believe we should be given an English Parliament or leave the Union.

The CEP Oxfordshire blog is now back in the game!

You can live in Scotland, but die in England

2007-09-07T12:26:00.000Z

The Northern Echo is today highlighting the latest life-saving cancer drug to be freely available on the NHS in Scotland, but unavailable in England.

Tarceva, used to treat lung cancer, has been approved for NHS use north of the border for over a year, but is "effectively banned" in England by NICE, England's independent licensing watchdog.

The Northern Echo highlights the case of Jimmy Jenkyns from South Shields, who is having to pay £1,700 a month to afford Tarceva, which has seen his tumour shrink by a third.

Jimmy's wife, Deanne, said it was "outrageous" that patients in Scotland could get Tarceva on the NHS but not in England.

Joyce Dunlop, director of patient care for the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation told the Northern Echo that "There are a fair few people who are buying this drug now and some PCTs are using that against them, which I think is outrageous."

People in England are being denied yet another life-saving cancer drug on the grounds of cost. And yet, with money from the English taxpayer via the Barnett Formula, people in Scotland are being given the drug free on the NHS.

The situation is simply outrageous. And yet our MPs at the UK Parliament of Westminster stay relatively quiet for fear of "damaging the Union".

The English seem to be paying an ever-higher price to save the Union.

It isn't negative to challenge this unfairness

2007-07-29T10:59:00.000Z

This has just been posted on Our Kingdom:

Mike Small (Lessons in Democracy and Self-Determination) makes some valid points about pushing forward the case for an English Parliament.

I firmly agree that the case for an English Parliament needs to be put in a way that demonstrates how good it would be for England. The Scottish Claim of Right was an incredibly powerful statement, loaded with intent and meaning, and clearly expressed what the whole movement for constitutional change in Scotland was all about. The English Constitutional Convention (ECC) has convened twice since its creation in 2004, and now boasts the support of leading Scottish-devolution campaigner, Canon Kenyon Wright. A similar “English Claim” has yet to be stated by the ECC, but seeing as our new Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, signed the Scottish Claim of Right- pledging that the interests of the Scottish people (not the British people) would be “paramount” in all his “actions and deliberations”, an English Claim of Right is surely soon to be made.

Mike’s point about icons and identity is also important. It is only since devolution that the English have really begun to question who we are and what it means to be English rather than British. A sense of English identity is and will continue to be a powerful factor in the campaign for justice for England. But it was only when Scotland and Wales began to re-assert their separate identities and demand political institutions to reflect this that people in England have done so. It’s in this point that something important must be recognised: demands for real devolution in England are a reaction to devolution elsewhere. It is because of this that the debate can appear to be negative; we are often calling for an English Parliament in the same breath as complaining about how we are missing out compared to the Scots. But don’t forget that it is not enough to just state that an England’s Parliament is England’s right- that would not convince the public. We have to validate our demands for an English Parliament by highlighting how England is disadvantaged by asymmetrical devolution. English students pay university fees (Scottish students do not), English cancer patients have to go without life-saving cancer drugs (Scottish patients do not), English pensioners often have to sell their homes to afford personal care (Scottish pensioners do not- the list goes on). If this means some people feel this is being negative, or even label us as “anti-Scottish”, they are missing the point. We in England feel aggrieved at the current state of affairs, and such blatant unfairness cannot go unchallenged.

At the second meeting of the English Constitutional Convention, Canon Kenyon Wright said that devolution in Scotland happened for two fundamental reasons: “First, because we rediscovered something about our own heritage… But second, because of things like the poll tax. In other words the Scottish people saw that measure after measure after measure was being imposed upon them against the manifest will of at least 80% of Scottish MPs and Scottish opinion”.

Devolution in England will undoubtedly be much the same

Get on to Our Kingdom and have your say.

Boris for mayor?

2007-07-14T10:36:00.000Z

I think it's more than likely that Boris will run for London Mayor, seeing as his Henley constituents have made it clear they support him.

Boris Johnson, as readers will know from previous posts, is very clued-up on English issues, such as how life-saving drugs are available free in Scotland but not in England

If he does run for Mayor, he has a great chance of winning. Depsite Ken's position, the Tories are the biggest single party on the Greater London Authority (GLA), running a minority administration. If they had just one more seat, they would be strong enough to block the Mayor's budget.

A Tory-controlled London would be a big step towards winning power at the next General Election, and the possibilty of implementing English Votes on English Matters (which we all know would fail, and would leave the Conservatives having to accept the idea of a proper English Parliament).

But Boris as London Mayor would also mean that London would become his focus. No more speaking-out on English issues, such as the Barnett Formula and cross-border unfairness in the NHS.

There's a lot at stake.

CEP Press Release: Brown to balkanise England

2007-06-29T17:27:00.000Z

Campaign for an English Parliament

NEWS RELEASE

29th June 2007
For release 30th June 2007

Brown to balkanise England

“We will not sit idly-by and see our country balkanised”

The new UK Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, has signalled his intention to balkanise England.

Appointing Ministers for each “region” of England, Mr. Brown has shown that he wishes to revive regionalism in England- the idea of which many thought had been killed-off with the public’s strong rejection of a North East regional assembly in a referendum in 2004. Despite the severe lack of public support, Gordon Brown intends to press ahead with the regionalisation project which even John Prescott could see was dead and buried.

Gordon Brown signed the Scottish Claim of Right, acknowledging “the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs”. And yet he is content to deny this right to the people of England. Support for an English Parliament continues to grow, and yet Gordon Brown- unaccountable to a single English voter, will ignore this and instead impose unwanted and unpopular regions on England.

CEP Chairman, Scilla Cullen, said, “Where is our right to determine the form of government best suited to our needs, Mr Brown? The so-called English MPs that have become “regional ministers” should be treated with the contempt they so richly deserve.”

Ms. Cullen added, “We will not sit idly-by and see our country balkanised just because it suits the political career of an ambitious politician.”

CEP Vice Chairman, Tom Waterhouse, said, “Gordon Brown’s plans to balkanise England is not just undemocratic, it is outrageously arrogant and demonstrates his utter contempt for the people of England. You have no idea how angry people are about this.”

Campaign for an English Parliament

National Council

CONTACT:

Scilla Cullen (Chairman) 01438 833155
Mike Knowles (Media Unit) 01260 271139
Tom Waterhouse (Vice Chairman) 07900633811

Links: http://www.thecep.org.uk/news/

A company limited by guarantee. Registered in England number 3636739.

Conservative MP: Brown has no mandate in England

2007-06-29T14:30:00.003Z

Wednesday 27th June 2007 was Tony Blair's last day in office. I think anyone that saw him complete his final session of Prime Minister's Questions will agree that there was a real sense of history about the whole occassion. Those final moments and the words "that's it, the end" will be replayed over and again by any televsion programme looking back over the Blair era.

Wednesday also meant that we have a new Prime Minister. Exactly what the CEP thinks of an an MP representing a Scottish seat becoming Prime Minister in a post-devolution UK is well documented. Not least from our recent press release (see post below).

One Conservative MP was so annoyed at coronation of Mr. Brown that he held his own protest outside Downing Street on Wednesday.

David Amess, Conservative MP for Southend West, grabbed a few members of staff from nearby colleagues' offices, russled up a few placards and marched down to Downing Street.

The main message was for Gordon Brown, who Mr. Amess made clear has "no mandate in England".

A Conservative call for an English Parliament

2007-06-29T10:33:00.000Z

Janice Small from the Conservative Actions for Electoral Reform (CAER) calls for an English Parliament:

"Where we have devolution it is working for the Tories - it’s just the English that are being denied democracy and a say in their voting system. David Cameron needs to provide clear blue water between him and Gordon Brown. Just promising English Votes for English MPs isn’t enough. We need an English Parliament, a forum where the English can discuss their laws, their future. It will not cost the ridiculous sums of money that Edinburgh and Cardiff did as we have our own Parliament building and the existing civil servants can take care of the running."

Wonderful news.

Get onto Our Kingdom, read her article and give her comments your support.

The case for an English Parliament...

2007-06-29T10:06:00.000Z

THE MAN WHO NEEDS TO SCOTCH HIS OWN BROTH

An excellent article by Professor Arthur Aughey in this month's Parliamentary Brief.

In particular, Prof. Aughey makes a very important point about the importance of the party system to Unionism:

"... in his brilliant book Understanding the United Kingdom, written in the early 1980s as a Unionist riposte to the break-up of Britain thesis, Richard Rose argued that what acted as the major integrative element in politics was the party system.

"The major parties (Northern Ireland excepted) helped to translate regional and national concerns into the common language of British politics. However, that party competition today could have the opposite effect."

Prof. Aughey also mentions the case for an English Parliament:

"Certainly, the case for an English parliament is being made intelligently and for such an intelligent case one need look no further than Tom Waterhouse’s Devolution in the United Kingdom: Answering the English Question."

A strong endorsement- let's hope the magazone's readers at Westminster will take note.

Letter published in the Daily Telegraph, 23 June 2007

2007-06-29T09:54:00.000Z

SIR-

The cracks in the Union are now being hammered wider and wider apart. We are on the road to separation.

The simple fact is that the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are enjoying health and education benefits paid for with English taxpayers’ money, and yet the same benefits are being denied to the people of England on the grounds of cost.

Commentators may blame it on the SNP or the Barnett Formula- which allows England’s money to be used to subsidise the rest of the UK. They are all missing the point. English resentment will continue to grow because there is no political institution that can speak for England.

We already have a Scottish-dominated Cabinet, and Gordon Brown will become UK Prime Minister without the vote of a single person in England. Unless Mr. Brown recognises this, and creates a devolved English Parliament, we will continue on the road to separation.

Yours sincerely,

Tom Waterhouse
Vice Chairman
Campaign for an English Parliament
Abingdon, Oxfordshire

Letter published in the Oxford Mail, 21 June 2007

2007-06-29T09:47:00.000Z

SCOTTISH TAIL

The tail is wagging the dog and no one seems to care - no-one in a position of power, at any rate.
As Tom Waterhouse pointed out (Oxford Mail, June 13), there is growing resentment among English people about the way they are being treated by the British Parliament (led almost exclusively by Scots).

Now, in the last few days, since Mr Waterhouse's letter, two more iniquities have been dumped on us from on high.

Scottish university students - with students from every other EU country studying in Scotland - no longer have to pay fees, whereas English students, even those attending Scottish universities, are saddled with thousands of pounds of debts, whether they graduate or not.
Secondly, we are now told that the drug Macugen, which could save the sight of up to 26,000 people a year in the UK, is not to be available on the NHS in England, while it is still free in Scotland.

Add this to the growing number of drugs that the Scots get free but the English don't - Aricept, Reminyl, Exelon, for Alzheimer's; Velcade, for bone and marrow cancer; Gliadel, for brain tumours; Alimta, for mesothelioma; Tarceva, for lung cancer; Bonviva, Fosavance, for osteoporosis; Erbitux, for head and neck cancer.

Is this not grossly inequitable, not to say iniquitous?

How are they getting away with it? Because England has no representation, as Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland do.

Without our own Parliament, the English are being wagged more and more by the Scottish tail.
You can't really blame them - they are allowed to get away with it, Scot free!
Surely it's time to demand an English Parliament? We are the only country in Europe - or anywhere else in the West - that doesn't have one.

I suggest getting in touch with the Campaign for an English Parliament at www.thecep.org.uk and the English Democrats at www.englishdemocrats.org.uk

ALAN MYNALL, Radley

CEP News Release, 20th June 2007

2007-06-20T08:35:00.000Z

NEWS RELEASE

Wednesday 20th June 2007
For immediate release

Gordon Brown must drop his Claim

"How can Gordon Brown, who took this oath, become Prime Minister of the United Kingdom?"

When Gordon Brown was an ordinary Scottish MP he signed the declaration of the "Scottish Claim of Right". This document was a public oath committing those who took it to put the interests of the people of Scotland before all other considerations.

Now Gordon Brown is to become Prime Minister for the whole of the United Kingdom, the Campaign for an English Parliament is calling on Gordon Brown to publicly declare that he will not put the interests of any one part of the United Kingdom above any other part of the United Kingdom.

The Claim of Right, signed by Gordon Brown in 1988, read:

We, gathered as the Scottish Constitutional Convention, do hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs, and do hereby declare and pledge that in all our actions and deliberations their interests shall be paramount.

CEP Chairman, Scilla Cullen, said, "There is another nation within the UK- that of England. Will Gordon Brown extend to its people the right of self-determination that he espoused for his own nation when he signed the Scottish Claim of Right?"

CEP Vice Chairman, Tom Waterhouse, said, "The Claim of Right was a public oath, and those who took it pledged to put the interests of the Scottish people before all others. How can Gordon Brown, who took this oath, become Prime Minister of the United Kingdom? He must declare that he will put the interests of the whole of the UK before those of Scotland".

National Council, Campaign for an English Parliament

CONTACT:

Scilla Cullen (Chairman) 01438 833155

Mike Knowles (Media Unit) 01260 271139
Tom Waterhouse (Vice Chairman) 07900 633 811
David Wildgoose (Media Unit) 07970 258 794

Blair: Regional identity simply does not exist

2007-06-19T15:01:00.000Z

The out-going UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair, met with the Commons Liaison Committee yesterday. This committee is quite literally the “mother” of all committees, being made up of the Chairmen of Parliament’s 30 Select Committees.

There was a good spell on devolution, with Sir George Young MP very much on song- asking the Prime Minister about the state of the Union, the West Lothian Question, the Barnett Formula, the Scottish Parliament, tuition fees and English Votes on English Matters. Remarkable, really. The Prime Minister gave rather unremarkable answers to these questions, but when it came to regional assemblies Mr. Blair did say something worth writing down.

When asked by Dr. Phylis Starkey MP whether he wished he had been more bold and imposed elected regional assemblies on England, the Prime Minister said:

“The problem we found in the North East, because we tried to do a regional assembly there, if it was going to work anywhere it was going to work in the North East because of the coherence of the North East, but truthfully we found when we got into the campaign and the referendum that Teesside did not feel the necessary link with Tyneside, that County Durham did not necessarily want to be in the same place in terms of government as Newcastle and even Newcastle and Gateshead did not”.

There you have it. According to the Prime Minister himself, “regional identity” simply does not exist. Even in somewhere like the north-east of England, where the Government thought, of all places, their scheme was most likely to work, they found that people did not identify with their “region”, but with more local identities; with Teesside, Tyneside, County Durham, Newcastle, Sunderland, Gateshead.

This is surely the finishing touch to the argument that regionalism, no matter how you dress it up, is dead and should not be revived. And yet the BBC still promotes regional identity, the media still refers to “north east MPs” when talking about politicians from Newcastle or Sunderland, and parties like the Liberal Democrats, the Green Party and to a lesser extent Labour still cling to the idea. They should listen to the very people they are trying to force regionalism onto, and take this advice:

Regionalism is dead. Stop trying to dance with the corpse.

Letter published in the Oxford Mail, 13 June 2007

2007-06-13T18:48:00.000Z

NATIONAL HOLIDAY ON SAINTS' DAYS

Dear Sir,

So the Labour Government suggests that we have a "British Day" to celebrate our British identity.

Such an idea would sound acceptable if it came from anyone else but this Government, which has done more than any other in living memory to undermine what it means to be British.
Other people have highlighted how this Government's policies on ID Cards, detention without trial, uncontrolled immigration, political correctness, limits on free speech and banning protest outside Parliament are examples of their attacks on British culture, values and way of life.

To this, I would add the growing resentment among English people about the way they are being treated compared with their British countrymen in Scotland and Wales. More and more people deliberately choose to identify themselves as English, not British - a direct result of having Britishness rammed down our throats while being starved of our equally important English identity.

So to the idea of a British Day - which Gordon Brown says must not be a Bank Holiday but just a celebration - I say let's have a national Bank Holiday for St George's Day in England, and one in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland for St Andrew, St David and St Patrick.

Better that than some contrived day of Britishness cooked up by the people that have done so much to destroy our culture, values and way of life.

Tom Waterhouse
Campaign for an English Parliament
Oxfordshire branch

Labour Deputy Leadership candidates: don't mention the "E" word!

2007-06-11T11:46:00.000Z

The Labour Deputy Leadership candidates were recently asked on OurKingdom, “What should be done, if anything, to give England more representation or ‘voice’?”.

The answers were, predictably, abysmal.

The CEP's view of their repsonses has been put up on the OurKingdom website. Have a read of it at OurKingdom or read it below, but don't forget to add your own views.

It is interesting that the candidates, when asked what should be done to give England fair representation within the Union, immediately start talking about Scotland, Wales, the Union or even the “Regions”. They would rather talk about anything other than the “E” word.

Their response is, sadly, not surprising. This Labour Government has done more than any other to undermine England and the English way of life. The plans to balkanise England into regions failed when it encountered that annoying little thing called “democracy”: in the only referendum to be held on a regional assembly in the north east of England, the idea was emphatically rejected by 78% to 22%. Despite this, regionalisation in England has continued. It’s undemocratic, it’s unwanted, it’s unfair. That the candidates said nothing of this does not bode well for England in the near future. It certainly shows that talk of “re-engaging” with voters and the public is just as false as it was in 1997.

What the Labour Deputy Leadership candidates must realise - indeed what all Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat politicians must realise - is that the public want an English Parliament. Successive opinion polls have shown this: 68%, 61%, 67% in favour. Therefore their arguments about regions or the Union are irrelevant. As Labour MP Frank Field said recently, an English Parliament “is what voters want and what justice demands”. It cannot be said more simply or more powerfully than that. The fact that England’s voice is ignored by our political masters is evidence enough of why we must have an English Parliament.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE 15 JUNE: Tom Griffon of The Green Ribbon covers this, adding an importnat point about the sheer uselessness of regional assemblies. Worth a read.

Our Kingdom.net: England's turn for its own Parliament

2007-05-28T20:42:00.000Z

I'm absolutely delighted that OurKingdom, part of openDemocracy, has opened up a debate about an English Parliament.

This website is read by many academics, MPs and journalists, as well as political campaigners.

Add your voice to the debate by going here.

What a bunch of sour little regionalists

2007-05-28T19:39:00.000Z

The Constitution Unit (CU) has just published its latest newsletter, Monitor, which comments on, among other things, devolution. Many thanks to Gareth Young via the CEP network for the heads-up on this one.

The CU, being an “independent” group of well-educated academics, has always supported regional assemblies and strongly opposed an English Parliament (?). Their arguments have been shot down one by one over the last few years, but nothing shot them down harder than the people of the north-east of England. In a referendum on a regional assembly in 2004, a whopping 78% of people voted “No” to a regional assembly. Might I just add here that the referendum was a simple “Yes or No” question.

Despite this, the CU continued ploughing what we had always told them was a fallow field. Their retort was always that the grass was hardly greener on our side of the fence, seeing as (according to their favourite surveys), support for an English Parliament was below 20%. In the words of CU stalwart, Prof. John Curtice, in July last year, “yeah, well let us know when you’ve got some public support.”

Then some different people started doing some opinion polling. November 2006- a Sunday Telegraph Ipsos Mori Poll found that 68% of people support an English Parliament. January 2007, a BBC Poll (yes, the BBC!) shows that 61% support an English Parliament. More recently, in April this year, an ICM Poll commissioned by the CEP found that support for an English Parliament was at 67%.

So, what do the esteemed CU say now that their last argument against an English Parliament has been shot down? Yep, you guessed it- “Ok, we can see the blindingly obvious. The CEP were right”.

Erm, no. Try again. How about this sour little whimper: “But all three polls asked a somewhat loaded question with a simple yes/no choice rather than offering policy alternatives.”

That’s right. They didn’t like the way the questions were framed. In particular, they said the questions were “loaded” (I bet Ipsos Mori and ICM have something to say about that!), and that the questions didn’t offer any policy alternatives. Well, neither did the north-east referendum.

A referendum on an English Parliament would ask the public something similar to a “Yes or No” question. It’s simple. There’s no confusion. And if we had one tomorrow, we’d have an English Parliament overnight.

The Constitution Unit remains completely blinkered to the reality. It is such a shame that such narrow-minded and subjective opinions can be portrayed as "independent". You've got a chance to have your say.

All aboard the 20:07!

2007-05-24T22:23:00.000Z

Things couldn’t have worked out better. Or worse. Around the same as Scottish National Party leader, Alex Salmond, is sworn in as Scotland’s First Minister, fellow Scotsman Gordon Brown has become Prime Minister-elect of the UK Parliament. A Scotsman running Scotland, and a Scotsman running England.

Not that these two Scottish brethren will treat each other as buddies. This presents its own problems, though. Alex Salmond and the SNP, after their election success, feel closer than ever to their goal taking Scotland out of the Union. Gordon Brown, however, is tantalisingly close to his goal of becoming UK Prime Minister. He will formally cross the finishing line when Tony Blair steps down on 27th June, but until then Gordon Brown will continue on his victory-lap. It’s a strange way of doings things, granted, but what the heck. What would be his worst nightmare, however, is for his Premiership to be cut tragically short by Scotland leaving the Union, and therefore taking him and his political career with him. There is a lot at stake.

The SNP have said they will not call a referendum on independence until the end of the current Parliament, probably in 2010. They want to prove they can govern Scotland effectively. What this means in practice is four years of Alex Salmond bullying Westminster into giving Scotland more and more of England’s wealth. If Gordon Brown dares to stand in the way of the 20:07 Express Gravy Train to Edinburgh, they’ll be sticky bits of Gordon all over the place. Political suicide. The SNP will shout from the platform, “You see! Even when we have a Scotsman as PM, we still can’t have what we want! Independence is the only option!” And yet while that Gravy Train continues to roll in, the SNP can claim to be securing the best for Scotland in a way that no Labour administration at Holyrood could possibly have done so.

So, my concern now is that the next 3 or 4 years will be spent with Scotland’s First Minister, Alex Salmond, and UK Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, effectively bartering with England’s wealth and resources in order to convince Scotland to leave/stay in the UK. This is effectively a new chapter in the history of Britain. How badly do we need an English Parliament and English First Minister to speak up for England?

This concern about Salmond and Brown is not new. I remember worrying about it before.

67% support English Parliament

2007-05-24T22:19:00.000Z

The most recent opinion poll, conducted by ICM towards the end of April, found that support for an English Parliament is at 67%. Another fantastic result.

People were asked the following question:

You may have seen or heard that a separate Scottish parliament, a Welsh assembly and a Northern Ireland Assembly have been established.

Do you think that England should or should not have its own parliament or assembly?

The results were excellent: 67% of people believe England should have its own Parliament. Just 25% said England should not have its own Parliament. The result is consistent with other recent opinion polls, and so proves that the public supports an English Parliament. We can now add the result to the previous excellent results:

Nov 2006. Sunday Telegraph Ipsos Mori Poll: 68% support for an English Parliament.
Jan 2007. BBC Poll: 61% support an English Parliament.
April 2007. CEP ICM Poll: 67% support for an English Parliament.

Of interest was the differing levels of support across the UK:

All England 67%
South-East 65%
Midlands 68%
North England 70%
Wales & SW England 62%
Scotland 72%

Perhaps most surprising is the fact that, across the whole of the UK, the area where support for an English Parliament is at its strongest is Scotland. For me, this reinforces what I (and a number of other CEP members) have been saying for some time: that we must be even more careful about being perceived as “anti-Scottish”. The CEP was formed out the unfairness of the devolution settlement, and many of our grievances have come from what Scotland has been given at England’s expense. This has led to some accusations of anti-Scottishness, which is of course unfair, but we must nonetheless be aware that people may perceive our views in this way.

Dale vs. Cameron

2007-04-16T10:01:00.000Z

*Links updated 25th May 2007*

Following on from David Cameron's recent article Scots and English Flourish in the Union in the Daily Telegraph, Iain Dale responds with this brilliant article, Cameron can't ignore Devolution for England. Superb stuff, Iain.

What a God-send is Iain Dale. Reading Mr. Cameron's article was so frustrating. He did at least mention the idea of English Parliament, but to dismiss it because of the "it means more politicians" arguement shows that we still have a long way to go.

With reference to that particular criticism of the idea of an English Parliament, let me echo what I wrote in Answering the English Question (which has just been published by the CEP- e-mail admin@thecep.org.uk is you would like one):

"...if 529 English MPs at Westminster can currently handle the workload for all areas of public policy in England, whether that is for Foreign Policy or Education, then could not 528 members (176 English Westminster MPs plus 352 English Parliament members) be able to cope?"

Or, as former CEP Chairman Michael Knowles put it, "Devolution does not increase the size of the population. There therefore should be no need to increase the amount of parliamentary representation".

Celt Gelt

2007-04-04T13:46:00.000Z

This little beauty comes from Hereward the Wake.

"CeltGelt", written across the face of famous Scottish economist Adam Smith (the first Scotsman to appear on an English banknote- no Englishman has yet appeared on any of the numerous Scottish bank notes), refers to all the money that is taken from England and given to Scotland every year. Last year, roughly £9 billion was given to Scotland. This is because of the Barnett Formula, which works out how much of the UK tax pot is dished out to the countries of the UK. For the last couple of decades, it has been outrageously unfair to England.

There is now a campaign urging everyone to write "CeltGelt" on their £20 notes. Not just in protest at the Barnett Formula, but at the fact that Edward Elgar- composer of the music to "Land of Hope and Glory", was taken off our £20 notes and Scotsman Smith put in instead.

My £20 is in the post to you, Hereward.

Start a Debate

2007-04-04T11:00:00.000Z

I'm absolutely delighted that make it an issue has posted my debate, "Tom Waterhouse: Time for an English Parliament?".

You can get involved here.

Why MPs don't want an English Parliament

2007-04-03T16:04:00.000Z

There are many reasons given by opponents of an English Parliament about why such a thing would be a bad idea. “Unworkable… it would rival Westminster… another layer of government… etc. etc”. But there is actually something in these excuses. MPs fear what they call “another layer of government”. But not because it would be an unnecessary cost for the electorate. Heck, if cost were the measure of everything, we wouldn’t have elections. They are scared…

I recently met with an MP to discuss the case for an English Parliament. I drove to his office in the south-west of England after a promising letter to one of his constituents who is also a CEP member.

I arrived in good time and had no trouble whatsoever in finding the office without detailed instructions- I found it by chance by driving down one of the streets in the town centre. Above the office was a huge sign alerting everyone to the fact that this was indeed the office of their MP. Emblazoned with the Party colours, this was more than just an office- it was Campaign central.

Inside were 4 people at work on computers- answering e-mails, writing letters and sending faxes to constituents, journalists and colleagues and so on. I wondered what life was like in the offices of the MP’s local political rivals. Nothing like this hub of activity, you could bet. This place really was buzzing, and all the time humming the tune of “This is your MP”. Everything it did was geared for one thing: getting this MP re-elected at the next general election. Not only did the MP’s livelihood depend on its success; so did the careers of those working in the office, this no doubt being the stepping-stone to pastures greener. Make a good job of working for this MP and, who knows? They might be the Party candidate running for election in 10 year’s time. The fuel for this Party machine is the parliamentary constituents of the area. Every constituent is a potential voter. Every problem solved is a potential vote winner. The more time and energy you put into your constituents, the more likely they are to re-elect you.

Now imagine we had our way and an English Parliament was created. This MP would have to share his honey-pot of constituents with another political animal. No longer having a monopoly on being the constituency’s problem-solver-in-chief could seriously hamper one’s efforts to get re-elected. Heaven forbid, they might even have to share the constituency with someone from a rival Party.

Closely related is the fact that MPs will feel their role will be reduced in prestige should an English Parliament be created. At the moment, an MP is the top dog. Lending their name to something immediately catches the eye, or adds weight to something. But what if there were to be someone with almost the same ability to make a difference?

There is also the fear of the unknown. The way an English Parliament is elected- i.e. the electoral system used, would have a dramatic effect on MPs. Indeed, Scottish voters elect two MSPs to represent them- double trouble for a UK MP that’s not keen having others on his patch.

Many MPs see an English Parliament as a direct threat to their majorities, their seats, their prestige, their way of life. When they say “people don’t want another layer of government”, they mean they don’t want the competition. An English Parliament wouldn’t be another layer of government- and that’s the problem. It would take over responsibility for things currently done by Westminster, and see English Parliament Members take over responsibility for things currently done by UK MPs. When they say, “it would rival Westminster”, what they are really scared of is a new rival.

We must not let their disgraceful self-interest stand in the way of Justice for England.

New CEP Branch blog

2007-03-29T10:22:00.000Z

They're coming in thick and fast, folks!

Yes, we have a new CEP blogger: Mr. Ian Miller from Peterborough. Check out his new blog.

Nice one, Ian.

Reply from John Denham MP, 28th March 2007

2007-03-28T15:51:00.000Z

Thank you for your letter referring to my recent remarks in the debate.

I understand the point you are making but I am not at all convinced that an English Parliament is the right way forward to develop the sort of inclusive national identity which we appear to both seek. There is however an important debate to be had about the institutions which can express an English identity. My own view is that my new proposals for the structure of the new elected House of Lords does provide part of the answer and should not be dismissed out of hand.

The debate about English identity is an important one and I hope that it will continue.

Yours sincerely,

John Denham MP

Ok.

I didn't dismiss out of hand his proposals of elected Lords- in fact I didn't mention them at all. That's because the issue of the House of Lords had nothing to do with what we were talking about!

In fact, that point proves my point. Mr. Denham argued that people jump straight from English to British identity. I said that this was because there are no English institutions. And yet, our elected English MPs like Mr. Denham are "not convinced" of the need for an English Parliament, but see the solution in reforming our existing- British- institutions.

HELLO?

New CEP Branch blog

2007-03-19T14:34:00.000Z

I'd like to welcome Steve Allinson, co-ordinator of CEP Surrey & Middlesex, to the blogosphere!

You can see his newly-made blog here.

Nice one, Steve!

Sign the petition

2007-03-12T12:11:00.000Z

"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to agree to the setting up of an English Parliament".

Please sign this petition.

Letter to John Denham MP, 12th March 2007

2007-03-12T10:31:00.000Z

After a heads-up from Gareth and Chris, I saw that in a recent parliamentary debate, Labour MP John Denham said:

“It is much more likely that a member of the black and ethnic minority communities in Scotland will describe himself as Scottish than that someone in England with a similar background will describe himself as English. People in England tend to jump straight to the British identity”.

“I see no great need for an English Parliament or an English Government… I do not consider that our history leads the English to require a Parliament or Assembly as an expression of national identity”.

I sent this to Mr. Denham today:

Dear Mr. Denham,

In a recent parliamentary debate, you said:

“It is much more likely that a member of the black and ethnic minority communities in Scotland will describe himself as Scottish than that someone in England with a similar background will describe himself as English. People in England tend to jump straight to the British identity”.

In the same debate, you also said:

“I see no great need for an English Parliament or an English Government… I do not consider that our history leads the English to require a Parliament or Assembly as an expression of national identity”.

Does it not occur to you that these two statements are intrinsically linked? In Scotland, there is a Scottish Parliament separate from the British Parliament. In England, we are governed solely by the British Parliament. There is a Secretaty of State for Scotland, but no Secretary of State for England. There is a BBC Scotland, but no BBC England. There is a Scottish National Library, but here we have the British National Library. There is Scottish Labour, but no English Labour. Scotland’s sports teams sing the Scottish National Anthem, Flower of Scotland, while English teams sing the British National Anthem, God Save the Queen. On the 2001 National Census, people were asked to state whether they were “Scottish, Welsh or British”.

Can you see a theme here?

No wonder people in England, as you point out, jump straight to British identity. There are no institutions to maintain and promote any sort of English identity. That is why we are campaigning for an English Parliament. While you do not believe that “our history leads the English to require a Parliament as an expression of national identity”, the fact is the present and the future does require it.

Yours sincerely,

Tom Waterhouse
CEP Vice Chairman

Letter published in the Oxford Mail, 15 February 2006

2007-02-15T21:02:00.000Z

AT OUR EXPENSE

Henley MP Boris Johnson was quite right to highlight, in a Parliamentary debate last week, the unfairness of how life-saving cancer drugs are available free on the NHS in Scotland, but not in England.

While people living north of the border may receive the life-saving cancer drugs Herceptin or Velcade free on the NHS, it is denied to people here in England on the grounds of cost. The same is true if you suffer from Alzheimer’s- in Scotland drugs such as Aricept, Reminyl and Exelon are prescribed free, but in England we are told we cannot afford to give it out.

Mr. Johnson didn’t get a chance to say that what makes all of this even more unfair is that it is actually money from England that is paying for these drugs to handed out free on the NHS in Scotland. According to Treasury figures, last year England gave away £11.6 billion to the rest of the UK. No wonder Scotland can afford to prescribe life-saving drugs free, while cancer sufferers in England must go without.

Well done Mr. Johnson for highlighting this unfairness- we only need the other 645 UK MPs to speak up and we might start making progress!

Yours sincerely,

Tom Waterhouse
Campaign for an English Parliament

Oh dear

2007-02-14T14:58:00.000Z

A rather misguided article on the Golden Strawberry. All about how an English Parliament would break up the Union, even how the Barnett Formula is the “basic principle of redistribution of wealth in action”!! Oh dear. I posted a response: (we'll see if it they publish it....)

Who speaks for England?

The Conservatives have not become an English party. They opposed the creation of the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly because they thought it would weaken the Union. Lop-sided devolution has weakened the Union.

This brings me on to another point- the Campaign for an English Parliament (CEP) believes an English Parliament is the only way of saving the Union. But that is just our belief. No-one can know for certain what the future holds. What we must not do is ignore the wishes of the majority of the people of England (as you rightly point out, 61% of people in England want an English Parliament), out of a fear that it may weaken the Union.

The Barnett Formula is most certainly not the “basic principle of redistribution of wealth in action”. Far from it. The Barnett Formula allocates resources throughout the UK based on population sizes, not need. Only when we have a formula that allocates resources throughout the UK on the basis of need will we see proper redistribution of wealth.

You ask, “Who, then, can speak for Britain?”. The question should be, in an asymmetrically governed UK, who can speak for England? Westminster is the UK Parliament. We have a Scottish Parliament, a Welsh Assembly and (hopefully) an Assembly for Northern Ireland. Who speaks for England? There is no political institution to speak up for England, even though England’s students are the only ones in the UK to pay University tuition fees. Only England’s pensioners have to sell their homes to afford personal care (in Scotland it is provided free), and only in England are life-saving cancer drugs like Herceptin unavailable on the NHS, denied on the grounds of cost (they are provided free in Scotland). And all the time, it is England’s money used to make University education, long-term personal care and life-saving drugs FREE in Scotland.

We need an English Parliament and Executive to speak for England. Otherwise, the Union, from England’s point of view, is simply not worth saving.

Well done, Mr. Johnson!

2007-02-07T17:42:00.000Z

Boris Johnson has highlighted in a Parliamentary debate the unfairness of how life-saving cancer drugs like Herceptin are available free on the NHS in Scotland, but in England they are denied on the grounds of cost.

And, of course, the Herceptin made available in Scotland is paid for with English taxpayers' money.

Want to add your support to what Boris said? You can do so here.

_____________________________________________________________________

Update 15 Feb: I'm pleased to see that plenty of people logged on and added their support to what Boris said. In fact, Health Minister Ivan Lewis got a bit of a bashing

The CEP in Oxford

2007-01-31T10:43:00.000Z

Yesterday the CEP met outside Oxford's oldest building, the Saxon Tower on Cornmarket Street. Oxford is the birthplace of the English Parliament: it was here in 1258 that the English barons led by Simon de Montfort forced King Henry III to accept the Provisions of Oxford; a series of measures which bound him to consult his subjects before acting.

We were there to meet with the Sunday Times in Scotland, who are doing a feature on the CEP for this weekend's edition. We spent half an hour having our photo taken, and a further hour and half talking to journalist Alan Brown. It will be interesting to see what they will say about us!

Beneath the Saxon Tower: (from left to right) CEP Media Unit leader Michael Knowles; Jim Matthews (Media Unit); Chairman Scilla Cullen; myself; CEP member and law student Chris Nelson; veteran campaigner Len Welsh; and local member Alan Mynall.

The meeting with Alan Brown went very well I thought. We were keen to expose the myth that an English Parliament meant an end to the Union- in fact, it is the only way to save the United Kingdom. A majority of people on both sides of the border want an English Parliament, and to ignore them would be disastrous. We also talked about why each of us got involved in the CEP. Everyone (except me!) said that it had been the devolutionary legisaltion of 1998 that had sparked it all- the feeling of having been left out and excluded in all that was going on, and the realisation that England doesn't actually exist. The law only recognises Britain, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. For me, it started with football. I love watching England play, whether down the pub on the big screen or actually at the stadium. It led me to ask "what is England and Englishness?". From there I found the CEP on the web, and suddenly everything felt hollow. There we all are, singing our hearts out for "England", and yet officially- politically and constitutionally- it doesn't exist. I then started to notice this in everyday life- how sportsmen and women from England were British, and yet those from the rest of the UK were Scots, Welsh or Northern Irish. Passport forms, driving licences and all other sorts of official documents- even the 2001 census, asked you to state if you were "British, Scottish, Welsh or Other".

And from there it's snowballed. While tution and top-up fees have been abolished in Scotland and Wales by the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly, their MPs still voted to impose them on the students of England. Pensioners in England have to sell their homes to fund their long-term health care, and yet in Scotland that is provided free. You can get life-saving cancer drugs like Herceptin free on the NHS in Scotland, but not in England- there's not enough money. In fact there's not enough money to do any of this stuff in England, because all the time our money is being used to afford it for the rest of the UK. Had public spending per head been roughly equal across the UK last year, England would have received an extra £12 billion pounds. So you can see why we haven't got enough money to help people with cancer.

On top of all of this, we still have the UK Parliament deciding that English schools will teach "Britishness", and yet because education is devovled to Scotland and Wales, they can choose to teach Scottish and Welsh values and culture. It just aint fair. It's not right. And people are fed up with it.

We are not asking for any more than anyone else- just to be treated the same as everyone else. That is only fair. An English Parliament will happen sooner or later, so take note all those English Quislings and politicians that have their heads in the sand.

Article in the Western Daily Press

2007-01-23T17:09:00.000Z

An article of mine has been published in the Western Daily Press today.

It's called "Why do the Scots get a better deal?", and you can read it here.

A Good Day at the Office

2007-01-18T11:47:00.000Z

Tuesday, 16th January 2007 was the 300th anniversary of the signing of the Act of Union that brought England and Scotland together as Great Britain. Tuesday was also the biggest day in the CEP's 8 year history.

I was on BBC Radio 5 Live at 8 am going head-to-head with the Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer , with an audience of 2.3 million people. Nicky Campbell was clearly sympathetic to us, giving Falconer a hard time and allowing me a good run of things. This all followed a BBC poll to mark the 300th anniversary of the Union, and found that 61% of people want an English Parliament. Even 51% of Scots polled want England to have its own parliament!

On the way back from the studio, BBC News 24 phoned to ask if I could be on at 11.30- no problem! So it was back to BBC Oxford, mic plugged in and straight on the air. The CEP's first appearence on live television! I was up against former editor of the Scotsman, Magnus Linklater. Those that saw me could probably have guessed that I was more than a little annoyed at yet another Scotsman telling England what was best for us. When Mr. Linklater said that an English Parliament was a bad idea and that people didn't want one, I couldn't but help interupt and point out that a) 61% of them do, and b) it's got nothing to do with him. He respsonded by saying that, as Scotland was still in the Union, many in Scotland had a view on whether England should have a parliament. I interupted again to say that many people in England probably had a view on whether Scotland should have had a Parliament, but weren't asked, and have never been asked anything.

We got on, inevitably, to talk about Scotland, and the SNP's economic case for independence. Mr. Linklater doubted the SNP's figures, but when I was asked what I thought, I simply said that Scottish indepedence was a matter for the Scots, so I wouldn't comment. If more high-profile Scots took that attitude towards England, we wouldn't be in such a mess in the first place.

I also got to answer some of those questions arising about an English Parliament- a new building, the break-up of the UK etc. I said that we could use the West Midlands Regional Assembly building, as an English Parliament would see the regional tier of government in England stripped away. Also, that many people are in the CEP because they believe an English Parliament will strengthen the Union.

Did it feel weird to watch myself back on t.v? Yes, it bloody well did! But the name of the CEP and what we stand for was broadcast on live television for the first time. You can't knock that!

At 15 minutes notice, I also got to speak to Simon Mayo on the 5 live lunchtime news. The Prime Minister had said that morning that an English Parliament was "unworkable" and "unneccesary", as England was 85% of the UK population. I got a chance to talk about this attitude of the British Establishment towards England- that because it was so big it didn't need to be represented properly (I highlighted how England doesn't have a devolved parliament, a Secretary of State and that political parties ignore England in the way they are organised; Scottish Labour, Welsh Labour but no English Labour etc). I said that this was causing resentment in England to grow, and that this kind of attitude is what will cause the Union to split. A good interview all round, I thought.

At around 5pm, I was on the Bill Heine show on BBC Radio Oxford. Again, I had a chance to answer all those questions about more politicians, more buildings etc. etc. I also got to explain about the CEP itself, and that the efforts of ordinary people up and down England for the last 8 years are starting to pay-off. Writing to MPs and newspapers, leafletting, e-mailling t.v. programmes and putting in the hard work has got us to where we are. I also talked about the Barnett Formula, and about how unfair the current situation is. Mr. Heine did his best to give me a hard time, but I think I held my own.

What a day! As you can imagine, I was pretty tired by the end, but absolutely buzzing nonetheless. People in the CEP have looked forward to this milestone-of-a-day for 8 years, sometimes thinking we would never see it. But it came. And so will the day that we have an English Parliament.

A great day at the office!

Reply from David Cameron MP, 1st Dec 2006

2006-12-18T22:54:00.000Z

I received a reply to my letter (below) from Oxfordshire MP David Cameron.

The Conservative Party leader stated that he has "fully taken onboard" the points I put across to him. David also believes that an English Parliament would "undermine the Union, which has served us all well and can continue to do so".

So, Mr. Cameron can't have taken on board what I said, because I spelt out quite clearly in my first letter how England is being so badly treated by the Union.

The letter also said the CEP leaflet I enclosed "had been noted". Noted, or read? Noted, then.

Writing to MPs, especially party leaders, is never done with the wild hope that a single letter will bring about a policy change. That's ridiculous. But it's all part of the general noise the Campaign is trying to make. Letters in newspapers and to MPs, as well as postings on websites and blogs and so on is all about creating that "chatter" that will eventually get your issue noticed. The opinion polls are the milestones in our efforts. Opinion polls are also what MPs will start to listen to.

So, my message to campaigners, on any issue, is this: keep plugging away, carry on writing, blogging and talking. If enough of you do it, you can and will make a difference.

Letter to David Cameron MP, 28th November 2006

2006-12-14T12:19:00.000Z

Dear Mr. Cameron,

Please thank Mr. Ian Pendlington for his letter of 20th November in reply to my letter to you of 19th October. He made an admirable attempt to answer some the concerns raised in my letter, such as my resentment at the continuation of the Barnett Formula. As the Sunday Telegraph’s ICM Poll revealed, 60% of those polled agree with me that the higher spending in Scotland is unjustified; just 28% agree with you that it is justified.

One of the issues that Mr. Pendlington didn’t reply to was that I argued we should have an English Parliament. Again, 68% of the people polled agree with me that there should be an English Parliament, whilst just 25% agree with you that there shouldn’t be. I am convinced that an English Parliament is both necessary and practical- that is why I wrote my politics dissertation on the issue.

You said English people’s ignorance of Scots and Scotland is damaging the Union. I said that what is damaging the Union is that the people of England are not being given the respect they deserve. The result is that the UK is close to breaking up.

There is a solution. Start treating the people of England- who constitute 85% of the UK- with some respect. Support the calls for an English Parliament, and put yourself on the same side as the people of England and Scotland against this Labour Government that has done its best to tear the Union apart.

I do hope you read this letter.

Yours sincerely,

CEP Oxfordshire member

Letter published in the Oxford Mail, 11 Dec 2006

2006-12-11T23:24:00.000Z

CAMERON'S INSULT

There was a time, long ago, when I believed that our elected representatives in the Westminster Parliament were there to represent the people.

But as Tom Waterhouse pointed out (Oxford Mail, December 5), a recent ICM poll found that 68 per cent of the English are in favour of England being brought into line with Scotland by having its own parliament. While it is blatantly obvious why Scotsman Gordon Brown wishes to maintain the status quo, it is less clear what David Cameron is up to.

If Mr. Cameron is serious about trying to win the next General Election, he would be well advised to refrain from making trips to Scotland and describing the English people as “sour little Englanders”.

If he thinks he can win an election without the votes of millions of “sour little Englanders”, I can only assume that he’s even dimmer than he appears to be.

John Sandalls (Dr) Locks Lane, Wantage

Why Unionists and Nationalists must support calls for an English Parliament

2006-12-08T19:44:00.000Z

The Sunday Telegraph's ICM poll a fortnight ago has generated plenty of column inches in discussing Anglo-Scottish relations. Passionate defences of the Union matched by bitter calls for separation (by nationalists on both sides of the border). But among all this, the most popular option among those polled- an English Parliament- has mostly been ignored.

68% of English people polled said they want an English Parliament with similar powers to the Scottish Parliament, while just 48% want complete independence. But the idea of a devolved English Parliament has been attacked by unionists and nationalists alike: the former believing an English Parliament will eventually lead to the break-up of the UK, the latter arguing the Union should be broken now. However, instead of attacking the idea, both unionists and nationalists should be supporting calls for an English Parliament.

What all unionists must understand is that England’s disenchantment with the Union stems from the asymmetric devolution settlement created in 1999. While Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have been granted devolved assemblies to handle domestic affairs and provide a voice for that nation within the UK, England remains the only part of the UK governed solely by Westminster. Instead, England has been balkanised into regions, despite the fact that people in England do not want their country divided so by regional assemblies. Indeed, the only part of England to be given a referendum on a regional assembly voted overwhelmingly against the idea- only to have an unelected regional assembly forced upon them, the same as across the rest of England. It is not right, and the ICM poll showed that the people of England are not happy about it.

A devolved English Parliament- i.e. a parliament within the Union, is essentially a unionist response to devolution. Treat each part of the UK the same and it will remain united. To state that an English Parliament will lead to the break-up of the Union is wrong: no-one knows for sure what the future holds. And besides, it was not a barrier to those creating assemblies for the rest of the UK. An English Parliament is the only hope the Union has of taming the rising anger in England, because quite simply, if the people of England have to forego a devolved parliament of their own for the sake of the Union, they will seek the end of the Union instead.

But while unionists must support calls for an English Parliament, nationalists in England must too. The fact is that, if the prospect of a devolved English Parliament seems unlikely in the near future, then England breaking from the UK altogether is even further off. Political parties hold most of the cards in setting the political agenda, and while sections of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties are coming round to the idea[1], they are not at all warming to the idea of independence for England. In Scotland, however, it is different. If the polls are correct, there could be a Scottish National Party-controlled Scottish Parliament in 2007, with an independence referendum following soon after. Had Scotland voted SNP beforehand, a betting man would put his money on Scotland voting in that referendum for independence.

Now, some of the most difficult, complex and controversial negotiations in Britain’s history would then take place: negotiating the end of the Union. Separating Scotland- so closely integrated within the Union- from the UK, would be extremely complicated. Who would have the North Sea oil? If Scotland took the lion’s share of the oil, would the rest of the UK be compensated for the investment in the facilities used for obtaining the oil? What of the UK’s land-based nuclear weapons, all based in Scotland? How much of the UK’s national debt would Scotland take with it? Suffice as to say, it would not be easy. But just as important as the issues themselves would be the people negotiating them. For Scotland, their First Minister. For the UK, the Prime Minister, Tony Blair? Born and educated in Edinburgh, responsible for the balkanisation of England, and someone who believed the West Lothian Question wasn’t a problem?

One could assume that, should Gordon Brown be UK Prime Minister by that time, that he would leave the UK Parliament, as his constituency would soon no longer be part of the UK. But should we assume? Who is to say that Mr. Brown, who sees no problem in being the West Lothian incarnate on becoming UK Prime Minister, would not resign until his country had formally left the UK after negotiations had finished? Of course, Wales and Northern Ireland, just as they have a voice in UKRep in the UK’s dealing with the EU, would have a voice through their national Executives. But England? Not only doesn’t England have a parliament and Executive of its own, there isn’t a Secretary of State for England, nor does England have a formal representative on UKRep, no separate voice within the UK. Just as has been the case in recent times, while all other parts of the UK have a separate voice, England would be represented by the UK.
Ridiculous? Absurd? Would never happen? Why not. It is ridiculous and absurd that England has been treated as it has by the UK in recent times, so such a scenario should not be dismissed. England must have a Parliament if the Union is to survive, but equally it must have a Parliament before the Union nears its end. Unionists and Nationalists take note.

[1] An Ipsos Mori poll from June 2006 found that an English Parliament was the most popular of three options among Lib Dems (50%) and Conservatives (46%).

Frank Field MP on an English Parliament

2006-12-06T19:28:00.000Z

It is always encouraging to hear MPs speak up in support of an English Parliament, especially when they say it so plainly.

Labour MP and former Welfare Minister, Frank Field, said today: "I hope to still be around when we see an English parliament established because that is what voters want and what justice demands".

You just can't say it better than that. Nice one, Frank- why not get in touch with the CEP?

Full interview at:

http://www.epolitix.com/EN/Interviews/200611/d9e1f9cc-403e-4315-af7b-885bbc46c489.htm

Letter published in the Oxford Mail, 6 Dec 2006

2006-12-06T19:12:00.000Z

SCOTLAND RIDES ON ENGLAND

Dear Sir,

Yet again you have recieved a clutch of letters complaining about the way our hard-earned money is misused (Oxford Mail, December 2).

But I wonder just how many people know that Messrs Blair and Brown continue to apply the Barnett Formula and hand over more than £10bn a year of English taxpayers' money to Scotland.

This means an extra £2,200 is spent on schools, hospitals and other public services for every person living in Scotland compared with England.

This massive amount of money should be used for the benefit of people living in England and could go a long way to offsetting taxes, council tax in particular.

Even Lord Barnett, who devised the formula for payments to Scotland in the 1970s, says it is no longer relevant and should be cancelled forthwith.

If your readers are concerned enough to write to newspapers, they should also a) write to their MP and b) join the Campaign for a Parliament for England.

Details of the campaign can be obtained from Box 125, 61 Great Underbank, Stockport SK1 1LE. Alternatively, readers can telephone 0707 122 0234, or to get full details online, log onto www.thecep.org.uk

John Sandalls (Dr), Locks Lane, Wantage

Letter published in the Oxford Mail, 5 Dec 2006

2006-12-05T19:03:00.000Z

IT'S OUTRAGEOUS

Dear Sir,

Mr. Robin Spokes (Oxford Mail, November 29) is not alone in finding that the nationality of “English” has been deemed politically incorrect.

The 2001 Census allowed people to state they were either Scottish, Welsh or British. This is because, according the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, “there is no such nationality as English”.

This is simply outrageous, and people like Mr. Spokes are not going to put up with it. Indeed, last weekend’s ICM poll found that 68% of English people want an English Parliament. An English Parliament will speak up for England- not just to stop our money being given out to all and sundry, but also to stop this disrespectful treatment of the English people. Of course, the likes of Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Menzies Campbell oppose the idea, arguing that it may break up the United Kingdom. No-one knows for sure what the future holds, so instead of gazing into their crystal balls, our politicians should be listening to what the people of England are saying right now: “we want an English Parliament!”.

Tom Waterhouse
Oxfordshire Branch
Campaign for an English Parliament
Winterborne Road
Abingdon

68% support an English Parliament

2006-12-04T19:46:00.000Z

The Sunday Telegraph's ICM poll was a massive boost the campaign. As the ST puts it, the figure of 68% support is an "historic high".

In the three years that I've been campaigning for the CEP, we have regulalry been quoted figures showing support at around 16%. In June, an Ipsos Mori poll in the Observer put support at 26%. But these polls were always multiple-choice- a referendum on an English Parliament would be a straight-forward "do you want an English Parliament?". Judging by the latest ICM poll, 68% would say "YES!".

Reply from David Cameron MP, (sort of)

2006-12-04T19:16:00.000Z

Just over a month after my letter to David Camron (below), I got a reply.

The letter, from a member of Mr. Cameron's staff, sought to "assure" me "David and the Conservative Party are committed to the Union". I didn't need reassuring of that, I needed reassuring that Mr. Cameron was prepared to stand up for England.

Not so. Although David agrees that "it is important that we have a fair and stable financial relationship between the different parts of the Union", the Conservatives want to keep the Barnett Formula. This is despite the fact that, last year, spending per head was over 20% higher in Scotland than in England*. Nice one, Dave.

Nothing was said of the discriminatory top-up fees, conditions for the elderly, an English Parliament or his outrageous remarks about English people.

I'll be writing back.

* See HM Treasury, ‘Total central government and public corporations' identifiable expenditure on services by country and region per head, 1999-00 to 2004-05’, Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses, Cm 6521, (London: HMSO, 2005) p. 113. It's all there in black and white.

Letter to David Cameron MP, 19th October 2006

2006-12-04T19:04:00.000Z

Dear Mr. Cameron,

Last month, you said: “… the union is supposed to be a relationship of equals”. With this in mind, may I remind you of the following.

Scotland has a Parliament to deal with Scottish domestic issues. England is the only country in the UK to be governed solely by the UK Parliament.

English students pay up-front tuition fees of £3000 a year. Scottish students pay around £2000 once they have graduated. The only reason for the difference is that, while Scotland’s Parliament rejected the idea of tuition fees, the UK Parliament voted for them in England- against the wishes of the majority of English MPs.

In 2004, according to Help the Aged 21,000 elderly people in England died through lack of adequate central heating. In Scotland, central heating is provided for free by the Scottish Executive.

According to Treasury figures, had public spending between the four nations of the UK been equal in 2004-5, England would have received an extra £12 billion in public spending. This is because of the Barnett Formula, which Lord Barnett himself has said should be scrapped.

And then, to cap it off, the leader of the only major party I thought could be relied upon to speak up against such injustices has the sheer gall to argue that, being English, my “ignorance” about “Scots and Scotland” is damaging the Union.

No, Mr. Cameron. What is damaging the Union is the ignorance of people like you who assume that, because of my ethnicity, I am ignorant about Scotland. What is damaging the Union is that it is the people of England who are not being given the respect they deserve. What is damaging the Union is that, while ordinary English and Scottish people have respect for one another, the top politicians in Britain in the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and now the Conservative Party, are intent on tearing Britain apart.

I would be grateful if you could try to convince me that I am wrong to include the Conservative Party in the group of parties intent on wrecking the Union.

Yours sincerely,

CEP Oxfordshire member

Welcome to the CEP Oxfordshire blog

2006-12-03T15:27:00.000Z

Hello and welcome to the weblog of the Oxfordshire branch of the Campaign for an English Parliament (CEP).

As co-ordinator for the Oxfordshire branch (that's me on the left!), I intend to keep readers up to date with the local campaign, and also highlight news stories relevant to the national campaign.

Please visit www.thecep.org.uk for more info on who the CEP are, and what we're all about.