New CEP Branch blog

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

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

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

"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

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

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

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.