Total Visits

Saturday, 14 January 2017



I was talking to a UKIP friend of mine recently. We were agreeing that the English Democrats had had a significant indirect impact on the EU referendum because it was us that first suggested that there should be a linkage made between mass immigration and our inability to control it whilst we were still members of the EU.

There are of course other issues where mass immigration has a direct impact on things that most English people would not want to see happen.

For instance at the moment it is the case that large parts of England are likely to be concreted over as part of a massive housebuilding push in order to accommodate not only the 10-15 million people that came into the country during the Blair years, but also May’s migrant millions.

In the period since Theresa May became Home Secretary, back in 2010, to date there has usually been in excess of half a million migrants coming into our country every single year.

So, even on the understated figures that Government usually comes out with, that must mean at least 3 million more population in the country. Therefore at least a couple of million new houses that have to be built as a result of May’s migration mess.

Simon Heffer wrote an article about this recently which was published in the Sunday Telegraph on 8th January 2017 under the Title “Javid’s folly would be to build in Tory back yards”. Although he is rather concentrating on the electoral prospects of the Conservatives, a matter which I have little interest in, nevertheless he makes many good points which we need to bear in mind.

Here are a few key quotations from his article:-

“Thanks primarily to two things – unchecked immigration and high divorce rates – we have insufficient housing. Prices are so high in the south-east that many live with their parents well into their 30s. Essential staff, such as teachers and those in the emergency services, struggle to find a home anywhere near their workplace. Something must be done and Sajid Javid, the Communities Secretary, has announced a White Paper on the matter.

The United Kingdom has roughly the same population as France, but in square miles is well under half the size. A disproportionate number of Britons live in England, and a disproportionate number of them live in or around London. We had a taste of Government policy last week, before the White Paper, in the announcement of 14 garden villages and three garden towns. The villages will provide around 50,000 homes and the towns will have at least 10,000 each. Even then, at today’s rate of immigration, we will within months be back to square one.

Some of the proposed villages are well-placed in Essex, for example, one is destined for an unremarkable corner of bleak farmland between the M25 and the Southend Arterial Road, and will if anything improve the landscape. But the Hertfordshire garden town will swallow up existing small villages, destroying their character and history, and eat up some green belt outside the postwar new town of Harlow. The Government seems to wish to avoid confronting one key issue, which a satisfactory White Paper would address explicitly: does the Government have a conception of something called rural England that would continue to exist in our increasingly overcrowded country and, if so, what will it do to protect it? Or should those of us who live in the countryside regard our environment as temporary, and at the whim of government?

I fear it has no such conception at all. It contemplates concreting over tracts of prime farmland just as we leave the Common Agricultural Policy and have to fend more for ourselves. This would also mean, in the south-east, that towns now separated by countryside will soon join up with each other, making huge new conurbations. Bullied by the Government, local councils will accede to this blight on the homes of hundreds of thousands of existing residents, and there is no shortage of developers (some of them Tory party donors) ready to exploit this weakness. Any idea that this will be done by local consent is rubbish: the problem is too acute, and the desire for an easy way out too pressing.

The White Paper will seek to reform planning laws to make such bullying irresistible. Mr Javid knows that just tweaking the system will have no appreciable results at all. But that is all right in theory: doing it in practice will be quite another matter. It not only means that hundreds of thousands of people who think they live in the countryside will wake up one day and realise that, very soon, they will not. It will also put additional stress on the road and rail network in a part of England where that infrastructure is already at breaking point. Mr Javid is far from stupid, and he ought to realise not just the practical difficulties of trying to cram a quart into a pint pot in the home counties, but also the electoral suicide his party could be committing if it pursues this course.”

(Here is the link to the original article >>> )

Thursday, 5 January 2017

Judical Appointments to fast-track Tick Box "DIVERSITY"!

I wrote a letter recently to the Law Society Gazette, which is the in-house magazine of the Solicitor's profession. 

It was published under the heading of:- 

"Ticking Boxes". 

Here is my letter:-

Dear Sir

Re: Judical fast-track would boost diversity – 31st October 2016

I viewed your above story with great disquiet as it seems that this proposal from Mr Justice Hickinbottom seems somewhat symptomatic of the various questionable, not to say flaky “Reform” former initiatives launched by various members of the Judiciary of the England and Wales jurisdiction.

I suspect that most other practitioners, who have a court based practice, will have noticed that, whilst many of the Judges that we experience are still of excellent quality that there is nevertheless an increasing proportion who are not of that quality. They are being appointed by the Judicial appointments system, which was politicised by Lord Irvine when he was Tony Blair’s Lord Chancellor to ensure that "no-one with reactionary views" could be appointed or promoted.

With the utmost respect to the learned Mr Justice Hickinbottom, the focus of any public service ought to be on actually delivering a service to the public rather than tick-boxing “Diversity” quotas in a fashion reminiscent of the appointment system in the Soviet Union.

Yours faithfully

What do you think?

Tuesday, 3 January 2017



The devolved Welsh Government has submitted written arguments to the “Supreme” Court in the Brexit case. My eye was caught by part of their submissions:-

“6. As the Welsh Government recently said in its written evidence to the House of Lords Constitution Committee’s inquiry The Union and devolution, devolution has become a fundamental and effectively irreversible feature of the constitution:

(i) Whatever its historical origins, the United Kingdom is best seen now as a voluntary association of nations which share and redistribute resources and risks between us to our mutual benefit and to advance our common interests.

(ii) The principles underpinning devolution should be recognised as fundamental to the UK constitution, and the devolved institutions should be regarded as effectively permanent features of that constitution.

(iii) Devolution is about how the UK is collectively governed, by four administrations which are not in a hierarchical relationship one to another. The relations of the four governments of the United Kingdom should therefore proceed on the basis of mutual respect and parity of esteem.

(iv) The allocation of legislative and executive functions between central UK institutions and devolved institutions should be based on the concept of subsidiarity, acknowledging popular sovereignty in each part of the UK.

(v) The presumption should therefore be that the devolved institutions will have responsibility for matters distinctively affecting their nations. Accordingly, the powers of the devolved institutions should be defined by the listing of those matters which it is agreed should, for our mutual benefit, be for Westminster, all other matters being (in the case of Wales) the responsibility of the Assembly and/or the Welsh Government."

The whole of their submissions to the “Supreme” Court can be found here >>>

It is however bitterly ironic that the 'Counsel General for Wales' then makes no mention throughout his 28 pages of legal submissions of the dreaded “E” words – ENGLAND or the ENGLISH! 

He also switches hastily to legalistic detail instead of further general statements of constitution principle. 

I suspect that this is because the above quotation would lead naturally to a discussion of fairness, equality and the unfair anomaly that England has no English First Minister, no English Government and no English only Parliament - unlike Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland!

Wednesday, 28 December 2016

The drums are getting louder!

The drums are getting louder!

Over the last few years we have seen an increasingly audible and increasingly un-ignorable, drum roll of problems arising out of militant Islam and Islamist activists.

This drum roll whilst getting louder and faster is of course nowhere near its crescendo as yet.

But recently here in Europe we have not only had the attacks in France, Belgium and Germany but also a number of foiled attacks and also attacks that are no longer sufficiently dramatic to attract much media coverage but which would once have been reported.

Then on the same day we have now had the deliberate murder, using a truck as a weapon, not only of the Polish truck driver, but also of a dozen who were at a Christmas market in Berlin, but dozens of other, no doubt, many very seriously injured.

There was also on the same day the outrageous murder of the Russian Ambassador to Turkey by a Turkish policeman. Had the Russians wanted to they would be well within their rights to treat such a murder as a cause for a very serious escalation of hostile relations between Russian and Turkey. President Putin has however shown himself to be very statesman like in his response to this provocation, which after all is of no lesser level of provocation than the provocation to Austro-Hungary of the assassination of the Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand.

It would seem that President Putin has seen that President Erdogan’s over-zealous reaction to clamping down on his political opponents, following the attempted coup in Turkey, and the ending of the siege of Allepo, as being a moment in which Turkey has far fewer allies than it had, but also the moment in which Russia could emerge in the Middle East as a far bigger and more effective power broker than has been the case in recent history.

Given that President Erdogan has a track record himself of being an Islamist and indeed has spent time in Turkish prison for his Islamist activities, it remains unclear whether a rapproachment between Turkey and Russia will lead to any slackening of the tempo of the Islamist drum beat.

Another factor that needs to be considered is the effect of the current low oil price, not only on the Russian economy, but also on the long term prospects of Saudi Arabia.

The Saudis are using up the capital that they have built up over decades. Not long ago the Financial Times was predicting Saudi Arabia would run out of money before 2020. If that happens Turkey will probably again become the leading Sunni power and also there will be a collapse in funding for Sunni Islamism across the world.

The oil price is however a consequence of an undeclared economic war between Saudi Arabia and Iran. The Iranians calculate that they have much greater ability to endure low oil prices for much longer than Saudi Arabia and therefore they can economically bleed out Saudi Arabia and emerge as the regional Shia Power. If that happens there will be, of course, a whole new real politique dynamic in the Middle East.

In the meanwhile the drum beat will I suspect continue to grow louder and faster as Saudi Arabia starts to see the collapse looming. That may be the moment when the panicky crescendo hits us.

As citizens of Western European countries we can only hope and campaign for our leaders to show more sense than they have done so far over the Islamist question! Or to replace them!

Happy New Year!

Monday, 26 December 2016

The value of English subsidies to Wales

The value of English subsidies to Wales

On Monday, 12th December, I was invited by the Law Society of England and Wales to a reception in the House of Lords to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the beginning of the Prime Ministerial Office of a famous solicitor – David Lloyd George (cue lots of jokes about whose father or grandfather “knew” Lloyd George!)

It did however give me an opportunity to talk with various interesting people including a Welsh law professor who candidly said to me that he felt that the Union of the United Kingdom was well worth keeping for Wales solely because the Welsh needed English subsidies!

The learned professor also made clear that he felt that without English money the Welsh standard of living would be drastically reduced.

I agreed with him about the standard of living, but naturally politely avoided agreeing with him about the merits of the Union!

I wonder if, looked at the other way around, how many English people would say that paying subsidies to Wales is of benefit to us English?

Here is a detailed paper bythe Welsh Assemblyon this >>>

What do you think?

Friday, 23 December 2016

Answers to the “England is too big” to have its own Parliament argument

Answers to the “England is too big” to have its own Parliament argument

I have recently been hearing of several Tory MPs who have been doing the rounds making arguments against an English Parliament.

One of those is Sir Oliver Heald MP, who recently spoke at a meeting of Oxfordshire Conservatives, in which he claimed the reason why England could not have its Parliament and Government like the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish ones was because England is too big at 85% of the population of the United Kingdom. According to him the provision of an English Parliament would apparently lead to the breakup of the Union because Federal States cannot survive where one part of the State is 85% of the Federation.

On hearing this I immediately responded that first of all one of the things that Federal States always do is have measures in place to balance out the dominance of their larger States. So for example in the United States, California is by far the most heavily populated US State and also the richest. However it only has two Senators, just like Oklahoma in the Federal Congress.

It is also the case that Oliver Heald’s argument does not hold water in terms of history.

The reason the Soviet Union collapsed was not because Russia was “too big”. The USSR collapsed because the Soviet system had become economically bankrupt, partly as a result of the Soviet defeat in war in Afghanistan, but also partly because of the attempt to match American defence spending with regard to Reagan’s “star wars”.

Equally Austro-Hungary did not collapse because Austria was “too big”, it collapsed because Austro-Hungary was defeated in war (also because of the idiocy of Woodrow Wilson’s refusal to negotiate with multi-national states!).

As Oliver Heald’s suggestion as to how to cope with England being “too big” is to split up England into “Regions” of one sort or another (the latest being “City Regions”), my response to him, and any of his ilk, is that any question to which the answer is to split England up is the wrong question.

If the choice is between splitting England up or splitting up the United Kingdom, I have no hesitation in demanding that the split is that of the vastly overrated, expensive, grandiose and laughably decadent United Kingdom.

When it was suggested, before the First World War, that Ireland should have Home Rule and the then Liberal Government forced through Home Rule legislation, Tory troublemakers stirred up Ulster with cries of “Ulster will fight and Ulster will be right”. How much more justification would we English have to fight if the cry was to split England up? Perhaps we should have a cry that “England will fight and England will be right”?

I mention the bloody history of Irish Independence intentionally because unthinking Tory unionists like Oliver Heald MP need to remember that it was Tory intransigence and the refusal to grant the reasonable request for a devolved Irish Parliament and instead the call for Ireland to be split which led not only to the bloodshed of the struggle for Independence but the still worse Civil War. This has stained Irish politics with blood ever since.

The idea that patriotic Englishmen and Englishwomen will not only indefinitely allow England not to have its own proper voice of political expression but also quietly sit by whilst over a thousand years of English history is discarded and England is broken up, is simply crazy. In fact it is not only crazy but it is utterly irresponsible!

Wednesday, 21 December 2016

Labour’s Scottish Leader, Kezia Dugdale, declares WAR on England!

Labour’s Scottish Leader, Kezia Dugdale, declares WAR on England!

Recently the BBC was lauding one of their Labour pets, the Scottish Labour Leader, Kezia Dugdale, who was making what was hailed as an important speech at the Labour supporting Institute for Public Policy Research “think tank”. Here is a link to that speech >>> Kezia Dugdale on her plan for a federal UK - YouTube

It is remarkably poor and ill thought out, but what caught my eye was this comment in the starry eyed BBC news coverage.

Labour’s Kezia Dugdale makes proposals “with the objective of adding English regionalism to existing devolution” in a federal UK!

So there we have it ladies and gentlemen Labour’s Scottish Leader has declared WAR on England. For what else is it, when a leader of one nation calls for the dismemberment of another nation, but a declaration of war against that nation?

History is full of many instances of lesser provocations than moves to dismember a country being considered, in St Thomas Aquinas’s terms, a cause (“Casus Belli”) for a “just war”.

I wonder what it is about the “very idea of England” (per Charles Kennedy) that so many Scottish leaders seem to find objectionable?

Are they perhaps still fixed on a rematch of the Battle of Flodden? I suspect that there would be many in England who would be up for that fight! And the result would be the same!

(Kezia Dugdale is also quoted as follows:-

“Kezia Dugdale has CALLED for a "new Act of Union" in a bid to "save the UK for generations to come".

The Scottish Labour leader outlined her plan for a "federal solution" for the UK in a speech to the Institute for Public Policy Research in London.

It would see extra powers for English regions as well as Holyrood via a "People's Convention" for the UK.

The SNP said Labour had been promising "federalism max" for years but had "consistently failed" to deliver.

Ms Dugdale tasked former UK justice secretary Lord Falconer with exploring a federalist approach following the UK's vote to leave the EU in June.

Her deputy Alex Rowley has called for Scotland to "move beyond narrow unionism and nationalism" and wants Scottish Labour to campaign for "home rule within a confederal United Kingdom".

Ms Dugdale pointed out that the 1707 Act of Union still underpins the relationship between Scotland and the rest of the UK, arguing that there should be a new act "for this new century".

She said: "The time has come for the rest of the UK to follow where Scotland led in the 1980s and 1990s and establish a People's Constitutional Convention to re-establish the UK for a new age.

"The convention should bring together groups to deliberate on the future of our country and propose a way forward that strengthens the UK and establishes a new political settlement for the whole of our country.

"Some may say this is unrealistic, but it would follow the model of the Scottish Constitutional Convention which, without government support, established the basis for the settlement that delivered a Scottish Parliament in 1999.

"It would also - for the first time - provide a coherent approach to answering the question of how our country is best governed.

"I would not want the convention to just deliberate and report, but to produce a new Act of Union which would reaffirm the partnership between our nations and renew it for the future. After more than 300 years, it is time for a new Act of Union to safeguard our family of nations for generations to come.

Here is the link to that article >>>