Monday, February 27, 2006

Letter: Shropshire Star

Parliament for England can target NHS crisis

The Star reported that the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital loses £3m per year treating Welsh patients because the Welsh Assembly won't pay the cost of treating a patient.

When Shropshire NHS is in debt to the tune of £30m and talking about closing hospitals to cut costs, why are we having to subsidise Wales even further?
Wales already costs Shropshire taxpayers millions per year in subsidies under the Barnett Formula.

I read a letter in a Welsh newspaper demanding that the Welsh government charge English pensioners for treatment in Welsh hospitals. As English taxpayers are already paying for the Welsh NHS it is slightly hypocritical, don't you think?

Daniel Kawczynski MP criticised the Welsh Office minister, Nick Ainger, about this but he doesn't have any idea what to do about it.

An English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish Parliament would have control of the English NHS and our health budget.

An English Parliament would be able to fight for cuts (or even the end) of the Barnett Formula. An English Parliament is the answer but we need to ensure English MPs at Westminster have England's interests in mind.

The May local elections are a good place to start.

Stuart Parr

Letter: Shropshire Star (CEP Shropshire)

Brown not right man for top job

How any self-respecting English person can even think of accepting Gordon Brown as Prime Minister is beyond my comprehension.

Nowadays, following devolution, 85 per cent of the job he aspires to is merely to run England. Yet he will have no mandate from anyone to do that.

His Scottish constituents send him to Westminster solely to look after tax, defence, foreign affairs and a few international matters. They elect someone else to deal with things like health, education, transport and law and order in the Scottish Parliament.

Therefore he will not have been elected by either the people of England or Scotland to talk or act over all these internal matters that affect English people's daily lives. Labour might just as well appoint Jacques Chirac to the post.

Edward Hlgginbottom

Saturday, February 25, 2006

Letter to all shropshire newspapers

The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill No 111

As I understand the provisions of this proposed piece of pernicious legislation, it is effectively an ‘Enabling Bill’ that if passed will have far reaching constitutional consequences.

It appears to be a way of allowing laws to be amended and/or created by ministers, not Parliament, making MPs effectively redundant. The most prominent user of such legislation in the past was Adolf Hitler. He making use of similar such laws, enacted by predecessors, to sweep away democracy completely.

The current New Labour Government has already destroyed much of our democracy that took around a thousand years to carefully construct. They must not be allowed to complete their apparent plan to created anti-democracy state.

I urge everyone to write to their MP urging them to resist the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill No 111 with every fibre of your being if they do not it will be every elector who will effectively disenfranchised by inaction.

Letter to Shropshire MPs on pernicious legislation

The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill No 111

As I understand the provisions of this proposed piece of pernicious legislation, it is effectively an ‘Enabling Bill’ that if passed will have far reaching constitutional consequences.

It appears to be a way of allowing laws to be amended and/or created by ministers, not Parliament, making MPs effectively redundant. The most prominent user of such legislation in the past was Adolf Hitler. He making use of similar such laws, enacted by predecessors, to sweep away democracy completely.

The current New Labour Government has already destroyed much of our democracy that took around a thousand years to carefully construct. They must not be allowed to complete their apparent plan to created anti-democracy state.

I urge you, as an elected representative of the people, to resist the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill No 111 with every fibre of your being.

Thursday, February 23, 2006

Poll: Should Gordon Brown be Prime Minister?

Gordon Brown, aka the Ignorant Jock, is being set up as the replacement Prime Minister when Traitor Blair finally does the decent thing and resigns.

However, now that Scotland and Wales have their own Parliament and Assembly, the British government spends around 80% of its time dealing with matters that affect only England.

It is for this reason that an MP with a Scottish constituency, unelected by and unaccountable to the English should not be allowed to head up the British government until England has its own Parliament with at least equal powers to that of Scotland.

As things stand, Scottish (and to a lesser extent, Welsh) MP's routinely debate and vote on legislation that affects English people only. In fact, it is quite rare for a bill to come before Parliament where a Scottish MP's constituents will actually be affected. There have been a number of bills passed by the British government since our masters gained their devolved governments that only affect English people and that a majority of English MP's have rejected. These bills have only been passed because Scottish and Welsh MP's (usually whipped by the Labour party to vote in favour of party policy) have voted on that bill even though it doesn't affect their own constituents.

This is wrong and undemocratic. If Gordon Brown were to take the leadership of the Labour Party and the therefore the country, the people of England will have to suffer minority rule by an unelected and unaccountable Prime Minister until the next election. Gordon Brown as Prime Minister would spend a single-figure percentage of his time in office dealing with matters that affect his own constituents and about 4/5ths of his time dealing with English-only legislation.

In my opinion, Gordon Brown must never be the British Prime Minister while England has no Parliament of its own.

Should Gordon Brown be Prime Minister?
Free polls from

Wednesday, February 22, 2006

council tax unfair to england

We are now in the council tax setting season and we will be lucky if the national average rise is around 4%. This will mean that the tax rise will be above the rate of inflation for the tenth successive year.

Since Tony Blair came to power in 1997 bills have gone up for English Band D properties by an average of 84% whereas those in Scotland by a mere 40%. This is effectively one of Gordon Brown’s stealth taxes. It is money taken away from England and used to provide a massive subsidy to Scotland.

This tax hits those on fixed incomes hardest. It is true Gordon Brown gave pensioners an extra £200 last year to help with paying the council tax – after all it was election year – but there is no commitment to pay it again – well, not until the next election is due, no doubt.

England needs its own Parliament like Scotland has to ensure that taxes paid in England are principally used to fund services in England.

Herceptin for the Welsh

Source: BBC News

Women in Mid and West Wales are to be given Herceptin in the early stages of breast cancer thanks to a decision by Swansea Local Health Board. This means that women across the whole of Wales will now be able to receive this potentially life saving drug.

Women in England can continue to die happy in the knowledge that all those taxes they and their families have and will continue to pay in the future are paying for the rest of the country to receive this life saving drug that they are refused.

The British government clearly values an English life less than that of a Scot or Welsh person. The Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly use English taxes to pay for life saving drugs for their own country whilst the British government, ruled by the Scottish Raj, deny English people life saving treatment because there is no money left once our "partners" have taken what they want.

Dying for an English Parliament? These women are:

Saturday, February 18, 2006

No to Brown as PM

I opened the national newspapers today (18th February) to see Gordon Brown wearing that fake cheesy grin he has lately developed. He was doing the Prime Ministerial thing of visiting the armed forces.

How any self-respecting English person can even think of accepting him as Prime Minister is beyond my comprehension. The contempt with which the Labour Party is evidently going to treat us is beyond belief.

Nowadays, following Devolution, 85% of the job he aspires to is merely to run England. Yet he will have no mandate from anyone to do that.

His Scottish constituents send him to Westminster solely to look after Tax, Defence, Foreign Affairs and a few international matters. They elect some else to deal with things like Health, Education, Transport and Law & Order in the Scottish Parliament.

Therefore he will not have been elected by either the people of England or Scotland to talk or act over all these internal matters that affect the English peoples’ daily lives.

Labour might just as well appoint Jacques Chirac to the post; after all he would have no lesser electoral validity to run England.

Edward Higginbottom

Friday, February 17, 2006

Why Brown should not be Prime Minister

Sent to all Shropshire Newspapers

The Labour Party appears to be manoeuvring to merely slot Gordon Brown into the Prime Minister’s job. My guess is this will take place after May 2007 when Tony Blair has done 10 years.

Due to the utter shambles that they created, Devolution is starting to come back to haunt Labour. People are at last questioning how another Scot can ever be Prime Minister, although they are, of course, being labelled racists. Brown, obviously concerned, is running round preaching to the English how great it is to be British, but he would never dream of going to Scotland or Wales to deliver the same message.

The objections to Brown are not his ethnicity but his constituency. Scotsman Blair represents an English constituency so has been elected to talk about English matters. Brown however represents a Scottish constituency so therefore has no mandate from English people. (Incidentally no English person represents a Scottish constituency in either the Westminster or Edinburgh parliaments.)

The Westminster parliament spends 85% of its time dealing with England only issues, no time at all on internal Scottish matters. So how can you have a Prime Minister, unelected by the English, who will be spending most of his time administering England?

It is time that the people of England woke up to the shoddy way in which they and their country have been treated, and are about to be stitched-up again.

Yours faithfully,
Edward Higginbottom
Co-ordinator, Shropshire Branch of the Campaign for an English Parliament

Letter: Shropshire Star

No MPs to battle for rights of English

Eric Boyden asks why English patients have to wait longer for cancer treatments than Scottish patients.

To put it bluntly, in the eyes of the British Government an English life is worth less than that of a Scot or any other nationality.

Scotland and Wales get quicker treatment because their governments pay for it.

Not only do they get the quicker treatment but they also get treatment that English patients can’t have at all because of the cost.

The Scottish and Welsh governments are able to offer expensive treatment because of the very generous block grant they receive every year thanks to the Barnett Formula.

The Barnett Formula is a calculation that is used by the Chancellor to work out how much English tax should go to subsidise the rest of the country.

Scotland alone receives an extra £11.3bn per year from the English taxpayer.

For the system of government that gives democracy to the minority (15 per cent of the population) and actively discriminates against the majority, we can thank Tony Blair and the Scottish Raj.

The only form of self-governance the British government are prepared to concede to England is regional assemblies

Scotland and Wales only get this preferential treatment because their governments fight for multi-billion pound subsidies from English taxes.

They only get away with this because there is no English government to fight for our interests.

British MPs elected in English constituencies put Britain before England so they aren’t going to put a stop to it.

Ask David Wright what he thinks about the current arrangement.

I did and he doesn’t see a problem with Scottish MPs deciding what happens in England, even when his own constituents’ lives are at risk.

Stuart Parr, Telford

Thursday, February 16, 2006

Letter: Shropshire Star (CEP member)

England gets such a raw deal

It is clear from the Shropshire Star's recent report that the Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, is determined to impose regional police forces on the citizens England regardless of public opinion.

Indeed, the Labour government appears to have reneged on its promises to hold referenda on regional assemblies. Unlike Scotland and Wales, the voters of England have been denied any say on how its affairs are to be dealt with.

For those who despair, may I point out that the English Democrats Party e%ists to promote the establishment of a national parliament for England following endorsement by voters in a referendum. In the meantime, I and other like-minded citizens will support any representations the Shropshire Star cares to make opposing the subsuming of West Mercia Police.

Alan England

Letter: Shropshire Star

Minister ignoring public over police plan

Just who does Charles Clarke think he is?

In a written statement to the Commons, the Home Secretary announced that there is “only one acceptable option” for England’s police forces and that is for them to combine into regional forces.

To justify the merger he mentions terrorism and organised crime.

Apparently, West Mercia Police isn’t capable of preventing terrorism unless it’s merged with all the other police forces in the West Midlands Euro-region.

Funny that, I don’t recall any terrorist attacks in Shropshire since the IRA bombed Shrewsbury Castle 14 years ago.

I’d say West Mercia were doing a pretty good job on that front, certainly better than the Met.

West Mercia Police conducted surveys when the mergers were announced a few months ago.

More than 90 per cent of those that responded were opposed to a regional police force.

How dare Charles Clarke, a public servant, disregard the clear wishes of the public.

The Chief Constable has hit the nail on the head when he says that this is merely an extension of the British Government’s regional agenda.

It won’t be long before every aspect of out lives is controlled by unelected bureaucrats in Birmingham.

It’s time our elected representatives received a stark reminder that they are in office to serve us, not their own interests and definitely not the whims of the EU which dictated the English regions in the first place.

Local elections are being held in England on May 4 — hopefully it won’t be too late by then.

Stuart Parr, Telford

Wednesday, February 15, 2006

Letter: Shropshire Star

There are 645 MP's, not 605. Not sure if that's my mistake or theirs.

Consider campaign for English parliament

I would like to offer a reply to Jim Thornicroft’s letter, “Parliament for English a bad idea”. His concern that an English Parliament would create an extra layer of bureaucracy and tax burden on the English is a very common argument against an English Parliament. It is, however, a misconception.

The Government has 605 MPs and spends 80 per cent of its time dealing with matters that affect England.

To create an English Parliament and leave 605 MPs in Westminster would, I agree, be unacceptable and an unnecessary burden on the English taxpayer. But Jim is looking at this problem the wrong way around.

Scotland and Wales have had their own government now for almost eight years and are already reaping huge benefits at the expense of the English taxpayer.

The British government is already over-sized since devolution came to the rest of the UK and the day-to-day running of Scotland and Wales moved away from Westminster.

An English Parliament could take away as much as three-quarters of the British government’s workload so why would we need 605 MPs? The simple answer is that we wouldn’t.

An English Parliament need not be an extra level of government but rather a different layer of government.

There really is only one feasible solution to the discrimination against England and that is to establish an English Parliament.

I would urge Jim to write to his MP but I doubt that he will get the response he wants. British MPs are well aware that an English Parliament will force them to hand back their first class tickets on the gravy train.

If you really want to make a difference Jim, join the Campaign for an English Parliament and start pressing for a real solution.

Stuart Parr Telford

Tuesday, February 07, 2006

Blair rules out English-only votes

Source: BBC News

Blair rejects England-only votes

Tony Blair
Mr Blair said the debate had gone on 'forever'
Tony Blair has ruled out stopping Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland MPs voting on England-only issues.

The prime minister told the Commons Liaison Committee that creating "two classes of MP" could get Parliament "into all sorts of problems".

Campaigners say that as English MPs have no say over devolved issues, their non-English colleagues should not vote on things like English school reforms.

Conservatives accused Mr Blair of ignoring "fair play".

'Don't agree'

It was pointed out to Mr Blair that all MPs would have a vote on the proposed smoking ban in England, even though Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland had already made their own decisions.

Liaison Committee chairman Alan Williams, Father of the House and a Labour opponent of devolution, accused ministers of failing to address the issue.

Mr Blair said: "I'm not failing to address it. I don't agree.

"English MPs still remain in overwhelming majority. I think if you try to create two classes of MPs, you will get yourselves in all sorts of trouble and you will find it very hard to distinguish between those things that are purely English, purely Scottish and so on.

"We have got a UK Parliament. In the end I totally understand why people think it's a good idea from other political parties, but in the end, if you try to divide MPs up into two categories and then you have to define the legislation they are able to vote on, you will find it very hard.

"I doubt if a government is going to introduce this."

Shadow secretary of state for constitutinal affairs Oliver Heald, said: "The prime minister seems to have lost his sense of equity and fair play.

"Scots accept England should be treated equally with Scotland; why won't the Prime Minister?

"In ruling out English votes for English laws, he is thinking of the Labour Party's interests rather than the interests of the United Kingdom."

Scottish National Party constitutional affairs spokesman Pete Wishart said: "English MPs have every right to feel aggrieved that the Government's lobby loyalists from north of the border will determine controversial English outcomes on legislation."

Peter Facey, director of the New Politics Network think tank, said: "The answer is not necessarily England-only votes in the Commons or an English Parliament but to put decision-making at a level much closer to the people."

What can I say? This statement from Traitor Blair is absolutely fantastic. It shows that he has given the issue some thought and decided that it's ok for England to be discriminated against.

His argument that it would be "very hard" to decide what was English-only and what was Scottish-only legislation is absolute premium grade bullshit. The answer is that anything that is currently devolved to Scotland and Wales should not be voted on by non-English MP's.

If that would create an unworkable solution in the British Parliament then set up an English Parliament.

It's not rocket science Tony, just democracy.

Letter: Shropshire Star

Found this on the letter pages of the Shropshire Star tonight. Yet another example of people literally dying from anglophobia.

MP could do more for cancer sufferers

I'm sure sufferers from cancer in the Telford constituency will welcome David Wright's support for Beating Bowel Cancer's Loud Tie Appeal, although I believe there is much more work he could be undertaking which would make more of a difference.

I e-mailed him at his House of Commons e-mail address on August 25 asking about the delays to approving new anti-cancer drugs by the National Institute for Health & Clinical Excellence (NICE). No reply has been received. Since Commons e-mail addresses are not compulsory and since the system sent my e-mail back to me in confirmation, why have I not even had the courtesy of an acknowledgemen t?

There is a new bowel cancer drug, Avastin, which is awaiting approval. This is the first of a new type of drug - monoclonal antibodies -which will enable cancer to be managed as a long-term condition. My consultant thinks Avastin will help 10 times as many patients as Herceptin.

NICE is going to be clogged with applications for similar drugs in the near future as they become available. Avastin is due to be approved by NICE for the 2008 NHS budget in England but should Be approved for use in Scotland by the end of this month.

Why do patients in England have to wait far longer than in Scotland for new life-saving drugs and what is our MP doing about it? Keep wearing the silly ties, David, but do some real work towards helping your constituents and others who are fighting an effective killer.

Eric Boyden

Friday, February 03, 2006

Letter to Shropshire Star re English Parliament



Telephone: 01743 860140
3rd February 2006 Email:

The Editor
Shropshire Star

English Parliament

I am pleased to see John Thornicroft (Shropshire Star 2/2/06) agrees with me regarding the need to address the Barnett Formula but then raises the usual red-herring about the creation of an extra layer of bureaucracy. This was not a consideration when the Scottish Parliament, Welsh National Assembly (soon to be upgraded) and Northern Ireland Assembly were created. Why therefore should it be used to browbeat the people of England into accepting the continuance of being treated like third class citizens?

When the Scottish Parliament was created, responsibility and administration for things like health, education, transport, police and fire services were merely transferred from the UK Government to them. The same would happen for an English Parliament.

This would leave the UK Parliament only responsible for Tax raising, Foreign Affairs, Defence, some international matters and migration. On the latter point you could make a case for that to be transferred to an English Parliament too, seeing that practically all immigrants actually arrive and stay in England.

The idea that only English MPs in a UK Parliament should vote on English matters is flawed. It will rely on the Speaker declaring that the legislation relates to England only. Any good Celtic MP would surely be able to find some reason why it impacted on their homeland, regardless of how spurious. The current Speaker is Scottish, so how keen will he be to declare a Bill as English. On top of which, having so ruled, does he then have to leave the Chamber so as not to be considered an undue influence.

The current Transport Secretary is a Scottish MP (most of his work these days is to do with England) but would he be unable to introduce, explain and debate a Bill relating to England? If so how could he do his job? Or are we going to insist that all UK Government ministers are English MPs, but then how could they be seen as UK ministers.

Tony Blair is a Scot, representing an English constituency. Should he be allowed to be in the Chamber for an English only Bill? After all, he might have a conflict of interest, for what was being discussed could be disadvantageous to Scotland and/or against the UK Governments wishes?

No man can serve two masters. An MP elected to an English Parliament would be there to serve England; one elected to the UK Parliament there to serve the UK.

The Campaign for an English Parliament has no fixed idea as to the shape and size of an English Parliament. Personally I see no difficulty in transferring 500 MPs from the UK Parliament to the English Parliament, keeping say 90 MPs in a UK Parliament and thereby making 50 or so of the current number redundant.

To my mind, there are only two ways to go on Devolution. Either: scrap it (which is most unlikely) or create an equitable and coherent system for all.

Yours faithfully,

Edward Higginbottom
Shropshire Co-ordinator, Campaign for an English Parliament.

Thursday, February 02, 2006

A common misconception

A John Thornicroft has written a letter to the Shropshire Star in reply to one of Edward's letters questiong the need for an English Parliament.

Parliament for English a bad idea

Though I agree with your correspondent Edward Higginbottom that it is time to end the Barnett formula, whereby the Scots receive more per head than the English and Welsh and that they themselves should pay for the luxuries denied others in the UK.

I cannot see sense in his (and others’) call for an English parliament.

Does he really want to impose an extra layer of bureaucracy and tax on to the already oppressed English household when all that is required is a reduction in the number of Scottish and Welsh Members of Parliament and a prohibition on them voting on English matters.

This will not happen with the present Scottish-dominated Government.

It is up to English voters to make clear their concerns to MPs and prospective candidates from all parties.

If they are too lazy to do this they will get what they deserve.

John Thornicroft, Market Drayton

Mr Thornicroft's concerns seem to revolve around the "extra layer of bureaucracy" an English Parliament would create. This is a very valid concern as bureaucracy costs money and, of course, it is the English taxpayer that pays for all bureaucracy in the UK.

It is, however, a common misconception. What Mr Thornicroft seems to have forgotten about is that an English Parliament would remove in excess of 75% of the workload from the British government. With an English Parliament, there wouldn't need to be 605 MP's sitting in Westminster. An English Parliament wouldn't be an extra layer of bureaucracy, rather a different layer of "bureacracy".

Would it cost more money than the current system? Maybe. But is that a valid reason for accepting the status quo - a system of government that is inherently discriminatory against English people and a British government ruled by the Scottish Raj exercising total control of England? I don't think so and given information on the subject that is spin and propoganda free by people who don't have to try and cover up state discrimination in order to keep their jobs, I think the majority of the English public would agree.