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
Friday, February 17, 2006
Letter: Shropshire Star
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
York
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
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
 Mr Blair said the debate had gone on 'forever' |
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
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
Tefford
Friday, February 03, 2006
Letter to Shropshire Star re English Parliament
SHROPSHIRE BRANCH Rea Bank
Hanwood
Shrewsbury
Shropshire
SY5 8LA
Telephone: 01743 860140
3rd February 2006 Email: ehigginbottom@themail.co.uk
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
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.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Daniel Kawczynski
One of his points is about the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital losing £2m per year treating Welsh patients because the Welsh Assembly pays a fraction of the price of treating them while they also get superior treatment and drugs.
It all sounds kind of ... familiar. Kind of like this and this and some of the comments on other English nationalist blogs. Perhaps Mr Kazywinkiskiskiski has been doing his research?
correspondence with MP re Government of Wales Bill
Thank you for your letter of 10th January. As I said in my last letter, I made it clear in the summer that it is wrong that the referendum excluded 85% of the population and I believe there should be an all UK referendum on the issue of abolishing the existing devolution settlement and replacing it with real genuine devolution to county units.
There is a parliamentary convention which prevents me from taking on the case of another MP's constituent. I therefore hope you will continue to communicate with your own MP on this issue.
and my response:
Dear Owen,
Government of Wales Bill
Many thanks for you letter dated 12th January. You are by far and away the most efficient Shropshire MP in dealing with your correspondence, wanted or not.
I fully appreciate that MPs do not desire to be dealing with non-constituents but I believe that the whole question of devolution is so important it transcends constituency boundaries. We are talking about the very survival of England and its people.
If all the MPs representing English constituencies cannot reverse the hotchpotch that is devolution then it is incumbent on them to see England is fairly and equitably treated. It cannot be right that your constituents are effectively treated as third class citizens within the, so-called, United Kingdom.
Yours sincerely,
Edward Higginbottom
Co-ordinator, Shropshire Branch of the Campaign for an English Parliament
p.s. I do not expect a reply to this letter.
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
Letter to Shropshire MPs re Government of Wales Bill
The GWB is currently before Parliament and the intention is to transfer law making powers to the Welsh National Assembly.
This is another blatant action by the anti-English Labour Government to hand out special privileges to the periphery countries of the United Kingdom. No doubt the Government will use its Scottish MPs, if necessary, to force the legislation into law.
It proposes another referendum in Wales on the question of devolution but there is yet to be any such consultation with the oppressed English peoples.
The GWB will make it even more glaringly obvious just how unfair the devolution system is to England. This is an intolerable situation, for the people of England are clearly only third class citizens within the dis-United Kingdom.
.
When the GWB becomes law, it will leave the UK Parliament with little other than to govern England. Downsizing of the UK Parliament and/or a reduction in the remuneration to MPs would therefore seem appropriate.
As the elected representative of an English constituency I hope that you, and your colleagues, will take this opportunity to ensure equanimity of treatment for England in line with that handed out to the Celtic fringes.
Yours sincerely,
Edward Higginbottom
Co-ordinator, Shropshire Branch of the Campaign for an English Parliament
Monday, January 09, 2006
Letter to local newspapers re fight for local hospitals
The problem boils down to money or the lack of it, in particular the Shropshire NHS Trust’s debt of some £36 million.
In Scotland of course, they get a better health service than here in England. Better treatment, better drugs, better care for the elderly, amongst other things. This is possible as every single taxpayer in England is, on average, giving the Scottish Parliament a subsidy of something in the order of £280 per year. This is in addition to the subsidies England’s taxpayers are giving to Wales and Northern Ireland. So if Shropshire’s taxpayers’ contribution to Scotland were spent on the local NHS Trust instead there would hardly be a debt to worry about.
If you want your local hospitals to survive I suggest you hound your MP and tell him you want English control of English taxes, an English Parliament to speak up for you and an end of the Barnett formula that financially favours the Celtic fringes of the once United Kingdom.
Edward Higginbottom
Co-ordinator, Shropshire Branch of the Campaign for an English Parliament
Thursday, January 05, 2006
Letter: Shropshire Star
Obsession bypassing our views on merger
Charles Clarke, in a breathtaking display of arrogance and contempt, has vowed to press ahead with merging police forces.
The Home Secretary baa informed police chiefs that he has the power to force through the mergers whether they or the public agree or not.
He has even attempted to entice police forces into complying by offering extra cash if they submitted merger proposals by the deadline.
Not one single force made the deadline and so far few have agreed to a merger.
The Government is obsessed with making things bigger, moving power and decision-making further away from the people.
Everything is about regions - regional fire service, regional ambulance service and now regional police forces.
Not just any regions will do, though. They have to fit in with the regional map of Britain. The regional map of Britain, as per a directive from Brussels, consists of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and nine regions of England.
Each of the nine English regions has a Regional Assembly (RA) which formulates policy and does John Prescott's bidding.
Those who sit on the RA council are appointed by the local authorities in that region - there is no public consultation.
The proposed West Midlands Super force will fit neatlvinto the boundaries of the West Midlands Regional Assembly (aka Advantage West Midlands).
How long will it be until all decisions and services in Shropshire are administered by unelected officials?
Stuart Parr
Telford
Sunday, December 18, 2005
Letter to Daily Mail about an English warship
I read with interest your article about The Golden Galleon in Saturday's Daily Mail.
However there is one glaring mistake - it refers to the ship as part of a British Fleet. The vessel sank in 1694 some thirteen years before the creation of Great Britain. Therefore the ship was English, as is confirmed in the accompanying picture that clearly shows the English Red Ensign flying on its stern.
I have no doubt that the Scottish Chancellor of the Exchequer currently charged with looking after the English economy will happily make the same mistake as your paper. No doubt he will utilise some of the monies received from the salvage on spending to benefit the people of Scotland despite the fact that it was actually English gold.
Yours faithfully,
Edward Higginbottom
Thursday, December 15, 2005
City Regions
Full details are at the Campaign for an English Parliament newsblog.
First question, how many city regions will we have in Shropshire? We don't actually have any cities.
Second question, why can't we just have an English Parliament instead and then we can decide what we want for ourselves?
Saturday, December 10, 2005
Letter: Shropshire Star
Clarke has contempt for public
I wonder if Home Secretary Charles Clarke knows of a different definition of democracy to the rest of us?
He instructed West Mercia Police to draw up plans for a merger with West Midlands Police without consulting the public or the police forces involved.
When faced with the fact that 88 per cent of people in Weat Mercia are opposed to the merger of the police forces, you would imagine that the plans would be scrapped. This is a democracy after all.
But no, rather than remembering that his job is to serve the people, the Home Secretary said he would wait until he received the results of the police consultation "before deciding how to proceed".
I understand that this is a major blow to the Government's drive to firmly establish regionalisation in England, but how can the Home Secretary even contemplate going ahead with the merger when 88 per cent of the people in West Mercia are opposed to it?
This just shows the utter contempt our so-called elected representatives have for the people they are elected to serve and for the democracy that this country was once so famous for.
Stuart Parr
Telford
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Letter: Shropshire Star
Why can’t we have a special day for saint?
Earlier this year a pub landlord in Norfolk applied for a late licence to allow his regulars to celebrate St George’s Day. For the second time in two years he was refused a late licence on the grounds that it is not a special day in England.
When he made his first application two years ago, he was told to come back this year with evidence that St George’s Day is a special occasion. So he did.
He turned up at the magistrates court with a large group of supporters, hundreds of letters and assorted reporters and TV crews.
The magistrate still said no, so he appealed to the High Court. A High Court judge refused the appeal on the grounds that he was also of the opinion that St George’s Day is not a special day and the magistrate was right to refuse the late licence.
One of the reasons given for it not being a special day was the lack of national celebrations like those seen on St Patrick’s Day.
Ask yourself this: When was the last time your local council or the Government did anything to promote St George’s Day?
They are happy to hold festivals for Diwali, Eid, St Patrick’s Day, Chinese New Year — anything except St George’s Day.
Anything, as long as the English are denied the right to celebrate their culture, history or nationality.
What are they so afraid of? Why do the Government go out of their way to offend 50 million people?
Perhaps David Wright MP can explain why his party is intent on denying the English their national identity whilst spending billions on ensuring the rest of the UK can promote theirs?
When I asked him why he was opposed to an English parliament when it was plainly obvious that England was being discriminated against he simply refused to answer me and any subsequent correspondence from me doesn’t even prompt an acknowledgement.
Stuart Parr
Telford
Letter: Shropshire Star (CEP Shropshire)
Join battle for English parliament
Leaked reports suggest that the Scottish-led UK Government is now looking to abolish the 1000-year-old English shires.
This is yet another deliberate attempt by the anti-English, Scottish-controlled Labour Party to erase England, its history and its people from the map.
They will say it is only reform of local government but unless they are stopped we will soon merely be West Midlanders run by an unelected regional assembly operating out of Birmingham.
The Campaign for an English Parliament is trying to get fair treatment for England, with a parliament along the lines already given to Scotland.
Because the English are so easy going, the majority of the people in England are unlikely to do anything to save their country — they’ll wait till it happens and then moan.
Edward Higginbottom
Shropshire Branch of the Campaign for an English Parliament
Shrewsbury
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
Letter: Shropshire Star
Situation unfair for pensioners
The recent cold snap and the threatened had winter has highlighted the dangers to the elderly, in particular, many of whom still live in poorly heated homes.
For those pensioners living in Scotland they are, of course, better off. The Scottish Parliament is providing them with free installation of central heating. This is possible because the taxpayers in England generously subsidise Scotland to the tune of £8 billion per year.
That equates to more than £1,300 extra per person being spent on everybody in Scotland compared to those in England.
The Scottish-led UK Parliament sees nothing wrong in this invidious situation.
Isn't it time England was treated equally with Scotland instead of like a third class citizen within the United Kingdom and given its own Parliament?
The Campaign for an English Parliament is trying to do just that. Help us fight the injustice by joining us today
Edward Higginbottom
Co-ordinator, Shropshire Branch of the Campaign for an English Parliament
Shrewsbury
Friday, December 02, 2005
Welsh worries over English hospital
The Shrewsbury & Telford NHS Trust, which administers the Princess Royal Hospital (PRH) in Telford and Royal Shrewbury Hospital(RSH) in Shrewsbury, is a few million in debt and are looking to cut services.
One of the proposals is to downgrade one of the hospitals and only offer A&E at the other one. It is most likely going to be the Princess Royal in Telford that gets downgraded because, despite it being a fairly new hospital, it is badly equipped and has huges debts.
However, the Welsh aren't taking any chances and Glynn Davies AM has already scheduled a meeting with the Health Trust amid concerns that Welsh patients in Powys might have to travel to Telford for treatment if they decided to downgrade the RSH instead of the PRH.
Welsh First Minister, Rhodri Morgan, has even appointed someone to investigate.
I remember blogging about the Welsh using the RSH a few months ago. At the time it was discovered that the RSH was losing loads of money because they were obliged to treat Welsh patients but received a fraction of the money they would get for an English patient as the Welsh Assembly paid for the Welsh patients.
Perhaps the Welsh, if they are so concerned, could consider paying the going rate for a patient when they attend the RSH or perhaps even pay a premium as they are being treated outside of their own country - as they would were they to send their patients to, say, the United States.
While they're discussing ways of saving the A&E service at the RSH, they might consider forfeiting their portion of the £15bn of English taxes that are given away to the rest of the UK under the Barnett Formula so that the English NHS might have enough money to offer a similar level of care and treatment that is received in Scotland and Wales.
