ABOLITION OF DEMOCRACY

We are now witnessing the spectacle of a High Court application for the judiciary to instruct the government to intervene regarding the detention of 3 foreign detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

The families of the 3 men, who are not British, but who or whose families either do or have previously resided in the UK, have been given permission to petition for a High Court order instructing the Foreign Secretary to press the US to release them.

The judge, Justice Collins, commented that the US’s concept of torture ‘is not the same as ours and doesn’t appear to coincide with that of most civilised countries’.

The applicants are being represented by Gareth Peirce, a so-called human rights solicitor.

The Thatcher era witnessed the phenomenon of the Yuppies. The Blair era has witnessed the phenomenon of so-called human rights lawyers.

Meanwhile, Labour are making a yet another major change to the British constitution, this time on the quiet. The little noticed Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill has been sneaking its way through parliament, until the full implications of it have been rumbled.

The Bill gives the minsters sweeping new powers, including the power to change the divorce laws, introduce house arrest, curtail or abolish jury trial, increase police powers, or even postpone the necessity for a general election at least every 5 years.

Labour are claiming that the Bill is meant to cut red tape and make amending legislation more easy. But it actually enables ministers to amend any Act of Parliament ‘by order’ without the need for a change in the law to be approved by parliament.

Complaints are now starting to pour in.

It is expected that the new powers will be used to speed up the introduction of new laws and regulations from the EU.

Labour are also hoping to use the powers to by-pass parliament and introduce the recommendations of the Law Commission, which is currently recommending that couples who have lived together have the same rights as married couples when they separate [lots of extra legally aided separations, no doubt].

Our democracy is under attack as never before. Labour intend to turn this country into a quangocracy.

Justice Collins has no business taking it upon himself to instruct what the Foreign Secretary might or might not do, especially regarding foreigners. Justice Collins is unelected, unrepresentative and unaccountable.

We need to take control of our country back.

QUOTE OF THE MONTH [bonus]

‘I must be absolutely clear about this. Britain cannot accept the present situation on the Budget. It is demonstrably unjust. It is politically indefensible. I cannot play Sister Bountiful to the Community while my own electorate are being asked to forego improvements in the fields of health, education, welfare and the rest.’

Margaret Thatcher [the then Tory Prime Minister], speaking in Luxembourg on the 18 October 1979, in reference to the size of the UK’s payments to the EU.

It was Margaret Thatcher’s stand that eventually led to the creation of Britain’s budget rebate. That is the rebate which Tony Blair has been more than happy to start phasing out. He has agreed that the UK’s net contributions to be increased by roughly £2billion each year.

There may be English NHS and care home patients [whose homes may have been seized and sold by the local council] suffering from malnutrition, or cancer drugs being denied to English patients, but all of this is water of a duck’s back to Labour.

Tony Blair is not Margaret Thatcher. He is more than happy to ‘play Sister Bountiful’, especially when he is doing so with English money.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Below is a copy of an article by Simon Heffer which appears in today’s Daily Telegraph:

Cameron and Co must get to grips with spendthrift councils
By Simon Heffer
(Filed: 21/02/2006)

Since we can safely assume that few of us actively want to be poorer, the figures published yesterday about the imminent rises in council tax will have made universally grim reading. For the 10th successive year, the tax is to rise above inflation.

An English band D bill has gone up by 84 per cent since Tony Blair came to power in 1997. We must specify "English", because Scottish bills have risen by a mere 40 per cent during the same period.

All we suspected about Labour's client state is revealed in these figures. The party's natural supporters are favoured by such a philosophy: and it is funded in practice by the party's natural opponents. That is what Labour politicians mean by "social justice".

Happily, this is also one of those increasingly rare occasions when Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition at least goes through the motions of saying how upset it is about this flagrantly unfair treatment of the English council taxpayer. Eric Pickles, who speaks on these matters for the Tories, attacked the rises on Sunday.

He said that the figures over the past nine years showed that council tax had been used as a "stealth tax" on the English: and he is right. He also pointed out how Gordon Brown had bought the votes of pensioners last year - an election year - by putting an extra £200 in their pockets to help with the council tax. That bounty will not be paid again.

However, a more effective Tory critic of this profligacy has been Sir Sandy Bruce-Lockhart, the chairman of the Local Government Association and, until last year, the leader of probably the most efficient county council in the country, Kent.

Sir Sandy hinted at another aspect of central government's unfairness to local councils. These bodies receive on average 75 per cent of funds from the centre, only 25 per cent being raised locally.

While Labour's clients in its heartland always have plenty of money for their local pet projects, or to employ their co-religionists on an epic scale, many councils struggle to deal with the burdens central government places on them. These, by their very nature, are increasing faster than the rate of funding from the centre, notably the ageing population and the social services that must be provided for it.

There is a pile of trouble building up for the Government on this. A well-organised and increasingly militant campaign by local taxpayers threatens a boycott of the council tax unless the Government shows some sign of bringing soaring costs under control.

For the moment, it is doubtful such prudence will be brought to bear. The only way to make serious inroads into council spending is to sack people.

There are plenty of unproductive employees whom councils could fire, but that would mean Labour axing its own voters. And, of course, to make a political point, some councils would retain idle staff, and instead sack people who look after old ladies in care homes, or who teach children how to read and write.

A review by Sir Philip Gershon of local government spending is, to put it mildly, taking its time. Even if Sir Philip were to report that billions could be shaved off council expenditure, however, it is far from certain anyone would take any notice.
He recommended huge savings - through sackings, not least - in central government, and these economies have proved to be more promised than realised. Centrally as well as locally, Britain is on a spending spree. We are all paying for it, and we are getting precious little value.

In their new social democratic phase, the Tories seem all too easily to forget what politics is about: to examine the ideas of your opponents and, when they are wrong, to attack them. Mr Pickles has made a start, but it is only a start.

We await a cogent, hard-minded analysis of why local government costs so much, of why such waste is unsustainable both economically and morally, and, most important of all, how it is to be tackled and stopped. I fear we may wait for some time.

It is not that individual Tory-led councils are not sometimes helpful in pointing the way. West Norfolk district council, by undertaking an audit of what services it actually provides and what it needs to provide them, has cut its tax by three per cent next year. It is, however, the only one to do so. In many councils, the elected members are, as one councillor put it to me, "in thrall to the officials".

Officials, who have empires to maintain and jobs to keep, are ever on the search for new "partnerships" and "initiatives" that justify their existence and keep the bills high.

This is not a party political point: many Tory councils are just as bad as Labour or Lib Dem ones. Local government, which used to be by local ratepayers for local ratepayers, has gone the way of everything else in our wonderful welfare state: it now exists primarily for the benefit of the people it employs, rather than for that of the people it notionally serves.

It used to be the case that the Tories would instinctively see the urgency of fighting such waste, but that was before the new dispensation in which public spending, in all respects, became a good in itself.

There is no point the Tories attacking Labour's naked redistributionism unless they are prepared to come up with proposals to stop it. I don't just mean stopping the flow of money from the South-East to Labour's urban English fiefdoms, or the even more blatant and deeply undemocratic transfer of funds from England to Scotland, which appears to have been the hidden cost of devolution.

I mean stopping redistribution from the private to the public sectors: and acknowledging the financial necessity of ending this rape of the productive parts of our economy. This used to be common sense. Now, the Tories approach the issue with a sense of fear, if they approach it at all.

It seems the current leaders of the party fail to understand the importance to the electorate of controlling taxes because, quite simply, they fail to understand the electorate itself. In a report last weekend in The Sunday Telegraph, somebody termed a party "insider" (from which I think we are supposed to infer that he or she is close to the leadership) revealed the party's secret weapon for keeping its core vote onside.

The "insider" said: "The bottom line for traditionalists is hunting and Europe. So long as Cameron stays sound on those two issues, Right-wingers will follow him anywhere and swallow pretty much every other U-turn he makes."

Leave aside for the moment how this betrays the patronising and insulting attitude of the party's leadership towards its core vote, which it seems to regard as an apparently brain-dead group concerned only about the incursions of Johnny Foreigner and the right to hunt foxes.

The ignorance of this smug, complacent belief is breathtaking. Even out on the provisional wing of the Tory party, the main concerns are far more compelling than these.

They are about, first and foremost, the failure of our public services; the failure of law and order; and the failure to give value for the huge amounts of money taken out of the pockets of the British people - and especially of the English people - by the state.

The Tories just don't seem to have got this. And, most of all, they just don't seem to have got how hard this licensed extortion is for pensioners. In forcing rises in the council tax, Labour is doing only what we expect of it, as a party wedded to an unacceptable level of corporatism. The Tories must now decide whether this is yet another of Labour's policies in which it wishes to be complicit, or to get off its haunches and at last pledge to do something about it.

THE NEED FOR AN ENGLISH PARLIAMENT

PRESS RELEASE

THE PRICE OF AN ENGLISH LIFE?

When Ann Marie Rogers of swindon lost her legal challenge earlier this week for her breast cancer to be treated with Herceptin she became the latest victim of Labour's partial National devolution which gave democratic national assemblies only to Scotland, Wales and Ulster but gave no democratic National Forum to England.

As the Scotsman reported on Friday 17th February 2006 "A breakthrough Cancer drug which was controversially denied to women in England is being routinely prescribed in Scotland". The Scotsman - Scots get breast cancer 'wonder drug'.

The reason for Herceptin being refused in England is its c.£20,000pa cost but in Scotland the Barnett Formula provides about a third extra subsidy from English Tax payers, which means that there is plenty of money available in Scotland's national health service.

For Mrs Rogers the answer is:- to move to Scotland; for England the answer is:- a fair Constitutional Settlement.

Robin Tilbrook
Chairman
English Democrats Party
Quires Green, Willingale, Ongar, Essex, CM5 0QP
Tel: 01277 896000
Fax: 01277 896050
Website, click here> www.englandsparty.com
Email: robintilbrook@aol.com

THE PAREKH REPORT [10]

‘The future of Britain lies in the hands of ... descendants of slave owners and slaves, of indentured labourers, of feudal landlords and serfs, of industrialists and factory workers, of lairds and crofters, of refugees and asylum-seekers.

From a response to the Commission

2.1 The movement towards a multi-ethnic, multicultural Britain has been decisive. However, it has not been the result of a concerted decision. Nor is it yet an accomplished fact. It has evolved as an unplanned, incremental process - a matter of multicultural drift, not of conscious policy. Much of the country, including many significant power-centres, remains untouched by it.

2.2 Attitudes towards multicultural drift vary widely. There are people who warmly welcome, to quote the resonant phrase used in the title of recent and influential documentation about it, “the irresistible rise of multiracial Britain”. The new Britain was vividly seen in the Windrush celebrations of 1998, commemorating the arrival of Britain’s Caribbean and Asian communities 50 years earlier. In those celebrations Britain was affirmed as a place where people of different cultural, religious and ethnic backgrounds live together on a permanent basis, and strive to build a common life. However, there are those who accept multicultural drift grudgingly as a fact of life, regretting the passing of the good old days when, they believe, Britain was a much more unified, predictable sort of place. There are also those who militantly resist and oppose it. The Windrush celebrations represented the good side of multiculturalism. The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry report, with its disturbing finding of institutional racism in the police service - and by extension in all public bodies and institutions - was a sombre reminder of the challenges that must be faced.

2.3 As noted in Chapter 1, Britain confronts a historic choice as to its future direction. Will it try to turn the clock back, digging in, defending old values and ancient hierarchies, relying on a narrow English-dominated, backward-looking definition of the nation? Or will it seize the opportunity to create a more flexible, inclusive, cosmopolitan image of itself? Britain is at a turning point. But it has not yet turned the corner. It is time to make the move.’

The second chapter of the Parekh Report is entitled: Rethinking the National Story. In other words, the report intends to re-write British history.

It starts off in style, with an extract of a response to the Commission, which is a nice bit of communist theory. It divides Britain along class and racial lines, and even treats so-called asylum-seekers as if they were a normal part of life. In fact the vast majority are out-and-out illegal immigrants and have no business being here.

No asylum-seeker enters this country from an unsafe country. They travel across many other countries and even entire continents to get here.

The extract does not refer to Liverpudlians, or Yorkshiremen, or Cockneys. Of course, they are all English. The report’s aim is to create division.

The report then reveals its intolerance of a free society. It is contemptuous towards those who do not share the report’s obsession with race.

It is to be noted that the report condemns ‘all public bodies and institutions’ as being institutionally racist. Every single one. This bigotry and race war politics is easy for the twisted minds of the politically correct.

For most of the last century the communist term of abuse against English society was in reference to the ‘class system’ or the term the ‘capitalist system’ which could also be applied to the West generally. Now the term of abuse is ‘institutional racism’.

Paragraph 2.3 moves towards the real thrust of the report, with its attack on ‘a narrow English-dominated, backward-looking definition of a nation’. Britain is English dominated as 85% of the British live in England. The English are by far the most populous nation. Being so, is not something to be ashamed of and nor is it racist.

THE NEED FOR AN ENGLISH PARLIAMENT

PRESS RELEASE

GORDON BROWN - FIRST MINISTER FOR ENGLAND?
Ed Vaizey, Conservative MP for Wantage and reportedly a close ally of the Dave Cameron, the Conservative Leader, is quoted, in The Scotsman, as having stated, on the 6th February, that:- “there is an elephant in the room which is not being addressed, which is, if Scotland has devolution, then Scottish MPs should not be responsible for putting through controversial legislation. That will be thrown into stark relief if we have a Prime Minister from Scotland”.

The English Democrats Party in reply would point that the Scottish Nation gave a substantial democratic mandate in their Referendum for the Scottish Parliament and English Democrats endorse the right of the Scottish Nation to national self-determination and would urge the Scots to reciprocate this endorsement for the English Nation.

So far as the constitutional position of Gordon Brown is concerned, whilst we accept the anomaly, about which Mr Vaizey expressed himself, English Democrats do not reach the same conclusion.

Gordon Brown, as a member of the Westminster Parliament of the United Kingdom, has as much constitutional right to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, as any other Member of the Westminster Parliament.

What is democratically improper however is for Gordon Brown, as the M.P. of a devolved Scottish constituency to become in effect also the First Minister for England without having a democratic mandate from the people of England.

English Democrats call for a proper national devolution for England with our own Parliament and our own First Minister elected by voters in England.

Interestingly Ed Vaizey’s remarks throw into stark relief one of the absurd consequences of the Conservative proposal for English Votes for English Laws (“EVEL”). This same proposal was successfully defeated by the Conservative Party in the Irish Home Rule debates of 100 years ago!

Robin Tilbrook
Chairman
English Democrats Party
Quires Green, Willingale, Ongar, Essex, CM5 0QP
Tel: 01277 896000
Fax: 01277 896050
Email: robintilbrook@aol.com

THE WEST LOTHIAN QUESTION

Below is a copy from Hansard of the transcript of a speech made by Lord Baker yesterday, presenting his bill, which is an attempt to introduce English votes on English Laws for the House of Commons.

Although this falls short of creating a proper English Parliament, this speech does set out the unacceptability of the status quo.

Parliament (Participation of Members of the House of Commons) Bill [HL]
11.40 am


Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Before addressing the details of the Bill, I cannot help reflecting on the last half hour of debate. Devolution has not gone far enough in the United Kingdom; the sooner Northern Ireland has an Assembly to deal with these matters, the better.
This Bill seeks to answer the West Lothian question, which was raised by Tam Dalyell in the 1977 debates when the Labour government introduced their first measure to establish a directly elected Assembly in Scotland. Tam would get up on clause after clause and ask, “What should Scottish MPs do at Westminster after Scotland has its own Parliament?” Enoch Powell dubbed that the West Lothian question. The Bill in 1977 did not proceed because the government did not secure a guillotine, but they resumed with another Bill in 1978 to establish a Scottish Parliament and it was on a measure in that Bill that they were defeated in 1979.
The West Lothian question is not a new constitutional question. It was first addressed by Edmund Burke during the American Revolution, when he advocated local self-government for the 13 American colonies. He described it as “local patriotism”. The colonies would then come under the Westminster umbrella, which would convey “imperial patriotism”. The writings of Edmund Burke influenced Gladstone very strongly in establishing the first Home Rule Bill in 1886. He had to grapple with exactly the West Lothian question. He said:
“If Ireland is to have domestic legislation for Irish affairs they cannot come here for English or Scottish affairs”.
The first Home Rule Bill of 1886 excluded Irish MPs from coming to Westminster altogether. The second Home Rule Bill in 1893 modified that. It rejected the proposal that I shall be putting to your Lordships later, which is called “in and out”. Gladstone went for a policy that reduced Irish representation at Westminster. He reduced the number of Irish MPs who were allowed to come to Westminster from 103 to 80; it was quite a modest reduction. That was also proposed in Asquith’s Bill, which reached the statute book and was implemented in 1914. Both Harcourt and Morley pointed out to Gladstone that reducing the number of Irish MPs did not really solve the question at all, because Irish MPs could attend and vote and determine policy in England, Scotland and Wales. The Gladstonian settlement had within it the seeds of future friction.
I shall briefly address the position of the Government on devolution, which is important, as they have been the main proponents of it and have made the most significant changes. The early Labour leaders, Keir Hardie and Ramsay MacDonald, were Scottish home rulers, but the Attlee government did not turn to devolution at all. Attlee was not remotely interested in it; he would let sleeping dogs lie. Indeed, that was also the position of the first Wilson government from 1964 to 1970, apart from one very interesting debate in 1965, when Wilson had a majority of only two. It was a measure on steel denationalisation. This is what Wilson said:
“I am sure the House will agree that there is an apparent lack of logic, for example, about steel, when Northern Ireland members can, and presumably will, swell the Tory ranks tonight, when we have no power to vote on questions about steel in Northern Ireland because of the fact that the Stormont Parliament has concurrent jurisdiction in these matters”.
There was a devolved Parliament, but Northern Ireland Members could come here. Wilson asked the House of Commons to,
“look at the question of why he”—
the leader of the Conservative Party—
“gets the support of his honourable Friends beside him—for example, on matters affecting housing discrimination in London—when we English, Scottish and Welsh Members cannot express our views about housing conditions in Belfast”—[Official Report, Commons, 6/5/65; cols. 1560––61.]
Harold Wilson did not pursue the matter; he decided to have another general election and to try to secure a majority of more than two. None the less, he had focussed on it. The Labour Party was fairly cool about devolution. The Labour Party conference of 1968 passed a resolution opposing devolution. However, by 1970, the Scottish nationalists had appeared as a serious and major threat to Labour in Scotland, having one MP in 1970 and 11 in 1974, with 30 per cent of the vote. It was the second Wilson administration, from February 1974 to October 1974, which committed the Labour Party to a directly elected Scottish Assembly.
My point is that the conversion was relatively late. It was always opposed by certain distinguished Labour Members of Parliament. Neil Kinnock was strongly opposed to it, as was Eric Heffer, because they realised the consequences of the policy. We have just discovered in the past three or four weeks that one of the major supporters of the policy was Denis Healey. According to the papers released by the Public Record Office, as Chancellor of the Exchequer he urged the setting up of a Scottish Assembly to defeat Scottish nationalists, as he did not want the Scottish nationalists to get their talons on North Sea oil. For all those reasons, the government were committed, but they failed to do it. John Smith promoted the policy, and Tony Blair accepted that legacy and introduced the Acts of 1998 and 1999.
Why is this now a question? Why should it come up again now? First, the constitutional settlement that the Government have imposed on the country is neither static nor final. Since 2000, the Acts have been extended as regards devolution. Since that time, control over fire and rescue services, animal health, the audit of devolved bodies, the ombudsman and student support have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament. As for Wales, the Government now have the Government of Wales Bill before the House of Commons, which creates a Welsh Executive, rather like the Scottish Executive, and a chief Minister in the Assembly. It also creates a form of legislation that is virtually that for a Parliament, in that the Welsh Assembly will in the future be able to draft legislation and bring it forward in a complete form to this House, and we will approve it with an hour’s debate through an Order in Council. That makes the Assembly a Parliament in all but name, but it is not called a Parliament. There would have to be a referendum, if the Government win the next election, to decide whether it should be called a Parliament. In fact, the change is very significant. Since 2000, there has been a steady movement away from the hub to the rim of the wheel, and I think that that will continue. Certainly, Mr Jack McConnell, Scotland’s First Minister, wants it to continue. He has argued that he wants the Scottish Parliament to have control over drugs, firearms, broadcasting, immigration and nuclear power. The current settlement is neither static nor final.
We have now had six years of devolution. Before the creation of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, the West Lothian question was to some extent rather academic and theoretical; it was really a synonym for opposition to devolution. That is not now the case and we now have to address the question. So far, the Government’’s response is a modified form of the Gladstonian solution of reducing the number of Scottish MPs. At the last election, the number of Scottish MPs was reduced to 59. As a side issue—I do not wish to feature on this very strongly—if it was truly proportionate it would be 54, not 59, but I leave that argument aside. Scotland is over-represented in the House of Commons. When it comes to Wales, for which there has been no reduction, as it does not have a Parliament—it has an Assembly, although that is going to get powers to make it virtually a Parliament—the numbers should be reduced from 40 to 32. That should make a reduction to 86 Scottish and Welsh MPs.
But if you take the principle that operated when Stormont existed, there should be a further reduction. When Stormont existed as a separate Assembly in the United Kingdom, Ulster should have had 17 MPs in the other place, but did not; there were only 12 MPs. I see the former leader of the Ulster Unionists nodding, so I have got the facts right. If you reduced that 86 proportionately by a third, the Scottish and Welsh MPs—if the Government believe that this is the solution to the West Lothian question—should number 56, not 84. I do not really think that that answers the West Lothian question.
The Government depend on the Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs, although there is one fewer as a result of the by-election yesterday—I was going to say 40 Scottish Labour MPs, but it is now 39, and 29 Welsh Labour MPs, which makes 68 altogether, to carry the Government’’s legislation in the lower House. They will have to carry contentious and difficult legislation that affects only England. That is outrageous. It is outrageous that the Member for Doon Valley or the Member for Paisley North—the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, will have a chance later and I will refer to him several times—or the Member for Caithness should be able to decide over the schools in my former constituency of Dorking. Why should they come and tell my constituents how they should appoint head teachers, how they should select children or whether they should have trust schools? When I was the Member for Dorking, I had no control over education in Paisley North, Doon Valley or Caithness—in fact, the Members for those constituencies do have any control over that. That is outrageous and unacceptable. You should have English votes for English laws.
Let me give a further example. Your Lordships will recall that the Scottish Parliament decided that there should be a total smoking ban in Scotland. In the Health Bill, which is before the lower House, the Government, prompted by Dr John Reid, who is a Scottish MP—no matter—said that they wanted a partial ban. That is part of the Bill that will eventually come to this House. Before Christmas, in a Commons committee, Sir George Young, a long-term anti-smoker, moved that there should be a total ban in England. That Motion was lost by one vote. A Scottish Member of Parliament decided whether we should have a partial or total ban in England. That is absurd. I put it again to the honourable Member for Doon Valley, who is also, I believe, the chairman of Motherwell Football Club.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: Heart of Midlothian.

Lord Baker of Dorking: I am sorry, my Lords, Heart of Midlothian. If he was still a Member of the lower House and he had voted on the smoking ban, he would be telling Chelsea supporters where they could smoke, how they could smoke, when they could smoke and whether they could smoke. Whereas the supporters of Heart of Midlothian, if they exist—

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, they would have absolutely no influence on it at all. It is absolute absurdity.
Another example is roads. I resent the fact that the present Secretary of State for Transport is a Scot, because he is making decisions on roads in East Sussex, where I live, which I think are lunatic and wrong; but there we have it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr Darling made a huge faux pas by going to Dunfermline at the beginning of the by-election and saying that there would be no increase in the Firth of Forth tolls. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and Alistair Darling have no control over the tolls on the Firth of Forth bridge. That is a matter for the Scottish Parliament. Many Members of that Parliament are very offended that the Chancellor and Mr Darling went up there and said that. In fact, I think they contributed to last night’s defeat, because the people of Dunfermline were saying clearly, “We want to run our own affairs, we do not want to be bullied by Ministers coming from Westminster, particularly the Chancellor”. The Chancellor is responsible for the loss of Dunfermline. I gather, in the repositioning of Gordon Brown, he will take a greater interest in constitutional matters. I hope he starts by figuring out what he has done so far.
The Government recognised that the case for English votes for English laws is unanswerable, so they decided that their answer was to have English regional assemblies. They asked their Deputy Prime Minister to fly the kite, and we all watched it thud to the ground.
My proposals in the Bill are designed to resolve this matter. I seek to give the Speaker powers, or rather confirm powers that the Speaker already has, to certify the territorial extent of a Bill. He has that power and he has exercised it in regard to Scottish Bills. He would designate groups of MPs—English MPs, Scottish MPs, Welsh MPs and Northern Ireland MPs—allowing them to vote only on such Bills, parts of Bills and statutory instruments. That is the nub of my proposals. There are many objections to them and I should like to deal with some of them.
The first objection is technical—can you separate out bits of Bills? The answer is that clearly you can; it is done in much legislation. In this Bill, I have given considerable power of discretion to the Speaker to decide on these matters. The Speaker can take advice from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, if he wishes. For the Government to say that it is not possible to define Bills, parts of Bills and statutory instruments is not an acceptable argument. I know that my noble friend Lord MacGregor has spoken and written about that and, no doubt, will refer to it later.
The second argument is that my proposal creates two classes of MPs. Well, there are already two types of MPs. When I was in the House of Commons before devolution, we were all equal. We could vote on absolutely everything that we wanted to and we had the right to do so. Devolution changes everything. For example, English MPs in the House of Commons can vote on English roads, English hospitals and English schools, whereas Scottish MPs cannot vote on Scottish roads and so on. Two classes of MPs already exist, so the argument that you would create inequality between them does not stand up.
Do not think for a moment that this is just a Conservative point of view. Many people on both sides of the House of Commons share it. In the debate in January on the Government of Wales Bill, the Father of the House, Alan Williams, who is a well respected Labour MP for Swansea, said the following:
“I abstained on tuition charges because I felt that I should not vote on them, but we have an anomalous situation whereby Scottish and Welsh Members, who are not answerable to English constituencies, will vote to impose on them measures that will not apply in Scotland or Wales. That affronts my concept of the democratic accountability that I thought existed in our country”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/1/06; col. 55.]
It is not only Alan Williams. Peter Kilfoyle, a well known supporter of the Government, said:
“It seems a perverse form of democracy when members representing Scottish or Welsh seats decide on matters which, in their case, are devolved to the Welsh Assembly or the Scottish Parliament.
“Those members would rightly take umbrage at interference by the British Parliament in such devolved areas. I take exception to any member who wants it both ways”.
And it is not only him, but someone from the mainstream of the Labour Party, Tony Wright, the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee. Speaking at a meeting with the Prime Minister and heads of other committees, to a resounding chorus of “Hear, hear”—or so it says in the Scotsman, so it must be true—he said that his
“middle England constituents resented Scottish MPs having power over their affairs”.
That support for my Bill extends not only to the Labour Party, but to the Liberal Party. Simon Hughes has made it clear that he supports this measure. An article in Times Online this week stated:
“Campbell would stop Scots MPs voting”.
The Government have to address this question very seriously indeed. They can no longer shelter under the answer given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, who is in a place—not his former place—in the Chamber. He said of the West Lothian question that the best thing to do about it was not to ask it. That was just about tenable in 1998 and 1999, but not now, because we have had the experience of seeing what happens. While you can turn a blind eye if you are a daring and imaginative commander in war, if you are dealing with a constitutional matter, turning a blind eye is an excuse for torpor and friction. This matter has to be addressed.
The third objection that I have heard many times is that the Scots and sometimes the Welsh will say, “Well, in the Thatcher years you imposed a whole lot on us that we objected to fundamentally”. I see the Lord Chancellor nodding. I am glad, because the noble and learned Lord has the capacity of occasionally stumbling upon the truth. Then he picks himself up as if nothing had happened. Of course, we did what we did because it was a unitary Parliament. But devolution, I say to the Lord Chancellor, changes everything. Once you establish in a unitary kingdom a federal unit with power to make laws—absolute power—with only a theoretical control from Westminster, you change everything. We have to address that problem.
The fourth argument is that the Westminster Parliament is supreme—the noble and learned Lord is nodding again. The argument is that the Westminster Parliament can vote on anything, and that is in the Bill that the noble and learned Lord introduced to the House. In theory, that is right, but its Members can legislate in Scotland only if they get the approval of the Scottish Parliament through a Sewel Motion. Theoretically they are able to legislate on, say, road speeds in Scotland but, if they did not get a Sewel Motion, there would be a major constitutional crisis because the Scottish Parliament would say, “That is for us to decide, not Westminster”.
The sovereignty of Parliament is at best a dormant sovereignty. The point that the House should grasp is that, once sovereignty is devolved, it is not a devolution but a division and sharing of sovereignty. That is what happens and that has been consolidated by the experience of the past six years.
The last argument is so trivial that I shall barely touch on it. It is that, because measures before Parliament affect the constituents of Scottish Members of Parliament, they should have a say on them. In the debates on tuition, some Scottish Members of Parliament said, “We’ve got constituents who go to English universities and therefore we are involved and want to have a say on it”. That is a totally absurd argument. Let us suppose that their constituents went to Trinity College, Dublin. Those MPs would not ask for a seat in the Irish Parliament, would they? The same would apply if their constituents went to the Sorbonne. Of course that would not be the case. One might as well say, “I’’m a Scottish Member of Parliament. I may fall ill in England and so I want a say on how hospital trusts are run”. It is an absolutely ridiculous and absurd argument.
I come back to the point that devolution changes everything. It is not static or final but is moving further and further on as we speak. The Procedure Committee in the Parliament of 1997 to 2001, which had a majority of Labour members, argued for a proposal very similar to my own. The government of the day totally rejected it, although it was supported by a Labour majority. The clear principle is that there should be English votes for English laws.
I am a Unionist. I believe that the United Kingdom has been an enormous success. It is neither a nation nor a country; it was a political creation in the middle of the 18th century and it has served the peoples of our countries well and it has served the world well. But I do not believe that it would hold together if there were manifest inequalities and unfairness between the constituent parts. Again, I quote Gladstone:
“The concession of local self-government is not the way to sap or impair but the way to strengthen and consolidate unity”.
I support that totally. I married a Scot; all my children went to a Scottish university, as did their mother; I even go on holiday to Scotland—I do not know Sharm el-Sheik. I am aware of the Scottish dimension. I believe that the only way in which we will hold our United Kingdom together is by recognising that we should have English votes for English laws.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Baker of Dorking.)

THE RULE OF LAW

From: Mr. John Gouriet and Mr Anthony Bennett
[addresses withheld]
Tel: 01279 635789
Mobile: 07835 716537
e-mail: ajsbennett@btinternet.com

Thursday 9 February 2006

Rt. Hon. The Lord Goldsmith QC
Attorney General
Attorney General’’s Chambers
9 Buckingham Gate
London SW1E 6JP

BY RECORDED DELIVERY


My Lord,

re: APPLICATION FOR SUMMONS OF VARIOUS IDENTIFIED PERSONS SEEN ON 2-4 FEBRUARY 2006 IN LONDON, COMMITTING CRIMINAL OFFENCES, FROM DISPLAYING THREATENING SIGNS CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1986, TO INCITEMENT TO EXTREME VIOLENCE AND MURDER, CONTRARY TO THE OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT 1861

You will be aware of the very serious and unacceptable behaviour of a substantial group of Islamist followers last Thursday, Friday and Saturday 2-4 February 2006 in Central London. Their words and placards were beyond all reasonable doubt deliberately intended to threaten and strike terror into the hearts of everyone who witnessed their demonstration. They demanded the most dire punishment of death inter alia by beheading for all who had in any way been involved in the publication of some cartoons beyond our shores in September last year, alleged to have been offensive to the sacred memory of their Prophet Muhammad.

It is beyond belief throughout the nation that such a demonstration of terrorism could be allowed to proceed in the United Kingdom. It is intolerable that it should so far appear to have been permitted to take place unchallenged, when its perpetrators so clearly and publicly breached a number of criminal Acts that it is your duty to ensure are upheld. Failure to hold those responsible to account, for no matter what reason, can only encourage those who seek to impose their will and their ways by such horrific means to continue with that which they have so far got away with, and perhaps even put their direst threats into practice.

A week has now elapsed since the first demonstration outside the BBC. There has been no indication so far that the Crown Prosecution Service or the Metropolitan Police are intending to prosecute those responsible. Indeed, the Metropolitan Police has issued several statements that it will only prosecute ‘if necessary’. There is nothing that we can find anywhere in law that suggests that once a crime known to law appears to have been committed, that the Police or the Crown Prosecution Service have authority to decide if it is ‘necessary’ to bring charges. The key criteria are the sufficiency of evidence and the public interest, not necessity.

We sincerely hope that the Crown Prosecution Service will fulfil its duty and act alone. However if it does not, we as two private citizens and loyal subjects of HM the Queen, shall most earnestly entreat you, as Her Majesty’s Attorney General and first law officer of the Crown, responsible for the Crown Prosecution Service, to lend us your fiat and join us as co-plaintiff in upholding the law of the land in the High Court and if necessary beyond.

If however in your wisdom, without demonstrably good reason, you decide not to ensure that the law of the land is upheld, we may reluctantly be compelled to join you as a defendant with others responsible in authority.

To assist you, our application is intended to be submitted along the following lines:

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

Proposed Defendants;

(1) Mr ANJEM CHOUDRAY, c/o Allah Ghurabba Group, whose private address is known to the Metropolitan Police.

(2) Mr OMAR KAYYAM from Bedford, at an address known to the Police or to the Prison Service

(3) Individual protesters on Friday 3 February and Saturday 4 February who were seen or heard by Police Officers and others carrying out the following actions:

(a) writing placards and banners which displayed threatening words

(b) holding placards and banners which displayed threatening words

(c) using threatening, abusive and insulting words.

The names and addresses of all the above are known to the Metropolitan
Police; please see below.

The above-named should be required to answer to the under-mentioned charges.

In view of the sensitive nature of this issue, we request that our address(es) be given only to the magistrates, district judge or senior court officials in the event of our intervention.

We have written to the Head of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Ian Blair, to ask for his help in identifying the names and addresses of those seen or heard carrying out the above actions. If these are not made available to us prior to any hearing, it is our intention to apply for a direction from the judge in the following terms:

“That the Metropolitan Police be ordered to supply the names and addresses of all those seen or heard writing or holding placards or banners displaying threatening words, or using threatening, abusive or insulting words”.

The police have been widely quoted as stating that charges will be brought in respect of the facts stated below “if necessary”. Leading moderate Muslims like Sir Iqbal Sacranie as well as politicians from all parties and from all shades of opinion have called for urgent prosecutions in respect of these matters. The purpose of this letter is to get these proceedings under way without any further delay.

Charges:

1. That on 2, 3 and 4 February 2006 Mr Anjem Choudray solicited [i.e. incited] murder by avowedly organising a demonstration with dozens of placards calling inter alia for the massacre or murder of those opposed to or insulting Islam, contrary to Section 4, Offences of the Person Act 1861.

2. That on 2, 3 and 4 February 2006 Mr Anjem Choudray organised the displaying of signs on a public march with the premeditated and specific intention of displaying threatening, abusive or insulting words, calculated to incite hatred and violence and strike fear into all who witnessed these acts in person or on television, contrary to Section 4 and Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986.

3. That on 2, 3 and 4 February 2006 a number of persons, at least several dozen, all of whom have been allegedly identified by the Metropolitan Police, prepared, carried and openly displayed signs on a public march which were threatening, abusive or insulting, contrary to Sections 4 and 5, Public Order Act 1986.

4. That Mr Omar Kayyam, of Bedford, living at an address known to the Police and the Prison Service, incited violence and murder contrary to the Public Order Act Sections 4 and 5 and contrary to the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 by openly dressing himself up on the demonstrations on 3 and 4 February 2006 as a suicide bomber.

Names of Persons to be Charged:

(1) Mr Anjem Choudray c/o Allah Ghurabaa group, or Al Ghurabba, (2) Mr Omar Kayyam of an address in Bedford known to the Police and the Prison Service, and (3) others whose name and address are known to the Metropolitan Police. More information is available to help the authorities to locate the whereabouts of Anjem Choudhary from Wikipedia, the Internet encyclopaedia. He is believed to be behind an extremist Islamist website which promotes and incites violence and murder. This is their entry today:

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Ghurabaa

Death threats

In response to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, Al Ghurabaa published an article on their website titled, "Kill those who insult the Prophet Muhammad". The article states, "The insulting of the Messenger Muhammad (saw) is something that the Muslims cannot and will not tolerate and the punishment in Islam for the one who does so is death. This is the word of the prophet and the verdict of Islam upon such people, one that any Muslim is able to execute."[1]

Al Ghurabaa had organised the 3 February protest march from London Central Mosque to Regents Park [2][3] where protesters waived placards reading, "Butcher those who mock Islam", "Kill those who insult Islam", "Europe you will pay, your 9/11 is on the way", or "7/7 is on its way", "Europe you will pay, Bin Laden is on his way" and "Europe you'll come crawling, when the Mujahideen come roaring". Despite the similar theme on Al Ghurabaa's website, their spokesman, Anjem Choudary, said he did not know who wrote the placards. [4] MPs from all parties condemned the protest, calling on the Metropolitan police to pursue those responsible on the grounds that the threats were an incitement to murder.[5]

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

The address of Mr Omar Kayyam is known to the Police. He was arrested on 7 February 2006 and put back in prison after it was found that he had breached his parole and licence conditions after being released early after being sentenced in 2002 to a 5½ year sentence for possession and supply of Class A drugs. We do not know which prison he is in, but he may be served with a summons there.

On Sunday, 5 February, we enquired of P.C. 116 BS at Kensington Police Station (Police Reference CAD 3603) whether or not it was proposed to charge with any offence those engaged in organising the display of dozens of signs which, inter alia, called for the massacre, slaughter and murder of those who ‘insulted’ or opposed Islam. He advised us, and we quote verbatim, that: “Don’t worry. The Police were filming all the protestors; we had just as many undercover plain clothes Police Officers taking photographs as uniformed Police Offices. We know the names and addresses of every single one of those taking part in the march”.

Particulars of Alleged Offences:

1. The signs

The signs displayed by the marchers were widely transmitted on television during 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 February. They include demonstrations outside the BBC on Thursday 2 February and demonstrations from the London Central Mosque at Regents Park to the Danish Embassy on Friday 3 and Saturday 4 February. Many photographs of the banners and placards appeared in all major national newspapers, in magazines, and several regional and local papers.

These are some of the slogans noted and photographed:

“Behead those who insult Islam”

“Behead those who insult the Prophet”

“Exterminate those who slander Islam”

“Massacre those who insult Islam”

“Whoever insults a Prophet, Kill Him” (carried by a number of adults and children)

“Europe you will pay, 9/11 is on its way” (a reference to the Islamist attack on the Twin Towers on 9 September 2001)

“Europe Your 9/11 will come”

“Europe, you’’ll come crawling, when the Mujahideen come roaring” [“Mujahideen” = Islamist warriors]

“Mujahideen are on their way” [“Mujahideen” = Islamist warriors]

“Butcher those who mock Islam”

“Behead the one who insults the Prophet”

“Be prepared for the Real Holocaust”

“Mock today, die tomorrow, Denmark”

“Death to those who insult the prophet”

“Europe you will pay; Fantastic Four are on their way” [The “Fantastic Four” is a commonly-used Islamist term to refer to the four British-born ‘suicide bombers’ who killed 52 people and injured hundreds of others in London on 7 July in four bomb attacks last year]

“I Love Al Qa’eda” (on a band around the head of a child) [Al Qa’eda claims direct responsibility for many terrorist attacks which have killed hundreds of people and injured thousands in recent years, including the bombing of the Twin Towers in New York on 9 September 2001)

“Freedom: Go to Hell”

“Democracy Go To Hell”.

Muslim women, mostly dressed in burqas or hajibs, were seen writing out the placards.

This is by no mean a complete listing of all the placards and banners seen, but these were the most prominent of those seen on TV film and in newspaper photographs in recent days.

Samples of the material displayed and photographs of those displaying them are enclosed with this letter.

2. The Law

The relevant law is cited below, with those subsections that apply to the facts above being highlighted

Section 4, Public Order Act 1986 - Fear or provocation of violence
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he -

a) uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or

b) distributes or displays to another person any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another by any person, or to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person or another, or whereby that person is likely to believe that such violence will be provoked

(2) An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is distributed or displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling.

(3) A constable may arrest without warrant anyone he reasonably suspects is committing on offence under this subsection

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding level 5 (Currently £5,000) on the standard scale or both.
Section 5, Public Order Act 1986 - Harassment, alarm or distress

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he -

a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour. or

b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby

(2) An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling.

(3) It is a defence for the accused to prove -

a) That he had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, or

b) That he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or

c) That his conduct was reasonable

(4) A constable may arrest without warrant if -

a) He engages in offensive conduct which the constable warns him to stop, and

b) He engages in further offensive conduct immediately or shortly after the warning

(5) In subsection (4) above 'offensive conduct' means conduct the constable reasonably suspects to constitute an offence under this section, and the conduct mentioned in paragraph (a) and the further conduct need not be of the same nature

(6) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

Offences Against The Person Act 1861.
Soliciting murder, or as it has become known more recently ‘incitement to murder’ (the charge which has been upheld again the extremist Islamist Abu Hamza on 7 February 2006) is an offence under Section 4 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (c. 100).

It should be noted that within the last two or three years an elderly single protester, a Mr Harry Hammond, was roughed up by some ‘gays’, arrested, fined £350 and ordered to pay prosecution costs and have his signs destroyed by Wimborne Magistrates Court under Sections 4 and 5 of the Public Order Act when he displayed a sign saying ‘Stop Homosexuality’, and ‘Stop Immorality’ in Bournemouth Square. In another incident a pub landlady in Middlesbrough was similarly convicted, fined and ordered to pay costs in relation to displaying a scarf with the words ‘Sunderland are ‘shite’’, also under Sections 4 and 5 of the Public Order Act. These do not begin to compare with the gravity of the material displayed on Friday and Saturday and the necessity for those who prepared and displayed those signs to be brought to justice without further delay.

We are aware of the powers of the Crown Prosecution Service to take over a prosecution and we strongly urge that they do so in this case by prosecuting those responsible for organising writing and carrying the banners during these demonstrations.

If there is any clarification you require regarding any of the contents of this letter, please do not hesitate to contact us.

If we are compelled to initiate private proceedings, with or without your fiat, we may request the assistance of the Court in ensuring the availability of those who are in a position to give evidence, namely officers of the Metropolitan Police on duty, Metropolitan Police photographers, TV companies who took video footage, photographers who took still pictures etc.


Yours faithfully,


John Gouriet
Anthony Bennett

TORY IDENTITY CRISIS

Below is a copy of an article in The Guardian written by Vince Cable, which highlights the looming political identity crisis in the Tory Party.

At the moment they seem to be fooling themselves, but how much longer can this last?

From the Guardian:

The biggest Tory fear is that Cameron really is a liberal

The ghastly thought is starting to dawn on the Conservative troops that perhaps their general means what he says

Vincent Cable
Thursday February 9, 2006

Capitalist societies are characterised by speculative bubbles: dotcom shares; property; bonds; and now Cameroons. Speculative bubbles are driven by the unshakeable belief of punters that markets always go up and never come down. Usually, bubbles burst. Investors in Blunketts, Milburns, Portillos, Hagues and Howards have little to show for the fashionable certainty that they would be the next prime ministers. But sometimes - albeit rarely - a new stock emerges with strong and durable fundamentals. Thatcher was one, Tony Blair another. Is Cameron one of these?

Cameron has emerged very quickly to a friendly critical reception. He has undoubted style. He is making a brazen bid for the political ground occupied by New Labour and my own party. I suspect I am not the only Liberal Democrat to have received chummy emails addressed to "my fellow liberal", or invitations to join his shadow cabinet (albeit via the somewhat impersonal medium of the Daily Mail). These fishing expeditions are unlikely to net any more than the odd, obscure ex-candidate, but they demonstrate chutzpah.
The important question is whether there is substance as well as style. The effortless progress Cameron has enjoyed within his party is striking. This is in marked contrast to the years of struggle during which Kinnock, Smith, Blair and Brown transformed the Labour party; the intense intellectual and personal battles Thatcher fought with her party's "wets"; and the fierce debates that my party enjoys on positioning and policy.

So far, Cameron hasn't fought anyone over anything. His fans put this down to brilliant generalship. A more likely explanation is that his troops haven't yet progressed from the parade ground to the battlefield. Moreover there are two radically different views of what his generalship is designed to achieve.

The first is the conventional wisdom shared by most of his supporters and opponents, that all the stuff about liberalism is a clever affectation. On this view, he is essentially concerned with rebadging an old and familiar product: the politics of Michael Howard, his mentor, and Iain Duncan Smith, presented with a charming smile and a dexterous turn of phrase. He is making the nasty seem nice. If that is all that is involved, we can relax. In due course, the feint to the centre will be followed by a familiar lunge to the right: with talk of swamping by immigrants, European conspiracies, and the evils of taxation. The Mail and Telegraph will crack the whip. Open-neck shirts and recreational drugs will go the way of William Hague's baseball cap, and we'll be back on familiar terrain.

But the ghastly thought is beginning to dawn on the Conservative party - as well as on New Labour and ourselves - that perhaps he means what he says. It is worth recalling that his inspiration, Gladstone, was once described by the historian Thomas Macaulay as the "rising hope of stern and unbending Tories" before embarking on a long migration to liberalism. Tebbit, whose nostrils are acutely sensitive to the faintest whiff of ideological betrayal, has publicly expressed his concerns. Eric Forth has worried out loud about the abandonment of tax cuts. The Conservatives I meet are less than ecstatic when I greet them with the Cameroonian embrace of "fellow liberalism".
Cynics will say that none of this matters. Power is everything. If it helps to win back government, even the dyed-in-the-wool Tories will swallow their pride and principles. Bill Cash will promote the idea of French as a second official language. John Redwood will demand government grants for black, lesbian collectives. When we reflect on the speed with which New Labour types moved from Trotsky to Tony, large-scale cynicism should not be discounted.

But though I recoil from the Conservative party, I don't think they are quite so shallow. I suspect there are limits to how far they will compromise cherished beliefs for the sake of helping a few bright young things to occupy ministerial berths in what would probably be a minority government. As the son of a Tory activist, I learned to respect, as well as to fight, Conservative conviction.

Unlike the socialist left, which was politically and intellectually defeated a decade and a half ago, Conservatives firmly believe history is on their side, even if the British voters have been temporarily seduced by the charlatan Blair. They look for inspiration not just to the past but to the US, where they see that conservative values permeate society at large and where liberalism is a dirty word. I recently sought to explain current allegiances in a Demos pamphlet, based on the politics of identity: nation, religion, tribe and race. While traditional left/right issues are still important - in relation to public services and taxation - they are overlain by questions of identity. This has opened up a big gulf on the right between those who are broadly liberal or libertarian and cosmopolitan in outlook, and what I call the cultural conservatives. It is a long way from the champagne bars of Notting Hill to the bowling clubs of Frinton-on-Sea. By pitching strongly for the first constituency, Cameron may be seriously alienating the second.

There is undoubtedly serious unease in Churchill Halls across the country. The question is being asked: where will all this political correctness end? Cameron praises migrants for their economic and cultural contribution, but aren't they the same people whom, a few months ago, the Tories denounced for living off social security and bringing Aids and TB into the country? When the country's top policeman is tip-toeing around the sensitivities of religious minorities, who will stand up for law and order and the great silent majority?

At present, the cultural conservatives have nowhere else to go. Ukip has been broken by its unhappy love affair with Robert Kilroy-Silk. The BNP's more sophisticated attempts to broaden its appeal to voters with an IQ of more than 70 have ended up with the more familiar sight of its leaders brandishing their fists after a courtroom drama. But there are very many confused, angry people looking for a lead. Cameron is not, apparently, interested in them. Before long, he will face a backlash on his own side.

I have no idea whether Cameron believes what he is saying. But if he does, the Blair-Brown feud and my own party's tribulations will seem like minor skirmishes when warfare breaks out on the right. As for Cameron shares, my advice is to sell before the market peaks.

· Vincent Cable is MP for Twickenham and the Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman

QUOTE OF THE MONTH

‘Our political world was riddled with compromise, appeasement, indecision, all part and parcel of the deviousness which permeated our society - I felt strongly about this permissiveness, but at the same time tried to avoid over-reaction. However, it is a sad fact of life that whenever there is a tough issue, the easiest way out is to do nothing. Meanwhile, the extremists keep on doing their own thing all the time - with them there is never any let-up.’

Ian Smith (former prime minister of Rhodesia)

THE NEED FOR AN ENGLISH PARLIAMENT

Below is a copy of an item on the BBC news website.

The arguments raised by Tony Blair only reinforce the arguments for a proper English parliament. The arguments he uses apply to the Tory concept of English votes on English matters in the existing parliament:


Blair rejects England-only votes

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.

But Mr Blair said the so-called West Lothian Question had "gone on forever".

'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."

APPEASEMENT

Recent events have demonstrated that the British ruling class has remained cocooned in its traditional comfort zone of snobby appeasement.

This is all the more important and dangerous due to the so-called war on terror.

While 2 members of the British National Party [BNP] have been acquitted on several charges of inciting racial hatred, they remain under threat of a retrial for other charges after the jury was unable to reach a verdict. These other charges include statements about some Asian paedophiles grooming white girls, about which there was a Channel 4 documentary.

Meanwhile, in response to a few cartoons, there have been widespread demonstrations and attacks on Scandinavian, French and other continental European buildings around the world by Muslim mobs. The cartoons were first published several months ago and have been republished since in several European countries.

They have not been published in the British press. This British stance has been lauded by Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, and the press itself as being a sign of sensitivity. Jack Straw even went so far as to criticise the publication of the cartoons as: ‘insulting, insensitive, disrespectful and wrong’.

In layman’s language the British stance is called appeasement.

The continental press is making a stand on an issue of principle: that free speech takes precedence over Muslim extremism. Once the press gives in and allows Muslims to veto what may or may not be published, in a European country, then that is a veto which will be exercised with increasing ferocity.

The British press are content to allow Muslim extremists that veto as is the British ruling class in general. This is the Munich mentality. The consequence of which is that we will face even bigger problems in due course.

This all comes at a time when the so-called religious hate bill has been watered down [thank goodness] and is meandering its way through parliament. Labour is justifying this bill on the grounds of wanting to outlaw so-called Islamophobia.

One should not forget that the real reason for the demand for legislation outlawing so-called Islamophobia was the failure to kill Salman Rushdie [see the English Rights Campaign entry dated 2 August 2005, which also highlights a determination by certain Muslim organisations to ‘define “no go” areas where the exercise of “freedom of speech” against Islam will not be tolerated’] - and not because of any alleged backlash following the subsequent terrorist attacks on 9/11 or 7/7.

A report in The Times dated the 4 February states:

‘THERE was a quiet calm yesterday on the streets of the northern city whose Muslim community once gained worldwide notoriety for their response to a religious insult.

Seventeen years ago, copies of Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses were nailed to wooden stakes and burnt outside Bradford town hall. The flames died down but the public book-burning by 1,500 British Muslims lit a fire through the Islamic world.

Demonstrations were held in other countries, protesters were shot dead in Pakistan and one month later Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran issued a fatwa calling on Muslims to murder Rushdie.

The Bradford Council for Mosques, which co-ordinated the protests in West Yorkshire, looked on with approval. The author, the council said, had “tortured Islam” and deserved to pay the penalty by “hanging”. Since those days, Bradford has twice been brought to its knees, in 1995 and 2001, during race riots that caused damage running to millions of pounds ...

While it was hard to find a believer who was not offended by the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, it was equally difficult to speak to anyone willing to advocate public street protests. Muslims spoke of feeling hurt, angry and insulted but also preached the need for caution and voiced fears that demonstrations and marches would merely provoke a backlash.

Liaqat Hussain, the secretary of the Bradford Central Mosque, initially seemed eager to fan the flames of a dispute that he cited as evidence of “the beginning of a Muslim holocaust in Europe”. Mr Hussain, 54, a former president of the Bradford Council for Mosques and its general secretary during the Rushdie protests, said that the blame for the widespread publication of the cartoons did not rest solely with the editors of the newspapers involved.

“This is clearly a demonstration by the Christian world of hostility towards the Muslim community,” he said. “This has come from all the nations of Europe and it reflects an ongoing campaign against Muslims by the Western powers. You can’t differentiate between the Western world and Christianity; you can’t separate what’s happened from the people of those countries and their governments. I blame all of the Western population because these cartoons reflect the opinion of the people.”

He said that the publication of the cartoons across Europe was a deliberate act of provocation.

“We have already seen the genocide of Muslims in Bosnia and we’ve witnessed the support by Christians and the West for Israel and its atrocities against the Palestinians,” he said. “Now we’re seeing the early stages of creating a suitable environment for a Muslim holocaust in Europe.” Two hours later, however, the firebrand had turned into a man of moderation. Yes, it was a Muslim’s duty to preserve the honour of the Prophet, but this must only be done in a way that was lawful and democratic.

Mr Hussain also praised newspapers and broadcasters in Britain for the restraint they had shown and their “responsible attitude” in reporting the story. “I would call on all Muslims who may want to express their anger to use peaceful means and not to be carried away by their emotions”.’

Presumably, Liaqat Hussain believes that his subsequent comments excuse the hatred revealed in his earlier ones.

Meanwhile, yesterday, in a march in central London, which was escorted by the police, Muslim extremists chanted the name of Osama bin Laden and ‘You must pay, 7/7 is on its way.’ Many of the protestors were carrying placards with slogans such as:

Kill Those Who Insult Islam.
Massacre Those Who Insult Islam.
Behead Those Who Insult Islam.
As Muslims We Are Prepared To Fight!!
Europe You’ll Come Crawling When Mujahideen Come Roaring.
Annihilate Those Who Insult Islam.
Jihad Against European Crusaders
Europe You Will Pay, Fantastic 4 Are On Their Way!!!

The term ‘Fantastic 4' is a reference to the 7/7 suicide terrorists.

The Metropolitan Police took no action to arrest those who were inciting murder.

One of the organisers of the march, Anjem Choudry, an associate of Mohammed Al Bakri [who is currently in the Lebanon] said:

‘7/7 was brought upon the people of London and Britain by the foreign policy of Tony Blair. He violated the sanctity of Muslims, he violated the covenant of security.

The police and security people in Britain say there will be another security attack. There is no reason why there will not be another suicide bombing.’

There is ‘no reason’ why Choudry and his supporters should be allowed to remain in Britain either. The English Rights Campaign has already reported on Choudry’s sentiment regarding his supposed British nationality [see the entry dated 23 August 2005] when he dismissed his British passport as a ‘travel document’.

Choudry and others trooped off to the Lebanon to meet with Bakri and found themselves deported from that country. Labour, far from deporting those extremists allowed them all back into this country. A report in The Times dated the 9 November 2005 states:

‘FOUR key lieutenants of Omar Bakri Mohammad, the banned Islamic cleric, have been expelled from Lebanon and deported back to Britain.

Their expulsion comes as the British authorities attempt to deport to Beirut a number of Lebanese radicals who have been identified as a terrorism risk. Bakri fled to Beirut, fearing that he would be arrested in Britain as part of the Government’s promised crackdown on so-called preachers of hate.

Bakri claimed that he had flown to Lebanon on holiday in August but Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, banned the cleric from returning to his London home. The four men rounded up in Beirut were there helping Bakri to set up a religious school and are allegedly members of his banned al-Ghuraba group. Anjem Choudray, the cleric’s deputy, blamed the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for orchestrating their deportations. Whitehall would not comment on the case.

Bakri’s followers say he cannot find work. The cleric has claimed an estimated £250,000 in state benefits since claiming asylum in Britain 20 years ago. He has complained about being followed. Mr Choudray described his deportation from Beirut as “outrageous”. He said that the Government is deliberately trying to isolate Bakri by deporting anybody who tries to help him.

“The British Government has put a lot of pressure on Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammad ever since he’s been there. He’s been interrogated again and again by the various sections of the security services there whether that be the army or the internal security service”.’

Choudry and his supporters should have their ‘travel documents’ revoked and they should be sent back from wherever they have originated from.

Those who wish to make up their own minds as to whether Muslim extremists should be calling for people to be beheaded in this country can find the cartoons at the following site:

http://www.muslimparody.com/Danish.html

THE WAR ON TERROR

Below is a copy of a report on the BBC website which is a composition of extracts from the Independent Monitering Commission report on Provisional IRA [PIRA] and other terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland.

Peter Hain defended Labour policy in television interviews following publication of the report, and did not make much, if any, criticism of the IRA.

The IMC: Report extracts

The Independent Monitoring Commission published its 8th report into paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland on Wednesday.

Below are extracts from the main areas of the report.

IRA INTELLIGENCE GATHERING

The organisation continues to accumulate information about individuals and groups, including members of the security forces, though as we indicate above we do not think there is any intent to mount attacks.

We also think that the organisation remains concerned about the potential for action by dissident republican groups and that it continues to monitor their activities, as it does those of some drug dealers.

This is an activity which we believe is authorised by the leadership and which involves some very senior members.

While some of it may be for defensive purposes, it is predominantly directed towards supporting the political strategy.

It involves among other things the continuation of efforts to penetrate public and other institutions with the intention of illegally obtaining or handling sensitive information.

WEAPONS

We referred in our previous report to the significant act of decommissioning reported by the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning (IICD) on 26 September 2005.

We have since received reports that not all PIRA's weapons and ammunition were handed over for decommissioning in September.

These reports are not able to indicate precisely what is the nature or volume of any remaining weapons but suggest two things: first, that there is a range of different kinds of weapons and ammunition; second, that the material goes beyond what might possibly have been expected to have missed decommissioning, such as a limited number of handguns kept for personal protection or some items the whereabouts of which were no longer known.

We recognise that if these reports were confirmed the key question would be how much the PIRA leadership knew about these weapons.

These same reports do not cast doubt on the declared intention of the PIRA leadership to eschew terrorism. For our part, we are clear that this latter is their strategic intent.

CRIMINAL ACTIVITY

There are indications that in some areas, PIRA units have been closing down criminal operations and clearing stocks of contraband goods, and we have no reports of PIRA sanctioned robberies in the period under review.

However, members and former members of PIRA continue to be heavily involved in serious organised crime, including counterfeiting and the smuggling of fuel and tobacco. As in the past, we are not able to say confidently to what extent the substantial proceeds of crime are passed to the organisation.

PIRA continues to raise funds and we also believe that it looks to the long term exploitation of the proceeds of earlier crimes, for example through the purchase of property or legitimate businesses. Some senior members are involved in money laundering and other crime.

Money has become a key strategic asset. There has been some restructuring in the finance department, possibly in reflection of the changing circumstances.
PIRA also seems to be using experts and specialists able to assist in the management of illegal assets.

EXILES

It remains our very strong belief that exiling is one of the most insidious manifestations of paramilitary activity. Exiling - or the threat or fear of it - is a key element in the exercise of community control.

The ending of exiling, and allowing those previously exiled freely to return home should they wish to do so, remain for us one test of whether a paramilitary group has given up illegality. The practice of exiling continues with all groups, in some instances apparently unabated, though in others the number of new cases may have reduced considerably.

Exiling has not been lifted and some relocation of people who are seen as troublesome individuals and families continues. PIRA has used other methods of exercising community control such as "naming and shaming" and we believe the organisation has encouraged members to engage in community restorative justice as a means of exerting local influence.

There are thus some signs of an organisation which wants to maintain its traditional role within its communities.

It does not yet appear ready to change its long standing opposition to the PSNI though the attitude on the ground is variable and appears often to depend on local circumstances or personalities; in some cases there are clear indications of a
growing community readiness to engage with the police.

INTENTIONS

We are of the firm view that the present PIRA leadership has taken the strategic decision to end the armed campaign and pursue the political course which it has publicly articulated. We do not think that PIRA believes that terrorism has a part in this political strategy.

It has issued instructions to its members about this change of mode, and has engaged in internal consultation to support the strategy.

We believe that there is no intention on the part of a number of those (paramilitary) groups, in particular PIRA, to revert to terrorism but there still remain questions about how far this dynamic will develop.

There seems to be a growing awareness within groups on both sides that violence and crime - even if they had been considered an acceptable option in the past - do not now offer a way forward which is either right or likely to bear political fruit in the longer term.

There are signs too in both loyalist and republican communities that increasing numbers of people want to break free of the grip of paramilitary groups. As they do so they can restore a more normal way of life.

LOYALIST ACTIVITY

The UDA has been engaged in continuing paramilitary activity. Members from east Belfast were in our view responsible for the murder on 4 October of their fellow member Jim Gray who was on bail following his arrest.

The UDA and its members have continued to undertake targeting, shootings and assaults, some unreported; the UDA was responsible for most of the loyalist incidents which it is possible to attribute with certainty to a particular organisation, although these attributions are a minority of the total.

We believe that the organisation continues to aspire to acquire weapons although we have no evidence over this period that it has successfully done so. We are aware of no change in the broad pattern of UDA involvement in organised crime.

Members of the organisation were engaged in drug dealing, extortion, the production and sale of counterfeit goods, money laundering and robbery.

The level of UVF activity has been less than it was in the six months covered by our previous report, mainly because of the ending of the feud with the LVF.

Despite the welcome steps the leadership has taken on the feud and other crime we do not at this stage change our overall assessment of the organisation. It remains a continuing and serious threat to the rule of law and our previous phrase - active, violent and ruthless - still applies to it.

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

ANGLOPHOBIA

Below is a copy of an article which appeared in the Welsh Daily Post.

It is to be noted that Peter Hain does not address English interests at all and is hostile towards English nationalists, unlike those very nice Welsh, Scots or even Irish nationalists:

'English nationalism' warning


Jan 18 2006

Daily Post

PETER Hain last night insisted a bid to ban Welsh MPs voting on across-the-border issues would risk "fanning the flames of English nationalism."

The Welsh secretary launched a scathing attack on legislation introduced in the House of Lords by former Tory home secretary Lord Baker.

He said it was "unacceptable" Welsh and Scottish MPs voted on issues which do not affect their constituencies, because they were dealt with by devolved assemblies in Cardiff or Edinburgh.

Under his blueprint, the speaker of the House of Commons would have the power to stop English, Welsh, Scottish or Northern Ireland MPs from debating and voting on legislation which does not affect their regions.

Lord Baker, who served in Margaret Thatcher's cabinet as Kenneth Baker, said: "The supremacy of Westminster has been divided.

"The only way we are going to keep the UK together is by not accepting a manifest unfairness for England."

But Mr Hain branded the peer's bill "dangerous and wrong."

He said: "To prevent Welsh MPs from voting on certain classes of parliamentary business would consign them to second class status and would disenfranchise Welsh voters.

"It would undermine key pillars of our constitution and risks fanning the flames of English nationalism.

"The government believes that to go down this route would be dangerous and wrong and we have no intention of doing so."

The issue, known historically as the West Lothian question, was repeatedly highlighted as Welsh MPs vote on education and health proposals which only affect England.

The Bill will be debated in the Lords in February but is unlikely to become law without government backing.