Wednesday 27 January 2016

City-regions. A Trojan horse for the balkanisation of England.


Divide and Conquer?
Lacking an English Parliament to give them a collective voice, English city-regions and traditional shire counties competing with each other for funds allocated by central government provide the ideal background for a British Establishment determined to retain political control over England and the English.
Moreover, there exists the potential for conflict within a city-region as Prof. Robert Hazell states (The English Question, 2006): "There is a risk of urban dominance with the cities and their leaders being perceived as neglecting the separate identities and interests of rural areas." He also writes: "Finally, some of the arguments advanced against city regions are similar to those advanced against regional assemblies: that they are essentially technocratic, of interests to elites not ordinary people, and at best a patchwork solution." 

Still relevant today, this letter published in the Bristol Evening Post on October 10th, 2014 and in the Western Daily Press on November 6th 2014, was in favour of re-uniting and re-empowering England's traditional counties and argues against devolution in the form of city-regions.

City regions unwelcome and unwanted.
It appears that Bristol mayor George Ferguson is among those who are promoting the plan for city-regions. Would he like to have control over a swathe of England stretching all the way from Bath to the Bristol Channel?

Who knows what else a Bristol city-region might encompass – perhaps Somerset, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire, possibly even Devonshire and Cornwall too?

Be that as it may, city-regions would be a Trojan horse for regional government, the eventual balkanisation of England and the perfect tactic for a British political establishment determined to prevent the creation of an English Parliament.

Rural areas and the green belt would fall under the control of dominant cities and eventually disappear under a shroud of concrete and tarmac as urbanisation of the countryside inevitably followed.

To buttress England against this unhappy future our shire counties, weakened and dismembered by the Conservatives’ Local Government Act of 1972, must be reformed and re-empowered to act as a counterbalance to the vigour of our great cities.

The administrative County of Somerset, for example, should be re-united within its time-honoured boundaries by combining with the unitary authorities of North Somerset and Bath and North East Somerset.

As such it would be better able to obviate the threat of Bristol’s urban expansion south and west through the green belt at the expense of rural communities, farming and landscape.

Our traditional counties have been part of the geographic fabric of England, the cultural identity of its people and also the foundations of local government originating from the time of Alfred the Great and Anglo-Saxon Wessex.

Our cities and counties should, of course, co-operate but not be formed into invented or artificial regions to suite a British political establishment which also has those from Scotland and Wales influencing opinion within it.

Regional Government is unwelcome, unwanted and most certainly un-English.

S.W.

English Democrats, Somerset

Clive Lavelle commented in similar fashion.  Here is his letter published in the Western Daily Press on November 11th 2014 which opposes Westminster's plan to foist piecemeal devolution on England.

The absurd notion of ‘city regions’.
Steve Wright’s excellent letter in the Western Daily Press (November 6) highlights the absurdity of the notion of “city regions” in England. Coincidentally, the previous night, the BBC broadcast a debate, hosted by Points West’s David Garmston on the same subject. There were those who wanted devolution for ancient Wessex (a pretty hefty chunk of England), right down to those who thought that devolution should be at parish council level.

Predictably, local politicians were eager to protect their own town/county/unitary authorities and what was admirably demonstrated was that regionalisation in any shape would pit parts of England against others; something I suspect the Westminster elite want.

The truth is that the only “fair and balanced” devolution settlement for England would be the same package that Scotland enjoys – a Parliament and First Minister. This would render Westminster all but irrelevant; its elite know this and want to preserve their lucrative trough, so the “divide and conquer” approach is the one that they are pursuing.

Clive Lavelle

Weston-super-Mare English Democrats

Saturday 23 January 2016

Devolution within England is a matter for the English alone.

A view from Gloucestershire regarding Westminster's plot to foist piecemeal devolution on England.  This letter was published in the Western Daily Press on January 9th.


England needs MPs to speak up for us.
English devolution is a political decision to be made by England’s electorate alone and not by David Cameron nor Westminster’s self-indulging “UK” main parties”.

By stealth Westminster seems intent on foisting devolution piecemeal on England’s cities and regions without consulting England’s electorate.

England’s inhabitants and their 530 English MPs, must totally resist Westminster’s proposals at all costs.

When devolution was proposed in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in 1997 each national electorate was consulted and devolution granted in 1999.

Governments in Holyrood, Cardiff Bay and Stormont with a total of 297 politicians, all affiliated to their country’s national parties, govern in the national interests of their own country. So it must be in England whose long suffering 53 million people denied self-governance have no political champions looking after the national interests of this country and its people.

Only when England’s MPs (and MEPs) are affiliated to national English Labour, English Conservative , English Democrat parties etc. will our country become a real democracy.

R A Hopkins

Leckhampton, Gloucestershire

Tuesday 19 January 2016

British-Irish Council. Who speaks for England?

This letter was published in the Western Daily Press on January 16th.

Who was speaking for the English? 
Someone seems to have been left off the guest list when the invitations were issued for the British-Irish Council’s 25th summit meeting in London late last year.

The list of delegates is revealing. The Northern Ireland Secretary Therese Villiers represented the UK Government. First Minister Nicola Sturgeon and two other delegates were there standing up for the Scottish people. The Irish Taoiseach and one of his ministers attended on behalf of Ireland. Our Welsh neighbours had two delegates to speak for them, one of whom was their First Minister. Northern Ireland had three ministers representing the people of Ulster while the Channel Islands of Jersey and Guernsey despatched four ministers. Even the government of the Isle of Man sent two delegates.

I wonder who spoke for the citizens of England?

The council’s communiqué listed the worthy issues discussed, among which were domestic resettlement of refugees, the economy and the environment. However, nowhere can be found mention of England or the English.

This latest slight to our country is yet further evidence of the need for an English parliament and first minister to represent, and provide a voice for, the people of England.

S.W.
English Democrats, Somerset

Saturday 16 January 2016

Kite-buggies in action at Uphill near Weston-super-Mare.

Kite-buggy racing on the beach at Uphill near Weston-super-Mare on the North Somerset coast.  Brean Down is on the left, Steep Holm in the centre and the Welsh Coast can be seen on the horizon to the right.
 
The village of Uphill is at the mouth of the River Axe and was charmingly described, in 1934, by Maxwell Fraser in his guidebook Somerset (Great Western Railway Company): "Uphill, the last of the true Mendip villages, lies at the foot of the hill beside the seashore, with its old church 100 ft. above.  Originally a Norman building altered in the Perpendicular period, it is now practically disused, but the view from the churchyard is so inspiring it is well worth the trouble of the steep climb.  Immediately below is the tiny harbour which probably marks the site of the Roman harbour of Axium from which the produce of the Roman lead mines was exported.  The old Roman road has been traced from this hill for 55 miles across the Mendips to Old Sarum near Salisbury, and the grass-clad breeze-swept knoll is a remote and lonely little world which pricks the imagination to conjure up visions of the days when the legions swung down from the hills, and the harbour was swarming with men loading the ships under the efficient direction of their overseers."

Thursday 7 January 2016

Chard Reservoir, North East of Chard in South Somerset.

Chard Reservoir is a lake and nature reserve tucked away on the outskirts of the town from which it takes its name.   Built in 1842 to provide water for the now disused Chard Canal, it has been owned and managed by South Somerset District Council since 1990.  The reservoir, which has 48 acres of open water, takes its inflow from the River Isle.

The main car park (free) is signposted off the A30 Chard to Crewkerne road.  Covering an area of 88 acres the site contains woodlands, wildflower meadows, open water and reed beds.  Being on mostly level ground it is easy going throughout although the footpaths do have some muddy patches and gentle slopes.

I found it a pleasant place for a stroll with opportunities for bird watching and photography.  It seems popular with anglers and walkers but people walking dogs have restricted access.


Anglers on the banks of Chard Reservoir in South Somerset on a bright January afternoon.

Saturday 2 January 2016

Compare Chinese restraint in the Spratly Islands with Turkey's reckless action over the Syrian border.

Early in December two United States B52 bombers flew over, or close to, Chinese territory in the Spratly Islands, a disputed group of islands in the South China Sea where there may be significant oil and gas reserves.

Some reports suggest the B52s may have strayed off-course due to navigational error or bad weather.  Nevertheless, the  Chinese were obviously annoyed by their presence and claimed the Americans were deliberately raising tensions by such overflights.  They put their military on high alert during the "provocation" and warned the Americans to leave, but took no further action.

Only weeks earlier a Russian bomber was shot down by Turkish fighter jets because it apparently spent just 12 seconds in Turkish airspace.  Two Russian servicemen were killed as result of this incident, one being machine gunned as he parachuted from his burning aircraft.  Since 9/11 all nations can be expected to defend their airspace vigorously and no-one should doubt the capabilities of the Turkish military. Be that as it may, the Russian SU24 was destroyed for the flimsiest of reasons. 

With the Middle East and North Africa in turmoil the last thing needed is a conflict between superpowers in the Pacific.  Fortunately the Chinese showed commendable restraint.  Had they reacted in the same hot-headed manner as did the Turks we may not have survived the consequences long enough to see in the New Year.