They say that all of life is a learning curve: well, politics certainly fits that description, and after two years of existence the English Radical Alliance is demonstrating that it is learning by setting out a new strategy that will be adaptable to the changing political and cultural circumstances of 21st Century Britain. This strategy has been agreed unanimously by the Executive Committee and will be adopted from its publication on the ERA website. Put basically, from this point ERA refuses to play the game by the rules that are laid down by the Establishment and will become a new type of political movement, one that will encourage decentralised decision-making and participation in non-political activities as a parallel source of attaining power. As part of this new strategy ERA will be encouraging its members and supporters to think beyond the narrow confines of party politics and consider English society as a whole when they think about participation in future activity. In order to support this new strategy ERA is to make a number of changes as follows:

Firstly, ERA will cease to play the traditional “national party” role of seeking power solely through electoral participation under its own name. Instead, ERA will cultivate alliances with localist groups and independents who subscribe to our decentralist agenda and offer them help, training and publicity via our English Radicals training programme and website. We will no longer play the Establishment game of throwing our money at election campaigns where the media deliberately imposes blackouts on non-ConLibLab parties - but instead invest our time, energy and money on developing local bases of support under localist group names or independent activists. Such a strategy also negates the Establishment’s tactics of infiltration to foment internal strife as there will be hundreds of local groups under their own local leadership and, as such, more difficult to disrupt.

Secondly, it is our intention to de-register from the Electoral Commission as we see this organisation as an Establishment tax- and information-gathering regime which forces levels of bureaucracy on political groups so as to render their participation in the political process more difficult and time-consuming. It also makes public information about the political groups that only their own membership should be entitled to view. The Commission also forces groups to adopt organisational structures that may be alien to their own inclinations. For instance, ERA has no Party Leader as we do not believe that having a ‘Leader’ is conducive to the best interests of our movement, yet the Commission demands that groups name a Party Leader, who is then made legally responsible for the party’s status with the Commission.

Thirdly, ERA will encourage supporters who do not wish to participate openly in political activity to join or establish local community groups in their areas with the intention of acquiring access to funds that will enable them to run local services. By this means ERA supporters will gain experience in public service and help re-distribute political power and economic resources within local communities. Similarly, we will encourage members and supporters to join/create local history societies as they are the focus for community identity and cultural cohesion. These history groups can also offer educational services to all age groups and encourage heritage identity across the generations.

Fourthly, ERA supporters will be encouraged to seek out local self-employed and small businesses with the long-term intention of forming alternative local economies within their communities. Local directories of shops and businesses should be developed and, where necessary, skilled members should offer training to young apprentices. Eventually, job clubs could be established by groups of local supporters with skills/educational experience to offer. Participation by retired members of the community could be crucial here. Along with business, education and skills, there is also room for the formation of local savings clubs so that an alternative to the non-lending major banks can be found locally in order to support small businesses.

Finally, ERA intend to develop an alternative cultural agenda by encouraging new writers, poets, playwrights, and musicians. Locally, supporters can encourage readings, writers and poets clubs – libraries are very keen to be relevant at the moment due to threats from cuts so now is the time to target them with an alternative cultural agenda. Similarly with pubs, which also need to attract custom. This cultural agenda forms part of ERA’s ideological alternative for England.

The whole basis of our new strategy is to ensure that ERA as a political movement reflects its own ideology. As believers in decentralisation we should, therefore, do the same with our movement. By getting behind local groups and local candidates, we will appeal to the electorate as disillusionment with traditional parties and with the Westminster village grows. There are already enough “national” parties, and voters are starting to realise that national parties only look after their own selfish interests, not those of the nation, or their constituents. The political climate is changing: as people demand more accountability and power locally, support for local parties and independents will increase, and the process of extinction for the tired national dinosaurs will begin – our plan is to provide ideas, policies and on the ground support for local candidates, whilst at national level encourage communication and co-ordination between them.

As believers in the Minimal State, we should do the same with ERA and reduce its bureaucracy and structural clutter to make it more responsive to changing political and cultural times. For over forty years, new political parties have tried to breakthrough into politics by playing the traditional party game – none have succeeded. Yet, as each new party is formed, so it plays along with the Establishment game and wastes its money and the efforts of its activists on an impossible dream. And all under the control of the great ‘Leader’, who soon becomes the focus for internal strife and leadership challenges, which soak up too much energy and disrupt the membership. There has to be another way and ERA, as the only modern political movement with an ideology, is thinking for the future. ERA has a collective leadership that encourages debate and inspection. ERA believes that power should be invested at the local level as that is where the crucial decisions of life are made, politically and socially. Finally, ERA believes that political struggle is a long haul, and that our movement must therefore be adaptable, yet sturdy enough to survive through to the final victory.





Add Comment
 
 
As the "Hackgate” juggernaut trundles on gathering speed, crushing all before it, Ed Miliband has clambered aboard the steamroller by calling for the breakup of Rupert Murdoch's News International media group. We don't intend to go into great detail on this – there are far better places to follow the story, John Ward's excellent “Slog” blog being one of the best that we know of (see link below) – but we do wonder why it has taken Ed so long to call for these measures.

On this issue at least, the English Radicals are in complete agreement with the Labour leader – in our view Rupert Murdoch's empire is too powerful, has been a negative, dumbing influence on British and English cultural life for decades, and by all accounts has been overly influential in British politics also – can anyone remember the last time a political party came to power without the support of Rupert Murdoch's tabloids?

As the arrests and resignations seem to involve people ever higher up the “food chain” with each passing day, one wonders – is there any limit to how high this contagion will spread? How far back does it go? Have certain British police and politicians been puppets dancing to the tune of a foreign puppet master? Did these puppets dance out of friendship alone, or could there be other reasons?

Just as we agree that Ed Miliband is right to call for the break up of News International, we would also point out that there is another institution in this country that is controlled by foreign interests, constantly abuses its position of monopoly and power, lacks accountability, whose top people are rarely brought to account for their stupidity or crimes, no matter how heinous. One that HE is part of - the British Government.

The EU is the malign foreign puppet master that makes the British government dance to its tune, safe in the knowledge that there are enough traitors (eager for EU jobs after leaving British politics) in the ranks of all the major parties to carry its agenda, no matter who is in power at the time.

His predecessors in the Labour party, Blair and Brown, were the Prime Ministers of Britain from 1997 to 2010, and are still to face juries for their respective roles in the invasion of Iraq that resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent civilians and hundreds of British service personnel, and the gross economic mismanagement that resulted in our present debt mountain.

The British Government - a centuries-old, centralised, oligarchy - has only recently had its supreme authority challenged, by separatist parties in Scotland and Wales – and continues to deny the funding, and therefore the possibility, of local or regional government in England with any meaningful powers or purpose. They do not wish to give the English what they have given to the Scots – a parliament consisting solely of MP's representing constituencies from their own nation.

Little wonder that News International should have such a close relationship with successive British governments – as can be seen above, they both have remarkably similar cultures. Ed Miliband is likely to discover that his own party has some very dirty laundry stashed in a closet with regards to dealings with these people, as many of the wrongdoings were perpetrated before the Tories took office.....and it's not unthinkable that somebody as high as Cabinet level was aware, or involved.

So Mr Miliband, as you have seen the light regarding News International - can we take it that should you come to power, you will “walk the walk” by breaking up the British government's centralised monopoly on power, kick out the evil foreign influence, and ensure that wrongdoing on your watch is punished? Or are you merely just a soundbite politician like Cameron, “talking the talk”, with no intention of changing anything once in office?

And talking of Mr Cameron – his recent statement in the House of Commons regarding the whole News International scandal, when he uttered his famous slogan: “We’re all in this together” – was perhaps an unfortunate choice of words, considering how high up the buck is likely to stop!

Just before this article was due to be uploaded to the ERA website, it was learnt that the original whistle blower in all this business, ex-News of the World reporter Sean Hoare, was found dead at his home today. Unbelievable, and very frightening. Our sincere condolences to his family.




Link to John Ward's “Slog” blog:  http://hat4uk.wordpress.com/







Add Comment
 
 
Tory Party Ethics
In a breathtaking display of barefaced cheek, Iain Duncan Smith is inciting British employers to break EU law, by asking them to take on British workers before other nationalities. He is asking them to do something that his own government is not prepared to do - ensure that British workers are given first refusal on the few jobs available. This is typical empty Tory rhetoric: talk tough on an issue that strikes a chord with the voters, and then do absolutely nothing about it. The Tories took us into Europe in 1973, and then without a trace of irony they make noises from time to time about “standing up for Britain” - but have basically bent over forwards for the EU ever since! They have, little by little, handed our sovereignty to a foreign power as surely as those other ex-public schoolboys Burgess, Philby, Blunt and Maclean would have, to the Russians in the 1950's.

British Government Ethics
And while we're about it Mr Smith, how about buying British, and enabling English factories to employ English workers, by buying trains made in Derby rather then Germany? Yet another disgraceful dereliction of duty by a British government in not pro-actively supporting home industries, and giving foreign companies custom before our own. We are in effect paying twice for those German trains - we have to find £3 billion to pay Siemens, and then we have to ask the taxpayer to pay unemployment benefit to the 1400 engineers who will now lose their jobs at Bombardier. This is the economics of the madhouse, just as it was to buy cheap foreign coal and close English pits - what happens when the last of our jobs have moved abroad and we run out of taxpayers to pay the dole bill, Mr Smith? Won't be long at this rate!

The Work Ethic
Getting back on topic, the English Radicals have always argued that immigration should be allowed only to fill urgent skill shortages, and not used to undercut the wages and conditions of the unskilled. Some employers are saying they actually prefer foreign workers, and praise them for their work ethic: We suspect that some of these employers ask far more of their staff than is reasonable, but most foreign workers, in a strange land, are less inclined to argue with a bully boss than an Englishman, and so the more docile immigrant is taken on. It's also hardly surprising that people living in areas where there has been high unemployment for decades and have learnt to get by on benefits, don't have the most highly developed will to work.

Youngsters especially, who go through the “one size fits all” comprehensive school system with no real prospects of a steady job at the end of it, underachieve as students and then lack the skills and motivation needed to be good employees, and thus the vicious cycle reinforces itself. This in turn creates a generation of unemployed voters fearful of Tory governments, who make noises from time to time about clamping down on “benefit culture” and tightening up the criteria for claiming Job Seeker's Allowance while simultaneously denying England's unemployed the chance to work, by buying German trains and North Korean steel -
so the unemployed masses vote Labour to make sure their benefits are protected....

Labour Party Ethics
…Which brings us nicely to those other quislings, the Labour party. How many times have you heard a Labour politician say they are fighting a factory closure in their constituency – when in fact a quick demographic study of solid Labour seats usually reveals a larger than average percentage of unemployed people? Rather than fight a closure, a Labour politician is more likely to be secretly rubbing their hands with glee, because Labour get more votes from the unemployed worrying about their benefits, than they do from the people the government take taxes from to pay for the benefits – the employed.

English Radical Ethics
The English Radicals feel a new approach is needed as regards getting England back to work – top of the wish list would be for Cameron's Eton Rifles to take Britain out of Europe and stem the flow of uncontrolled EU labour into this country, followed by an undertaking by the government to protect English and British jobs by buying, wherever possible, goods made here.

Next, we would like to see the young talent in this country find a suitable outlet by increasing the number of Grammar schools (many of which are currently oversubscribed, proving their popularity) and the re-introduction of technical colleges for those students with hands-on practical skills. Universities have their place, but only for the truly academic – and as it's a wish list, the English Radicals would ban the Politics, Philosophy and Economics degree that so many of our current political priesthood currently hold (follow this link, if you don't believe us!)

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

We believe it is more ethical to have people who have lived in the real world, with real life experience – housewives, workers, pensioners, employers, the unemployed, and ex-forces personnel - to represent us in parliament, not the bright young things fresh from their PPE university degree who have never had a proper job, but get parachuted into safe seats by the big parties, ahead of local candidates.

And let’s see the public doing their bit, by voting in more independent and “local party” politicians, to simply represent the interests of their constituents at whatever level they have been elected, rather than slavishly obeying a “big party” directive from London, in order to gain favour with the leadership.

Let's see a return to positive ethics, instead of the sleazy, self serving and sometimes downright treacherous ethics followed by the main parties.

External link to the Bombardier story:
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/81277,news-comment,news-politics,bombardier-sack-1400-after-losing-thameslink-contract-but-is-government-to-blame




Add Comment
 
 


An anniversary passed recently that went largely unreported by the mainstream media, but is significant nonetheless: Belgium has effectively gone a year without a national government. Their general election in June 2010 did not produce a clear winner, and relations between the various parties are so bad that they are barely talking to each other, let alone able to form coalitions. But guess what? They are managing perfectly well without a national government! If such a thing were to happen in this country there would be chaos, as all the functions that the control-freak British government runs centrally and guards so jealously - the NHS, benefit payments, tax collection and the like - would cease, leaving the population in limbo. And the reason Belgium is managing to tick over so nicely? Because their underlying structure of local government is strong. They have regionally devolved powers that our local governments can only dream about.

It is obviously fortunate that Belgium is not under military threat, and is also a member of the eurozone, as there might have been a run on their currency due to their inability to form a government - but those issues aside, Belgium is managing on a day to day basis in a manner that we could not imagine in Britain. Some would argue that being in the EU has allowed Belgium to get away with this situation, and that may be true up to a point - but what happens when the EU itself collapses? All empires do eventually, and it is hard to see how the EU will survive its present financial difficulties - both the Roman empire and the USSR collapsed for similar reasons.

There is an undeniable case that a country needs a national government - but how much should that national government actually do? What is the ideal form that it should take? The English Radicals have been giving this a lot of thought recently, and we offer our opinions below.

In Britain, there are of course national differences and rivalries which have direct parallels with Belgium, as there are bound to be with any artificially created state of union - in Belgium you have the Dutch-leaning Flemings and the French-leaning Walloons: in mainland Britain you have the English, Scots and Welsh nations, all under British rule. In Britain, we all share a common language, a currency and a land mass - but in light of the events in Belgium, do we really need to share a government? The Scots especially are unhappy with being ruled remotely from Westminster, to the point that an SNP majority parliament now sits in Holyrood. They are a nation in their own right, who want more powers devolved from the British in London and handing back. Are we, the English, worthy of anything less?

So what can we learn from the Belgian experience?

Firstly, we should consider doing what the Belgians ought to be doing now – grant a divorce to the quarrelling couple Flanders and Wallonia, which would open up the possibility for each part to form workable coalitions in their own areas. In Britain, the equivalent action would be to grant full independence to all the Home nations, and lay the “United” Kingdom to rest.

Secondly, as Belgium has proved over the last year - that when a country has strong local governments - able to raise their own taxes, plus provide and manage their own infrastructure - where then is the need for central government to perform these roles?

Thirdly, although there is a need for an outward-facing national government which oversees issues that local governments cannot deal with alone - defence, immigration/border control and central banking, for example - then that national government should only have such powers that the local governments underneath allow it to have, via a written constitution. In other words, a Confederal government. This differs from the Federal model such as the USA employs, in that a federal government is the supreme authority over its member states. We feel this is a crucially important difference, and would be a good safeguard against the abuses of power by corrupt individuals that are carried out all the time in the name of federal government.

There is no reason why a Confederation of English counties - all co-signatories to a binding, written English constitution - could not send delegates to a national English government, that is only permitted to operate within specific fields of responsibility. Such a government would be responsible for the readiness of our defences in the event of aggression by a foreign power, but would have no authority to declare war on a far off land, simply because the Prime Minister of the day was able to persuade the MP's of his own party – a few hundred toadies - to support him in a parliamentary vote, regardless of the wishes of millions of people; such a course of action would be unconstitutional under the articles of Confederation, and only possible if all the Confederation member counties held an emergency public referendum, which was passed by a majority of the public vote. Shouldn't you as an individual have a say who we go to war with, seeing as your lives may be directly affected by it?

Under a confederated national government, MP's and Prime Ministers would be stripped of their excessive powers that presently make them our masters, and revert to being what they should have been in the first place – our servants. For the first time in history, the English people would have a written constitution which clearly sets out their rights and responsibilities, and defines their freedoms – unlike our present unwritten “constitution”, not worth the paper it's not written on!

All the other English nationalist parties are content to settle just for an English parliament – which to our minds displays a depressing lack of ambition and poor forward thinking, because the question must be asked - how would an English parliament, under the same constitutional rules, be any better than what we have now? Central government would still be calling the shots, local government would still be weak, and the main parties would simply be masters over a smaller piece of the British pie - England. They would still abuse their power in exactly the same way as they do now, without significant constitutional safeguards brought in to prevent that happening.

The English Radicals feel that a Confederated national government with limited powers and responsibilities, constantly held in check by strong local governments and ruled by a written constitution, is a good workable system that is a vast improvement on what we have now. Isn't it time England had a national government worthy of it's people?
Add Comment
 
 
The biggest supporters of English Manufacturers right now have to be our young designers. How they must have laughed, to hear George Osbourne’s Budget Speech cry of “Made in Britain, created in Britain, designed in Britain, invented in Britain,” when for the last 5 years that’s exactly what they have been quietly doing. Christopher Kane, Erdem, Meadham Kirchhoff, even Victoria Beckham are all in demand, by luxury stores all over the world, what do they have in common, their clothes are made in England.

When the Telegraph approached Victoria Beckham asking where are her dresses manufactured, she stated “I’m proud to say, they’re all made here in London”.  These designer clothes don’t come cheap and yet unknowingly, women from all over the world, Beijing, New York, Tokyo are snapping up the best these London based factories have to offer. Why do these designers work with English manufacturers and not the Italian or the French, who in recent years have been considered more prestigious? The answer is simple, without the language barriers and the distance it is much easier to manage those little details and quality control issues. Christopher Kane enjoys a very strong and close relationship with his manufacturer, his sister stated that "I was very aware when the recession hit that he could fold, so we strategically withdrew from other factories and gave him more orders on the condition he used profit to buy in more machinery and invest in better cutters and machinists". Meadham Kirchhoff says that we have the resources in Britain to make clothing “It's important that we find them and help them grow”. So our young designers are more than happy to work with English manufacturers, help them to grow, build strong relationships in these volatile times, rather than run off to China where they could ‘cut costs by doing things less laboriously.’ (Telegraph 2011)  It’s a shame the same thing can’t be said for our high street retailers.

You have to agree with Maurice Bennett, who controls specialist retailer Long Tall Sally, “We are one of the biggest exporters of fashion worldwide. We don’t export product all the time, but we are exporting retail fascias like Topshop”. Our high retailers have an increasingly growing presence abroad; it would be highly beneficial if they were to carry a larger number of ranges of products that were made in England. We should forget about mass marketing in England, however there are certain products that require expertise and specialist knowledge, they are the ones to concentrate on, products such as hosiery.

Thirteen years after M&S controversially moved all manufacturing overseas; it has now decided to increase manufacturing of hosiery in the UK. One factory that the retailer has increased orders with is a factory in Belper, Derbyshire, which was one of the worst hit when M&S moved overseas. One of the main reasons why M&S has increased orders is that they are innovative and it is quicker to get the products to market, with the factory being in England. Krishan Hundal, M&S’s Head of Sourcing told Drapers magazine that ‘innovation is the life blood of M&S, and our relationship with Courtaulds (owner of the Belper factory), particularly at Belper, helps us to continue to deliver first to market hosiery.’ This shows that England does have a skilled base of manufacturers, it’s up to English high street retailers to utilise them.

According to Ben Lewis (Chief executive of River Island), “The high street must take responsibility and keep production lines flowing at UK factories, if the manufacturing industry is to stand any chance of grasping the opportunities in front of it”. Retailers and manufacturers need to collaborate and develop stronger relationships, now so more than ever. With fashion being as volatile as it is and consumer confidence is low, whilst retailers need to be consistent with manufacturers, manufacturers need to understand as Lewis states “The needs of retailers and how those needs change”. Both retailers and suppliers are more likely to succeed if they are open and honest with each other.

By the high street retailers coming back to England for manufacturing, it will help manufacturers to grow and expand, but retailers must sustain that growth by providing the orders consistently. They have to be fair with their cost margins, and work with their manufacturers for the greater good, which is to provide jobs and provide for the economy, one can’t do without the other. Without the language barriers, cultural differences and distance, it should be much easier for retailers to be collaborative partners with their suppliers, both being adaptable to each others needs, making collaboration much more attainable. However these increased orders for English manufacturers will be pointless without employees to produce the goods and consumers to buy them. It is crucial that attitudes towards clothing manufacturing change, we need to encourage our children to research on all the available opportunities out there. These types of skills such as garment construction, pattern cutting, embroidery, are not to be ridiculed, these are skills for life, and could be highly sought after, if the government and English retailers are to capitalise on our manufacturing potential.

Next Part: Opportunities available to our future next generation and the potential of London Olympics 2012.             

Add Comment
 
 
The first in a three part series compiled by one of our young English Radicals.

Many UK retailers are now discovering that clothing manufacture in the Far East no longer has the same attraction as it once did, due to rising labour charges and increased freight costs. The need to be reactive to the impatient and fast paced fashion industry is great, and the most suitable answer to the problem is to return to English and UK manufacturing. However this is not a simple solution, since retailers deserted English factories for low cost China, manufacturing went into decline, factories were left no option but to close, and universities and colleges put a greater emphasis on designing rather than learning how to technically construct garments. This has left England with a missing generation of skilled workers and artisans, and with the current employee base ageing considerably something has to be done.

This situation isn’t getting any better, it took another hit, when De Montefort University announced that they were axing their BSc Fashion Technology course, due to lack of government funding. This particular course has a 100% employment rate and is highly regarded, mainly due to the fact that their graduates are highly trained in a wide range of technical skills, which are greatly needed by many English retailers. Despite the fact that Ed Vaizey has been vocal about the importance of these skills and how he would like to see British manufacturing grow again, there doesn’t seem to be any action from the government. Which begs the question how supportive is the British government of the English manufacturing industry. And the answer is they’re not!

The Ministry of Defence had a very good opportunity to support the English manufacturers; instead they turned their back and gave to the multi million pound contract to produce camouflage gear to the Chinese. When questioned, the MoD spokesman stated ‘Our focus is on getting the Armed Forces the equipment they require, when they need it, at a reasonable cost to the taxpayer. In the last two years British companies have won 87% of clothing contracts.’ In the act of saving a few pence per camouflage trousers, surely they are depriving a perfectly good English manufacturer who employs many tens if not hundreds of workers a contract, which could give their current employees stability, and also lead them to create more jobs, which overall is highly beneficial to the economy and in the long run to the taxpayers. Not only this many manufacturers, including Lee Dawson, managing director of military uniform specialist Samuel Brothers have argued that by having uniforms manufactured in China could expose the Armed Forces to potential dangers. Lee Dawson goes on to say ‘If we are sourcing from China and something goes wrong with Anglo-Chinese relationships, we have a problem, China could withdraw supply,’ leaving troops with a lack of basic clothing, not an ideal situation on the frontline!

A UK retailer Mulberry has recently enjoyed great success in the last few years, mainly due to the Roxanne and Alexa style of bags. These bags are highly sought after by celebrities and women alike, with demand so great, Mulberry can’t produce enough of them. As result it needs to open another factory and increase the capacity of their existing factory in Somerset by 30%. However Godfrey Davis, the Mulberry Chief Executive, has spoken with Drapers Magazine (a renowned Fashion Business journal), and said that he has been put off opening a new factory due to the impact of rising National Insurance (NI, up to 13.8% from 12.8%) rates on operating costs. Davis stated that ‘a constructive approach would be to give some sort of tax break to encourage [businesses] to relocate. An employer NI holiday for a number of years [would work] and UK plc would benefit because we would be creating more employment.’ Davis is presenting the British government with a constructive solution, instead of giving tax breaks or NI holidays to those who don’t manufacture here in England, give it to those who do make the effort to contribute to our economy and job market. The Government’s reaction so far has been, at the Start Britain conference, Chancellor George Osbourne stated ‘We are considering tax breaks for capital investment, which we will be looking at ([in more detail], particularly for various manufacturing businesses.’ If the British government doesn’t support Mulberry, then they may be forced to invest in their other production bases in Turkey or Spain, another wasted opportunity for English manufacturing.

This is a real opportunity for the British Government to invest in something positive, by channelling some of the money they are saving elsewhere, into giving more manufacturing contracts to English manufacturers, tax breaks and NI holidays which will allow manufacturers to grow and expand more easily, this will help to kick start English manufacturing. In the long run it will create more jobs, taking the unemployed off the dole and into more skilled jobs, contribute to the economy and overall make England a more lucrative country to manufacture in. We have the reputation of great design and highly quality manufacturing now all is left is to prove it!      

In part two: Retailers have to step up to the mark, and support English manufacturers.   
Add Comment
 
 

We have heard a great deal about David Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ and the Con-Dem coalition’s localism bill. However the truth is, with the ‘Big Society’, we are only two steps away from actually having to store tarmac at home and repairing the potholes in the roads ourselves. Believe it or not this could actually happen! The truth is Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ has nothing to do with real localism and transferring power and decision making to communities. This is because localism will never work in the present centralised British state.

Currently when income tax is paid, it is basically handed over to central government. This is what funds our contribution to the European Union, finances our armed forces in foreign military ventures that do not concern us, gives money to foreign despots and countries that can afford to fund a space programme, and last but not least funds those expensive luxuries our M.P’s desire most. What’s left, after several other bureaucratic baskets have been filled is then handed to local authorities. The whole system is top managed, which is why those at the top use money on the items mentioned and the local care home closes down. The big bad Sheriff of Nottingham lives, but has moved to Westminster! Therefore, whichever way you look at it real localism in such a top managed system is doomed.  It is less Big Society and more Big Con!

As English Radicals we have a very different approach to this top managed system which rips off the people of England. We believe in a system which transfers the funding and decision making process of government from the top to local communities. Our system would be based on the highly successful federal Lander system, as operated in Germany. Here the main roles of government are decentralised to a number of regional and city states.

Proof of the beneficial aspects of introducing a federal system for governing England can be found by comparing the English city of Liverpool with the German city of Hamburg. Liverpool City Region has roughly the same population as the Hamburg City State. Yet the comparison ends there. Hamburg is wealthy and attracts industry, media etc. Liverpool, despite the gallant efforts of its communities and its proud history, sadly lags behind. This is the fault of the centralised British governmental system and not the people of Liverpool. Similar comparisons could be drawn with Bremen and Cornwall.

Here in England ERA believes in federal decentralisation to a level that is acceptable to local people. This would mean the people deciding whether to be governed by a County or City State/Province or possibly one based on a historic region, such as Mercia or Wessex. Each state/province would have its own directly-elected Governor, aided by a cabinet and a council of local representatives to supervise and amend legislation. The local representatives would be elected by neighbourhoods with community councils which are either elected periodically or are a Directorate of local voluntary groups. These neighbourhoods would be given a budget according to population and needs.

Ideally, party politics would be removed from local neighbourhoods with representatives elected as the best individual to represent the specific area, and not towing any party line. This would give power to the communities and less to political parties with one eye on their national fortunes and aspirations. For those that believe Government is not possible without political parties, look to Guernsey, an island where no political parties sit in Government. By promoting this system we would witness a bonfire of bureaucrats across the country, thus releasing further funding for local communities. This is what real localism is all about and it has nothing to do with any ‘Big Con Society’.

Finally let’s return to the subject of funding and how the new City, County or Regional Sates/Provinces would be financed.  As English Radicals, we believe in reversing the present system of handing tax to central government and then begging them for money to fund local services and projects. Instead we would allow the new states/provinces to retain sufficient money for services and projects, and then make a donation to central government for national concerns, foreign representation and defence. A re-organisation of lottery funding could assist this process. Perhaps this way, Westminster would be far more careful with our taxes and not allow them to be thrown away fighting pointless wars, funding the EU gravy train or giving it to foreign regimes whose leaders live in luxury and whose people remain starving.
Add Comment
 
 

The bleating British sheep of all three major parties at Westminster have just handed Mr Cameron a massive vote of support for his Libyan military adventure with barely any proper debate and virtually no consideration, all eager to be seen supporting a politically correct “humanitarian” mission. The English Radicals would like to know – how do the British always find the money to wage war, whilst there is huge national debt? Do they have a special “magic sofa” full of pound coins down behind the cushions?  In fairness to Cameron, he cannot help himself – he is programmed from birth and upbringing to drag Britain into “gunboat diplomacy” at the drop of a hat, and by jingo, he'll make sure the money is found for this wizard wheeze, even if English citizens have to do without. 

The English Radicals suspect the Downing Street PR machine is behind this action – short, successful wars are like a shot of Viagra for a flagging government’s popularity - but we feel no case can logically be argued for such intervention, as it contravenes one of our most basic principles – that English servicemen should only be deployed in the event of a threat to the Realm, or in extremis a close ally with common cause. Libya does not qualify on either count, and should have been left alone to sort out their own affairs. That may sound harsh, but we would like to offer a strategic overview of the situation from an English Radical perspective.

Our opinion is that western support for the Libyan rebels is based on a gamble that Gaddafi can be toppled and a pro-western puppet regime installed in its place, who will keep us supplied with cheap oil (rest assured if Zimbabwe had oil, allied troops would have been in there years ago to liberate them from Mugabe – and their oil). But what guarantee do we have that any new regime will be grateful? The majority Sunnis are not known for such sentiments - the Taliban are Sunnis, indeed once Gaddafi's failed socialist experiment has run its course they are more likely to establish an Islamic theocracy than anything that resembles a western democracy.

Gaddafi is a bad man and no mistake, but he was also serving two very useful roles for the West, and Europe in particular – he'd stemmed the flow of African migration to the EU, and he kept a tight lid on any Al Qaeda activity, because of the totalitarian nature of his regime. However the Sinjar Documents held at West Point military academy show that the vast majority of known foreign fighters in Iraq have come from – who'd a' thunk it? - Libya! So obviously, in spite of Gaddafi's regime, militant Islamist sentiment is thriving in Libya, and unable to find an outlet there has found a ready home in that other roaring success of western “help” and intervention, Iraq.

So realistically, if Gaddafi survives the West’s attempt to replace him, won’t he be mad as hell and probably retaliate with terror attacks of his own on innocent western civilians? (virtually every town in England has Libyans working in pizza and burger joints, how many are “sleepers”?) – or, if Libya ditch Gaddafi, why would they be remotely interested in stopping African migrants heading north to Europe via Tripoli? Are they likely to adopt democracy with pro-western leanings, when as devout Muslims they are more likely to follow the path of Iran and instead become an Islamist state? If that happens, why would they object if Al Qaeda set up shop there to plan more jolly pranks like the Madrid, Mumbai or 7/7 London bombings? If an air strike hits the wrong target and innocent civilians are killed in any numbers (always a possibility if the Americans are involved), won’t Arabs and Muslims in England start demonstrating against the latest imperialist crusade, thus heightening racial tension and increasing the risk of terror attacks in England?

By attempting regime change in Libya, the British government are undoubtedly replacing an unfriendly neighbour with an outright dangerous one, and rousing even more Arabic/Muslim anger on our own turf. Good thinking Dave, well done! Sometimes not getting involved is hard but the smart thing to do, and it’s a pity that Mr Cameron - a man with no previous ministerial or armed forces experience prior to becoming PM - and his tame flock of war-happy British MPs, don’t consider the long term effects of their military actions on the people who will ultimately pay the price – the English public.
Add Comment
 
Mutual Benefit 03/13/2011
 
It's been an interesting week for economic news – those superstars of Distributism the John Lewis Partnership, a mutually owned retail group, has just announced that its 2010 profits rose 15% to £350 million, and its partners (employees) will share an increased bonus pot of £170 million - up from £151 million last year. This is a brilliant example of how successful the Distributist economic model can be: the company is well run but not owned by “fat cat” capitalists, so no bubbly for shareholders, all profit goes back into the business or is shared amongst the people who made the profits happen – the workforce!

In the same week, it was announced that taxpayer-subsidised Northern Rock bank would be paying out bonuses also - £13 million worth – despite making losses of £232 million! Guess whose pockets that came out of – yours! It took an idiot midwife of Gordon Brown's calibre to bring this unwanted baby into the world – fathered by greedy capitalist banks that go wrong with massive losses, and then mothered by the Labour government who decided socialism was the answer and lumbered taxpayers with the bill.

John Lewis is also raising £50 million through a retail bond issue aimed at customers. It has raised finance through bond markets before, but the "partnership" bond is the first time that it has let its customers invest. The bond will be available to 1.5 million cardholders and 70,000 staff, or "partners". The five-year fixed rate bond will be offered to qualifying individuals to invest a lump sum of between £1,000 and £10,000, in multiples of £1,000. It has a fixed annual return of 4.5% in cash with a further 2% paid in John Lewis Partnership gift vouchers. Once again this represents the fine practice of distributism. Where the British Government borrows money, John Lewis aims to issue bonds to raise capital for further growth. This even shows how we can reclaim the ‘family silver’ of the utilty companies, placing them back in the ownership of the people rather than fat cat directors.

The John Lewis partnership should not be looked at as an eccentric “one-off” business, but the model for all future business in England – businesses well run with pride by their partners, not taking a penny piece off the taxpayer, and not for sale to foreign corporations waving money under their noses. Doesn't all this make sense?

Add Comment
 
Albion Street 02/27/2011
 
Imagine this scenario: you have a steady job which pays well, but house prices are sky high and you are not able to leave the parental home. You share the house with your lazy, dishonest father whose name the (re)mortgage is in, who favours your grumpy half-siblings (they don't like you, but are quite happy to be kept housed and fed), and even strangers who your father has taken a shine to and invited in off the streets. Your feckless father has no intention of working for a living, but is fond of spending money – yours. Even though you are the main breadwinner, he insists as a condition of living under “his” roof, that you hand over all your wages, out of which he distributes to everyone in the household a small allowance to buy essentials. He keeps the majority of your wages for himself, and if he's spent too much in the pub or had a bad run of luck at the bookies, you will have your allowance cut even further – there's no way he's doing without his luxuries, even if you have to. Even though you are working, you are no better off than the siblings and “guests” who don't.

Does this sound like a fair situation, one that you'd personally be happy with? Well, if you're an English taxpayer, this is already happening to you. I'm sure once you realise that the “lazy father” in this parable represents the British Government, you won't have too much trouble identifying the other characters. Please, read on.

Eventually, a small house comes on the market locally which is affordable. You decide to buy it, and inform your family that you intend to move out, but their reaction is one of bitterness and anger,  with statements like: “after all we've done for you!” and “you won't manage on your own!”.

With some sadness, you pack your belongings and move into your new home. Your family disown you and you lose contact. Time passes and you decide to visit them to see if tempers have cooled,  but when you turn the corner back into Albion Street, you find that your old house is boarded up, with a “For Sale at Auction” sign. There is no sign of your dysfunctional family, or the lodgers.

All over England, local councils are being ordered by the British government to make cutbacks, even in essential services, because Whitehall is withholding their funding to “balance the books”. The English Radicals believe that the present system where central government keeps all taxation revenue and then rations funding to local authorities is wrong, and should be scrapped. Where does this taxation revenue come from in the first place? From taxpayers all over England! Why should taxes raised in Exeter, Birmingham or Newcastle automatically be sent to that corrupt middleman - the British government in Whitehall - who keep the bulk of that cash and decide what we in the “sticks” should be able to spend? And then they have the audacity to tell us, that we need to make cutbacks? That pile of money they are sat on was ours in the first place!

As outlined in a previous article on this website, the English Radicals believe the whole system of taxation in “broken Britain” is in serious need of overhaul. Instead of all taxation going straight to the British Treasury, it should first pass through the local area where the tax is generated. At least 50% of all revenue should be kept for local government funding, and only then should any remaining revenue be passed on to central government. This system is not new, similar ones exists already in places like Germany and Switzerland, who you may have noticed are weathering the recession much better than we are.

With this system, local government would have more funding than it does now, and central government would have to make do with less – it would have to live within its means, as we do.  And perhaps if the British had less money to play with, they might be less inclined to prop up the EU, go to war, or donate foreign aid to India – a country rich enough to fund a space programme!

If David Cameron is truly serious about creating a “Big Society” (which we doubt), then it will only happen when there is “Smaller Government”. But the Tory Unionists, by definition, are intent on keeping the British government as big as possible – the Home Nations are the last remnants of Empire, and will be kept prisoner at all costs. There will be no help from any of the main parties in securing a fairer deal for English taxpayers, and so our taxes will continue to be taken and misused.

The British government would do well to realise that you can only push people so far before they push back, as the student riots in this country demonstrated, and as recent events have shown in North Africa. And they would do well to remember what the American people told a previous British government in 1776 - that there should be “no taxation without representation” - they were being taxed by the British but had no voice in the British parliament - and we all know how that turned out. The English taxpayer of 2011 is in exactly the same boat as the American of 1776. We pay more tax than ever, but we see our public services diminish – because we have no say in how those taxes are spent. In effect the British government is one of occupation in England, as surely as it ever was in America or Ireland. Seriously - isn't it time England moved out of Albion Street?

Add Comment