Labour’s Flakey Policies; Will They Never Learn?

Labour’s announced policies for their conference starting today are a last ditch attempt to scam you, The English electorate. In fact they are total rubbish and here is why!

Minimum Wage (Or is it)

Ed Balls has said that Labour will increase the minimum wage to £8.00 an hour. But this is only by 2020! With inflation of 3% a year the current minimum wage would be £7.76 by then. So the labour promise amounts to 24p in six years! If you feel you are being scammed you are right to do so.

Since 2010 by 1 October this year the minimum wage will have risen by 10%, around twice the rate at which privates sector wages will have risen. That means the low paid have seen some protection in their earnings.

If you think you have heard this before you have! “The national minimum wage will rise each year between 2010 and 2014 (external website) if Labour wins the 2010 general election, according to Gordon Brown in his speech to the Labour party conference in Brighton yesterday (Tuesday 29 September 2009).”

If we are going to improve things the English Democrats would consider moving to the Living Wage. A living wage is a wage that is high enough to maintain a decent standard of living (adequate food, shelter, and other necessities). It also takes into account variations in cost of living across the country. It is currently £8.80 per hour in London and £7.65 for the rest of the UK. For more information go to

Child Benefit

Labour have come up with a showcase policy to cut the £75 billion budget deficit that Tory economic mismanagement has created. Their policy will, possibly, save £400 million or 5% of the deficit!. What is this cunning plan?

It is a REAL TERMS cut in child benefit. A benefit that is paid to women to help them feed and clothe the children and which is an important benefit to those in the “squeezed middle” and which the highest earners do not get. Brilliant!

[Tweet “Labour’s Flakey Policies are total Rubbish”]

A 5% Cut to Ministers’ Salaries.

Wow! This effort to reduce the £75 billion Tory budget deficit is so small that it isn’t even worthwhile calculating the percentage.

Cutting the Budget Deficit.

How? No word on that. Don’t the People of England have a right to know what expenditures will be cut? And whose expenditures?

England has already seen greater percentage cuts in local government expenditure than Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Will the Scots, Welsh and Irish now take the brunt with a 25%+ cut in their grants or will the England’s taxpayers pay up again with the loss of even more of their services and even higher council tax bills?

Let us not forget that Scotland has frozen their council taxes for years but can still afford free prescriptions, free university education and free personal care for the elderly. How does that work?

The English Issue

Labour are desperately trying to create Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) over English devolution by claiming that it is a complex issues that will take years to get right. This is absolute rubbish. Why?

In fact we can give the same, fair, settlement to all four nation and  have an Act of Parliament  put it into effect by Christmas. To see how read my blog “The Only Fair Constitutional Settlement for All, Is the Same Constitutional for All”

What do you think? Have your say in the poll below.


Posted in Economics, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The Only Fair Constitutional Settlement For All Is The Same Settlement For All!

We must put an end to the outrageously racist approach to constitutional settlements in the UK. I say racist because heretofore any settlement has used racial characteristics like ethnicity or identity for determining who gets what settlement, if any.

[Tweet “The only fair constitutional settlement for all is the same for all. #TeamEngland”]

A fair settlement will be:

  1. straightforward and quick to implement;
  2. it will be possible to state in one bill the settlement that will apply to all,
  3. the matters in the bill must be well defined by existing legislation so that it is simple to put together.

A bill that meets these criteria could be presented to Parliament by the 1st November so that it can be enacted before Christmas 2014. It will raise no new legislative principles so there will already be a vast storehouse of experience in implementation

Only one type of settlement meets these requirements and that is the devolved parliament:

  1. There is already plenty of legislation to cut and paste into a new bill.
  2. Any new powers can be added quickly.
  3. If the government were to ask the people if they wanted a devolved parliament for each of the four nations, each with parity of powers, there would be national acclaim for the wisdom of the decision. People all over would accept it so obviating the need for lengthy public consultations.

In one simple action the issues raised by the Scottish referendum will have been solved. Brilliant!

Having the same settlement for all means that having to reserve days at Westminster for English MPs to discuss English matters will require that we must also have  special days for Scottish MPs to discuss Scottish matters and so on. And that will mean closing the devolved parliaments/assemblies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, a totally impractical idea.

People raise a number of objections to devolved parliaments. None of them hold water. Over the next few I will deal with each of these.

The opportunities raised for all four nations by a fair settlement as suggested here are so important that refusing this option will confirm the statement I made at the start – our political establishment is racist to the core. Do you agree?


Posted in Democracy | Tagged | Leave a comment

An English Parliament – The Least Cost Approach to Governance in England!

The fact is that some of us English fail to think deeply on important topics, and that some prefer to use the English language to deceive the rest of us, as is shown in the phrase:

“An English parliament would add nothing we need except another layer of politicians in London.”

Let us think about this for a moment. Currently we have 630 MPs and over 400 regular attenders of the House of Lords. A total of 1030+ politicians. Together their direct costs in terms of salary, pension contribution from the exchequer, expenses, allowances, staff costs, office rental costs, subsidies for restaurants and bars in Westminster and so on must be in excess of £250 million – I stopped counting at £210 million.

If we leave this as it is and merely add the cost of nine regional ‘governments’ this cost must soar, probably by another £200 million or more.

So Regional Assemblies will give Total costs of £450 million!

 It is even worse than that. The phrase “Devolution to the Cities . . .” is NOT devolution. Manchester, say, would not be able to create its own tax policy for corporation tax to encourage companies from Burnley to move to Manchester. It would not be able to change its education policy and give free higher education to students from Manchester. It would not be able to change its welfare policies and give free social/personal care to Manchester elderly.

If however all domestic matters are devolved to parliaments in England and Wales then most of the work of Westminster will disappear and so most of the MPs and all of the Lords can dissappear to!

If the English Parliament devolves most of its expenditure to the counties and largest cities (as proposed by the English Democrats) it will need very few members, cost very little, and be able to concentrate on strategic matters to the benefit of England and the People of England.

Regional Assemblies are just another opportunity for vainglorious politicians to milk the public purse. They have two advantages to those who recommend them.

The first is that the gravy trains for politicians, their advisors and civil servants will not only continue, it will increase enormously.

Secondly the policy will allow England to be divided and ruled entirely for the benefit of those recommending this – who are mainly the Scots and the Welsh.

One simple characteristic of a free people is that they are ruled by a state whose shape and powers they have decided.

Poll after poll shows the English do not want Regional Government. Those who recommend it are not democrats but merely self-serving lackeys of the Westminster elite and their hangers-on. They have a deep and abiding contempt for England, the English and the People of England.

With fully devolved parliaments for England and Wales as well as Scotland, if they remain in the Union, almost all the work will leave Westminster which could be reduced in size to a single chamber of 100, at most, MPs. They will be left with the weighty task of attending international conferences on foreign policy, finance or defence.

An English parliament could sit where it is most needed by the People of England – in the Midlands perhaps, amongst the English, very few of whom now reside in London. An English parliament would devolve most of its expenditure to the counties and very largest cities. This would break London’s hold on the rest of the country. It would require less than 150 MEPs (Member of the English Parliament) for its reduced workload.

A small English Parliament and Westminster parliament would ensure a once and for all major reduction of the political classes who could now go and get a real job and stop parasitising the rest of us.

So an English Parliament would NOT lead to “. . . another layer of politicians in London.”

Instead it would lead to a reduction of 830 politicians!

This is a reduction of 75% or £180 million in current costs.

 What is more in practical terms the reduction will be even more. With less to do at Westminster and in the English Parliament members would not need the current levels of remuneration and hand-outs. These could be reduced to the current level for devolved parliaments to give us further savings.

Since most of the accommodation required by Westminster is no longer required some of it could be converted to hotel accommodation for members and thus get rid of members very generous housing benefits. Much of the Palace of Westminster would no longer be required and this could be converted to a hotel and international conference centre. The profits from this could be used to pay all or some of the costs of parliament.

And there are even further efficiencies to be gained. Excess parliamentary staff could be transferred to the English Parliament, there would be no need to hire more people nor to make people redundant.  And the excess of civil servants, no longer needed in London because expenditure has been devolved,  could be moved to the counties to add  their expertise to, the now expanded role, of local governments so reducing the need for new costs.

Posted in Democracy, Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

The Nasty & Vicious European Arrest Warrant Must Go!

The EU Arrest Warant (EUARWAR) was created in the wake of  of the 9/11 terrorist attack in Manhattan. It was justified as a tool for bringing terrorist to justice.

That is not how it has been used in the UK nor elsewhere in Europe. Only days ago we witnessed a couple, who had committed no offence, put in a Spanish prison and separated from their very ill child as a result of some idiot in the UK issuing a EUARWAR for their arrest. This is not justice, it was never capable of being justified as being inline with the wording and spirit of Magna Carta and for this reason alone it should be abolished as it stands.

Westminster politicians like Cameron, Clegg and Milliband support the EUARWAR because it allows criminals to be quickly extradited and brought to justice. This is of course the sort of half truth that that this merry trio of mendacious pickpockets (its your pocket they pick) assert. It is in fact used to control people’s freedom and the right to free speech by the Politically Correct Brigade, of whom the aforementioned three are the leaders.

This is not the first abuse of authority involving the EUARWAR and its abolition in English law or its complete reform must be undertaken. What form could reform take?

Well first it should only be usable in the case of serious crime having been committed. I would define a serious crime as one where the possibility of a fine does not exist and the minimum prison  sentence available to the judge is 12 months, but perhaps it should be higher.

In the case of financial or white collar crime I would restrict its use to that where more than £100,000 in cash, goods or services has been taken. In all other cases the normal extradition process should be used with the provision that a crime must have been committed.

What would you do?






Posted in Justice | Tagged | Leave a comment

Blatant Discrimination Against Immigrants on the Island of Pathos.

Report of the United  Partners of Young & Old Unemployed Radicals on the anti-immigration policy of the Island of Pathos in 2013

Published June 2014 By order of the World Institute of Non-Coercive Employment


Under the direction of WINCE we commissioned the Association of Work Organised Labour to research and report back on the events on the Island of Pathos earlier this year. AWOL are a well respected organisation in this field and employ the latest techniques and quality control procedures for work of this sort The report they made to UPYOURS  makes grim reading recounting as it does acts of discrimination that are so blatant that we recommend that WINCE commence action to stop this happening again.

In order to be fair AWOL chose a comparable island, Bathos, to act as a control. The report follows.


Bathos and Pathos are two similar islands in the Pacific Ocean over a thousand miles from each other and other habitations. On December 31st, 2012 each island had a population of 100 people, all of working age, of whom 10 or 10% were unemployed.

At mid-day on January 1st this year a large helicopter arrived at each island carrying a factory unit underneath each containing the 10 people necessary to operate it.


The Bathosians welcomed the factory and the immigrant workers as an IslandwithLinerexample of sustainable and diverse inward investment that they felt was due to their numerous liberal policies supporting diversity and multiculturalism.

On March 31st the Bathosian economists and sociologists, 10 in all, did some complex and advanced surveys and measurement for their report on the quarterly economic trends, which report they issued on April 5th.

This report showed conclusively how good the inward investment and immigration had been for the economy. Output had risen by 14.3% over the same quarter a year ago, total employment had risen to 100,(this included  the 10 economists and sociologists and the 10 civil servants who collected taxes and produced programmes for the unemployed, the 70 workers, the 10 immigrants but not the 10 unemployed) whilst unemployment had fallen to 9.1% of the total poulation.

Output had risen from 70 in the previous year to 80 in this quarter or from 0.7 units per head to 0.727 per head, a rise of 3.9%.  The additional tax revenue meant that the 10 economists and sociologists could work on preparing an intervention plan for the 10 unemployed out of the total population of 110 to gain the skills needed for working whilst at the same time prepare programmes to increase diversity in employment so leading to a greater likelihood of jobs being made available that the unemployed could do.


Pathos’s approach was, regrettably, quite different. When they saw the helicopter land IslandWithTeapotand the new, extremely skilled, workers  emerge they initially greeted them in a friendly fashion and put on a big feast for them and the crew. However on the morning of January 2nd they accompanied them all back to the helicopter and waved them off.

Faced with the problem of how to get the new factory working the Pathosians merely gave the factory manuals to the 10 unemployed and told them to get on with it. It took them until the middle of February to master the skills necessary and during this time there was much waste of materials and some injuries, none leading to disability or fatality due more to good luck than ability.

Since the Pathosians have no economists or sociologists the 31st March was a relatively quiet day with things going on as usual. They had their usual meeting for all islanders on the 5th of April. This meeting traditionally had to decide how each working islander would help the unemployed. The Pathosians have no taxation since they have the odd belief that the help they themselves give to the unemployed has great moral value whilst paying taxes for someone else to do it for you has none!

It took everyone some time to realise that there were no unemployed and that output appeared to be higher than before, higher perhaps than was necessary so they agreed to make the feast day of the island’s patron Saint a holiday. This is 23rd April.

It is impossible to know what to do with such a feckless people as the Pathosians. As they have no economists we are unable to say what their economic trends are and we have to assume that given the backward nature of the islanders that they will be worse than those of the Bathosians.

Whilst a programme of intervention is being prepared we recommend that we warn our people not to go to Pathos, that we prepare a PR programme using this case to inform our unemployed how lucky they are to be living in a diverse and multicultural society as ours and finally that if inward investment is ever made again to Pathos that under no circumstance should the manuals be included.


T Oser


We at UPYOURS welcome the report and view its publication as the first step in the recommended PR campaign.  We say to the unemployed, “Tell us which island you would prefer to live in?”.

D Ozy


Note to our readers:


ba·thos  (bths, -thôs) n.

1. a. An abrupt, unintended transition in style from the exalted to the commonplace, producing a ludicrous effect.

b. An anticlimax.
2.a. Insincere or grossly sentimental pathos: “a richly textured man who . . . can be . . . sentimental to the brink of bathos” (Kenneth L. Woodward).

b. Banality; triteness.
pa•thos (ˈpeɪ θɒs, -θoʊs, -θɔs)  n.

1. the quality or power in life or art of evoking a feeling of pity or compassion.
2. pity.
3. Obs. suffering.
[1570–80; < Greek páthos suffering, sensation, akin to páschein to suffer]

Posted in Immigration | Tagged , | Leave a comment

So, Nick Clegg Does Not Know What British Values Are!

On the BBC Radio 4 programme ‘Today’ of 10 June 2014 Nick Clegg was unable to answer a direct question from the presenter. That question was “What are British Values”!

It is because people like Nick Clegg are unable to answer this question in public that immigrant communities are can appear unaware of the values to which they must aspire if they are to be welcome and productive citizens in England? Nick Clegg’s ignorance, or his fear of upsetting people, are yet one more disgraceful example of how the Westminster elites have let down everybody in the UK over the last 20 – 30 years.

This is not just a moral failure on his part, it also calls into question his Cartoonteacherability to fill the post of deputy-prime minister. After all have not his coalition partners called for the compulsory teaching of British Values  in all schools? If he does not know what they are he can only play an obstructive role in their selection.

So what are these values? The UK is a union of four nations; England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. So its values should be the values of each of these nations.

This is of course NOT important since Cameron, Gove and Clegg can only direct what happens in English schools. What happens elsewhere is up to the respective devolved parliaments/assemblies.

Note that a nation’s values are not the same as a nation’s  culture but are a part of it and along with the legal/governance systems and its language are the major creators of the culture. So the culture’s of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are all different.

This begs the questions of what is British culture? Is it a combination of all four or is it a selection from each of the four? Unfortunately for the Westminster elites the first is too unwieldy and unmanageable to be workable while the latter would not be acceptable to any of the four nations.

I’m English not Scottish, Welsh or Northern Ireland so I will leave it to them to describe their values for their own education systems. Instead I will describe English values, the values that we should be teaching in England’s schools.

In a previous blog I attempted to describe why it was so difficult to give a neat, simple description of Englishness and explains why we the English are a tolerant nation and the conditions under which that exists. This blog seeks to expand that discussion.

England’s great gift to the world is representative democracy. It is what, in a previous blog, I have called “The Golden Chain, Democracy’s DNA, England’s Gift” . J R Maddicott’s “Origins of the English Parliament 924 – 1327” is the standard work on the early history. The early Saxon proto-parliaments that he, based on documentary evidence, describes were not in fact the first. Fragmentary written evidence describes similar meetings as early as 620 AD – nearly 1,400 years ago. As such they predate the meetings in the Isle of Man and Iceland by centuries.

As they say, the lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. So we cannot assume that these councils were not a feature of the early Anglo-Saxon period just because there are few written records.

These meetings or Councils were based on an enduring set of values;

  • The king had to consult his  people before making decisions on law and the running of the realm.
  • The bishops, nobles and local theigns (Knights in the Norman terminology) he called to these councils were accepted by all the people as representing them
  • Decisions were made by consensus amongst all those present and not by a majority vote.
  • All, including the king, were subject to these laws “of the Land” a situation unique amongst nation states in those times (England became a nation state in 927 AD when King Athelstan was accepted as the King of All England).

The council meetings were not there to rubber-stamp the decisions of the king. They could and did refuse a king’s request. They had a judicial function, to which the even the king had to submit, no law could be effected without their consent, they could choose between rival claimants to the throne and they could require the new king to sign up to the laws the council wanted. This signing was required of  Ethelred, Canute and Edward the Confessor.

The reason for this was that the Anglo-Saxons had a great respect for the what they called, and we still call, “The Law of the Land”. Note that this was not the law of the king as it was in Europe but was initially the customary law of the people, which later became “The Common Law of England”. “Common” because everybody was judged under it.

We are used to witless Westminster politicians “pulling on levers” that they proclaim will “get things done” but who do not understand that these levers were not connected to anything so leading to yet another shambolic turn of events.

The Anglo-Saxons did things differently. Once a Council had made a decision this would be written up and copies sent to all the shire courts who had the duty to ensure it was followed in the shire. A shire was the “county” of Anlgo-Saxon England.The shire courts themselves had great power, even after the conquest. In 1297 the shire court of Worcester refused to collect a tax because the conditions under which a previous tax had been granted to the king by the “parlement” were not followed by the king.

The shire court was chaired by the eorl of the shire, the bishop of the shire or occasionally by the king’s reeve (sheriff). Each shire had a number of “hundreds”. The Shire court would send the laws to be followed to the hundred court which was the equivalent of today’s district council and was the main court for criminal matters and also judged civil disputes and local governance.

So English values include a particular form of tolerance; a respect for the customs of the past and the law of the land made on behalf of the people by their representatives and by the judges in local courts; a respect for that law and a willingness to abide by the decisions of the courts that were there to protect their rights. But that was not all

Daniel Hannan in his book “How We Invented Freedom & Why It Matters” records that the Anglo-Saxon law on property gave the owner the right to do with that property what they wished. The could sell it, they could leave it in their will to a child, Great Aunt Mary or the local cat shelter.

The Anglo-Saxons and his Norman successors were confident in their tenure of land, safe in the knowledge that no king or noble could either take it away from him by force or tell him what to do with it. This could only happen because the Anglo-Saxons were used to making contract freely and deciding disputes about them in the courts.

This was not so in Europe and to this day some states in Europe can still tell you what you can do with your land. Because of this Europe suffers, for example, from many farms that are too small to be economically viable (and thereby need subsidies) because the law stated that each child must get a portion of the father’s land which was subdivided again and again by each generation .

Anglo-Saxon England did not have church law. That was brought in by William the Conqueror who got the Pope’s blessing for his invasion by swearing to implement church law in England if he won.

The Anglo-Saxons treated everyone the same since all were equal under the law, the same law. Nobles did not get the right to hold their own courts and levy their own justice, no matter how arbitrary it was, as they did in Europe.

Nobles had to pay the same tax as as the villein or freeman, unlike Europe where they were frequently given freedom from tax payments. Because of this Anglo-Saxon England whilst being hierarchical was peopled by those who guarded their liberties jealously, had a sense of unity and even a sense of responsibility for each other.

William the Conqueror considered the law of England so perfect that he made it the law of his realm. The Domesday Book, for example, was not done by command of the king but took William two council meetings over a period of months  (they were not yet called parliaments) to get the agreement of the prelates and nobles in 1085. The Norman and Angevin kings that followed persisted in trying to make arbitrary taxation and confiscation of property the norm but the English fought back using the law and eventually triumphed 149 years after the conquest with the signing by King John I of the Magna Carta.

So to sum up here are the English values, the values that were fought for over the centuries and that ended up embedding representative, cabinet, government in Britain today but which also traveled around the world giving people freedom and democracy wherever they took root:

  • The Law of the Land stands above all other laws.
  • all are subject to this law including the ruler.
  • all are equal before this law.
  • The Laws and taxation may only be introduced or amended by our representatives meeting together.
  • The Law of the Land, our Common Law, says what we may not do, but all else is allowed. When something new arises we do not rush to regulate or control it, as they do in Europe.
  • Since this will allow quite large differences in customs with the ever present risk of conflict it is up to all to show tolerance to others who use the English language to describe their ways  in carefully selected non-threatening terms and who agree with and comply with the Law of the Land and the values of England.
  • Individuals have the right to own property and have the right to give or sell it to whom they please.
  • Freedom to make contracts with others that would be subject to the law and not arbitrary confiscation.

Those then are the English values that allowed England to prosper, despite all that happened in the period from around 500 AD to 1707 AD when the Act of Union was passed. These principles now underpin democratic states such as the United Kingdom, Canada, USA, Australia and so on. Those of us who are fortunate, live in nations using these values to govern themselves.

So Mr Clegg British values are actually English values and some of these values are not the same as European values and that perhaps is why you chose not to discus them on the radio!


Posted in Englishness | Tagged , , | Leave a comment