Tuesday, 24 November 2020

Category » Articles

From The Liberty Wall – National Liberal Trade Unionists – Restore The Guilds (Part 2)

WELCOME TO part 2 of Restore The Guilds. Written by Gary Dorrien for the Plough Quarterly,a US-based ‘magazine of stories, ideas, and culture to inspire faith and action’, the article – https://www.plough.com/en/ topics/justice/social-justice/economic-justice/restore-the-guilds – provides an excellent history of Guild Socialism (referred to as ‘Christian socialism’ in the article). This article should be read directly on from part 1: http://nationalliberal.org/from-the-liberty-wall-%e2%80%93-national-liberal-trade-unionists-%e2%80%93restore-the-guilds-part-1

As we’ve previously noted, we National Liberal Trade Unionists – NLTU – are neither of the ‘left’ nor the ‘right’. In fact, we feel that these terms are somewhat redundant as there’s barely a fag paper between the Tory ‘left’ & the Blairite/Social Democratic ‘right’ of the Labour Party. Indeed, who would’ve ever thought that any Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer – currently Rishi Sunak (1) – would be spending money like it was going out of fashion? (It’s just a shame that it’s taken Covid-19 to loosen the purse strings.)

We also view ourselves as ‘beyond class’ as we feel that to describe people solely by class is very restrictive. In fact, why should we effectively be forced to label ourselves according to the dictats of capitalism?

All of the above should make it very clear that the NLTU is interested in ‘alternative’ – and especially co-operative – economic systems. This is especially so when it can transcend the two traditional ‘sides’ of the economic equation – employers & employees. We feel that one way of doing this could be the introduction of a modern Guild system – Guilds, as described by the Encyclopaedia Britannica, being ‘an association of craftsmen or merchants formed for mutual aid and protection and for the furtherance of their professional interests’ (2).

As always, we invite our readers to share their thoughts when this article is reproduced on the NLTU Facebook site – https://www.facebook.com/groups/277840098977231/ - or the National Liberals Facebook site https://www.facebook.com/groups/52739504313/ It goes without saying that there are no links between Gary Dorrien, Plough Quarterly, the NLTU and the National Liberal Party. We’d also like to point out that whilst the article is written from a Christian perspective, the NLTU and NLP welcome members & supporters from all religions and none. Please note that the NLTU has kept the original US spellings and phrases as they are.

.

Restore The Guilds – What today’s labor unions, democratic socialists, and mutual aid societies might learn from the colorful history of Christian socialism in Britain

(Top left) Robert Owen (1771–1858) was a Welsh manufacturer turned social reformer. An early advocate of utopian socialism, he put his ideas into practice with the establishment of his New Lanark mills in Lanark, Scotland. A visionary, he instituted social & industrial welfare reforms including the opening of Britain’s first infant school. (Top right) Charles Fourier (1772–1837) was a French utopian socialist who believed in a cooperative form of society where workers would live in communities he called “phalanxes.” He was also an early supporter of women’s rights. (Bottom left) George Douglas Howard Cole (1889-1959) was a noted anti-fascist libertarian socialist who developed & popularised the theory of guild socialism. He formed the National Guilds League in 1915 and published several books on guild socialism as well as books about Robert Owen & William Morris. (Bottom right) Arthur Penty (1875–1937) was influenced by William Morris & John Ruskin and is credited with formulating Christian socialism based on the Guilds. A distributist, Penty also published Restoration of the Guild System in 1906.

SOCIALISM WAS ORIGINALLY A VISION that society could be organized as a cooperative community. In the 1820s, Charles Fourier in France and Robert Owen in England championed the idea of an economy based on cooperation and community. Instead of pitting workers against each other, a cooperative mode of production and exchange would allow them to work for each other. Fourier and Owen founded socialist movements that dreamed of replacing the state, or restricting it, or enlisting it to support producer cooperatives. Debates over these issues roiled the socialist movement from the beginning and sundered the first movement for Christian socialism.

Christian socialism began in the 1840s with the Anglican trio of Frederick Denison Maurice, John Ludlow, and Charles Kingsley. Maurice, a theologian and cleric, argued that cooperation is the moral law of the divine moral order. Socialism reflects the divine order by creating a cooperative society. Fatefully, the first Christian socialists clashed over consumer cooperatives, the state, and cooperative syndicates. Why should producer cooperatives be favored over consumer cooperatives? Should the state finance producer cooperatives? Are labor syndicates inevitably divisive and radical? Debates over these issues thwarted the first wave of Christian socialism.

The mighty second wave in Britain, beginning in the 1880s, was mostly Anglo-Catholic. Many Anglican socialists were stubbornly cooperative in the Owen and Maurice mode, some joined the Fabian movement after it arose in 1884, some joined the Christian Social Union reformers who came out of Oxford, some gave highest priority to socializing land, and many joined the workers party movement after it arose in 1893. But Christian socialism had an ethical wellspring that qualified its commitment to these ideologies. Christian socialists were committed to an ethic of equality, freedom, cooperative community, and divine love. No ideology, whether Fabian or Syndical or Social Unionist or Marxist, was more binding than these religious and ethical convictions.

(1) Britain’s Reactionary Racists React! http://nationalliberal.org/britain%e2%80%99s-reactionary-racists-react

(2) Encyclopaedia Britannica https://www.britannica.com/topic/guild-trade-association

• IF YOU want to help the National Liberal Trade Unionists promote a sensible non-socialist (but still anti-capitalist) form of trade unionism please contact us via natliberal@aol.com and/or visit our Facebook site https://www.facebook.com/groups/277840098977231/

• ALSO Check out: Twitter @National Liberal

Share:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • PDF
  • email
  • Live
  • MSN Reporter
  • MyShare
  • MySpace
  • Technorati
  • Webnews.de

If You Live Or Work In The Rape Of Lewes (Sussex) … Shop Local!

.

REGULAR  READERS  may  recall that  way  back  in  February  we  featured  a  Shop Local! poster which featured the Rape of Pevensey, in Sussex (1). This time we’re featuring the Rape of Lewes (2). To avoid any misinterpretation – deliberate or otherwise – the word rape is used here in the context of it being the traditional territorial sub-division in Sussex. In fact, there are six rapes in Sussex – the Rape of Arundel, the Rape of Bramber, the Rape of Chichester, the Rape of Hastings. the Rape of Lewes and the Rape of Pevensey. These rapes (which formed the basis of local government in Sussex) were also subdivided into ‘hundreds’.

Whilst the flags of the rapes – such as the one incorporated into our Shop Local in the Rape of Lewes!S poster featured above – are modern designs, it’s thought that the rapes date back to (at least) before the Norman Conquest. This makes them extremely significant in cultural terms, for both Sussex & England. It also puts them on a par with the better-known sub-divisions of Yorkshire, known as Ridings, derived from the old Norse word thrithjungr (meaning a third).

All of the above brings into sharp focus the fact that Localism (3) is intrinsically linked to local culture, folkways, history, identity & tradition.  This ties in nicely with the ideological & practical beliefs of the National Liberal Party.  Ideologically, we believe that Small Is Beautiful!  Thus, we’re opposed to centralism & gigantism.  We wish to decentralise and redistribute power down to the lowest possible level.  In practical terms, the rapes of Sussex provide a perfect example of such a redistribution of power – which definitely shouldn’t be confused with an extra layer of bureaucracy!

Share:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • PDF
  • email
  • Live
  • MSN Reporter
  • MyShare
  • MySpace
  • Technorati
  • Webnews.de

New Horizon – My Concerns For The NHS

WELCOME to another article serialising issue 1 of New Horizon – the online ideological journal of the National Liberal Party. But what is ideology? The Encyclopedia Britannica defines ideology as ‘a form of social or political philosophy in which practical elements are as prominent as theoretical ones. It is a system of ideas that aspires both to explain the world and change it.’

With the above in mind, feel that this article in particular – which looks at the importance of the National Health Service – reflects the ideological spirit of National Liberalism. Here both practicality and theory merge. The vast majority of Britions would probably have some sort of practical experience relating to the NHS. In the theoretical sense, the NHS binds our nation and people together, and provides an essential service for both. Indeed, as the article notes, the NHS is regarded as our ‘National Pride.’

As always, debate is free with the NLP. Therefore, we’d more than appreciate your thoughts & comments on this article. Simply post them on our National Liberals Facebook page – https://www.facebook.com/
groups/52739504313/?epa=SEARCH_BOX
– or National Liberal Party Facebook page – https://www.facebook.com/NationalLiberalParty/ – once you see this article reproduced on them.

.

MY CONCERNS FOR THE NHS –
A personal viewpoint from the National Liberal Party Secretary Glen Maney

(Top) The now very familiar National Health Service logo was unveiled in January 2017. The NHS wouldn’t have come into being without the vision and work of Ernest Brown (Bottom left). Brown was the Liberal National (National Liberal) Minister for Health from 1941 – 1943. He commissioned the Beverıdge report that ultimately led to the introduction of the NHS. Former National Liberal Party Secretary Glen Maney (Bottom right) has rightly described the NHS as our ‘National Pride’.

I WAS an employee of British Rail when it was broken up. I worked in the Revenue Protection Department in the Fraud team. Working closely with the British Transport Police we were effective. Then came privatisation.

It was going to be, according to John Major’s Government, the best thing for the passenger, the railway’s customer. Competition would drive down prices and everything in the commuter garden would be rosy! Of course it didn’t turn out like that.

Cutting back

Despite massive Government subsidies paid to private companies from taxpayer’s (passengers) revenues, the first thing these shareholder beholden companies did, was to cut back on staff and get people multi tasking on poorer contracts and lower money with the odd cut to safety practices being seemingly unimportant? My department was closed because you “can’t audit a deterrent value”, so in 1997, six months after my section of British Rail had become North London Railways, the successor to SilverLink, I was made redundant.

I’m not going to go too deeply into what has happened to fares because for every set of figures I produce, some Government department will dispute them using some cost index that suits. You however, the passenger, will know just how deeply your pocket has been affected. Price rises of over 200% since privatisation can be found. Has the average wage trebled in the last 16 years without promotion? The answer is NO. The shareholders of these companies however have done very nicely though, thank you very much! In August we learned that Stagecoach, owner of the South West Trains and East Midlands Trains franchises, had risked the rage of passengers, green campaigners and trade unions with plans to return £340m to shareholders – including an £88m windfall for the brother and sister who founded the group. This was just days after they announced another set of fare increases, some as high as 13%!

NHS our National Pride

So what has all that got to do with the NHS our National pride, providing free health care to our citizen’s since 1948. Well let me explain. As the House of Lords prepares to scrutinise the Health and Social Care Bill, doctors’ leaders of all disciplines are questioning the place of choice and competition in the health service. The Government’s proposed model for the NHS is very similar to the one that sold off the utilities and indeed that of the railways.

Effectively privatizing the NHS

It is a complex piece of legislation, but the overall concern of many doctors and campaigners is that, in its current form, it will allow much of the £85bn NHS budget to pass directly into the pockets of private companies and their shareholders.

The core reform will see the end of the Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) which currently decide where NHS money is spent.

The idea is that a set of Commissioners (I wonder who’ll appoint these no doubt trustworthy and incorruptible guardians of our health?!) will decide how it’s spent instead, using the flawed currency of the National Tariff for Health Services or the even more ill thought out National Outcomes Frameworks. They will ‘commission’ from any qualified provider whose sole credentials will be a registration by the Care Quality Commission.

The illusion of choice

We can all agree with the Prime Minister that an ageing population, an open door immigration policy for EU residents and costly technological advances, create new challenges to which the NHS needs to respond. But what have choice and competition got to contribute to the answer?

Choice is an illusion created by people to sell you something. The free market in which the mightiest US private healthcare companies compete and provide health services in a mixed economy is a fallacy. Competition creates huge, monopoly suppliers. Many of the private companies are faceless and unaccountable. Private companies have to grow, have shareholders to satisfy, and are not immune to failure. When they fail who picks up the pieces? However flawed our NHS and social care system, it is there for all to see and it is accountable.

So why would we put our NHS at risk?

The Government even admits that NHS management costs run at not much more than 3%, compared with nearly 20% for the US. Why would we want to copy their model? A few quick windfalls for a few select rich people? Procurement procedure legal teams employed out of the NHS budget to oversee contracts with private suppliers will be experts in cross company litigation and will cost millions in legal fees alone; money that won’t be going to front line care.

So what’s the point

The point is they want to be seen to be doing something, anything, because of the huge challenges that lay ahead.

I’d be cynical to think that it’s just another way of keeping the poor in their place and creating a two tier system for the haves and the have nots, as they have done in other parts of our society, like education.Surely not !

I personally think that long term investment and cutting management structures and Government convened Quangos is the way forward.

If a private company has equipment we need, let’s buy it for the NHS. It’s the people’s money for the people. If we don’t bomb any middle-eastern countries for a while, when they have internal disputes, we’ll have the money!

When a private company takes over a public company the first thing they do, just as they did on the railways, is to cut costs. How do they do that? They cut staff and they cut services. Is this what you want for your NHS?

Do we want to follow the American model, as shown in Michael Moore’s documentary “SICKO”, and have people who can’t afford to pay private company prices, operating on themselves? Have an infant mortality rate for the lower social economic groups, rising year on year? NO me neither. Sadly, however I think that’s exactly what we’re going to get under the ConDems!

Don’t forget, I’ve seen it first hand once before, on the Railways.

• ALSO Check out:

Build New Horizon! http://nationalliberal.org/build-new-horizon
New Horizon – Head & Heart http://nationalliberal.org/new-horizon-head-heart
New Horizon – National Liberalism In Action – Civil Liberties http://nationalliberal.org/new-horizon-–-national-liberalism-in-action-–-civil-liberties
New Horizon – National Liberalism In Action – The Nature of Democracy
http://nationalliberal.org/new-horizon-–-national-liberalism-in-action-the-nature-of-democracy
New Horizon – Ecology: The Silent Fourth Pillar of National Liberalism
https://nationalliberal.org/ecologythe-silent-fourth-pillar-of-national-liberalism
New Horizon – ECONOMICS Part 1 – The Economic Roots and influences of National Liberalism http://nationalliberal.org/new-horizon-economics-part-1-%e2%80%93-the-economic-rootsand-
influences-of-national-liberalism

Share:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • PDF
  • email
  • Live
  • MSN Reporter
  • MyShare
  • MySpace
  • Technorati
  • Webnews.de

Barra Says … Protect Animals & The Environment!

Share:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • PDF
  • email
  • Live
  • MSN Reporter
  • MyShare
  • MySpace
  • Technorati
  • Webnews.de

From The Liberty Wall – National Liberal Trade Unionists – Restore The Guilds (Part 1)

WE NATIONAL LIBERAL TRADE UNIONISTS – NLTU – are neither of the ‘left’ or the ‘right’. In addition to this, we are equally opposed to both capitalism and modern-day socialism. Indeed, we believe that there is very little true difference between both systems. Whilst we believe that ordinary working folks are the backbone of any nation, we regard ourselves as ‘beyond class’. As the NLTU Facebook site – https://www.facebook.com/ groups/277840098977231 – notes:

The National Liberal Trade Unionist aims to promote a non-socialist trade unionism i.e. building employee protections rather than class revolution. The group will support the principles of liberty e.g. the protection of all individual employees, and patriotism e.g. the defence of workers from globalisation, and promote a liberal e.g. supporting greater employee share ownership, agenda.

From this, it follows that we’re particularly interested in alternative economic systems that offer both security & betterment for ordinary working folks. Thus some of our ‘points of reference’ include Distributism, Social Credit, the Co-Operative movement and Syndicalism. We’re also interested in Guild Socialism (as advocated by the likes of William Morris, GDH Cole and Arthur Penty). With this in mind, the NLTU recently came across a thoughtprovoking article in the Plough Quarterly, a US-based ‘magazine of stories, ideas, and culture to inspire faith and action’. Written by Gary Dorrien, the article – https://www.plough.com/en/topics/justice/social-justice/ economic-justice/restore-the-guilds – provides an excellent history of Guild Socialism (referred to as ‘Christian socialism’ in the article).

We invite our readers to share their thoughts when this article is reproduced on the NLTU Facebook site https://www.facebook.com/groups/277840098977231/ – or the National Liberals Facebook site https://www.facebook.com/groups/52739504313/ It goes without saying that there are no links between Gary Dorrien, Plough Quarterly, the NLTU and the National Liberal Party. We’d also like to point out that whilst the article is written from a Christian perspective, the NLTU and NLP welcome members & supporters from all religions and none. Please note that the NLTU has kept the original US spellings and phrases as they are.

.
Restore The Guilds – What today’s labor unions, democratic socialists, and mutual aid societies might learn from the colorful history of Christian socialism in Britain.

(Left) William Morris (24th March 1834 – 3rd October 1896) was a British textile designer, craftsman, poet, novelist, translator, and socialist activist. His designs for furniture, fabrics, stained glass, wallpaper, and other decorative arts are associated with the British Arts and Crafts Movement. (Right) John Ruskin (8th February 1819 – 20th January 1900) was the leading English art critic of the Victorian era. He was also a draughtsman, philosopher, prominent social critic, reformer and philanthropist. Ruskin was a major influence on Morris – especially his views on the social and moral basis of architecture.

IN 1906, a British Christian socialist named Arthur J. Penty had a straw-that-broke-the-camel’s-back moment. Penty loved the decentralized economic democracy envisioned by two Victorian literary icons, Oxford art critic John Ruskin and radical novelist William Morris, but there was no organization devoted to these ideas. Ruskin and Morris had passed on, and the dominant movement for socialism in England was the Fabian Society, which promoted a centralized government collectivism that nationalized all means of production, exchange, and distribution. Penty, a reluctant Fabian, did his best to stifle his revulsion at Fabian meetings and admonished himself to be realistic – after all, Fabians undeniably prevailed on the British left and were the most politically viable option. But when Fabian Society leader Sidney Webb hired a utilitarian architect to design the buildings for the school he founded, the London School of Economics, that was more than Penty could stomach – he couldn’t work with philistines. Fabian collectivism, he fumed, was socialism without a soul. Somehow the ethical, human-scale socialism of Ruskin and Morris had to be renewed in a twentieth-century form. The movement he sparked would call it guild socialism.

More than a century later, with capitalism run amok and several purportedly socialist states spectacularly come and gone, guild socialism might be just what we need. The cry for an alternative to corporate capitalism is certainly getting very strong. Decades of letting big banks and corporations do whatever they want have yielded a revulsion against neoliberalism from many sides. Americans are losing their tolerance for extreme inequality, an ecological crisis is pressing upon us, and an overdue reckoning for America’s long history of racism has come. The convention that Americans have nothing to learn from the history of socialism has become unsettled, to put it mildly. Democratic socialism has made a dramatic comeback as the name for a different kind of society in which freedom and equality strengthen each other and no group dominates any other.

But democratic socialism has a complex and problematic history of its own. The name registers that socialists who were committed to democracy had to distinguish themselves from socialists who were not. Democratic socialists ran for office, appealed to socialist ethical values, and achieved progressive reforms through coalition governments. Their socialist values should have made them principled feminists, anti-racists, anti-militarists, and anti-imperialists, but many settled for weak gestures toward these causes. They should have welcomed Christian socialists into the parties they created, but only in England, select British colonies, and Switzerland did that happen.

Democratic socialists never achieved democratic socialism anywhere. Instead, they built Social Democratic parties, enacted progressive reforms, and built advanced welfare states, which came to be called, revising the meaning of a distinguished name, social democracy. Democratic socialism has a predominant legacy of state socialist aspirations inspiring campaigns for progressive reform. I do not say this to slight social democracy. Only social democracy has come close to fulfilling the doctrine of human rights expounded in Christian social ethics, by establishing nationwide policies of universal health care, a living wage, generous parental leave, and free higher education. In Germany, social democracy has reached into the management of corporate enterprises, creating supervisory boards in which 50 percent of the board members represent workers.

But democratic socialism is not inevitably about aspiring to state socialism and settling for social democracy. The deepest impulse in it is the original socialist vision of cooperative community. Christian socialists championed this idea long before German Marxists (against their intention), Continental neo-Marxists (ambiguously), and British Fabians (very intentionally) made socialism a project of the state. “State socialism” was an oxymoron to the radical democrats, communitarians, Marxists, anarchists, and Christian socialists of the early socialist movements. Karl Marx himself envisioned a revolutionary order featuring collective ownership, no classes, and no state. The Marxian fantasy of a stateless communist utopia was a major problem for every socialist party that competed for votes and sought to take the reins of the state. Even as the Social Democratic parties drifted toward state socialism, equating socialism with nationalization, dissenters within these parties resisted this trend or tried to bend it in the direction of worker guilds, guild networks, and other forms of decentralized economic democracy. In Britain, guild socialism was the leading resistance movement. It was loaded with Christian socialists and secular ethical socialists who renewed a politics of radical democracy that is still worth reviving today.

• FIND out more about National Liberal Trade Unionism:

Liberal Trade Unionism
-
Once upon a time the Trade Union movement in Britain was largely part of the Liberal movement. The majority of officials were even members of the Liberal Party. This continued from when the first unions were formed up until the turn of the century. The, then new, ideology of socialism took hold amongst many officials who believed that the future of politics was a class struggle and that only a working class party could represent or even deliver power to that class. Thus the Labour party was formed and Trade Unions became synonymous with the party.
-
In the present day workers still require the services of a union, whether as individuals or as a collective. In the short run, jobs are under threat and employee rights are under attack. In the medium term, workers face the negative effects of globalisation e.g. wage depression or unemployment.
-
Many however feel that those unions in the TUC, wedded to a confrontational class-based politics, are ill-equipped to respond to these problems.
-
For example, socialism is no longer popular. The TUC’s ‘workers of the world unite’ slogan rings hollow to British workers losing jobs overseas. Class politics is the exception to the rule and the ‘working-class’ no longer automatically regard the Labour party to be their natural representatives.
-
Non-Socialist Trade Unionism

In Europe there has always been an alternative trade unionism, either ‘Christian’ or Liberal, and this often resulted in separate unions that reflected their ethos. In the UK such groups failed to found their own unions and slowly shrank in importance within existing ones.

We believe in a non-socialist unionism that seeks to protect the interests of its’ members at work rather than as an arm of political or class revolution. In this way unions can focus their energies in the workplace rather than frittered away trying to control the Labour party. A separate liberal union could effectively influence ALL political parties to adopt policies to protect employees in the workplace.

A sensible alternative

Whether via its’ own union or within another our supporters will be support the principles of liberty (putting the individual member first) and patriotism (defending workers from globalisation), and be liberal (increasing employee share ownership) and economic (focusing activity in the workplace) in practice.

If you want to help us promote a sensible non-socialist trade unionism please contact us via natliberal@aol.com and/or visit our Facebook group http://www.facebook.com/groups/277840098977231

Share:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • PDF
  • email
  • Live
  • MSN Reporter
  • MyShare
  • MySpace
  • Technorati
  • Webnews.de

Building Essex Voice

THE NATIONAL LIBERAL PARTY has several key objectives. One of the most important is to build the infrastructure of an alternative mass media of news, views, information and entertainment. So far we’ve produced a UK-wide publication – Liberty & Nation – two national publications – Caledonian Voice and English Voice – and several borough, city and county-based publications.

Although these publications have been produced on an irregular basis, they’ve always attracted a positive response. We’re well aware that we need to produce them on more regularly – and we desperately need to produce lots of ward-based publications. We hope to do this as & when we attract more activists.

In the meantime, we’d like to promote the circulation of our existing publications. One way of doing this is to reproduce the lead articles from them & then encourage NLP members and supporters to viral them out via Social Media. We’ve already done this with several publications (see list below) and this time it’s the turn of Essex Voice. Once it appears here it’ll also be reproduced on our National Liberals Facebook site – https://www.facebook.com/groups/52739504313/ – and National Liberal Party Facebook site – https://www.facebook.com/NationalLiberalParty/ In order to bring Essex Voice to a wider audience we’d appreciate it if you’d like & share our post on both Facebook sites

.

A Vision For Essex

To get your FREE pdf copy of issue 1 of Essex Voice simply e-mail natliberal@aol.com

READERS of Essex Voice – EV – who have studied local history will know that Essex used to be the kingdom of the East Saxons. Sometimes referred to as the Kingdom of Essex, it was one of the seven traditional kingdoms of the Anglo Saxon Heptarchy. Essex and the other Anglo-Saxon kingdoms – East Anglia, Kent, Mercia, Northumbria, Sussex and Wessex – eventually unified into the Kingdom of England.

Founded in the 6th century, the Kingdom of Essex covered a vast territory – later occupied by the counties of Essex, Hertfordshire, Middlesex and (for a brief period in the 8th century) Kent. Although now vastly reduced in size, not many modern counties can boast that they once included the remains of two provincial Roman capitals: Colchester and London!

Essex has a rich and varied history and EV feels that our ancient flag, featuring three white seaxes (short Saxon swords) tends to illustrate this. Sadly, however, any mention or depiction of modern Essex is usually derogatory or stereotypical in nature.

POSITIVE

So how do we promote a positive identity and vision for Essex? How do we promote a ‘localist’ agenda for Essex and how do we dispel the notion that we’re simply just the ‘dumping ground’ for London’s overspill? In addition, how do we fight this strange form of Essexphobia – where the establishment seems to portray any pride in Essex & its people in a wholly negative and derogatory manner.  We feel that – to some degree – this Essexphobia can be countered by some form of autonomy.  We feel that historic areas like ours should have more powers – indeed, we believe in decentralisation down to the lowest possible common denominator. But how can this be achieved? Essex Voice believes that part of the solution may be found in the establishment of an English Parliament.

However, before we even look in any depth at the idea of an English Parliament, we must first make a clear distinction between the English nation and the British state. We must also realise that Westminster is not an English Parliament. We know that it’s situated in London, the capital of our nation. However, in no way, shape or form does Westminster represent ordinary English working folks. Indeed, EV currently views Westminster (and the politicians who inhabit it) as merely the plaything of British representatives of globalism – a superrich elite without loyalty to any of the nations of these isles.

ESSEX

These globalists – as their description suggests – have no interest or loyalty to their nation or people. Thus they have no true feelings for England or its citizens. All they’re interested in is profit margins. Therefore, if folks in Essex – or anywhere else in England for that matter – won’t work for a pittance they’ll think nothing of shafting the workforce. They’ll do this either by exporting jobs or importing cheap foreign labour. Both methods throw ordinary working folks onto the scrapheap. In addition, the second method simply hastens a race to the bottom between indigenous and immigrant workers. It’s a race that can only end in recriminations.

One way of countering the actions of the British super-rich elite is the establishment of an English Parliament. However, it must be an English Parliament that really reflects the wishes, hopes, fears and desires of ordinary English folks. We have no desire to establish another debating chamber for ex-Public schoolboys.

Therefore, we’ll look at the call for the establishment of an English Parliament – and what it could mean for our county – in the next issue of Essex Voice.

• ALSO CHECK OUT the following:   

Building Our Media Infrastructure http://nationalliberal.org/building-our-media-infrastructure

Building Caledonian Voice https://nationalliberal.org/building-caledonian-voice

Build Caledonian Voice (2) https://nationalliberal.org/build-caledonian-voice-2

Building English Voice http://nationalliberal.org/building-english-voice

Building The Isle Of Wight Voice http://nationalliberal.org/building-the-isle-of-wight-voice

Building Kent Voice   http://nationalliberal.org/building-kent-voice

Building Liberty & Nation http://nationalliberal.org/building-liberty-nation

Share:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • PDF
  • email
  • Live
  • MSN Reporter
  • MyShare
  • MySpace
  • Technorati
  • Webnews.de

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

Close