The Gurkhas have not earned the right to live in England

It's often fun to go against the grain, especially when wedded to the self-belief that it is the rest of the world that is marching out of step. But this farrow about the Gurkhas may be a lonely one to plough.

The Gurkhas are mercenary soldiers recruited by the British Army since the early 19th century and are renouned for their fighting spirit. At present a number of fomer Gurkhas are lobbying that they should be entitled to the same pay, pensions and conditions as all other former British army soldiers, and in particular should be given British citizenship in reward for their meritorious service.

There are some key principles to apply here in deciding both what is fair and just for the Gurkhas and what is right for England:

1. The Gurkhas signed up for pay and other conditions that were and are adequate for their poor homeland. They were not expected, nor have been invited, to seek residence in England. So the British state is entitled to look to its contractual liability for these mercenaries, and not pay or award more.

2. British citizenship should not be given away to anyone, but should pass by bloodline. In fact this ideal has been so undermined that it seems that just about everyone from wherever is able to acquire British citizenship. But the fact that the rules have been so abused so as to allow in so many undesirables - like Keith Vaz - does not require that the Gurkhas be given a free pass.

YouGov London mayoral poll 17 March 2008

The big story in this poll is that Boris Johnson is now 12 points ahead of Ken Livingstone in the race to be the next London mayor. Mainstream media will cover that story, but I am more interested in "Other" - the sundry small parties - which get a tiny 2% of the first preference votes but (when Joe Public has done his duty in voting for his tribal leader and can now vote as wishes to) 21% of the second preferenc votes.

Included in the "Other" are the BNP at 4%, UKIP at 3% and the English Democrats at 1%. All these small parties are similar in various ways: they attract the protest vote of white men and are mainly right wing in outlook.

If these three small parties united, they could form a powerful fourth party, provided this combination allowed the best of each party being represented as follows:

The BNP's campaigning activists
UKIP's strong anti-EU record and the finances of its MEPs
The ED's English nationalist label.

More likely, the worst features of all three parties might come to the fore...

London elects You!

With a marketing slogan resembling that of the UK lottery (i.e. that cruel hidden tax on the despairing white English working classes), a London newspaper company is offering £50,000 to fund the London Mayoral campaign of one of its readers who wishes to run as an independent in the Mayoral elections on 1 May 2008.

It is very simple to take part in this fun and enjoyable game. Just take yourself to the newspaper website (as below), register your details to log in, and then choose the sole English nationalist candidate, who is called Andrew Constantine...

www.londonelectsyou.co.uk/

The famous St George's day speech of Enoch Powell

In my family, J Enoch Powell was revered more than any other living or historic figure. There were various strands to this veneration, but the main one is to be found in Enoch being seen in our family as the most cerebral and forcful English nationalist of the 20th century. He was famed as the most compelling speaker of his generation. The text of his speeches give a flavour of his mastery of English and his intellectual rigour.

The text of the following speech on the subject of England was given by Enoch Powell MP, Minister of Health, to The Royal Society of St George, London on St George's day, 23 April 1961.

There was a saying, not heard today so often as formerly . .

"What do they know of England who only England know?"

It is a saying which dates. It has a period aroma, like Kipling's Recessional or the state rooms at Osborne. That phase is ended, so plainly ended, that even the generation born at its zenith, for whom the realisation is the hardest, no longer deceive themselves as to the fact. That power and that glory have vanished, as surely, if not as tracelessly, as the imperial fleet from the waters of Spithead.

And yet England is not as Nineveh and Tyre, nor as Rome, nor as Spain. Herodotus relates how the Athenians, returning to their city after it had been sacked and burnt by Xerxes and the Persian army, were astonished to find, alive and flourishing in the blackened ruins, the sacred olive tree, the native symbol of their country.

So we today, at the heart of a vanished empire, amid the fragments of demolished glory, seem to find, like one of her own oak trees, standing and growing, the sap still rising from her ancient roots to meet the spring, England herself.

Perhaps, after all, we know most of England "who only England know".
So the continuity of her existence was unbroken when the looser connections which had linked her with distant continents and strange races fell away. Thus our generation is one which comes home again from years of distant wandering. We discover affinities with earlier generations of English who felt no country but this to be their own. We discover affinities with earlier generations of English who felt there was this deep this providential difference between our empire and those others, that the nationhood of the mother country remained unaltered through it all, almost unconscious of the strange fantastic structure built around her - in modern parlance "uninvolved".

Backward travels our gaze, beyond the grenadiers and the philosophers of the 18th century, beyond the pikemen and the preachers of the 17th, back through the brash adventurous days of the first Elizabeth and the hard materialism of the Tudors and there at last we find them, or seem to find them, in many a village church, beneath the tall tracery of a perpendicular East window and the coffered ceiling of the chantry chapel.

From brass and stone, from line and effigy, their eyes look out at us, and we gaze into them, as if we would win some answer from their silence."Tell us what it is that binds us together; show us the clue that leads through a thousand years; whisper to us the secret of this charmed life of England, that we in our time may know how to hold it fast".

"What would they say"?

They would speak to us in our own English tongue, the tongue made for telling truth in, tuned already to songs that haunt the hearer like the sadness of spring. They would tell us of that marvellous land, so sweetly mixed of opposites in climate that all the seasons of the year appear there in their greatest perfection; of the fields amid which they built their halls, their cottages, their churches, and where the same blackthorn showered its petals upon them as upon us; they would tell us, surely of the rivers the hills and of the island coasts of England.

One thing above all they assuredly would not forget; Lancastrian or Yorkist, squire or lord, priest or layman; they would point to the kingship of England, and its emblems everywhere visible.

They would tell us too of a palace near the great city which the Romans built at a ford of the River Thames, to which men resorted out of all England to speak on behalf of their fellows, a thing called 'Parliament'; and from that hall went out their fellows with fur trimmed gowns and strange caps on their heads, to judge the same judgments, and dispense the same justice, to all the people of England.

Symbol, yet source of power; person of flesh and blood, yet incarnation of an idea; the kingship would have seemed to them, as it seems to us, to express the qualities that are peculiarly England's: the unity of England, effortless and unconstrained, which accepts the unlimited supremacy of Crown in Parliament so naturally as not to be aware of it; the homogeneity of England, so profound and embracing that the counties and the regions make it a hobby to discover their differences and assert their peculiarities; the continuity of England, which has brought this unity and this homogeneity about by the slow alchemy of centuries.

For the unbroken life of the English nation over a thousand years and more is a phenomenon unique in history, the product of a specific set of circumstances like those which in biology are supposed to start by chance a new line of evolution. Institutions which elsewhere are recent and artificial creations appear in England almost as works of nature, spontaneous and unquestioned.

From this continuous life of a united people in its island home spring, as from the soil of England, all that is peculiar in the gifts and the achievements of the English nation. All its impact on the outer world in earlier colonies, in the later Pax Britannica, in government and lawgiving, in commerce and in thought has flowed from impulses generated here. And this continuing life of England is symbolised and expressed, as by nothing else, by the English kingship. English it is, for all the leeks and thistles grafted upon it here and elsewhere. The stock that received all these grafts is English, the sap that rises through it to the extremities rises from roots in English earth, the earth of England's history. We in our day ought well to guard, as highly to honour, the parent stem of England, and its royal talisman; for we know not what branches yet that wonderful tree will have the power to put forth.

The danger is not always violence and force; them we have withstood before and can again.

The peril can also be indifference and humbug, which might squander the accumulated wealth of tradition and devalue our sacred symbolism to achieve some cheap compromise or some evanescent purpose.

An update on India's colonies in England

A British newspaper, the politics of which are as pink as the colour of its paper, reported (on 27 February) a story that might bring commerce, indeed what's left of the free market economy in England to an end. Steady yourself to read the following extract:

"A body representing more than 1,000 entrepreneurs and executives from India and Pakistan has warned Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, that his proposals for a tax crackdown on non-domiciled UK residents will lead to a much greater exodus from Britain than anticipated.

In a letter in today's Financial Times, the UK wing of The Indus Entrepreneurs (Tie) says the proposals to levy a £30,000 charge on non-domiciled taxpayers after seven years in the UK would undermine Britain's attraction to thousands of investors and entrepreneurs from the subcontinent.

TiE, the world's largest not-for-profit entrepreneurial group, says the proposals put at risk the jobs of thousands of British people employed by businesses owned by "non-doms" from the subcontinent. The letter suggests several changes to the Treasury's proposals, including lengthening to 10 years the time that can be spent in the UK before having to pay the charge and levying the charge on a family basis, rather than on each individual. It says the changes still planned on capital gains tax would be particularly resented by non-doms with substantial wealth held overseas. It also calls on the Chancellor to delay implementation of any changes for a year after they are agreed, to let those affected adjust their tax affairs."

So we have been warned: do not tax them, or there will be an exodus of Asian businessmen.

Let's just hope England, the home of the industrial revolution and where a single Cambridge college had more Nobel prize wiiners than all of France, can make it on her own.

Darling, you are right!

This English nationalist has no brief for Unionist politicians, let alone those who are Scottish carpetbaggers in England like Cameron, Gove, Rifkind etc. Those Scots representing Scottish constituencies should of course be booking one way tickets back home.

But despite my above views, I think there is much to admire in Alistair Darling. He is clearly able, very hardworking and seems honest - more than can be said of most of the British political establishment.

Where the Brtish media, supported by their British commercial owners, are attacking him on non-doms and capital gains tax reform, Darling is quite right. The non-dom and the businessmen should pay much more tax than they did under the money struck Blair era.

As an American criminal replied when asked why he kept on robbing banks, and this was before the sub-prime crisis: "the banks have got the money".

Well in Britain in 2008, the rich have got the money and if anyone should pay more tax, they should.

Classic William Hague

This week (on Tuesday 5th March) saw Brown's administration winning the vote in the Commons as to whether the people would be given the referendum on the EU Constitutional Treaty (aka the Treaty of Lisbon), as promised in the 2005 party manifestos of all three major parties, including Labour and the Liberal Democrats.

William Hague was in classic form. He quoted Clegg's earlier, pro-referendum views, in which the future party leader declared: "Nothing will do more damage to the pro-European movement than giving room to the suspicion that we have something to hide, that we do not have the 'cojones' to carry our argument to the people."

With deadly good humour, Mr Hague turned these brave words back against Mr Clegg: "An explanation of why the Liberal Democrat leadership's protests in the debates have become ever more shrill is that, at some point in recent months, they have become separated from their cojones. Those unfortunate objects are now to be found impaled on a distant fence."

William Hague should be a heroic figure for English nationalists. When Blair was splitting up the UK in the late 1990s with his shoddy devolution legislation, Hague proposed that England have her own Parliament.

England has not heard the last of William Hague. He surely deserves to be the Tory party leader again, and then Prime Minister. In power, let's pray that he does give England her own Parliament.