David Davis

The Guardian has questioned David Davis over his stance on an English Parliament.

Q: On the blog that I posted inviting readers to suggest questions, some people asked about an English parliament. Someone who may be a constituent of yours [tyke1] said that you made a speech in favour of one in 1997, but that you haven't spoken about it since.

A: He's quite right. I did make a speech in 1997, and dear old William Hague has probably never forgiven me for it because it took over the Tory conference that year, virtually.

What I was saying at the time is that we were going through all this process of creating Scottish and Welsh autonomy, the Irish have their level of autonomy, and the people forgotten in all this are the English.

There is a real serious issue when you have got ministers – the home secretary, for example – in charge of policing in England whose actions do not have any impact in his own constituency. For example, retaining DNA. When John Reid was home secretary, this was done to English people, but not to Scots people. So I think there's a quirk there.

Q: Do you still think there's a case for an English parliament?

A: I'm moderately comfortable. This is a very difficult constitutional area because of the problems of federalism in a state when you've got a huge state and a number of smaller states. What happened immediately after that speech, and largely as a result of that speech, was a Tory policy on English votes, English votes for English business.

Q: Which has now disappeared into the long grass ... [The government is setting up a commission on the West Lothian question later this year]

A: I would certainly try that first. I'm not a radical when it comes to constitutional reform, with one exception. Generally I'm an incrementalist because it's so easy to get it wrong and get unintended consequences.

It's quite some way from his principled and unequivocable stance in 2001.

The people of England deserve no less than the same choice as the peoples of Wales and Scotland last September: a referendum on whether they want a parliament of their own. In their own words, Labour should trust the people - in this case the people of England. An English parliament, on the same basis as the Scottish one, will be the minimum that the English people are likely to be satisfied with.

Which is why people don't like or trust politicians.

Those members of the Parliament at Westminster who are committed to preserving the United Kingdom have to face a ferociously difficult question. Now that the Scots and Welsh have decided to have devolution, how do we deliver a fair deal for England, and do the best job of preserving the Union.

William Hague has, quite rightly, announced that an incoming Conser-vative government would respect the outcome of the referenda. But Labour's compromise proposals are a consti-tutional mess. They do not solve the so-called West Lothian question, the problem of Scottish MPs voting on matters that solely affect the English, whilst the English MPs cannot vote on similar matters that solely affect the Scots. This treats the English (and to some extent the Welsh) very unfairly.

Nobody should doubt that the English feel as passionately about their country as do the Scots or Welsh. The willingness of the English to subordinate their 'Englishness' to the greater interests of the Union is a measure of the strength of their commitment to that Union, not of any weakness in their love of their own country.

The best demonstration of this is the extent to which the English have been willing to make sacrifices in the interests of the Union. For example, on the basis of population, Scotland has fourteen more MPs than it would have with English-sized constituencies. In terms of public expenditure per head, Wales receives one sixth more money than England, Scotland a fifth more, and Northern Ireland a third more. Neither should the clamouring of the Scottish Nationalists to the contrary confuse us. Even if we, quite wrongly, allocated all the North Sea revenues to Scotland, they would still be receiving a net £6 billion from the English taxpayer. In addition - unlike England - Scotland and Wales have their own Cabinet Minister to represent their own unique interests, as well as all the other Scots and Welsh members that have occupied positions in every Cabinet in modern times.

There are, of course, reasons for these differences, and the English have accepted them because the vast majority place enormous value on the Union. They recognise the energy that the United Kingdom has gained from the amalgamation of the talents of all parts of the Kingdom. They recognise the huge advantage in all areas of endeavour - scientific, literary, military, commercial or political - which arises out of their hybrid vigour. They know that the United Kingdom is very much more than the sum of its parts.

Which is why Labour's proposals are potentially so disastrous. The Govern-ment is meddling with a finely balanced structure, which has historically worked to everybody's advantage. They are taking the risk of starting a process that will unravel the tightly woven fabric of our country. If it goes wrong, this process will be slow at first, but will accelerate under the pressure of the discontent and disunity that devolution will stir up.

The compromises that Labour are putting together to achieve their ends, whilst still maintaining their political advantage, will exacerbate this dis-content. Those Welsh people that want an Assembly will resent the stronger Scottish institution. As for the English, Labour's attempts to provide supposed "fairness" with regional councils is, of course, nonsense. It will not solve the West Lothian question. They will simply create soulless regional bureaucracies; bleak outstations of Brussels.

Nobody could with any serious constitutional sense equate, say, a Yorkshire and Humberside regional council with the Scottish parliament. The constant constitutional mess that we are being offered in exchange for our heritage and history is not going to satisfy anyone.

It is no accident that Labour's proposals fit well with the wishes of the European Commission. In the federalist lexicon, the nation state is seen as the source of many evils, from unemploy-ment to war. Whilst this dogma is unsurprising given the history of some parts of Europe, it is an ideology wholly unsuited to the United Kingdom, a country that has enjoyed hundreds of years of democracy, peace and tolerance under one national government.

The nation state is the strongest manifestation of the democratic will of the people. It is a moral concept, indissolubly tied to the emotional identity of the people, and is not an administrative convenience to suit Labour's apparent urge to bypass Westminster by every means possible.

Accordingly, if this change is inevitable, then the people of England deserve nothing less than equal treatment. And, the people of Britain deserve a constitutional settlement that is at least logical. Otherwise, it will unravel under the pressure of its own inconsistencies.

If each of the other nations of the United Kingdom is going to have its own parliament , then England's choice should be no less. If Labour truly believes that this is the proper future for the people of Scotland and Wales, their logic must mean the same for England. This means equal treatment in all respects. Not just financially, although we should have funding equality for England, Scotland and Wales. Nor just in Westminster representation - although we should have that equalised from the next election, not in fifteen years time as Labour propose.

The people of England deserve no less than the same choice as the peoples of Wales and Scotland last September: a referendum on whether they want a parliament of their own. In their own words, Labour should trust the people - in this case the people of England. An English parliament, on the same basis as the Scottish one, will be the minimum that the English people are likely to be satisfied with.

Anything less will lead to disaffection and discontent, to a belief that the English are being treated as second class citizens in their own land. If Labour wanted to bring about the dissolution of the United Kingdom, that disaffection would be the way to do it.

Conservative Way Forward, 2001

It was the postcard that he received from Nick Clegg that first aroused the suspicions of David Davis.

David Cameron has given his strongest indication yet that Ken Clarke's solution will be in the next Conservative manifesto.

Mr Cameron backed the proposal drawn up by his party's democracy taskforce chaired by Ken Clarke, the former chancellor who is now shadow business secretary, to create an "English Grand Committee" at Westminster which would be closed to MPs from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and which - apart from exceptional circumstances - could not be overruled by the Commons as a whole.

All MPs would be allowed to vote on England-only laws at their third and final reading but the new parliamentary arrangement would prevent any party using Scottish votes to block amendments made by English MPs. - Herald

It's a piss poor solution but from a Tory standpoint, not an English standpoint, it represents an advance on their past three manifestos which contained the unworkable "English Votes on English Laws".

Why have the Tories come up with such a convoluted technical solution to the West Lothian Question?

It's not about good governance, it's just a way of mitigating the WLQ and responding to an English sense of grievance, whilst engineering an inbuilt Conservative majority at certain stages of certain bills.

The thing to bear in mind - when considering banning Scottish MPs - is that it's an unconstitutional measure. Because the Barnett Formula allocates money to Scotland as a proportion of what is spent in England, any decision affecting the English budget (Health, Transport, Education) has a knock-on effect on the Scottish budget. In this respect there is no "English-only" legislation, at least not until the Barnett Formula is scrapped.

"No taxation without representation"

The Tories are being disingenuous because Scottish MPs have a constitutional right to vote on anything that determines how their constituents' taxes are spent - in other words political federalism requires fiscal federalism.

The Barnett Formula is key because it is the Barnett system that helps provide the social glue that underpins the welfare state and the common contract that we all (as Brits) have with one another. This is why the SNP want it scrapped even though it is biased in Scotland's favour. At the moment we can pretend that we have a 'National' Health Service (even though in terms of policy and delivery we actually have four national health services) because it is funded from a common pot - we all put in and we all take out. This principle of British solidarity "British funding for British institutions" - to paraphrase our prime minister - is endangered by fiscal federalism.

Importantly Ken Clarke's solution allows Scottish MPs to vote on the principle of the bill but not the detail, thereby preserving their say in a British veto over spending plans for England, and consequently the Scottish budget. This helps to sustain the veneer of "Britishness" of institutions like the NHS.

Parliament itself is probably even more important to our sense of British identity than the NHS. According to Prof Vernon Bogdanor to be British is "to wish to be represented in the House of Commons", and there will be many who claim that this Conservative policy will create "two classes of MP" by reducing Scottish MPs' involvement in the House of Commons. This is nonsense because thanks to devolution there are already two classes of MP: those that can vote on legislation pertaining to the health and education of their constituents and those that cannot.

The real problem is that highlighted by an unnamed Labour spokesman:

A Labour spokesman said a policy of English votes for English laws would destroy the relationship between the House of Commons and the executive, and "catastrophically undermine the Union".

The Conservative solution means that it would be illogical, but not unconstitutional, for Scottish MPs to have an executive say on matters that they cannot vote on, so logic dictates that the future UK Cabinet should be disproportionately English, with non-English MP only permitted executive responsibility in reserved areas; it also has the potential to set an English bloc of MPs against the UK Government, encouraging English MPs to speak for England against the executive that governs England, and; it introduces nationalism into the Union parliament, encouraging MPs to split along national lines instead of party lines.

None of this will be a huge problem if there's a large Conservative majority, but a Labour or coalition government, or a minority or weak Conservative administration, could well find themselves beset by contradictions between UK-interest and English-interest.  For an English nationalist that's all well and good, and we can only hope and pray that it comes to pass.

How will the Conservative's enemies react to this policy?

I imagine that some English nationalists will be in favour, seeing it as a "slippery slope" to an English parliament, while others will regard it as a sop. The Labour and Lib Dem parties will be against it, but in the face of a Tory landslide they may well come to see it as a 'least damaging' solution. The SNP will be against it in public, but in private, because their MPs observe a self-denying ordinance, they'll be rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of Scottish Labour MPs becomming side-lined and increasing irrelevant at Westminster. Previously the other parties could just ignore Tory grandstanding on the question of England, but no longer. Because the Tories are likely to form the next government we can expect an extremely heated debate on this, and also on Tory plans to abolish the RDAs and assemblies.

There will also be people inside the Conservative Party who object. There are those who object on a technical basis, people like Malcolm Rifkind who point out that this solution would have made no difference to the votes on tuition fees, foundation hospitals or fox hunting, and there will be others like David Davis, Roger Gale, John Redwood and Mark Field who will say that it doesn't go far enough.

Personally I agree with Alistair Carmichael of the Liberal Democrats:

"If [David Cameron] were sincere about trying to solve this problem, then he would look seriously at the creation of an English parliament or regional assemblies, whatever the English people themselves decide."

Pissing about with technical Westminster solutions to the question of England, whether it's 'English votes' or 'Regional Ministers' will not answer the English question. Only the people of England can answer the English Question and we deserve the opportunity to have the decisive say about how we are governed. England deserves a distinctly English voice, not only in parliament but in government also.

Time for a National Conversation.

Following on from my post about the need for an English party at the Haltemprice and Howden by-election comes this press release from the English Democrats Party:

IMMEDIATE

The English Democrats have formally selected Joanne Robinson for the forthcoming by-election in Haltemprice and Howden. In a statement today Joanne praised David Davis for his courageous decision to stand down and prompt a by-election.

"By calling an election on the issue of civil liberties David Davis has done a great service to all of us for whom the word England still means something. The erosion of civil liberties under New Labour is a betrayal of our past and a betrayal of all our futures. The gifts of freedom and liberty bequeathed to us by generations of Englishmen and Englishwomen past are not Gordon Brown's to discard and make alien to future generations."

Chairman, Robin Tilbrook, also praised David Davis, but had strong words of criticism for Gordon Brown. "Gordon Brown is a coward", said Tilbrook, "He's afraid to give England a vote on her own parliament, he's afraid of a general election, he's afraid to give us a vote on the Lisbon Treaty, and now he's afraid to put up a candidate in this by-election. He's never put himself to the public vote in England, not as an MP - because he is elected in Scotland - and not as the leader of the Labour Party. He has no mandate."

The English Democrats sent out a clear signal that although they respected David Davis's stance he would not have the debate all his own way. We will point out that the transference of political power, and ultimately responsibility, from Westminster to the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has created a democratic deficit that has damaged English voters, perverting the most important civil liberty that a democratic people hold - the ability to choose and remove their own government.

The English Democrats will ask why Davis has backtracked on his belief that the English should be free to choose their own government. We will ask why Privacy International find that civil liberties are better protected in Scotland than in England. We will ask why Scottish MPs can vote to abolish smoking in English pubs, but not in their own country. And we will ask why the Scots debate civil liberties in their Parliament at Holyrood while the English debate theirs on the doorsteps of Haltemprice and Howden.

These are difficult questions for politicians that like to prattle on about Britishness and British values.

OK the press release you've just read is a fake. I wrote it. Did you spot it? I think it's what they should have put out, or something like it. The real one, which completely ignores the point of the by-election and comes across as unremittingly negative, follows.

The English Democrats have formally selected Joanne Robinson for the forthcoming by-election in Haltemprice and Howden. The English Democrats are offering a fresh start and reject the cliché ridden and spin politics of the past. We offer the politics of a common national identity and common values. There should be an immediate referendum on the EU Lisbon Treaty. It is wholly wrong for Labour to try and impose this treaty on us, contrary to their own specific manifesto commitment that there should be a referendum. The people of the Republic of Ireland have said NO – WE WANT OUR SAY. There should be free residential care for the elderly, as is available in Scotland. It is wrong that pensioner’s homes in England are being seized to pay for this. Free access to all NHS drugs – not a postcode lottery. The unjustified subsidies to other parts of the UK – We want a fair system for all. Our politics are riddled with spin and political correctness, a vote for the English Democrats is a vote for honest and plain speaking. We should protect society and not the criminals. There should be an English Parliament, with an English Prime Minister to put England on an equal footing with Scotland and Wales. We believe in an English Parliament within a federal UK working alongside the parliaments and assemblies of the other UK countries. The country can no longer sustain uncontrolled mass immigration. It should be stopped. It places an unacceptable strain on all our services. All previous governments have allowed this to happen. The voters of Haltemprice and Howden have a wonderful opportunity and the chance to send a clear message to the government and the rest of the stale political establishment that the people of England are no longer prepared to be treated as second class citizens within the UK. Let us put England’s interests first. A vote for Joanne and the English Democrats is a positive vote for the people of Haltemprice and Howden. It is a vote for ENGLAND and an English Parliament.

Joanne Robinson stood for UKIP at the 2001 General Election in Haltemprice and Howden.

Upon taking office the judges of England pledge to "do right by all manner of people, after the law and usages of this realm". Gordon Brown's suspension of the writ of Habeas Corpus seems to me to be so fundamentally subversive to the common law and usages of this realm that if I were a judge I would have no hesitation in ignoring 42-days detention, especially since this draconian legislation is directed against a certain manner of people. But then what do I know of the law.

I may not be a student of jurisprudence, but I do know what I like, and this exposition of what it means to be English, from the aptly named Tom Paine, is one that I wholeheartedly endorse:

our patriotism is not so much to do with "blood and soil." At its best, it is a matter of values. Those values are rooted in Magna Carta, which set the laws of England above her rulers. They are rooted in habeas corpus, a simple writ which forces our rulers to account for their prisoners and to justify their detention to the courts. These things made Englishmen free long before democracy gave them the right to choose their government. They set limits that even a monarch could not cross. If you don't take pride in them, you simply don't understand what it is to be a freeborn Englishman.

On 11th September in the year 1648 the Levellers presented to Parliament their largest petition, signed by one third of all Londoners. 363 years later, to the day, al-Qaeda attacked mainland America and the subsequent "War on Terror" provided New Labour with all the political justification they required to embark on a comprehensive and systematic erosion of England's hard won civil liberties. Free-born John has been spinning in his English grave ever since.

"Last Sunday was the anniversary of Magna Carta", David Davis informed the Question Time Audience, "and Habeas Corpus, the fundamental thing that we gave away last week, is actually something that underpins what it is to be British". David Davis' view of Britishness is one that Gordon Brown apparently shares:

For there is indeed is a golden thread that runs through British history of the individual standing firm for freedom and liberty against tyranny and the arbitrary use of power. It runs from that long-ago day in Runnymede in 1215 to the Bill of Rights in 1689 to not just one, but four Great Reform Acts in less than 100 years. And the great tradition of British liberty has, first and foremost, been rooted in the protection of the individual against the arbitrary power of first the monarch and then the state.

The 'golden thread' of liberty is of course English, not British; as is the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights and Habeas Corpus, a writ that is unknown to Scots law but which dates back to the 1200s in England. For Scots these things form part of their constitutional inheritance, what Tony Blair might patronisingly term a "union dividend". They are not a spiritual inheritance as they are for the English because they do not form part of what it means to be Scottish. I would love to believe that a spiritual connection to the ideals of England - the idea of England itself - is what led English MPs to vote, by a majority of 19 (which would have been more had it been a free vote), against 42-days detention. But who knows, for it seems that the Englishman representing the English constituency of Haltemprice and Howden is content to ape Gordon Brown and couch the debate in firmly terms of Britishness.

For all the merits of his campaign it is depressing that Davis can't (or won't) define his opposition to New Labour's totalitarianism as a freeborn Englishman, to tap into that rich English tradition and appeal to his constituents' Englishness. Would it really be too much to ask for an English MP to appeal to England as England in opposition to Brown's dystopian Britishness, just as Scottish politicians have used Scotland as a bulwark against government control?

Someone needs to speak for England in this civil liberties debate. But who will it be? My past disagreements with the English Democrats have been too frequent to mention, and much of the antagonism - at least on my part - stems from the fact that the very existence of an English nationalist manifesto ties what should be a cross-party case for English self-determination to other policy areas. But in Haltemprice and Howden there is a real opportunity for the EngDems, and uniquely a real need for an English party. Of all of the elections since the English Democrats Party was founded it is this one that presents an unrivaled opportunity to campaign positively for England, to fight for the very heart and soul of England: Our liberty. For the EngDems there is a chance here to slay the ghosts of previous negative campaigns, and present a positive vision of what England should be; a chance to prevent an English election being fought on a "Best for Britain" platform; a chance to make the points of reference English, in defiance of those that claim Magna Carta and Habeas Corpus for Britain.

So much has been made of Brown's shady backroom dealings with the DUP, but the fact that all New Labour's Scottish MPs (with the sole honourable exception of Katy Clark) voted with their boy in Number 10 was decisive. This is not the West Lothian Question because Scottish and Irish MPs do have a constitutional right to vote on reserved legislation. But it is The English Question. It is about English sovereignty - national sovereignty and individual sovereignty - and it's about England's right to contradict Britain as the other nations of the union so frequently do.

I've always described myself as an English nationalist, but not, necessarily, a separatist. Constitutional sovereignty, the right to determine our future, was, I thought, enough. But I must admit that this civil liberties debate has had me seriously considering the case for English independence. To argue that Scots and Irish MPs should not be permitted to corrupt England's proud tradition of individual freedoms is to argue logically that they should not vote on reserved matters. So perhaps the enticingly named Free England might be better suited than the English Democrats to freeing England from the attentions of a prime minister who has never faced the public vote in England.

Any English nationalist party that does join the fray will benefit from the absence of the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, the Greens and UKIP. The field is wide open and the platform will be theirs to take. Questions concerning David Davis' u-turn over his call for an English Parliament will be perfectly valid because the democratic deficit that results from the absence of an English parliament perverts the most important civil liberty that a democratic people hold - the ability to choose and remove the government.

Our Kingdom has a list of Freedoms lost under New Labour. David Davis outlines the issues here.

In all the various revolutions, with their dark and dreary scenes of violence and bloodshed, through which England has passed, the people have clung to their ancient laws with a devotion almost superstitious. -- Samuel Tyler

In a speech to the IPPR Gordon Brown today called for a "new chapter" in Britain's history that would protect both citizens' security and individual rights.

In a nutshell the tyrannical power of Muslim terrorism needs to be tackled with oppressive, authoritarian tyrannical impositions on the civil liberties of the British people. 42 days detention without charge is necessary to combat Muslim terrorism, and the imposition of a DNA database, ID cards and surveillance techniques will protect us all and help eliminate you from their enquiries.

Civil liberties are freedoms that protect the individual from the state. Gordon Brown's idea of protecting of civil liberties is diametrically opposed to individualism. He is a collectivist who thinks he can save us from individuals by removing individual rights. Collectivism, as I mentioned earlier, is a defining trait of a fascist.

Gordon did offer one crumb of comfort to those of us concerned at his erosion of civil liberties:

I will never, neither here nor in any other area, seek to question the right of the judges to make decisions in individual cases, or try to undermine the role of the independent judiciary which has done so much over the centuries to safeguard British values.

Great. I'll sleep well tonight knowing Gordon isn't going to abolish our independent judiciary. Good of him to make that clear. However, Gordon Brown has already undermined our independent judiciary by signing the Lisbon Treaty, making British laws and British judgements subordinate to those of the European Union.

David Davis for Freedom is launched today, news from which will be syndicated on this blog.

If you wondered why David Davis dropped his support for an English parliament and English referendum in favour of the constitutionally unworkable 'English Votes on English Matters' the answer is 'collective responsibility'.

If each of the other nations of the United Kingdom is going to have its own parliament , then England's choice should be no less. If Labour truly believes that this is the proper future for the people of Scotland and Wales, their logic must mean the same for England. This means equal treatment in all respects. Not just financially, although we should have funding equality for England, Scotland and Wales. Nor just in Westminster representation - although we should have that equalised from the next election, not in fifteen years time as Labour propose.

The people of England deserve no less than the same choice as the peoples of Wales and Scotland last September: a referendum on whether they want a parliament of their own. In their own words, Labour should trust the people - in this case the people of England. An English parliament, on the same basis as the Scottish one, will be the minimum that the English people are likely to be satisfied with.

Anything less will lead to disaffection and discontent, to a belief that the English are being treated as second class citizens in their own land. If Labour wanted to bring about the dissolution of the United Kingdom, that disaffection would be the way to do it.

Now if he'd said that at the Conservative leadership hustings who knows how things would have turned out? What an opportunity missed.

Back in June I delivered a well deserved broadside to David Davis and Iain Dale who, in defiance of their previously stated beliefs, decided to run for the Conservative Party leadership on an English Votes on English Matters ticket.

As it turned out it was not the winning ticket and they got beaten, and deservedly so if they are not prepared to stand by what they believe. It puzzled me though. Why would two people that have previously stated that England should have a parliament suddenly, and without any explanation (at the time or since), change their stance for a leadership campaign?

The great tragedy is that they lost to David Cameron, a Blair clone who lacks any convincing ideology or visible integrity. My problem with Cameron is the same as my problem with Blair: I don't believe that he is sincere; policy is made on the hoof depending on which way the wind is blowing; style over substance; spin over fact; and, worst of all he's smarmy. I would dearly have loved Davis to win because he supported an English parliament, he fiercely opposed Labour's attacks on civil liberties and he took a sensible line over the EU. Most of all though I believed that he was sincere and that his word was his bond.

But it wasn't. He back-tracked on the one issue that is most important to me - an English parliament - and in doing so he lost my support.

Did Davis and Dale really have a change of heart and decide that English Votes on English Matters, as opposed to an English parliament, was the answer? Or were they, in the style of Cameron and Blair, making policy decisions not on their beliefs but on what they thought would get them elected? I doubt that we shall ever know.

Yesterday Iain Dale published an article on his blog that makes me believe that treachery was the correct word. I quote from the article:

Christine ought to be a Conservative. Indeed, she ought to be a Conservative MP. But she thinks the Conservatives have failed her because of their reluctance to adopt the policy of instituting an English Parliament. English votes for English measures is not enough for her and her friends. Never having been a great fan of devolution and a critic of bloated bureaucracy I have been singularly unimpressed with what either the Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly have achieved. Any yet, and yet... there can be little doubt that there is a great feeling of injustice among many in England, particularly as a disproportionate number of our leaders seem to be Scots. The Liberal Democrats, and Simon Hughes in particular, seem quite keen on an English Parliament and I am concerned that we Conservatives may be outflanked on this if we are not careful. We ought to be attracting Christine Constable back to the Conservatives. Let the debate begin.

Iain, it's time for you to make amends. Salvation lies in joining the Witanagemot Club.

Up to 570,000 illegal immigrants are living in the UK, according to a new Government estimate published today. (this figure does not include the 716,000 to 772,000 asylum seekers whose applications are already being processed)

That's 1% of the UK population. And the Government wonders why far-right parties are making gains!

England is one of the most densely populated countries in the world. It has nearly twice the population density of Germany, 4 times that of France and 12 times that of the USA. 59,000 new homes will be required in England each year for the next 17 years for immigrants, and that's in a country that has a chronic housing shortage - according to the UK Government the South East of England alone (already the most densely populated region in Europe) requires 640,000 new houses over the next 20 years, with 200,000 of them to be built on the greenbelt.

Commenting on the new illegal immigrant statistics Immigration Minister Tony McNulty said:

It is interesting that the Government releases these statistics, which only a a few months ago it said were impossible to generate, when it is loosing the ID Card debate. And it is quite typical of the UK Government to be two-faced enough to use this piece of news - another that demonstrates their incompetence - to sell to us a piece of legislation that will undermine our civil liberties. In essence what they are saying is, "we fucked up, now you pay the price."

David Davis, the Conservative Party leader in waiting, said this of ID cards:

And as the Guardian points out David Davis has also argued that any ID card system had to be measured against four criteria:

As yet the Government has failed to convince the public on any of those four criteria. And the cost of this new ID Card state? £18 billion ($40 billion Canadian), a tenth of what the UK Government presently spends on the Immigration and Nationality Department of the Home Office, whose job is immigration control, citizenship and asylum. Here's an idea, why not spend the money earmarked for ID cards on processing illegal immigrants and preventing terrorists coming into Britain?

The UK Government is using terrorism and illegal-immigration to scare-monger the British into giving up their hard-won freedoms. Home Secretary Charles Clarke has even accused those who oppose ID Cards of "liberal woolly thinking" and spreading false fears but was rebuked by the civil rights group Liberty who stated:

Absolutely, for once Dubbya is spot on because people will still enter Britain using foreign documents - genuine or forged - and ID cards offer no more deterrent to people smugglers than passports and visas.

I am an Englishman, and I am free to walk around England without having to present papers to an agent of the state. It is up to the agent of the state to prove to me that they are who they say they are, and if the state cannot control our borders to keep out people that have no right to be in England, and who threaten the safety of me and my family, then the Government should resign immediately.

No2ID joins my blogroll.