I can understand the ideas behind giving workers rights, such as paid maternity leave, but it seems a bit much to me when women will be forced to take six weeks off, whether they want to return to work or not. What if, in these days of sexual equality, the father is raising the baby? The same applies to working hours limits, fair enough give people the right not to work more than 48 hours a week (or 35 if you are French!) but some people, especially the less well off, might like the chance to work overtime and earn a bit more cash every now and again!

I suppose those who decide these things can’t concieve of a situation in which their do-gooding is not appreciated and believe by making it compulsory they are empowering us to make the right choices.

A survey has shown that three quarters of people didn’t know how many countries made up Great Britain. Most answered four, presumably adding Northern Ireland to England, Scotland and Wales.

One fellow interviewed, a Mr G. Brown, stated that there were two nations, Scotland and Wales, a collection of regions, known as the piggy bank, and something longwinded about “shared values” which caused our researcher to fall asleep.

MPs have been told they will lose part of their communications allowance if their blogs are party political or insulting to fellow MPs.

Paul Flynn, who dismissed the 1984 campaign, has described the removal of his allowance as “censorship”, particularly as it seemed to be inspired by his less than flattering descriptions of colleagues. Mr Flynn will now fund the blog himself, claiming a £250 a year cost. Maybe we should tell him it is easy to set up a free blog? He needn’t have troubled the £10,000 annual allowance MPs voted themselves last year.

Also in the Beeb article, Derek Wyatt, who didn’t even mention the 1984 campaign on his blog, complains that: “They have got it completely wrong. They don’t understand the net. They simply don’t get it. It is like 1984.” He alledgedly hosted party political videos, which have now been removed so I can neither confirm nor deny this.

Ah, so now it’s like 1984 is it?

When we complain about ID cards which mean all our most intimate details including DNA stored in one dangerously accessible database, the resulting “papers please” policing, our children’s details in a national database that MPs’ children are exempt from as it is insecure, the most CCTV per head of population in the world, the fact you can’t walk down the street in fancy dress without being stopped under the terrorism act, that a landlord can’t allow smoking in his own pub even in a sealed and ventilated area, where laws introduced to “fight terror” are used to check on school catchment areas and dog shit, where those branded terrorists include party conference protestors and the Icelandic government and school kids taking photos on trips, when we worry that the EU wants to censor blogs, that Hazel Blears thinks our views aren’t as valid as hers, when new laws have been introduced by New Labour at a rate of about 1 a day, with no seeming effect on violent crime, when every email, phone call, text and website visited is recorded, when people can be held up to 28 days with no charge and we know the government wants more… when we say any of these things and suggest we should stop moving towards 1984, we are told we are exaggerating, paranoid, even aiding terrorists.

But when one MP is told he cannot use our money to advertise his own political party, now all of a sudden it is like 1984!

Holding both those positions must surely count as doublethink.

Houses of Parliament ‘infested with vermin’

Talk about stating the obvious!

A report by economic experts will claim that full fiscal autonomy for Scotland would mean the end of the United Kingdom. However some level of increased financial independence is likely, possibly assigned revenues where the block grant would be linked to the tax take in Scotland currently paid to Westminster.

There is no possible reform that will please everyone. The English believe they are subsidising Scotland (true most of the time, depending on the price of oil). The Scottish won’t accept any cut in money. The SNP want more flexibility to change taxes and borrow, which Labour won’t countenance. The Welsh are probably just annoyed they are being ignored in all these debates!

I still think the only consistent way to stop England and Scotland arguing is full independence for all the UK nations.

It has been unfashionable in political circles to talk of ‘family values’ in recent years, raising memories of attacks on single mothers and John Major’s ill-fated back-to-basics campaign.

But the Conservatives, who have previously pledged to include recognition of marriage in the tax system, could be bringing these issues back to the frontline. A report by Iain Duncan Smith will list family breakdown as a major cause of the ‘broken society’ and suggest a number of measures to strengthen families including making pre-nuptual agreements legally binding and increasing access rights post-divorce to fathers and grandparents.

As somewhat of a traditionalist who was lucky enough to grow up in a stable married family with loving parents I do not feel it would be wrong to say that traditional families produce the best outcomes for children, on average, and Mr Duncan Smith’s statistics seem to back this up. However whether you can encourage more people to get married and stay together with a few laws remains to be seen. Also there is a balance to be struck between not encouraging people in difficult circumstances to bring children into the world that they can’t provide for, and protecting those children who are in these circumstances already.

It will be interesting to see how strongly the Tories push the broken society and families agenda during the financial crisis, and interesting to see how Labour respond.

It would seem a shame to let 500,000 culled dear go to waste.

Channel Four are to show a four part series set around the English civil war, and this has prompted Ronan Bennett in the Guardian to pen a piece on the English revolution.

He disputes that the Commonwealth of England was an aberration in English history, and argues it changed things fundamentally, despite the return of Charles II as king. He quotes one who believes the outcome of the civil war was “a significant acceleration in the process of the development of a distinctive English polity and political culture” and attacks those who use the eventual return to kingship and gradual development of our current constitutional monarchy as evidence for our “genius for compromise”.

I am of the view that it is possible to praise gradualism, while accepting the roles of radicals. Unknown changes have unknown outcomes, revolutions are too often replaced with something as bad or worse than what went before. Parliament had no more day-to-day power under Lord Protector Cromwell than it had under Charles. But when Charles II was invited by return by parliament it did set a precedent of parliamentary sovereignty over the king, reinforced in the Glorious Revolution when monarchs were again exchanged under parliamentary control.

Bennett also compares and contrasts two fascinating quotes, one from King Charles and one from Thomas Rainsborough at the famous Putney debates. Charles said:

I must tell you their liberty and freedom consists in having of government, those laws by which their life and their goods may be most their own. It is not having a share in government. Sir, that is nothing pertaining to them. A subject and a Sovereign are clear different things.

and Rainsborough:

For really I think that the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live, as the greatest he; and therefore, truly, Sir, I think it’s clear that every man that is to live under a government ought first by his own consent to put himself under that government.

The first sentence of Charles is correct, laws under which our lives and our goods are our own are desirable, but his belief in an absolute monarch delivering them is misguided. Having a share in government is a good way of ensuring that government acts in the best interests of the majority. Of course having a share in government is no guarantee of good law or liberty and freedom, as we well know.

That is where Rainsborough comes in. Consenting to put oneself under a government is important. Obviously it is impossible for everyone to consent, there are circumstances in which a community has the right to act against one who threatens them, whatever their consenting status, we call this the law. But also we accept that majoritarianism is not correct, there are laws to protect minority groups and individuals from the tyranny of a majority elected democracy.

The concept of consent is the main reason I am a nationalist, using the admittedly circular definition that a nation is a group who feel enough common identity to consent to submit to soveriegn government decided by the democratic will of their own nation. I believe this achieves the best form of government, achieves the best chance of consent and consensus. I believe it achieves the most interested electorate and the best relations between electorate and elected, leading in turn, one would hope to (libertarian) laws under which our goods and lives are our own.

My words are idealistic, and I accept the realism of gradualism to achieve change. I accept that my libertarian views are not shared by everyone, but as England is my nation I feel I should stay and argue my case, and I accept the democracy of my fellows.

Of course, modern English nationalism faces different challenges to the 17th century. But we can look to the past for lessons, guidance and inspiration. Or even just for interest. It would seem strange to campaign for an English palriament now, and not be interested in the major developments of the English parliament in the past.

Ronan Bennet has no doubts there was an English revolution. I hope there can be a peaceful second one.

The Republic of Ireland is a lovely country. Its people are some of the best educated in the world. The economic development, although stalling with everyone else now, was for many years a miracle, helped by the EU, but also by a low tax regime and the highly educated population. The referendum clause in the constitution is one many of us in other countries respect.

But it seems that the EU, whatever financial help it may have provided Ireland in the past, is having a bad influence on the Republic’s politicians.

In the time since the Lisbon treaty was rejected in an Irish referendum, despite the Yes vote having the support of all the major political parties bar Sinn Fein, all the mainstream media and even most of the Catholic Church, there has been a search for someone to blame and for how the ‘correct’ result could be obtained in future.

The politicians are looking to change a law that both sides of referendum campaigns must get equal time in media broadcasts. Although not directly linked to the Lisbon referendum, Bruno Waterfield certainly thinks there is a link. The argument advanced, as ridiculous as the CIA conspiracy theory, is that the current law enables paedophiles to be given equal time in a child safety referendum!

I don’t think any intelligent person needs me to point out just how stupid this argument is. The Irish electorate are not stupid, and I am sure that this condescending attitude to their democratically expressed opinions can only further harden there distrust of anti-democratic EU structures, and make winning any repeat referendum even less likely.

Today is the sixtieth birthday of His Royal Highness, the Prince of Wales and the Secret Person wishes him well.

Though it seems outdated, the long-term nature of our constitutional monarchy seems to me to provide a good balance against the rapidly changing fashions of short-term politicians whose only care is for the next election. Though it is popular to say that the Queen does a good job (and she does) but that Charles will not, I disagree and so does the Queen.

It seems to me that Charles, both priveleged and constrained by his position, is a man with a real sense of duty. Using the power he has by virtue of his birth, and his wealth, he has done what he can to make a difference in areas that matter to him. I may not agree with him all the time, but cannot doubt his sincerity or hard work in supporting organic farming, architecture and helping the young. Though he is often outspoken, I have no doubt he is well aware that it would not be appropriate when he becomes king. The man has had his whole life to prepare, and I have no doubt he will do a good job when the time comes. Charles is also, clearly, a caring and loving father.

I wish him all the best upon his sixtieth birthday.