Desperate Labour playing the ‘English’ card in Stoke

Last weekend saw a massive mobilization of UKIP supporters for the Stoke Central by-election, with over 200 members turning up on Saturday and another 70 on Sunday to support our party leader and candidate, Paul Nuttall.

I spent two days on the doorsteps with Freddy, Jim and Patricia as a four man canvassing team, talking with local residents and receiving a tremendous reception – I was even greeted with a big sloppy kiss on one occasion, albeit from a very friendly fox terrier!

The Labour campaign team had been around one street before us and what I found left me absolutely incredulous.

Playing the ‘English Card’

Left in the road was a Labour leaflet carrying the image of their candidate, Gareth Snell.

To my immense surprise, the Cross of St George was prominent at the top of the leaflet – did anybody run this past Lady Nugee, Emily Thornberry MP, who openly sneered at the sight of an English flag during a previous election campaign in Essex?

Indeed, I find the whole idea of Labour putting the flag of our country on their leaflets quite ridiculous in view of their disdain for our national identity as shown in their policy.

Let me explain……

Continue reading

Advertisements

The anti English voice of Jeremy Corbyn

Much has been made during the Labour leadership election of the democratic credentials of frontrunner Jeremy Corbyn MP

However, whilst he has been very vocal on the issue of self-determination for the Palestinians for a number of years, the following article from Eddie Bone of The independent lobbying group, Campaign for an English Parliament (CEP) shows that he is not so keen on extending self-determination to the English – Indeed, he supports the EU plan of breaking England down in to regions as can be seen on the following video!

 

Continue reading

McKay Commission fails to answer West Lothian Question

Following on from my posts about the FOI requests concerning the 1997 Devolution Act being ignored, the post from the Wonko’s World blog reprinted below dissects the findings of the McKay Commission and how the discrimination against England within the Union is at best being ignored by the British Government.

 

The McKay Commission on the West Lothian Question has reported today with the conclusion that not addressing the West Lothian Question is unsustainable and that nothing should be changed to address the West Lothian Question.

Sir William McKayBritish government puts Scot in charge of commission deciding whether Scots should vote on English laws(Photo above)

The report says that English-only legislation should be supported by a majority of British MPs representing constituencies in England and that they should pass a resolution saying that they’re not going to do it again.

And that’s it – no ban on British MPs from constituencies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland from voting on laws that are devolved in their own country, nothing to prevent a repeat of the shameful way Scottish MPs voted through foundation hospitals and university tuition fees for England.  The procedures of the British House of Commons “should be changes to encourage MPs to follow this approach” (my emphasis).

The report says that instead of requiring a majority of MPs representing constituencies in England to pass a bill affecting England only, they should just publish the voting record of MPs representing constituencies in England alongside the final result.

If a government was seen to have failed to attract the support of a majority of MPs from England [or England and Wales] for business affecting those interests, it would be likely to sustain severe political damage.

This is pie in the sky stuff from the Scotsman the Brits ironically put in charge of this English commission.  It was well publicised at the time and has continued to be well publicised that it was British MPs elected in Scotland who imposed tuition fees on English students yet despite all the campaigns and violent protests about them being introduced (and then tripled) there has been no mention of this fact by the campaigners, protesters or the media.  In fact, the executive summary of the report also fails to mention these votes, raising the prospect of it happening but then dismissing it by pointing out that the party with a majority in the British Parliament has only had a minority in England twice which is completely irrelevant.

Specifically it raises the possibility that a majority opinion among MPs from England on such laws could be outvoted by a UK-wide majority of all UK MPs. But it is extremely rare for this to happen. Since 1919, only in the short-lived parliaments of 1964–66 and February–October 1974 has the party or coalition forming the UK Government not also enjoyed a majority in England.

The report recognises that “people in England are unhappy about the existing arrangements and support change” but ignores – by cherry picking the surveys it quotes – the fact that the majority of that support for change is for an English Parliament.  It goes on to say that British MPs representing constituencies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should not be banned from voting on English matters because that “would create two different classes of MP” completely missing the point that there are already two different classes of MP – those who can vote on domestic affairs in their own constituency and those who can’t, those who can vote on laws for another country where the people affected can’t hold them to account and those who can be held to account by every voter their decisions affect.

The commission report says that the democratic deficit in England as a result of the botched devolution deal that left England out is accidental:

In the absence of change in the way the House of Commons works, the consequence – clearly unintended, but nonetheless important – may be to impede the voicing of any distinctively English concerns, or perceived concerns, that exist on wholly or mainly English matters.

I don’t believe for a moment that the way England is treated as a British colony is accidental and the refusal of the British government to release the minutes of the 1997 Cabinet meetings on devolution makes me all the more suspicious.  The spurious excuse for withholding the minutes is that it would undermine the principle of collective decision making but last week Margaret Thatcher’s papers from the Falklands war were published which showed that Ken Clarke – a current member of the Cabinet – opposed kicking the Argentinians out of the Falklands and favoured collaboration with them instead.  If those papers don’t undermine the principle of collective decision making then what does?

McKay and his researchers make it very clear that they have sought opinions from all parts of the UK on how England should be government:

Any reforms undertaken to respond to English concerns must therefore be mindful of possible impacts outside England and seek to mitigate such impacts.

In 1997, however, nobody in England was asked for an opinion on how Scotland and Wales should be governed.  We weren’t even asked for an opinion on how England should be government and we’ve been refused the right to voice our opinion on it ever since.

The report dismisses an English Parliament within a British federation out of hand, claiming that “the great majority of evidence submitted to [them] was, however, set firmly against the idea of an English Parliament”.  This “evidence” was:

There are no precedents of federal systems in which one component makes up over five-sixths of the overall population of a state. There is a wide view that such a big unit would destabilise the state as a whole, both in relation to the three much smaller units in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, but also in relation to the federal UK parliament and government, to which an English parliament would be likely to be a powerful rival.

While there is no precedent of a federal system with one constituent part comprising 80% of the population working, there is no precedent of it not working.  There is evidence of discrimination or poor treatment of a native population bringing down entire empires though so the commission is shown to be very selective in what “evidence” it considers.

The argument that an English Parliament would somehow dominate a federal British government is a nonsense – in a federal structure the English Parliament would be concerned only with English domestic affairs, the same as the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Northern Irish Assembly are now.  If a reserved matter was of such specific national interest that the English Parliament and one or more of the other national parliaments were at loggerheads over it then it is clearly something that should be devolved anyway.

Any federal system requires a delineation of competences, which are usually arbitrated by a supreme court that would be able to overrule the UK parliament, as well as binding the devolved institutions. This would be a radical departure from UK constitutional practice. In this and in other respects, the “massive upheaval in governmental arrangements that would be needed to create a new Parliament for 50 million people” would not appear a proportionate response to the current sense of disadvantage in England.

I fail to see the problem with a constitutional court and in fact proposed this as part of my case for a British confederation – a solution that the McKay commission didn’t consider.  The British government (and devolved governments) should be bound by the law.  Changing the law to legitimise breaking the law is clearly wrong and a constitutional court should be able to bind a government in its judgements.  Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  Nobody and that’s why our politicians have been able to lie, cheat and thieve their way through their political careers with relative impunity.  A constitutional court is an eminently sensible suggestion.

Whether the creation of an English Parliament is considered by politicians and academics to be “proportionate” or not is irrelevant.  It is an integral part of the only two workable solutions to the democratic deficit experienced in England that maintains a British union and is what most polls show that most people in England want.

It seems unlikely in the current climate that citizens would favour having more politicians than now, or the costs associated with establishing a new institution.

The “more politicians, more cost” argument about an English Parliament is so discredited that it really shouldn’t have made it into this report containing “expert” evidence and opinion at all.  The vast majority of legislation currently passed by the British government is either English-only legislation now or would be under a federal system of government.  There is no need for over 650 British MPs with most of their work being the responsibility of another government.  Simply taking the number of British MPs representing constituencies in England and applying that number to a devolved English Parliament and redistributing the difference would result in no net increase in politicians but by being a bit more ambitious, the total number of politicians in the British and English parliaments could easily be decreased.

The cost is also a non-argument.  Former Tory MP, Chris Gill, wrote a paper on creating a British federation when he was still an MP.  The paper proposed turning the House of Commons into an English Parliament and the House of Lords into a federal British Parliament and found that in today’s money, it would save almost half a billion a year.

The report touches on cross-border effects of English legislation and uses that as a reason not to ban British MPs representing constituencies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland from voting on English laws.  It fails to examine the existing example of the Scottish government being given jurisdiction over sections of the River Tweed in England and its English tributaries which means English people accused of unauthorised fishing on an English river can be summoned to appear before a Scottish Sheriff in a Scottish court to be tried under Scottish law.

Cross-border effects of English legislation under the British government are also not fully explored.  The requirement of all young English people to remain in education until the age of 18 is a perfect example – the British government has passed this law without considering the cross-border effects resulting in there still being unanswered questions as to how people moving from England before finishing their post-16 education will continue to be educated in Scotland and Wales or if Scottish people will be exempted from post-16 education despite the fact that it comes into force this September.

EU legislation is given a brief mention, pointing out that it is applied differently to England than it is in Scotland, Wales and northern Ireland and that there is no differentiation between English and British interests.  The report fails to point out that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own representation to the EU.

So, that’s the report in all it’s inglorious mediocrity but what’s wrong with the proposal itself?  The proposals put forward by the report won’t actually change change anything in any material way.  The standing orders for committees might change but that’s just a framework.  Most English people have little interest in how these committees are formed, they’re bothered about the fact that British MPs representing constituencies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland get to vote on English laws and sometimes get to overrule the wishes of the majority of British MPs representing constituencies in England.  The McKay commission’s proposals don’t address this at all.  It isn’t even the unworkable “English Votes on English Laws” constitutional fudge, it’s a fudge of that fudge and a waste of everyone’s time, money and effort.

There are only three workable solutions to the democratic deficit experienced by England in the British union.  The first option and the one that causes the least constitutional upheaval is a federal structure which sees England given a devolved English Parliament with at least the same powers as the Scottish Parliament.  The second option is a more ambitious constitutional change, creating a British confederation.  The third option is English independence.  English Votes on English Laws and any of the variants proposed now or in the past just can’t be made to work.  A politician can’t exclusively represent British interests one day and exclusively represent English interests the next.  English laws need to be proposed, amended and voted on by politicians elected in England to represent English interests in an English government.  English Votes on English Laws would give us British politicians elected in England to represent British interests in the British government making British laws for England.  It would be an unworkable mess.

The unwritten brief of the McKay commission was to come up with a way of maintaining the status quo whilst appearing to be addressing the concerns of English people about who gets to make English laws.  In this respect, the commission has successfully met its objectives and the British government now has an “independent” report telling them that the answer to the West Lothian Question is to con English people into thinking that they’re doing something about it whilst doing absolutely nothing to address it.

Original Source material – http://www.wonkosworld.co.uk/wordpress/2013/03/25/mckay-commission-fails-to-answer-west-lothian-question/

 

 

Cabinet Office refuses to release minutes of 1997 Devolution Meeting

In January I re-posted from the Wonko’s World blog details of the author’s request to the Cabinet Office to see notes from the meetings concerning the 1997 Devolution Act under Freedom of Information .(See Below)

 https://englishpatriot.co.uk/2013/01/11/devolution-what-have-they-got-to-hide/

 

A number of us sent in an FOI request as suggested and last week an answer was received – As we all got pretty much the same answer, I have once again copied from the blog and that answer can be seen below.

One thing that did strike me as being very interesting is the part just above the link to a section of Hansard, the record of debate in the house. In it, the FOI team refer to ‘devolution to Scotland and Wales and the English Regions – Not England, but the English Regions!

 

Part of EU policy is to break England in to nine regions as our country is ‘integrated’ in to the European Union – Does this part of the letter hint at that policy, and is this why release of this information has been suppressed twice before and this FOI request has been also been rejected?

Parliament from the Thames

 

From Wonko’s World

 

Original link – http://www.wonkosworld.co.uk/wordpress/2013/03/13/cabinet-office-refuse-to-release-minutes-of-1997-devolution-meetings/

 

In January I put in a Freedom of Information Request to the Cabinet Office asking for a copy of the minutes and Terms of Reference of the 1997 cabinet meetings on devolution that resulted in Scotland and Wales getting devolved national governments and an agreement that England would be dismembered along EU regional lines with huge glorified county councils begging for scraps under the table.

These minutes have been requested more than once and on every occasion they have been refused.  The Information Commissioner has ruled against the Cabinet Office withholding the minutes and been overruled.  The Information Commissioner has been to court and obtained a court order instructing the Cabinet Office to release the minutes and it has been vetoed by the Home Secretary.  Twice, by Home Secretary’s of different parties.  Clearly these minutes are a smoking gun and we have a right to see what’s in them.

Here is the response from the Cabinet Office:

Dear Mr Parr,

Ref: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST

I refer to your request where you asked: “Under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, I am requesting a copy of the minutes of the 1997 Cabinet meetings on devolution. I am also requesting a copy of the Terms of Reference for the cabinet committee headed by Lord Irvine that the minutes relate to and any legal or departmental advice provided to the cabinet in relation to these meetings.”

I am writing to advise you that following a search of our paper and electronic records, I have established that the information you requested is held by the Cabinet Office.Some of the information you have requested is exempt under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information Act. Section 21 exempts information if this information is reasonably accessible to the applicant by other means. Section 21 is an absolute exemption and the Cabinet Office is not required to consider whether the public interest favours disclosure of this information.

The terms of reference for the Ministerial Committee on Devolution to Scotland and Wales and the English Regions (DSWR) were published in Hansard on 9 June 1997. I attach a link:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmhansrd/vo970609/text/70609w03.htm

The remainder of the information you seek is exempt under section 35(1)(a) and (b) of the Freedom of Information Act. This is a qualified exemption and therefore subject to the public interest test. The information is exempt under section 35(1)(a) and (b), which relates to the formulation or development of government policy, and Ministerial communications. We accept that there is public interest in improving public understanding of the development of Government policy on devolution and the way Cabinet Government operates more generally. We recognise that the decisions Ministers make have a significant impact on the lives of citizens and there is a public interest in this process being transparent. We also recognise that greater transparency makes government more accountable to the electorate and increases trust.

However, there is a countervailing public interest in protecting the constitutional convention of Cabinet collective decision-making. Ministers will reach collective decisions more effectively if they are able to debate questions of policy freely and in confidence. The maintenance of this convention is fundamental to the continued effectiveness of Cabinet government, and its continued existence is therefore manifestly in the public interest.

In relation to the specific documents you have requested, the policy discussions in this area are ongoing and the adverse effect of disclosing these documents now would not be diminished by the fact that the documents date from 1997. The matters discussed at Cabinet are not matters of purely historic interest, but are important matters of current discussion and debate. We therefore conclude that the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

Once again I have to ask: what have these traitors got to hide?

I am of course appealing to the Information Commissioner and I would ask that anyone else who joined me in requesting the minutes also appeals.  We can’t allow these people to continue to hide behind a veil of secrecy when the very existence of our nation is in their hands and negotiations with the Scottish separatists are being conducted in our name.

Devolution – What have they got to hide?

Re-posted from the ‘Wonkos World’ Blog….

 

How you can help to get cabinet devolution minutes released

Parliament from the Thames

http://www.wonkosworld.co.uk/wordpress/2013/01/10/how-you-can-help-to-get-cabinet-devolution-minutes-released/

The SNP have asked the British government for the minutes of the 1997 cabinet meeting on devolution in which it was decided that the Scots and Welsh would be allowed self government whilst England would not.

This important document has been requested a number of times under the Freedom of Information Act and blocked every time.  The Information Commissioner has ruled that release of the minutes is in the public interest and ordered their release but they were blocked by the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve.

What are these traitors so desperate to hide?

Vetoing FOI requests requires the unanimous agreement of the cabinet.  When Jack Straw and Dominic Grieve vetoed their release in 2009 and 2012, these people conspired to keep the minutes secret:

Jack Straw Dominic Grieve
The Rt Hon Gordon Brown MP The Rt Hon. David Cameron MP
The Rt Hon Harriet Harman QC MP The Rt Hon. Nick Clegg MP
The Rt Hon The Lord Mandelson PC The Rt Hon. William Hague MP
The Rt Hon Alistair Darling MP The Rt Hon. George Osborne MP
The Rt Hon David Miliband MP The Rt Hon. Kenneth Clarke QC MP
The Rt Hon Jack Straw MP The Rt Hon. Theresa May MP
The Rt Hon Alan Johnson MP The Rt Hon. Dr Liam Fox MP
The Rt Hon Hilary Benn MP The Rt Hon. Philip Hammond MP
The Rt Hon Douglas Alexander MP The Rt Hon. Dr Vince Cable MP
The Rt Hon John Denham MP The Rt Hon. Iain Duncan Smith MP
The Rt Hon Ed Balls MP The Rt Hon. Chris Huhne MP
The Rt Hon Ed Miliband MP The Rt Hon. Edward Davey MP
The Rt Hon Andy Burnham MP The Rt Hon. Andrew Lansley CBE MP
The Rt Hon Shaun Woodward MP The Rt Hon. Michael Gove MP
The Rt Hon The Baroness Royall of Blaisdon PC The Rt Hon. Eric Pickles MP
The Rt Hon Tessa Jowell MP The Rt Hon. Philip Hammond MP
The Rt Hon Jim Murphy MP The Rt Hon. Justine Greening MP
The Rt Hon Yvette Cooper MP The Rt Hon. Caroline Spelman MP
The Rt Hon Liam Byrne MP The Rt Hon. Andrew Mitchell MP
The Rt Hon Peter Hain MP The Rt Hon. Owen Paterson MP
The Rt Hon Bob Ainsworth MP The Rt Hon. Danny Alexander MP
The Rt Hon The Lord Adonis MP The Rt Hon. Michael Moore MP
The Rt Hon Ben Bradshaw MP The Rt Hon. Cheryl Gillan MP
The Rt Hon Nick Brown MP The Rt Hon. Jeremy Hunt MP
The Rt Hon The Lord Malloch-Brown KCMG PC The Rt Hon. David Laws MP
The Rt Hon John Healey MP The Rt Hon. Danny Alexander MP
The Rt Hon Pat McFadden MP The Rt Hon. The Lord Strathclyde PC
The Rt Hon The Lord Drayson PC The Rt Hon. The Baroness Warsi PC
The Rt Hon Jim Knight MP The Rt Hon. Francis Maude MP
The Rt Hon The Baroness Scotland of Asthal PC QC The Rt Hon. Oliver Letwin MP
The Rt Hon Dawn Primarolo MP The Rt Hon. David Willetts MP
The Rt Hon Rosie Winterton MP The Rt Hon. Sir George Young Bt MP
The Rt Hon Sadiq Khan MP The Rt Hon. Patrick McLoughlin MP
  The Rt Hon. Dominic Grieve QC MP

The minutes are really of more interest to the English than the Scots as they got what they wanted and we got shafted so we shouldn’t be leaving it to the Scots to get these minutes into the public domain.  If every English person interested in seeing what decisions were made at the cabinet meeting that have resulted in over 15 years of institutional discrimination against the English made a Freedom of Information request for the minute, it would be extremely damaging to the British government if they tried to block their release to hundreds or thousands of people.

If you want to help force the release of these minutes, you need to send an FOI request for them to foi.team@cabinet-office.gsi.gov.uk.  My request is as follows:

Under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, I am requesting a copy of the minutes of the 1997 Cabinet meetings on devolution. I am also requesting a copy of the Terms of Reference for the cabinet committee headed by Lord Irvine that the minutes relate to and any legal or departmental advice provided to the cabinet in relation to these meetings.

The bitter taste of lost opportunity (Or how every family has mad Uncles)

Recently, both myself and UKIP have been subject to on line attacks from my former party, The English Democrats.

The leadership of the ED seem to fail to grasp the fact that the biggest obstacle to England achieving the equality that they claim to want for our country is the existing triumvirate of the Lib-Lab-Con, who they rarely vent their spleen upon. Instead, they constantly attack parties outside the tired old establishment, in my opinion to prop up the egos of their main creditors and to try and establish themselves as the vanguard of the opposition more for personal hubris than our country’s best interests.

When he is not being beaten in to second place in a parish council election in a two horse race by an independent, here is the ED Leeds Chairman Chris Beverley (Paid assistant to BNP MEP Andrew Brons) having a dig at those who have a better chance of making a difference than himself (With commentary from yours truly in bold italics)

Party news update and some personal thoughts

 
 
Pic of me taken at last year’s Annual Conference
There’s a lot of very positive stuff going on in the party at the moment. (Uncles is hoping to get another one of his PFI contracts that party policy is against but he ‘specialises’ in, hopefully he will make enough to buy me my Star Trek Romulan uniform this time to match my striking haircut)
 
Annual Conference
 
I’m reliably informed that tickets for our annual conference are selling very well (We may sell half of the 50 seat capacity at the pub in St Albans that Charles Vickers has got on the cheap)
 
 This year’s conference will certainly be significantly better attended than last year’s,(I hope so, we would have struggled to fill a phonebox in Dartford outside Gregg’s) which was itself a great event at which I was given the honour of delivering this speech.   (The guest speakers all pulled out when they googled Steve Uncles and Robin Tilbrook and found their links to the far right)
 
It’s hard to believe that it is nearly a year since I gave that speech. How time flies. (I have been totally stuffed in two elections since then)
At that point there was still an intensive (at least by the standards of those involved) internet campaign aimed at destabilising the party as it welcomed new converts like me.(This was a poor effort compared to the internet campaign waged by Steve Uncles over a 5 year period that made the ED completely unelectable – Come in Tory black ops, your job is done) 
 
I allude to this in my speech. How nice it is that the internet poison mongers were treated with the contempt that they deserve and their campaign was a complete flop.(The ED vote in London halved during the GLA elections and they have failed to have anyone elected since said speech)
 
Those responsible seem to have disappeared (Sorry,Uncles is still about)(or slithered back to UKIP in one notable case)(Some of us can join a party that’s going places because we have never been members of a proscribed organisation such as the BNP – Talking of which, how is your paymaster Andrew Brons these days?) 
 
I have never met any of these people as far as I know (Some of us don’t hobnob with Hungarian brownshirts such as Jobbik or star with former BNP rising star and now English Democrats webmaster Mark Collett in Channel 4 documentaries called ‘young,nazi and proud’. Do you still have your sword?) and I know very little about them but Steve Uncles has done a good job of exposing some of personalities involved in articles on the English Passport Blog e.g. here. (Some people really need to do a course in photo shop – Either that, or learn some real writing skills with a pen and not a crayon)
 
before clicking on the link please be warned that Steve Uncles does not pull his punches when dealing with the enemies of English nationalism! (Apart from when he is asking them to give him £200k to advance their cause on the doorsteps of England) What a pleasure it is to be in a party made up of thoroughly decent Englishmen and women who don’t allow themselves to be manipulated by the kind of individuals in question though. (They are instead being manipulated by an ambulance chasing lawyer with an affable posh manner and no scruples when it comes to trying to advance himself as the new Churchill, when in fact he is the new Chamberlain)It just goes to show how frenetic internet busybodying can give a very false impression of the true situation on the ground. (Uncles has used the internet for years to project the image of a serious political party – Oops!)we should all be very wary of paying too much attention to internet gossip.(Especially that started by the aforementioned Steve Uncles) My rule is that if a person has contributed nothing to the Cause in real life then what they have to say on the internet is pretty worthless.(Step forward most of the national council of The English Democrats  – Woe betide that they may have to deliver a leaflet or canvass for votes!)- And if they hide behind a pseudonym and don’t even reveal their true identity then it goes without saying that no attention should be paid to their pontifications whatsoever.(Please pay no heed to Athelstan,Cassie, Medrussia,Janssen and various other ED supporters from the British Democracy Forum who slander others but go mad if they think their identities are being revealed)

Don’t feed the trolls! (Steve Uncles is fat enough already)

See here to book your tickets if you haven’t already. Let’s make this the best annual conference yet! (That means that maybe half will still be awake after Tilbrook’s Chairmans speech – With the rapidly diminishing numbers year on year, this may just be the one achievement that the ED manage this century!)

Link to Chris Beverley blog the original article

Chris Beverley on the BBC  Beverley – On Hitler and the Holocaust

A party that lost it’s soul

The English Democrats were the first political party I ever joined – I was impressed by the idea that the manifesto promoted English patriotism without any discrimination against my fellow countrymen of different skin colour or religion. That tied in with my idea of ‘civic’ nationalism – The small c in civic representing country,community and culture, rather than the race and religion based doctrines of the likes of the BNP and the National Front.

Eddy Butler (Above) – Former BNP elections specialist who was behind their ‘rights for whites’ campaign and stood for election in Essex recently on an English Democrats ticket

The manifesto also promoted the idea of an English parliament within a federal UK, bringing equality for the English whilst keeping together the most successful partnership of countries that the world has ever seen – Whilst this is still official ED policy (English independence as a policy has been voted down at conference before), the rogue element that is Steven Uncles is constantly blogging on independence from the Union to the extent that those few who have heard of them believe that this is one of their ideals.

Unfortunately, words on a page are only as good as the people who enact them and whilst many of my colleagues shared my views there were those in positions of seniority who were prepared to prostitute these ideals for the idea of a quick boost at the ballot box.  My opposition to the approach to Richard Barnbrook of the BNP to join in London is well documented on the internet, with Steve Uncles first trying to bully me and then trying to bribe me in to accepting him in to a position of influence for the GLA elections earlier this year. I wrote about my reasons for leaving on this site in a blog post on 24th September 2011 entitled ‘ As one chapter ends, another begins’

Above,left of the picture – Simon Deacon has stood in council elections for The English Democrats, and is a former National Front parish councillor who has spoken at national conference.

I have since only mentioned them once on here, the new year’s honours list posting that was done as a bit of fun at the turn of the year – There are many pressing issues in our society that need to be addressed and confronted, and getting involved in undignified slanging matches with high ranking members of a party that is going nowhere is not a good use of an activists time. Unfortunately, as seen by the ranting of Mr Beverley in his post that I have lampooned at the top of this article, that is all that the English Democrats movers and shakers are now good for.

Above – Robin Tilbrook sends a letter to the owner of an internet forum demanding details of a poster, asking said owner to breach The Data Protection Act. A strange position for somebody whose party calls for ‘free speech’

What was once a principled party and a possible vehicle for decent patriots has become the plaything of it’s main creditors, lurching from one pathetic election result to another and polluting the political scene with it’s schoolboy antics.

To those decent patriots remaining within the English Democrats – You have fought hard, but you can’t do any good for your country and community whilst the party is shackled by Robin Tilbrook, Steven Uncles and their new ex-BNP friends

Come and join some of your former colleagues in UKIP to make a REAL difference and get our country back!