Category Archives: liblabcon

At last the two party system is beginning to break-up!

The two party system is beginning to break-up


Monday saw the politically exciting prospect of Labour breaking up into its politically constituent parts! 
The Labour Party has long been recognised as a coalition between hard-Left figures like Corbyn, McDonnell and the late Tony Benn etc; and multi-culturalist social democrats like Chuka Umunna, David Lammy and the Milibands; the traditional Labour, like Dennis Skinner and Frank Field; and the remnant of the globalist, liberal lifestyle, Blairites. What happened on Monday looks like it may be the start of the split between the hard-Left and the others.  How that split works out in Labour will probably depend on which way the various trade unions jump. 
Then on Wednesday we had the further excitement of the Conservatives starting to break up!  

Within the Conservative Party there was always some tension between the Europhile, internationalist, social democrats like Soubry and Dominic Grieve and the apparently patriotic global Britain Brexiteers whose view of patriotism is similar to 19th Century Liberals who were opposed to the State looking after our poorer and less fortunate citizens and all for the free market and low taxes. 
Although amongst the non-parliamentary membership, I would say there is a considerable number who are patriotic people with traditional values that support welfare, health and housing provisions for all our fellow citizens.  That is however not a group that is very well represented in the Conservative Parliamentary Party.
The interesting thing from within the Conservative Party are that there are moves afoot to deselect more of the Europhile liberal values, social democrats. 
I suspect that if those MPs think that they are going to be deselected by their local party, they will jump before they are pushed and might well follow the others in jumping into the new parliamentary group with Chuka Umunna etc.
If that group manages to combine with the Liberal Democrats that will bode well for a major shift in parliamentary representation because there will then be a clear need for a patriotic political party that supports traditional values, low immigration and welfare, health and housing provision for our citizens. 
When we consider what is happening with the Union with the likelihood of Northern Ireland and Wales breaking away, it seems probable that that patriotism will be England-only focussed. 
So this is a very interesting time where we are beginning to see the shape of a possible realignment of English politics!  Let’s hope our politics can also become more honest so that when a voter is asked to vote for a Party’s candidate then that Party will be sufficiently politically coherent for the voter to be able to be sure of the real policies which the candidate will pursue if elected.

COULD YOUNG FABIAN SOCIALISTS BECOME ENGLISH NATIONALISTS?


COULD YOUNG FABIAN SOCIALISTS BECOME ENGLISH NATIONALISTS?


What I have reproduced below is a speech given by the former Labour Cabinet Minister and long-serving MP for Southampton and now Professor at Winchester University in the Centre for English Policy Studies, John Denham. 

 

John Denham is an intelligent and eloquent man, but his politics are highly Labour Party political partisan. 

 

As the speech shows he is fully alive to the risk to the Labour Party’s future of the fact that the English are becoming more nationally self-aware and that English nationalism is awakening. 

 

In the main his analysis is good although his agenda is unattractive to any real English nationalist.  He wants English nationalism to become multi-cultural and therefore in effect cease to be nationalism. The English are to be told in the words of John Prescott “there is no such nationality as English”!   
His recipe is really therefore an argument that Labour should be more effectively deceitful about England and the English Nation than they are currently being!

 

It is a good example of John Denham’s partisan unreliability, lack of objectivity, that despite having met me and quite a few other English Democrats on a number of occasions, he is unwilling to openly admit that there is a campaigning English nationalist party!   
It is also deceitful of him to only quote the BBC’s survey which showed many people saying that they are both English and British.  Whereas the much larger and much more authoritative survey, the National Census in 2011, showed that 60.4% of English people identified as only English and not British!

 

The speech will however, I think, be interesting to anybody who cares at all about England and the English Nation. 

 

Here is what John Denham said:-

 


English identity and Labour

This is the text of a talk given to the Young Fabians in Westminster on 8th January 2019.

Thank you for the invitation to talk about English identity. The Young Fabians have led the way in addressing the issue, including your recent suggestion that Labour should support an English Parliament. But in my view it is still too rare and unusual for any part of the Labour Party to organise a discussion about England and English identity.

 

Because this is the really interesting thing: England and the English are an ever-present component of our national culture and our politics. But England – as England – is barely mentioned in the national political debate; it is only occasionally addressed in the national culture of the establishment. And if English identity is mentioned, it is to be disparaged and abused.

 

There is now a fair amount of data about English identity, but the quality of academic work – particularly on what people mean when they say they are English – is woefully poor. This allows lazy writers to ascribe to the English dreams of Empire, entrenched racism, or rural idyllic romanticism. They project whatever prejudice takes their fancy unencumbered by troublesome facts.

 

Despite this, we know more about English identity than many might think. And, of course, those of us who spent a long time talking and listening with English identifiers in our constituencies have plenty of insights ourselves.

 

The cost of ignoring England and English has been high. If you are a Remainer the cost is paid in the overwhelmingly English decision to Leave. If you are Labour, the cost is paid in the failure to win votes in English places and amongst English people who were once proud to be Labour. If you want a multi-cultural society shaped by tolerance, inclusion and shared values, the cost is paid by our failure to strengthen the versions of Englishness that meet that challenge and in the persistence in a minority of an ethnicised and racist national identity

 

Above all, if we want to see a radical and progressive transformation of our economy and society to serve the common good, we pay the price in a divided nation, within a divided union, in which the ‘many’ Labour wants to stand for, is too divided and disparate to bring about change.

 

Engaging with England and Englishness is not a quaint cultural diversion. It’s central to the possibilities of progressive change.

 

Nationally (in England) about 80% say they are strongly English; and 80% strongly British.

 

As those figures make clear, most people who live in England say they are English AND British to some degree. The largest group (around 35-40%) are equally English and British. But either side of this there are rather more ‘more English’ than are ‘more British’ – about 3:2 in most surveys.

 

One striking thing is that, in most Labour meetings, there are few who say they are more English than British, and many who are more British than English. There is no ‘must’ about national identity; no sense that people should feel English. But it is very important to be aware when the identities of those in our own party are out of step with many of the people who we want to vote for us.

National identities are about far more than flags and football. In the classic academic description, they are ‘imagined communities’: that set of shared  stories, histories, culture, values and symbols that enable us to feel a sense of common identity with people we have never met.

 

But they are also offer world views; stories, narratives that help us make sense of the world as we experience it. And in a nation where multiple identities are common, people will emphasise the identity, or the mix of identities that make most sense of our own experience.

 

People who identify as more English are also more likely to be rooted within England -that is they are more likely to also identify with a town, city or region of England. They are though, much less likely than British identifiers to see themselves as European.

 

The English are significantly more patriotic – not just about being English but about being British too. You won’t be surprised to know that the people who are more English than British are those most proud to be English. But they are also the most proud to be British!  People who are British not English are not particularly proud of being British.

 

These same is true about national characteristics. In the popular mind, there is virtually no difference about the extent to which British or English identities are seen to be open, welcoming tolerant, friendly, generous. But people who identify as English or English and British, are much more likely to associate both identities with these relatively positive characteristics, than do the people who say ‘I’m only British’.

 

In summary, as you move across the spectrum of identities, we move from people who are strongly rooted within England, towards those with weaker local and more strongly international identities; we move from those who are strongly patriotic to those who have less pride in any national identity; we move from those who associate national identities with positive values to those who are less likely to be positive about any national identity

 

And there is a final but very important point: the differ on attitudes to the governance of England, the union, our relationship with the union and people’s sense of political power.

 

The English are more likely to be dissatisfied with the way they are governed (though few people of any identity think they are well represented), they feel least able to influence politics and business, they are most likely to support an English parliament and certainly to want English MPs to make English laws, most strongly want to put England’s interests ahead of the union.  They most strongly feel the Barnett formula is unfair and have a far higher estimation of the importance of the EU in shaping domestic policy than do their peers in Wales or Scotland.

 

So, we can begin to see how the different world views expressed in these different identities are reflected in people’s political choices. Even though we don’t hear people say ‘I’m voting Leave’ because it is the ‘English’ thing to do, or ‘Labour’ because it is the ‘British’ thing to do, those choices do map strongly on to people’s sense of national identity.

 

For reasons we don’t entirely understand, Britishness rather than Englishness has emerged as the choice for those who are most comfortable and potentially successful in the world as it is; they are least attached to a sense of place, most open to other identities, less patriotic. Englishness is more rooted in place. We can, then, understand why the cultural impact of immigration is most keenly felt in those places where a rooted sense of belonging is most central to people’s idea of their own identity. And, of course, we find the ‘more English’ living outside the big cities, in the smaller towns, where people have seen social and economic change go against them.

 

In short, Englishness is felt most deeply in the places where Labour has been losing ground and needs to win.

 

Tonight, because I’m talking to Fabians, I’m concentrating on that Labour vote (many of whom now unfortunately vote Tory and have supported UKIP); a fuller discussion of English identity would also consider the more traditional Conservative English Leave voters; people who are often somewhat more prosperous than the stereo-typical ‘left behind’ working class voter, though they are no less disconcerted by social change and equally out of step with metropolitan values. They are, though, a harder reach for Labour as they are less likely to share the left of centre economic views of potential English Labour voters.

 

Let’s just think about those potential Labour voters. They are older, poorer, (though not necessarily the poorest) more working-class, have spent less-time in higher education, are more economically precarious, and least likely to think it is worth voting at all.

 

If the Labour Party does not exist to work with them to change the world, I’m not sure why we do exist. Yet we are struggling amongst them. And we don’t even talk to them.

 

At this point, many on the left say: ‘why do we have to engage with national identity of any sort?’ Why can’t we just have policies for older people, policies to improve skills, policies to end austerity, policies for towns and seaside resorts?’

 

In other words, why can’t we talk about everything except the way people talk about themselves!

 

Because these voters are English; they are proud to be English, (usually proud to to be British too). If Labour is not palpably proud to be an English party; palpably proud to be British too; then we send a rather clear message: ‘we are not people like you’.

 

Indeed, many hear the message as ‘we are Labour and we don’t actually like people like you, even though we would like you to vote for us’. Fat chance. And of course, many will not even listen to our policies because most voters look for a party they can identify with BEFORE they will listen to its policies.

 

People who want to talk about policy not identity are often deliberately trying to avoid the difficult conversations: with people who are more socially conservative, with people who are more worried about migration. People who, in other words, don’t share the cosmopolitan values of the metropolitan graduates.

 

But that’s the central challenge in social democratic politics right across Europe. We can build a majority that wants to reform capitalism, that wants to make it the economy work for the common good. But only if we can unite those who are on the left economically: to do that we have to find common ground across the cultural issues that divided us.

 

So, that’s our challenge. To engage with voters who are

·      English

·      Patriotic

·      Socially conservative

·      On the left economically

·      Live disproportionately in key marginal seats

 

Our willingness to engage with English identity is a test of our willingness to engage with these voters. It’s a powerful symbol of being willing to listen. And it is evidence of a commitment to involve them fully in building a better society, not just promise to do things for them. It’s a clear sign that, for all our internationalism, building a strong, fairer nation is at the centre of our aims.

 

One of the common objections that is raised is that this is all about pandering to English nationalism.  In fact, English nationalism barely exists as a political idea or movement. It has no significant political party, no public intellectuals, no cultural movement or institutions.  Unless by nationalism you simply mean loving your country and hoping it will succeed and prosper – but on that basis, Ruth Davidson, most Scottish Tories and the whole of Scottish Labour are Scottish nationalists: which rather begs the question of what the SNP are!

 

People blame Brexit on English nationalism, but its leaders like Boris Johnson, Daniel Hannam, Michael Gove and Nigel Farage are British politicians who speak, not about England, but about Britain. They certainly have an Anglo-centric world view – only a Johnson who equates Britain and England could talk of ‘1000 years of history’ – but he tells Telegraph readers ‘it’s time to believe in our Greater Britain’.  

 

In short, it is wrong to equate Britain’s English ruling elite with the people of England.

 

The second problem group is with a different part of the elite. The anti-patriotic, cosmopolitan, British and definitely not English. Predominant in the media, much of politics, the business elite and academia, they disparage English identity as racist and xenophobic; blame the crime of empire exclusively on the English despite the enthusiastic participation of Scotland, Wales and at least some parts of Irish society in it. They, of course, are disproportionately found on the left and within Labour.

 

By dismissing English voters and English interests as English nationalism they aim to avoid engaging with England at all. They often claim that UKIP is an English nationalist party. Yet, the collapse in support for UKIP is not reflected in any fall in the strength of English identity. UKIP was a temporary home for English votes, not an expression of English interests. Brexit was a cry of pain from people who were not listened to, not people seeking a new imperial glory.


Of course, it is no coincidence that England and the English provided the bulk of the Leave vote. Only England – lacking a parliament or any national institutions of its own – has not had the chance to reimagine itself as a 21 stcentury nation in the way as Wales, Scotland and even Northern Ireland have had a chance to do as a result of democratic and constitutional changes.


And unlike the other devolved nations, the state has played no role in the development of national English identity. Some on the left like to contrast a civic, democratic Scottish identity with an ethnicised Englishness. But where did this come from? The differences between Scotland and England in attitudes towards minorities, immigration or the degree to which identities are ethnic can be greatly overstated – there is much less difference than most people think. But the different images owe a great deal to the active involvement of political leaders and the national (and also the UK) state in promoting the idea of a civic identity.

 

Nothing like that has happened in England. Neither the UK government nor the Opposition talks about England or plays any role in promoting an inclusive English identity.

 

From all of this, we can begin to see what our political strategy should be


Firstly, Labour should take a leading role in reinserting England in the national conversation. Yesterday (7 thJanuary) a plan was launched for the NHS, but in sharp contrast to what would happen in Wales and Scotland, little mention was made of the fact that it was for the English NHS. Nor did Labour’s response.

 

We have a national education service. For which nation? Clearly not for the devolved nations where they have their own policies. If it is a national education service for England, why don’t we want to say the name?

 

Secondly, Labour needs to have its own English identity, in our material, in our language, in actually celebrating St George’s Day, not just tweeting about four new bank holidays.

 

Thirdly, we need to grasp the need to England to have a national political identity including, in my view (this is not ELN policy) some form of English Parliament, or real EVEL within Westminster.

 

Fourth, we need to understand that it is the UK government that makes England such a centralized nation, and the UK government that concentrates resources and energy on London. Labour needs to go way beyond current commitments to devolve power with England – not as an alternative to English governance but as an integral part of it.

 

Finally, a Labour government should be willing to act, as the Scottish and Welsh governments do, in using the state to promote a patriotic, yet diverse and inclusive English identity.

 

None of this should be too difficult. But it would make a real difference.

 

(Here is a link to the original >>> http://www.theoptimisticpatriot.co.uk/post/182240412323/english-identity-and-labour)


LEADING REMAINER ADMITS SYSTEMATIC LYING TO THE PUBLIC

LEADING REMAINER ADMITS SYSTEMATIC LYING TO THE PUBLIC 

LEADING “LIBERAL” TORY CONFIRMS HIS ELECTIONS BASED UPON SYSTEMATIC LYING TO THE PUBLIC

Matthew Parris, the former Conservative MP who has made many bigoted remarks about Leave voters, has just published the article below, in which he admits systematically lying to the public throughout his political career in order to get himself elected and also he admits deliberately acting in such a way to undermine popular democracy. 

In reading his damning confession it is worth remembering that, not only are there others in the Conservative Party, such as Ken Clarke, Anna Soubry, Dominic Grieve and indeed Theresa May, by whom I suspect very similar confessions could also have been made, but also there are many within the Labour Party whose conduct I suspect is exactly the same. 

This kind of behaviour is wholly par for the course amongst elitist Westminster British Establishment supporters of “Liberal Democracy”!

Here is the article:-

Why I don’t, never have, and never will trust the people – by Matthew Parris (former Conservative MP)

It was late, and a friend and I were left to talk Brexit. He’s a keen and convinced Tory Brexiteer MP but to stay friends we have tended to steer off the topic. This, however, felt like a moment to talk.

The conversation taught me nothing about Brexit, something about him, and a lot about myself and the strain of Conservatism I now realise I’m part of — and which is part of me. Oddly, then, this column is not really about Brexit, but about trusting the people. I don’t. Never have and never will. Our conversation forced me to confront the fact.

My friend knows well enough why I’m a Remainer, but guessed correctly that I’ve puzzled about why he isn’t. I had not quite expected what I heard. He understands business and finance and is good at facts and figures, so I’d supposed his wish for a ‘clean’ Brexit would be all about the economic advantages. He’s a firm believer in individual choice, too, so I had supposed he would dwell on the need to ‘take back control’.

No doubt he holds to these strands of the Leave argument — but talking to me he hardly mentioned the practical benefits of Brexit. No, there was something else that seemed to drive his anxiety that we leave the EU. Otherwise, he said: ‘I just worry about our democracy, respect for our constitution and the effect that a betrayal of the 2016 referendum result would have on the people who voted for me and our party last year.’

He returned to this repeatedly, and I saw that he was sincere. As a democrat, and a Conservative who owed his position in Parliament to a little piece of England that he came from, that he knew, that knew him, and whose electors’ minds and feelings he had come to understand over the years, my friend felt with a quiet passion that he must not break his word to them, must not slither away from undertakings that had been given.

He felt the same about the electorate nationally, the British people’s trust in the Conservative party, and their confidence in politics itself. He felt, in short, conscious of an unseen bond between parliament and people, and fearful of the wider consequences should it be broken.

I did not say much, because I could see he meant it; and what he meant was not really the kind of assertion one can confound with counter-argument or counter-assertion. It was about weighing things and, the scales being within his own breast, the way the scales tipped was for him just a fact, and undeniable.

But for me they tip differently; and for me too that is a fact, and undeniable. I lay in bed that night thinking about this; and my conclusions follow. As I’m not running for office I shall not pull punches.

Tories like me, and I think we used to be in the majority, see good governance as an effort to live with democracy rather than to an effort to live by democracy. It is why we were so chary about referendums in the first place. We are wary of the populace and instinctively hostile to the instincts of the mob. We see the popular will as a sometimes dangerous thing, to be handled, guided, and on key occasions (and subtly) thwarted.

We know, however, that the people’s will cannot be overlooked. We see it as a corrective to the over-mighty and a warning to those who govern not to lose touch with popular feeling. But at the idea that the people should dictate the policies of government on a daily basis, we shudder.

Our kind of Conservatism is either in temporary abeyance, or going permanently out of fashion — I do not know which. Its decline since the middle of the 20th century has been so gradual as to mask its extent over time. At the beginning of that century it was possible for Arthur Balfour to remark: ‘I have the greatest respect for the Conservative party conference, but I would no more consult it on a matter of high policy than I would my valet’ without this being thought anything but wit; today its utterance would end a political career.

When I first went into politics, initially as a researcher, in 1977, it was commonplace among us Tories to see and describe ‘the will of the people’ not as our mentor but as a rock to be navigated. Capital punishment and judicial flogging were very popular with the public. The hanging debate at party conferences was an annual nightmare for our leading spokesmen, but I never heard it suggested, even by colleagues who supported the return of these punishments, that we should bring them back because the people wanted it.

As for colleagues opposed to both, our challenge was to find ways of ducking the issue. Once I became an MP, I did so by voting for the principle and against the practice. This subversion of democracy (in Theresa May’s phrase) caused me embarrassment, but not a second’s guilt. Sod democracy: hanging was wrong.

In the late 1970s, we Tories were painfully aware that popular feeling opposed any confrontation with the trade unions, but we believed this would prove necessary. Our response was, so far as possible, to tiptoe round the issue during the 1979 general election. We succeeded. Among ourselves we talked cheerfully about subterfuge. The Britain of 1979 and 1983 most emphatically did not vote for a massive confrontation with the coal miners. We made sure the electorate was never asked.

Even today, of course, politicians can and sometimes must dodge the popular will, and they know it. But who now dares say these things? And what today we do but no longer dare say we do, tomorrow we may not dare do. Tory paternalism is in long, slow retreat. People like me will stay where we are, increasingly exposed as our friends melt back. But what the heck.

Here is a link to the original article>>> https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/12/why-i-dont-never-have-and-never-will-trust-the-people/

MAY 2018 ENGLISH LOCAL ELECTION RESULTS


MAY 2018 ENGLISH LOCAL ELECTION RESULTS?
So what have we learnt as a result of the English 2018 local elections? Are they a political “watershed” milestone in English politics?
The first thing to note was that so far as the Labour Party was concerned, despite wildly optimistic predictions from the ideological Left and others, like Sadiq Khan, Labour only did well in areas where there was either a preponderance of politically correct Middle Class, mostly State employees, often with non-traditional value lifestyles, or in areas heavily dependent of welfare benefits, or where “ethnic minority” immigrant populations have become dominant. Labour is continuing on its path of becoming the multiculturalist “Rainbow” Party!
Elsewhere in England, Labour made very little progress.  As Prof Matthew Goodwin of Kent University and Prof John Denham of Winchester University and also the English Labour Network were correctly predicting that, in all the areas where people still predominantly identify themselves as being “English”, under its current policies (where Labour politicians can barely mention England or the English), any hopes of a Labour breakthrough were doomed.  This has proved to be absolutely correct. 

See: John Denham: Why does our Labour Party refuse to talk about England? >>>> https://labourlist.org/2018/04/john-denham-why-does-our-labour-party-refuse-to-talk-about-england/

And: Why Labour Needs An English Manifesto >>>> https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/labour-manifesto_uk_5a7d8cd3e4b044b3821c372f

Such progress as Labour did make can be explained either: 1/ by a collapse of the Green vote, (most of whose voters went back to Labour except for where the “Progressive Alliance” was effective; for instance in the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames, where 29 seats changed hands.  Almost all of these were lost by the Conservatives, and they all went to the “Progressive Alliance” of Liberal Democrats and Greens.  This success has led to some support from Labour MPs for Labour to join it >>> https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/07/labour-mps-revive-campaign-for-progressive-alliance, ;
Or 2/ by the third of former UKIP voters who appear to have voted Labour. 
These former UKIP voters have probably gone back to Labour on a conditional basis thinking that Labour is still committed to its General Election promises of ensuring a full Brexit.
However if Labour’s Parliamentary Party continues on its trajectory to become more Remain supporting and undermining of Brexit, this vote may easily be switched next time to parties that are genuinely in support of leaving the European Union.  It would appear that Labour’s deceitfulness and disingenuous on the Brexit question has to some extent worked – so far!
So far as the Conservatives are concerned, they are projecting this result as a great success, given that it was mid-term into a Government.  However it seems obvious from a look at the statistics that in fact their success, such as it was, was dependant on both hanging onto their own vote and also recruiting an average two-thirds of the former UKIP vote. This means that their continued success is very dependent on their Government maintaining a reputation for working towards leaving the EU.  This is however a Government which will have had to have achieved Brexit by the time of the next General Election. If they have failed to deliver a satisfactory Brexit by then, this result contains a strong hint of severe troubles to come for the Conservative and Unionist Party!
The result also does show that the Conservative leadership have again successfully used their long-standing tactic (also true of the majority of “Conservative” MPs, including Theresa May) of being dishonest and disingenuous by pretending to be Eurosceptics.  It is worth remembering that when the decision time came in the EU referendum they came out as Europhile “Remainers”.  If their true position has become clear, to those that voted Conservative this time, by the next election then I would say “woe betide” the Conservative Party – if there is then a credible alternative. 
The leaders of both Labour and the Conservative Party, Jeremy Corbyn and Theresa May, are clearly both liabilities for their parties, not only personally but also through political ideology.  If either Party were to exchange their current Leader with someone more in tune with real mainstream opinion in England, then their rivals would be in serious trouble come the next General Election.
So far as UKIP leadership is concerned the results were disastrous.  I understand, but didn’t hear her say it, that their Suzanne Evans MEP has said that the results show that “UKIP is over”. 
In my view, UKIP’s Party members and voters have done England a tremendous service in forcing Cameron to give us the EU Referendum and helping to ensure that it was won for Brexit. 
It was always going to be difficult for UKIP to adapt itself, given the disagreements amongst its members and supporters on most other issues other than wanting to come out of the EU, UKIP’s Leadership troubles have of course also contributed dramatically to breakup of UKIP support.  Having blocked UKIP branches from supporting a democratic Brexit voice for England with a ‘Brexit’ English First Minister they have failed their membership by gifting to the Conservatives the Eurosceptic position.
What these election results show however is that, if Brexit is not satisfactorily delivered by the Conservatives, and English interests continue to be ignored by both Labour and the Conservatives then there is a crying need for the English Nation to have a political party which will speak up for us. 
UKIP leadership has missed its English democratic chance but UKIP’s membership does have a natural place to go if they want to! They still can make their voices heard above a corrupt and out of touch British “Remainer” elite.
I, of course, think that English voice will be only found in the English Democrats.  In the coming months, I and other English Democrat activists, will be working to encourage over to our Cause of open English nationalism, all those English voters who care about England’s future, to come over to us so that will be able to effectively represent the English Nation. My message is:- Don’t give up your political voice, Don’t allow yourself to become a ‘ sad returner’ to the tired and old LibLabCon political group. England needs you! The English Democrats are here for you!
As Helen Lewis, the Deputy Editor of the New Statesman (aka Helen Lewis-Hasteley and married to Jonathan Hayes the Digital Editor of the Guardian) said on BBC Radio 4 on the 4th May just before the 9.00 o’clock News, the only way for UKIP to have been able to come back would have been as an English nationalist party.  Being a Labour “Remoaner”, she of course thought that would be “ugly”.   I will leave you to imagine what I think of that!

BBC refuses to report biggest story in South Yorkshire Mayoral Election – to protect Labour candidate!

BBC refuses to report biggest story in South Yorkshire Mayoral Election – to protect Labour candidate!
 
There are two parts to this story.
 
First the Labour candidate in the biggest election this year has an address which does not exist as his home address in his nomination papers. This means that if he is elected then that result is voidable as having a false address in his nomination forms is the offence of “Corrupt Practice”. We have reported this to the Police who have confirmed that “South Yorkshire Police is investigati(ng) an allegation of electoral fraud in relation to the forthcoming Sheffield City Regional Mayoral elections”
 
Second we have here a classic “Electoral Fraud” story of the type that BBC Sheffield so eagerly ran when it was alleged that Paul Nuttall of UKIP had committed a nearly identical election fraud as is alleged in this case.  That was in the Stoke By-election, so it is not even directly related to either Sheffield or South Yorkshire! Now however the local BBC are trying to protect a Labour MP from adverse publicity which might, as Labour put it in Mr Nuttall’s case, “call into question” Mr Jarvis “fitness for office”!
 
There is no credible basis for The BBC’s excuse of saying that giving this story the proper level of publicity would put Mr Jarvis under risk of attack, especially as it is his failure to give his home address which is the basis for him being investigated by South Yorkshire police!  So how would anyone know his address?
 
Here is a link to the Statement of Persons nominated where you can see Dan Jarvis’ false address >>> https://sheffieldcityregion.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Statement-of-Persons-Nominated.pdf
 
There is no Marsham Road in London.

So this is what the charge-sheet against Dan Jarvis MP and/or his agent Paul Nicholson might look like:-
 
CONTRARY TO SECTIONS 3 AND 6 OF THE FORGERY AND COUNTERFEITING ACT 1981
Details of Offence on or before 6th April 2018 at the offices of Sheffield City Council in the County of South Yorkshire used an instrument, namely a local government election nomination form relating to Dan Jarvis which was and which they knew or believed to be false with the intention of inducing the Returning Officer, Dr Dave Smith, to accept it as genuine and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own or another person’s prejudice.

(Upon conviction an indictment of this offence which is called the “Misuse of a Statutory Instrument”, the person convicted may be sentenced up to 10 years imprisonment.)

CONTRARY TO SECTION 65A(1)(A) OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT 1983
On or before 6th April 2018 in the offices of Sheffield City Council in South Yorkshire Dan Jarvis or his Election Agent caused or permitted to be included in a document, namely a local government election nomination form relating to a candidate stated to be Dan Jarvis which was delivered or otherwise furnished to Dr Dave Smith the returning officer for use in connection with the Sheffield City Regional election in South Yorkshire to be held on 3rd May 2018 a statement of the home address of the said candidate, which you knew to be false.

(This offence is labelled a “Corrupt Practice” and the successful election of a candidate found guilty (whether personally or by his agent) of a “Corrupt Practice” is void and anyone found personally guilty of a Corrupt Practice is prohibited from holding any elected office for a period of five years.)
 
So you can see that the probable minimum outcome of the investigation of this case would be that Dan Jarvis’ election would be declared void. He may also be disqualified from office for five years.  It is therefore absurd that the BBC is refusing to report a police investigation which will probably result in this election result being declared void.
 
The general location of what is probably Mr Jarvis’s real address can quite easily be found on the Barnsley Council’s website where the location of his home address is given on the published Notice of Persons Nominated for Election as the MP for Barnsley Central here >>> https://www.barnsley.gov.uk/media/5855/statement-of-persons-nominated-barnsley-central.pdf.
 
I have therefore specifically warned BBC Sheffield that unless the BBC does its job and properly reports this issue then I shall be complaining to OFCOM over clear breaches of the “Ofcom Broadcasting Code”, Sections are 5, 6 and 7.  They have not done so and so I shall be complaining.
 
In Section 5 in breach as follows:-
 
Section Five:
Due Impartiality and Due Accuracy and
Undue Prominence of Views and Opinions
(Relevant legislation includes, in particular, sections 319(2)(c) and (d), 319(8) and
section 320 of the Communications Act 2003, the BBC Charter and Agreement, and
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.)
Principles
To ensure that news, in whatever form, is reported with due accuracy 
and presented with due impartiality.
To ensure that the special impartiality requirements of the Act are
complied with.
Rules
Meaning of “due impartiality”:
“Due” is an important qualification to the concept of impartiality. Impartiality itself
means not favouring one side over another. “Due” means adequate or appropriate
to the subject and nature of the programme. So “due impartiality” does not mean an
equal division of time has to be given to every view, or that every argument and every
facet of every argument has to be represented. The approach to due impartiality may
vary according to the nature of the subject, the type of programme and channel, the
likely expectation of the audience as to content, and the extent to which the content
and approach is signalled to the audience. Context, as defined in Section Two: Harm
and Offence of the Code, is important.
Due impartiality and due accuracy in news 
5.1
News, in whatever form, must be reported with due accuracy and presented
with due impartiality.
5.2
Significant mistakes in news should normally be acknowledged and corrected
on air quickly (or, in the case of BBC ODPS, corrected quickly). Corrections
should be appropriately scheduled (or, in the case of BBC ODPS, appropriately
signaled to viewers).” 
The BBC are failing to report views and failing to act with due impartiality and are ignoring the requirement to report with due accuracy and are excluding the reporting of news because of their biased views and opinions
 
“5.5
Due impartiality on matters of political or industrial controversy and matters
relating to current public policy must be preserved on the part of any person
providing a service (listed above). This may be achieved within a programme or
over a series of programmes taken as a whole. 
Meaning of “series of programmes taken as a whole”: 
This means more than one programme in the same service, editorially linked, dealing
with the same or related issues within an appropriate period and aimed at a like
audience. A series can include, for example, a strand, or two programmes (such as a
drama and a debate about the drama) or a ‘cluster’ or ‘season’ of programmes on the
same subject.”
 
This is a matter of political controversy and so their duty of due impartiality applies.
 
“5.7
Views and facts must not be misrepresented. Views must also be presented with
due weight over appropriate timeframes.”
 
They are failing to present relevant views and facts at all.

“5.8
Any personal interest of a reporter or presenter, which would call into question
the due impartiality of the programme, must be made clear to the audience.”

They are not declaring their personal interests as Labour supporters and not allowing adequate representation of alternative viewpoints.
 
“5.12
In dealing with matters of major political and industrial controversy and
major matters relating to current public policy an appropriately wide range of
significant views must be included and given due weight in each programme
or in clearly linked and timely programmes. Views and facts must not be
misrepresented.”
They were no doubt asked by Labour or by their candidate not to report this story and by agreeing not to do so they are complicit in giving undue prominence to their views and opinions.
 
Section 6 the BBC appear to be in wholesale breach of.  Not only in this matter but also in failing to give equal treatment to the candidates in the South Yorkshire Mayoral election and significantly the direct failure of their reports to comply with Section 6.10, which requires that:-
 
“Any constituency or electoral area report or discussion after the close of
nominations must include a list of all candidates standing, giving first names,
surnames and the name of the party they represent or, if they are standing
independently, the fact that they are an independent candidate. This must
be conveyed in sound and/or vision. Where a constituency report on a radio
service is repeated on several occasions in the same day, the full list need
only be broadcast on one occasion. If, in subsequent repeats on that day, the
constituency report does not give the full list of candidates, the audience should
be directed to an appropriate website or other information source listing all
candidates and giving the information set out above.”

 

Look North’s BBC’s Evening News item from 6.30 -7.00 p.m. earlier last week carried a report by Look North’s News Political Editor, Mr James Vincent on the powers of the role of the new South Yorkshire Mayor.  This was in the proposed Mayoral office and he commented “nice view but no powers”!
 
There was then a discussion in the BBC studio amongst Look North’s in-house staff  commentators, Ms Amy Garcia and Mr Harry Gration, who were complaining about the cost of the election address booklet and of the election generally.
 
This was the second or third occasion that Look North has referred to the South Yorkshire Mayoral elections in which they only referred viewers, who wanted more information, to the official election website but did not spell out at all the names or the parties of the candidates in the election.


https://btmail.bt.com/cp/ext/resources/images/default/s.gifhttps://btmail.bt.com/cp/ext/resources/images/default/s.gif(The link to the code is here >>>  https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/100103/broadcast-code-april-2017.pdf
 
The correspondence on this matter which sets out both issues is below, in chronological order:-
—–Original Message—–
From: Robin Tilbrook <robintilbrook@aol.com>
To: robintilbrook <robintilbrook@aol.com>
Sent: Fri, Apr 13, 2018 7:39 pm
Subject: PRESS RELEASE Dan Jarvis uses two dodgy addresses in standing as Sheffield Mayoral Candidate 
 
 
 
PRESS RELEASE
Dan Jarvis uses two dodgy addresses in standing as Sheffield Mayoral Candidate
In the Statement of Persons Nominated as a candidate in the election, Dan Jarvis has the non-existent address in London of 76 Marsham Road.  No postcode is provided.  Whereas there is a 76 Marsham Road in Kings Heath, Birmingham, there is none in London.  
It therefore seems that on his nomination paper Mr Jarvis has made a declaration that his address is 76 Marsham Road, London – clearly a false declaration and so it seems that he has committed an electoral fraud, which upon conviction would probably get him disqualified from holding elected office, not only as Mayor, but also as an MP!
Here is the Electoral Commission Guidance set out in:-
Guidance for candidates and agents Part 2b of 6 – Standing as a party candidate.   April 2017 (updated December 2017.
The relevant part of the Guidance states:-
“Home address form 1.12
The home address form must state your home address in full. If you do not want your address to be made public and to appear on the ballot paper, you must make a statement to this effect on the home address form and give the name of the constituency in which your home address is situated or, if you
live outside the UK, the name of the country in which you reside.
1.13
Your home address:
• must be completed in full
• must not contain abbreviations
• must be your current home address
• must not be a business address (unless you run a business from your home)
1.14
Your address does not need to be in the constituency in which you intend to stand.”
 
76 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DR does however exist and that is Great Minster House which is a Barrett luxury development whose website address can be found here >>> https://www.barratthomes.co.uk/new-homes/greater-london/h634701-great-minster-house/ .  This is a new development in which Right Move shows that a 2 bedroomed flat is currently for sale at £2,650,000! (Click here >>>  http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-48448119.html .  
Also in the Mayoral Booklet for Election Addresses Mr Jarvis has given his address as 200 Duke Street, S2 5QQ, Sheffield, which is not only not a residential address but is also not really a proper address at all.  It is actually the side of the Labour Party’s Sheffield office!  
The proper address of Labour’s office is given by Mr Jarvis’ Election Agent, Mr Paul Nicholson, who gives his address as the proper address Labour’s Sheffield Headquarters of Talbot Street, S2 2TG. 
So the two addresses that Mr Jarvis has given in his paperwork for this important election are both addresses that he neither lives at nor works at!
In the Stoke By-election Labour said:-  “Mr Nuttall’s use of an empty house as his address raised questions about his fitness for public office”! 
The English Democrats take the view that if Labour felt that it was proper to report Mr Nuttall to the Police when the address given by him was both a real one and one which he presumably had leased then in this worse case the matter should be reported to the police and so we have done so.
David Allen, the English Democrats’ candidate for the South Yorkshire Mayoral Election said:-  “I always knew that Dan Jarvis MP was a Notts man with no real connections with Yorkshire at all, but now it appears that he cannot even give a proper address for his candidacy. 
This can only mislead electors in South Yorkshire into wrongly thinking that Dan Jarvis is someone with roots here in Yorkshire.”
David continued:-  “Furthermore if Dan Jarvis has committed an electoral fraud offence then it could be a wasted vote for Labour supporters to vote for him when he could soon be disqualified.  
The honourable thing for Mr Jarvis to do now would be to stand down from this election.  If he follows this advice it will be interesting to see whom he recommends his supporters to vote for.  I suspect it will be the equally anti-English Regionalist Yorkshire Party, which, just like Dan Jarvis, is not campaigning for the traditional Yorkshire at all, but for the EU Yorkshire & Humber Region which excludes parts of traditional Yorkshire and includes parts of traditional North Lincolnshire and whose main effect is to begin the break-up of England”
 
David Allen
St Edmunds House
Anchorage Lane
Doncaster
South Yorkshire  
DN5 8DT  
Tel: 01302 781347
Mobile: 07450 098964 
Email: Davidsallen64@gmail.com
 
 
Robin Tilbrook
Chairman,
The English Democrats,
Quires Green, Willingale, Ongar, Essex, CM5 0QP
Tel: 01277 896000
Mobile : 07778 553395
Blog: http://robintilbrook.blogspot.co.uk/
Twitter: @ RobinTilbrook
Party Website: www.englishdemocrats.org
Party Twitter: @EnglishDemocrat
Supporting VotetoLeave.EU
Key facts about the English Democrats
The English Democrats launched in 2002 and are the only campaigning English nationalist Party. We campaign for a referendum for Independence for England; for St George’s Day to be England’s National holiday; for Jerusalem to be England’s National Anthem; to leave the EU; for an end to mass immigration; for the Cross of St George to be flown on all public buildings in England; and we supported a YES vote for Scottish Independence.
The English Democrats are England’s answer to the Scottish National Party and to Plaid Cymru. The English Democrats’ greatest electoral successes to date include:- in the 2004 EU election we had 130,056 votes; winning the Directly Elected Executive Mayoralty of Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council in 2009 and also the 2012 mayoralty referendum; in the 2009 EU election we gained 279,801 votes after a total EU campaign spend of less than £25,000; we won the 2012 referendum which gave Salford City an Elected Mayor; in 2012 we also saved all our deposits in the Police Commissioner elections and came second in South Yorkshire; and in the 2014 EU election we had 126,024 votes for a total campaign spend of about £40,000 (giving the English Democrats by far the most cost efficient electoral result of any serious Party in the UK!). In the 2015 General Election we had the 8th largest contingent of candidates in England. In the October 2016 Batley & Spen, Westminster parliamentary, By-election we came second and easily beat all three British national parties and in the 2017 Greater Manchester Mayoral election we came 5th beating UKIP and beat the Greens in all but 2 boroughs.
 
 
—–Original Message—–
From: Liz Roberts < liz.roberts@bbc.co.uk>
To: robintilbrook < robintilbrook@aol.com>
Sent: Fri, Apr 13, 2018 4:56 pm
Subject: FW: PRESS RELEASE Dan Jarvis uses two dodgy addresses in standing as South Yorkshire Mayoral Candidate 
Hi Robin,
 
I can’t find the mayoral booklet for election addresses, I’m not sure it’s been made public yet. Do you have a copy?
Can you scan a page and send it me?
Thanks,
 
Liz
 
Liz Roberts
POLITICAL REPORTER
BBC SHEFFIELD
Mob: 07711 348956
 
 
 
 
—-Original Message—–
From: David Allen <davidsallen64@gmail.com>
To: Liz Roberts <liz.roberts@bbc.co.uk>; Robin Tilbrook <robintilbrook@aol.com>
Sent: Fri, Apr 13, 2018 6:13 pm
Subject: Re: PRESS RELEASE Dan Jarvis uses two dodgy addresses in standing as South Yorkshire Mayoral Candidate 
Liz
 
Enclosed is a picture of Jarvis’ entry in the booklet. I’ve also included a picture of the statement of nominations which has incorrect and incomplete London address too. If you need a better picture please let me know.
 
Regards 
 
David Allen 
 
 
 
From: David Allen [mailto:davidsallen64@gmail.com]
Sent: 13 April 2018 18:54
To: Liz Roberts; robintilbrook
Subject: Fwd: Your Email 13/4/18
 
 
———- Forwarded message ———
From: STEPHEN LEACH < Stephen.Leach@southyorks.pnn.police.uk>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 at 18:24
Subject: Your Email 13/4/18
To: davidsallen64@gmail.com < davidsallen64@gmail.com>
 
Good afternoon
 
I can confirm that South Yorkshire Police is investigation an allegation of electoral fraud in relation to the forthcoming Sheffield City Regional Mayoral elections.
 
Regards
 
DI Steve Leach
SYP Cyber Crime
Stephen.leach@southyorkshire.pnn.police.uk
 

SYP Alerts offers information about local policing issues by text, email or voice message. Sign-up now at www.sypalerts.co.uk #SignMeUp

https://btmail.bt.com/cp/ext/resources/images/default/s.gifhttps://btmail.bt.com/cp/ext/resources/images/default/s.gif
 
—-Original Message—–
From: David Allen <davidsallen64@gmail.com>
To: James Vincent <james.vincent@bbc.co.uk>; Liz Roberts <liz.roberts@bbc.co.uk>; Tim Smith-Leeds <tim.smith@bbc.co.uk>; robintilbrook <RobinTilbrook@aol.com>
Sent: Mon, Apr 16, 2018 12:03 pm
Subject: Re: Your Email 13/4/18 
 
On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 at 10:52, Liz Roberts < liz.roberts@bbc.co.uk> wrote: 
Hi David,
 
We’ve decided we won’t be running the story. This is due to the safety risk posed to Dan Jarvis and his family.
 
Liz
 
Liz Roberts
POLITICAL REPORTER
BBC SHEFFIELD
Mob: 07711 348956
 
Hi Liz
 
Thanks for your message.
 
I am sorry to say I am not surprised. I suspect the real reason is more likely the political risk to what appears to be a BBC preferred candidate.
 
I fail to see how reporting him being investigated for electoral fraud constitutes a compromise to his or his family’s safety, bearing in mind his allegedly bogus London address is a matter of public record.
 
Each of the other candidates have had their home addresses published and perhaps myself and my family the most likely to be safety compromised amongst them.
 
Actions like this do nothing to dispel the growing belief that the BBC is ‘The Guardian’ on air and has abandoned any pretence of balance, particularly since BREXIT.
 
I am sorry you have been given the dirty job of being the messenger when it was you who dared to pick up the story in the first place.
 
This complaint is in no way directed at you personally.
 
Regards 
 
From: David Allen [mailto:davidsallen64@gmail.com]
Sent: 16 April 2018 15:51
To: Liz Roberts; robintilbrook
Subject: Dan Jarvis
 
Liz,
 
Further to your statement regarding the alleged compromise of the Jarvis family safety.If you would be so kind would you tell me , who told you this and the reasons they gave?
 
Regards
 
https://btmail.bt.com/cp/ext/resources/images/default/s.gifhttps://btmail.bt.com/cp/ext/resources/images/default/s.gif
 
——- Forwarded message ———
From: Liz Roberts < liz.roberts@bbc.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 at 16:16
Subject: RE: Dan Jarvis
To: David Allen < davidsallen64@gmail.com> 
 
David,
 
I’m not prepared to go into the details, but we have looked into this extensively and come to the conclusion that there would be a genuine and increased risk to Dan Jarvis and possibly his family if we were to broadcast anything that might lead to his address being discovered.  I’m sure you are aware that these are difficult times in terms of the security of elected MPs, and especially so for someone like Mr Jarvis who is so publicly associated with our armed forces.   Please be reassured that this decision was taken after discussion with the management team at BBC Radio Sheffield and after a great deal of thought.
 
Liz
 
Liz Roberts
POLITICAL REPORTER
BBC SHEFFIELD
Mob: 07711 348956
 
 
 
—-Original Message—–
From: David Allen <davidsallen64@gmail.com>
To: Liz Roberts <liz.roberts@bbc.co.uk>; robintilbrook <RobinTilbrook@aol.com>
Sent: Mon, Apr 16, 2018 6:05 pm
Subject: Re: Dan Jarvis 
Liz,
 
Thank you for you reply.
 
Please can you identify, by name and position, the members of the management team at BBC Radio Sheffield responsible for making this decision.
 
Regards
 
David Allen
 
 
 
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 at 09:27, Liz Roberts < liz.roberts@bbc.co.uk> wrote: 
David,
 
The managing editor is Katrina Bunker, the Assistant Editor is Mike Woodcock.
 
But if you’d like to make a complaint you can do so here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/
 
Liz
 
Liz Roberts
POLITICAL REPORTER
BBC SHEFFIELD
Mob: 07711 348956
 
I await your response to this complaint.
Please acknowledge receipt.
Yours sincerely
 
Robin Tilbrook
Chairman,
The English Democrats,
Quires Green, Willingale, Ongar, Essex, CM5 0QP
Tel: 01277 896000
Mobile : 07778 553395
Blog: http://robintilbrook.blogspot.co.uk/
Twitter: @RobinTilbrook
Party Website: www.englishdemocrats.org
Party Twitter: @EnglishDemocrat
Supporting VotetoLeave.EU
Key facts about the English Democrats
The English Democrats launched in 2002 and are the only campaigning English nationalist Party. We campaign for a referendum for Independence for England; for St George’s Day to be England’s National holiday; for Jerusalem to be England’s National Anthem; to leave the EU; for an end to mass immigration; for the Cross of St George to be flown on all public buildings in England; and we supported a YES vote for Scottish Independence.

The English Democrats are England’s answer to the Scottish National Party and to Plaid Cymru. The English Democrats’ greatest electoral successes to date include:- in the 2004 EU election we had 130,056 votes; winning the Directly Elected Executive Mayoralty of Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council in 2009 and also the 2012 mayoralty referendum; in the 2009 EU election we gained 279,801 votes after a total EU campaign spend of less than £25,000; we won the 2012 referendum which gave Salford City an Elected Mayor; in 2012 we also saved all our deposits in the Police Commissioner elections and came second in South Yorkshire; and in the 2014 EU election we had 126,024 votes for a total campaign spend of about £40,000 (giving the English Democrats by far the most cost efficient electoral result of any serious Party in the UK!). In the 2015 General Election we had the 8th largest contingent of candidates in England. In the October 2016 Batley & Spen, Westminster parliamentary, By-election we came second and easily beat all three British national parties and in the 2017 Greater Manchester Mayoral election we came 5th beating UKIP and beat the Greens in all but 2 boroughs.

IS THE UK’S POLITICAL BRITISH ESTABLISHMENT NOW A CLASSIC “CARTEL DEMOCRACY”?

IS THE UK’S POLITICAL BRITISH ESTABLISHMENT NOW A CLASSIC “CARTEL DEMOCRACY”?

A few weeks ago I was reading an article by the Conservative MEP, Daniel Hannan’s, in the Sunday Telegraph called in the print edition “Coalition politics has turned European democracy into a beige dictatorship”.  Here is a link to the original article >>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/21/coalition-politics-has-turned-european-democracy-beige-dictatorship/
In that article he says:-
“Several Western European countries have had German-style traditions of permanent coalition. In some of them, favoured parties were more or less permanently in office. These became known as the “cartel democracies”, because the ruling parties used legal and financial barriers to prevent newcomers from breaking through. Austria, Belgium and Italy were textbook cartel democracies for most of the post-war era.”…
You can always spot the symptoms. The public sector grows as the various coalition partners scrabble to find sinecures for their supporters. In Austria during the Christian Democrat/Social Democrat duopoly, every position, from the headmaster of a village school to the director of the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra, might be allocated according to party membership card. These membership cards, by the way, were actual physical things: the Italian versions, beribboned and bemedalled, were especially magnificent, signifying, as they did, a precious IOU.
Cartel politicians, being unchallenged, could award themselves handsome perks, such as legal immunities and high salaries. When I was first elected to the European Parliament, MEPs were paid at the same rate as a national parliamentarian in their home country. The Austrians, Italians and Germans earned twice as much as anyone else. The cartel parties were quite flagrant in their attempts to stop newcomers from posing a challenge. In Belgium, for example, restrictions on private donations made parties dependent on state funding – which was then withdrawn from the Flemish separatists following a parliamentary vote by their rivals.
Secure in office, the old parties were able to ignore public demands for tax cuts, immigration controls, powers back from Brussels or anything else they could fastidiously dismiss as “populist”. Because leaders from a previous generation generally decided who could stand on their party lists, politics remained stuck in a Fifties corporatist consensus.
Only in the Nineties did the system start to break down. Fed up with the complacency and sleaze of their semi-permanent rulers, voters began to grope around for battering rams to smash open the old system. In Italy, they found  a Trumpian avant la lettre – Silvio Berlusconi, who made a point of issuing no party membership cards. In Austria, they turned to Jörg Haider’s anti-immigration Freedom Party. In Belgium, they elected the Flemish nationalists. Only in Germany has the old partitocracy remained intact – at least until now.
Last year, Germany’s Christian Democrats suffered their worst result since 1949. The Social Democrats suffered their worst result since 1933. How will it look if the two losers get together to form a government based on all the things that had characterised the old racket – more immigration, deeper European integration, little economic reform, and the dismissal of all opposition as unconscionable populism?”
These comments chimed strongly with my experiences of the way in which Labour and the Conservatives have embedded themselves within the State, in such a way that for years now it has seemed to matter little which party was technically in power.  The classic “LibLabCon” even when the other party is in power many of the key people within what is supposed to be its rival still have plum political patronage jobs. 
So I looked further and found the BBC’s Home Editor, Mark Easton, had written an article which was published on the 12th June 2017.  Which asked:- “Has British democracy let its people down?”
Mark Easton’s reply is:-
 “Parliamentary democracy is one of the British values that English schools are now required, by statute, to promote during lessons – not debate, not discuss, promote.
If some teachers interpret their new role as propagandists for this kingdom’s existing system of governance, that would be a shame, because right now there are questions about how well our form of democracy is serving the UK.
Far from providing the stability and legitimacy it promises, one could argue that our democratic system has served to expose and deepen social divides.
Some would say it has even contrived to leave our country vulnerable at a critical moment in its history.
Rather than seeking to close down critical challenge of our form of democracy, do we need a serious and urgent conversation about how we can improve matters?…
Our two main political parties were founded and evolved to deal with the social and economic challenges of the industrial revolution.
Conservative and Labour, Left and Right, capitalism and socialism – these ideological movements were a response to the economic and cultural challenges of power moving from the field to the factory.
But power is moving again, from the national to the multinational.
How citizens think we should respond to that shift is the new divide in our politics.
It is less about left v right and more about nationalism v globalism….
…Old-fashioned political tribalism is actually on the wane…
And the diminution of local government in England, the weakening of the trade union movement, the impotence of political protest movements, the increasing centralisation of overarching authority to one house in Downing Street – these add to the sense that the “demos” (people) are increasingly excluded from the “kratos” (power).”
Here is the link to Mark Easton’s original article>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40245805
I think that much of what Mark Easton had to say here is right, particularly in his analysis of what the division now is; not left and right, rather globalist/ internationalist as against nationalist/patriotic.
It was said by many of the more astute commentators, including Professor Matthew Goodwin of Kent University, that the appeal of Euroscepticism and of Brexit to English nationalists anxious to “get our country back” and to “take back control” was, when focussed solely on the EU, somewhat misconceived. 
Professor Goodwin in particular was saying that for people who identified themselves as being English, that their desire to get back control was a confused response because the problem wasn’t the EU, it was the British Political Establishment which is seeking to break England up and to change English society and English communities in ways that English people don’t want.
Its support of the EU was a system of this attitude so the real struggle ought to be focussed on England and on the English taking back control.  The British State and British Political Establishment not only no longer cares about them or about what they think about things, but also actively works against English interests.  Its default position is internationalist or globalist. 
I thought therefore I ought to look at what academics have written about “Cartel Parties” and see whether that is a concept which helps to explain the problems of power that we have currently got in England.  So a quick search of the internet showed me the article you find here>>> https://ecpr.eu/Filestore/PaperProposal/77c01c49-8fe0-4c5f-a83e-c64362debb30.pdf
This article actually found that the UK was not a Cartel democracy but that is because the article was written in 2001 and not in 2018!  For the last 20 years we have lived in the sort of political environment which is all too clearly explained in this paper.  The key points of the article are here:-
“Cartel parties in Western Europe?
Changes in organizational structures, political functions and competitive behaviour among the major parties in Denmark, Germany, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.
By Klaus Detterbeck
University of Göttingen
Introduction
Among the various attempts to pinpoint the changes in West European political parties which have been going on over the last decades, the cartel party model (Katz & Mair 1995) has been one of the most provocative of…   In their article Katz & Mair (1995) are constructing an evolution of party types from the late 19th century onwards to show how parties have changed from being party of society (mass parties) to being part of the state apparatus. The provocation, the cartel party model entails, lies in its claim that the established parties in Western Europe have adapted themselves to declining levels of participation and involvement in party activities by not only turning to resources provided by the state but by doing so in a collusive manner. The inter-penetration of party and state, so the argument goes, has been achieved through co-operation between the major parties – most obviously by unanimously introducing and expanding public subsidies to themselves. The former opponents now run a party cartel which excludes new and smaller parties. These changes on the level of party competition are associated with decisive changes in the internal balance of power among the individual cartel parties, their relationship to society and the quality of the democratic process in Western democracies per se. Thus, Katz & Mair (1995) are depicting a fundamental change of party democracy in Western Europe since the 1970s. Precisely because the consequences of the alleged cartellization would be so dramatic – a self-referential political class unremovable from power dominating politics and determining their own infrastructure- it is necessary to empirically review the central hypotheses of the cartel party model.
Three dimensions of party change
Analytically there are three dimensions on which Katz & Mair (1995) are describing party change since the 1960s and on which they are conceptualizing the cartel type. I will look at them in turn:
·        Political role: representative vs. governmental functions
·        Party competition: cartellization and exclusion
·        Organizational structures: parlamentarization and stratarchy
The political role of parties concerns their position between the sphere of society and the sphere of the state. The cartel party model postulates that West European parties have increasingly lost their capacity and their eagerness to fulfil their representative functions for society (interest articulation and -aggregation, goal formulation, political mobilisation), whereas they became more strongly involved in executing governmental functions (elite recruitment, government formation, policy making). The professional party leaders thus became more concerned with the demands of the parliamentary arena than with interpreting party manifestos or discussing politics on party congresses. The near exclusive dominance of parliaments and governments enabled parties to rely on a new source for financing and staffing their organizations which made them relatively independent from party members or donors. Cartel party are therefore characterized by a weak involvement of party members and historically related interest groups (classe gardée) in party activities on the one hand, and by an emphasis on governmental functions and state resources on the other hand.
Turning to the level of party competition, the mutually shared need for securing the flow of state resources has changed the relationships of the political opponents towards each other. In a process of social learning – facilitated through the daily interaction of professional politicians from different parties in parliament – the party actors realized that there are common interests among the „political class“ which laid the basis for collective action (von Beyme 1996; Borchert 2001). The process of cartel formation has two facets: cartellization aims at reducing the consequences of electoral competition, basically through granting the losers, the established opposition a certain share of state subventions or patronage appointments. Exclusion aims at securing the position of the established parties against newly mobilized challengers. This can be achieved through setting up certain barriers for newcomers in the electoral competition (e.g. thresholds), excluding them from access to public subventions or media campaigns, or excluding them from access to executive office by declaring them unacceptable coalition partners („pariahs“). However, a cartel doesn’t have to be closed completely. The co-optation of new parties which are willing to play according to the established rules of the game may strengthen the viability of a party cartel. Katz & Mair (1995) argue that the formation of a party cartel poses a fundamental problem for the West European party democracies as it denies the voters the possibility of choosing a political alternative – “none of the major parties is ever definitively out“ (ebd.: 22) -, and gives munitions to the rhetorics of neo-populist parties on the political right. In the long run, cartellization will widen the gulf between voters and politicians and make it increasingly difficult to legitimize political decisions.
The organisational dimension is concerned with the balance of power inside the parties. The “mechanics” of internal decision-making are determined by the structural and material resources of the various “faces” within the organisation. Cartel party are characterised by a further strengthening of the “party in public office” which can be explained by their direct access to political decisions in parliaments and governments, their access to the mass media as well as by their better access to state resources (e.g. parliamentary staff). The dominance of party executive organs through parliamentarians, the marginalisation of party activists (e.g. through member ballots) or the professionalization of election campaigns are organizational indicators of the cartel type. The second organizational feature of cartel parties consists in the vertical autonomy of different party levels. Whereas the national (parliamentarian) party elite tries to free itself from the demands of regional and local party leaders as far as political and strategic questions on the national level are concerned, the lower strata insist upon their autonomy in their own domains, e.g. the selection of candidates or local politics:  Each side is therefore encouraged to allow the other a free hand. The result is stratarchy“ (ebd.: 21).
Although the causal relationships between these three dimensions are not clearly spelled out by Katz & Mair (1995), it seems to be the logic of the argument that the increase of vulnerability (less party members, more volatile voters) caused party change. Vulnerability brought about a declining capacity of parties to fulfil their representative functions (e.g. interest articulation) which led them
a.) to concentrate on their governmental functions (e.g. selecting leaders, seeking parliamentary majorities, passing laws) and,
b.) to collude with their established opponents in order to secure the required resources for organisational maintenance.
The freedom of manoeuvre which party leaders needed to do both led to internal party reforms which strengthened the “party in public office”. As a result of these changes, the linkages between the professionalized party organisations and the citizenry further eroded, which in turn intensified the trend towards the sphere of the state and towards inter-party collusion (see Young 1998)…
The core element of the cartel party type can be seen in the self-interested co-operation between the major parties which aims at securing organizational resources (public subsidies, patronage) and career stability (income, reelection, alternative political jobs) for the individual politician.

So what do you think?

Labour’s soap starlet “no-platforms” all other candidates in Parliamentary By-election


Below is my recent press release regarding the Batley & Spen By-election

Labour’s soap starlet “no-platforms” all other candidates in By-election.


Tracy Brabin’s campaign team have refused to take part in the only independently organised hustings during the Batley & Spen By-election. The hustings was being organised by the Workers of England Union. Tracy Brabin’s team responded to the Union that they were refusing to allow their candidate to appear on the same “platform” as any other candidate in the By-election. The Workers of England Union report this on their website>>> Batley and Spen: Labour shows contempt for Democracy | Workers of England Union

https://workersofenglandunion.wordpress.com/2016/10/15/batley-and-spen-labour-shows-contempt-for-democracy/

The English Democrats’ view is that not only is this appallingly arrogant and all too typical of Labour apparatchiks sense of entitlement and ownership of areas unfortunate enough to be Labour One Party State Areas, but it is also deeply disrespectful and contemptuous of their electorate.

Robin Tilbrook, the Chairman of the English Democrats said:- “Labour’s lightweight London based EastEnders soap opera starlet candidate for the Batley & Spen By-election and Remainer has been adding to Labour’s reputation as a Party unwilling to engage in democratic debate and mired in a smug sense of its own entitlement.

Remainers like Tracy Brabin have been caught making outrageous slurs on the over 118,000 electors in Kirklees and more than 50% across England who voted for Brexit. They claim as Labour’s new Shadow Home Secretary, Diane Abbott, apparently said at their recent Party Conference that Brexit voters are “stupid and racist”. Tracy Brabin and her election team have now demonstrated not only contempt for anyone with a different opinion to theirs, but also their unwillingness to engage in proper debate in their eagerness to behave like Left-wing Student Union activists in “no-platforming” their opponents.”

Robin Tilbrook added:- “The sooner Labour is driven out of England just as it is being driven out of Scotland the better!” Labour is morally and ideologically bankrupt and bitterly opposed to the interests of the English Nation”.

South Yorkshire Police Commission By-election update


South Yorkshire Police Commission By-election update

Here are the expenses for the South Yorkshire Police Commissioner By-election:-

Labour:

Number of votes: 74060

Spent:£123459.61

Cost per vote:£1.68.

UKIP:

Number of votes: 46883

Spent: £157048.65

Cost per vote:£3.35

Conservative:

Number of votes:18536

Spent: £18231.51

Cost per vote:98 pence.

English Democrats:

Number of votes: 8583

Spent: £9567.

Cost per vote: £1.11.

While I had already done a previous Blog item about this by-election, which can be found here >>> http://robintilbrook.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/the-lessons-of-south-yorkshire-by.html, I thought it was interesting that actually, contrary to some of the comments that I have seen about the relative position of the English Democrats and UKIP, that despite them spending over sixteen times as much money as we were able to spend in the election, and significantly more than even Labour’s spend, they were still not anywhere near beating Labour in South Yorkshire.

It was also interesting that UKIP spent more than three times as much than we did on each and every vote that they received. I think the moral is that if we were actually able to raise enough money to match UKIP’s spending, not only would we beat them, but we would have been more likely to win election than they ever could be.

Could that be something to do with the relative appeal of English nationalism as against British nationalism?