Category Archives: UKIP

HOW BRITISH POLITICS IS FAILING

The web based comment blog “Unherd” hosts interesting contributions from politically minded commentators.  The one below is interesting.

It is a recent contribution from Peter Kellner.  Peter Kellner is the Blairite Director of YouGov, the internet based opinion pollsters.  His opinion on the interpretation of statistics is well worth considering.  So when Peter Kellner says:- “I wouldn’t bet a great deal against changes that could be immense, and which not everyone will like”, we should take notice.  Also, as he is an enemy of English Nationalism and he is fearful of the consequences – so that should be encouraging too!  

Here is Peter Kellner’s article:-

HOW BRITISH POLITICS IS FAILING

Something odd, and possibly dangerous, is eating away at the fabric of British politics. Brexit, of course, has much to do with it, but the consequences could be with us long after the current crisis is resolved, one way or another. 

Signs of the malaise can be clearly seen in an exclusive survey for UnHerdconducted by Deltapoll. It shows a remarkable lack of faith in both main party leaders, not just by voters generally but by high proportions of their own voters. Loyalties are being tested as never before.  

In the past, one party leader has occasionally had a shaky reputation among their own supporters on one or two characteristics. In the early 1980s, many Labour voters thought Michael Foot was weak; towards the end of her premiership, many Tories considered Margaret Thatcher out of touch. But I have never seen so many supporters of both parties simultaneously hold such low opinions of their own leaders across the board.  

The responses of all voters shows that both leaders have strongly negative ratings on all counts. That is unusual enough. But when we look at the figures, showing how Conservative voters view Theresa May, and the figures, showing how Labour voters view Jeremy Corbyn, the scale of the drama becomes clear. The positive scores for May range from 57% of Conservative supporters who say she is strong, down to 40% who back her on Brexit. Her average score among Tory voters is 45%. Labour voters give Corbyn positive scores ranging from 64 to 38%; his average is 50%. Among all voters, the averages are, of course, even worse: May 26%, Corbyn 28%. 

To put these figures in context, a successful leader would expect average scores of around 80% among their party’s own voters and 40% among the general public. For both leaders to fall so far short of these figures should set off alarm bells in both parties. 

Here, though, is the paradox. Precisely because both leaders have terrible ratings, the scale of the problem is less obvious than it would be if only one was doing badly. In that case (as when Foot led Labour and towards the end of Thatcher’s premiership), their party would have support well below 30% in the polls and facing a landslide defeat. Instead, nothing much seems to have changed since the 2017 election. An average of recent polls shows the two parties still close together, and with almost as many supporters as 18 months ago. The high commands in both parties, though plainly struggling over Brexit, see no wider reason to panic. 

In truth, they should be terrified. For the poll shows that the disenchantment with the main parties and their leaders has spread throughout Britain. Within Westminster, it is rare to find any backbench Labour or Conservative MP who, giving their candid views in private, will say their leader is any good or that their party is in anything other than deep trouble. But some hope this despair is a feature of the Westminster bubble, and that real voters away from London have not changed their views of politicians and parties that much. 

In fact, it is increasingly hard to avoid the conclusion that millions of voters Left and Right are losing faith in the people who either govern us today or aspire to do so in the future. 

Which brings us to the possible long-term consequences of current public attitudes. In any country with a different electoral system, the chances are that support for both Labour and the Conservatives would have crashed by now. Across Europe, countries with more proportional voting systems have seen the traditional big parties slump in recent years – even with leaders less widely derided than Britain’s.  

Here, first-past-the-post creates a huge barrier to entry. Elsewhere, small parties ranging from the Greens to the far right have obtained a foothold in their parliaments with as little as 5% support, and then managed to increase their credibility. Here, they can’t. In 1983, the Liberal/SDP Alliance won 26% and only 23 seats; in 2015 Ukip’s 14% gave them just a single seat.  

The party that might have benefited from the Tory and Labour travails is the Liberal Democrats. But they paid a heavy price for their role in the 2010-15 coalition government. While their support has picked up a little in recent months, they are still scarred by decisions they took almost a decade ago. 

It is, of course, possible that when the Brexit drama has played out, normal service will resume. Perhaps May and Corbyn will both be replaced by leaders who have greater personal appeal to the electorate. 

I am not so sure. My reason is that May and Corbyn’s truly awful ratings do not flow solely from their personal attributes. Both lead deeply divided parties, and these divisions are unlikely to disappear anytime soon. The faultlines will remain: inward-looking nationalism versus outward-looking enterprise with the Tories; ambitious socialism versus progressive capitalism with Labour. A leader that combined the strategic ability of Napoleon with the genius of Einstein and the moral courage of Mandela would still struggle to win public approval if they could not reunite their parties. The Deltapoll figures providence symptoms of a deeper crisis. 

In short, both main parties are more fragile and less stable than for many decades. First-past-the-post could save both Labour and the Conservatives from the consequences of their current divisions. But it is no longer ridiculous to image a different future. Once the adhesive glue of our electoral system starts to crack, things can change with bewildering speed. A century ago, amid the stresses of post-First-World-War Britain and the divisions within the Liberal Party, realignment happened quickly. Labour climbed from fourth place in 1918 to government in 1924.  

Will Brexit end up having the same glue-cracking effect? And if it does, will the beneficiaries be existing herbivores such as the Liberal Democrats and the Greens; or some new centre party created by disenchanted Labour and Tory moderates; or carnivores on the outer fringes of Right and Left? Is the century-long dominance of Britain’s Parliament by competing forces on the centre Right and centre Left about to end? 

Ask me again in 10 years’ time and I shall tell you. Meanwhile I wouldn’t bet a great deal against changes that could be immense, and which not everyone will like. 

Here is the link to the original article>>>https://unherd.com/2019/01/how-british-politics-is-failing/

RIGHT WING WOES IN LEWISHAM EAST!

RIGHT WING WOES IN LEWISHAM 
It was always a bad idea for any sort of patriotic party to be standing in the Lewisham East by-election.  Let me explain why and please bear with me in being brutally honest about it.
When I was aware that the Labour MP, Heidi Alexander, was stepping down and causing a by-election in the Lewisham East constituency, I was immediately very doubtful as to whether it was worth the English Democrats standing there.  Although I should say that I would never discourage any of our members from standing even in the most unpromising areas if they really want to do so and have the necessary resources to do so.  Even in the most discouraging constituencies there may be some potential converts to the Cause of England!
Lewisham East is certainly such a seat.  Looking at the 2011 Census results Lewisham is a place where relatively few people identified as being “English” and surprisingly few even identified as being in any sense multi-cultural “British”.  
Since 2011 the misleadingly named “Conservative” Party (which actually is led by “Liberal” zealots) has continued with the unrestricted, uncontrolled mass immigration of New Labour and so every single year since then half a million or more immigrants have come to England, many of them settling in places like Lewisham.  That together with “white flight” or the continuing movement of English people out of such places, has led to a near total population displacement where the indigenous English population is largely absent. 
In an area where the indigenous populations are still there, what we see across Western Europe is that the patriotic and nationalist vote rarely exceeds 50% and is usually not more than 30%.  
Because of the way electoral politics works people should not get discouraged at that percentage because a block vote of 30% of the electorate would generally get the candidate elected.  That is of course unless the 30% is split up amongst various parties, as is the case at present in England, with the Conservative Party in particular always standing as a spoiler even in the most unpromising seats for the Conservative Party. 
The “Conservative” objective in doing so is of course to prevent any other party from breaking through, even where they do not actually want to win that constituency.  
This Tory strategem is very much like the Aesop’s Fable of ‘The dog in the Manger’!  

The top of this article is the picture of ‘The dog in the Manger’. Here is that story:-

“A Dog was lying in a Manger full of hay. 
An Ox, being hungry, came near and was going to eat of the hay. 
The Dog, getting up and snarling at him, would not let him touch it. 
“Surly creature,” said the Ox, ” you cannot eat the hay yourself, and yet you will let no one else have any.””
Sure enough in Lewisham the Conservatives and most of the parties to the Left were putting up what is now rather curiously (in such constituencies) still called ethnic minority candidates even where the real ethnic minority in such a constituency would be “White English”!
UKIP put up a black “ethnic minority” their popular London Assembly Member David Kurten.  
The new and it seems politically naive ‘Democrats and Veterans Party’ put up the splendidly named Massimo Dimambro who had 2013 votes in Lewisham Deptford for UKIP in 2015.
Anne Marie Waters who is the Leader of her own new UKIP splinter party which she has called the anodyne “For Britain” very unwisely put herself up to stand in this constituency.  She got 266 votes this time under her new flag compared with the last election where she stood in the constituency then as UKIP candidate when she got 3886 votes!  
Judging from comments on social media it would seem that some of her supporters had got sucked into thinking that she might have been able to do well in this constituency.  For the reasons that I have explained above that was always going to be difficult. 
I had predicted that UKIP, For Britain and the Democrats and Veterans Party together would not get 5%.  In the event combined they got 3.2%.  
Even adding in the Conservative spoiler Candidate’s 3,161 the total Right of center vote was only 3874 which is 12 short of just UKIP’s vote in 2015.
A point of debate was which of them would avoid being beaten by the Monster Raving Loony Party.  In the event the ones beaten by the Loonies were the Democrats and Veterans Party. Anne Marie Walters managed to avoid that fate by a margin of 173 votes. 
It would be interesting to see what the paltry results in this by-election will have on the future development of UKIP, The Democrats and Veterans Party and in particular on the For Britain Party, whose leader Anne Marie Waters had staked so much of her credibility on making a reasonable showing here.

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!

UKIP’S AGONY

UKIP’S AGONY


So now we know! UKIP, I think rather to the surprise of all involved as well as all commentators, has elected the relatively unknown Henry Bolton with just 3,874 votes.

Mr Bolton had been UKIP’s Police Commissioner candidate in Kent, but apart from that his career track record had been in the army and the police and as a Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate standing against Philip Hammond. He was also an EU apparatchik. His background is therefore somewhat surprising for the new Leader of UKIP!

Henry Bolton is the fourth Leader that UKIP has had in 18 months. Their chaotic leadership turbulence has undoubtedly contributed to their fragmentation from the highpoint of them being the main key to the ‘Leave’ vote in the EU referendum.

The public generally seems to think that UKIP’s job is done, judging by UKIP’s election results, but having 18 months of leadership turbulence cannot have helped. This can also be seen in the turnout levels in three leadership levels.

The turnout in the leadership election when they elected Diane James on 16th September 2016 was 17,842. The turnout on 28th November 2016 that elected Paul Nuttall was 15,370. The turnout that elected Henry Bolton on the 29th September 2017 was 12,915 votes.

Now the 2,755 members who voted for Anne Marie Walters and the 2,021 UKIP voters that voted for John Rees-Evans both look set to leave the Party along with both of their preferred leadership candidates.

This is not at all surprising given the insults which they have been subjected to by both Nigel Farage and Mr Bolton himself. If all their supporters leave it would be an exodus of 4,776 members.

I generally take it as the best possible measure of active membership within a party that every member of the party who still identifies themselves as a member of the Party and is engaged with the Party will vote in a leadership election. This is particularly so if, as in the case of UKIP, it was a postal ballot. There is little effort for the individual member in ticking a box and returning the form in the envelope provided, so almost all who care will do so.

It follows that shortly the engaged members of UKIP will be down to 8,139 which is below the 10,000 critical mass level required for maintaining a fully functional political party.

At that point UKIP’s only advantage over the English Democrats (with our 4,500 members) will be reduced to the difference in membership subscriptions and manpower and also the fact that they still have MEPs and other elected officials who are no doubt full time activists for the Party and contribute something to its running costs. Naturally most of those will go in mid-2019.

We may then be back to where we were before the UKIP surge in support in 2011/2012, when we generally beat them whenever we came across them especially where there was a reasonably level playing field. We also achieved much better results per pound than they were able to do. That was because the English Democrats were then clearly identified as the only political party standing up for England.

UKIP succeeded in initially pulling the wool over many peoples’ eyes and made them believe that they also stood up for English interests between 2012 and 2016. Now however it has become obvious, after their leadership elections in 2016 and 2017, that UKIP’s Leaders have rejected any pretence that they are interested in England, the English Nation or in English national issues.

The academic who has done most to study the rise of UKIP (and before that of the BNP) is Professor Matthew Goodwin of Kent University Canterbury. What his research shows and what he says himself is that there is space on the political spectrums for, in English politics what he would refer to, being himself of the Left, as a Radical Right party, similar to that of Marine Le Pen’s Front National.

It doesn’t appear from the remarks that Mr Bolton has made so far that he wants UKIP to be that party.

Mr Bolton has declared that he is not against immigration and, for that matter, he is not even against a transition period in the process of us leaving the European Union. He is therefore happy to not only wait to exit the European Union, but also to do so on the basis that Mrs May is currently talking about, that is continuing to make very substantial payments into the EU budget.

Mr Bolton also strongly attacked Anne Marie Walters and her followers as being racists and Nazis and of the BNP tendency.

Since Anne Marie Walters, although she is very much against Islam, does so from the militant Left/Liberal perspective of wishing to protect Gay Rights rather than as an advocate of the preservation of English traditions and traditional morality (which is not perhaps surprising given that she is of Irish origin and a Lesbian), it was clear that Mr Bolton’s intent on making those remarks wasn’t actually to describe Anne Marie Walters politics, but rather merely to smear her (given the Nazi regime’s record was of executing large numbers of homosexuals and others whom they called “degenerates”!).

If I am right and Mr Bolton’s leadership will take UKIP firmly back into the safe territory of British Establishment Politics, then I must say I really cannot see any future role or purpose for them at all.

HOPES FOR A UKIP BREAKTHROUGH ON THE 23RD FEBRUARY ARE UTTERLY DASHED

HOPES FOR A UKIP BREAKTHROUGH ON THE 23RD FEBRUARY ARE UTTERLY DASHED


February 23rd 2017 was, accordingly to Katie Hopkins, “The day that UKIP died”! As you can see from her scorching prose on this link >>> KATIE HOPKINS on the day Britain became a one party state | Daily Mail Online

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4257106/KATIE-HOPKINS-day-Britain-one-party-state.html#ixzz4ZcY3PVRT

In my view Paul Nuttall started his campaign for the Westminster Parliamentary By-election for Stoke Central (or “Brexit Central” as he unwisely called it), with a positive message about being English and proud of it, but he then did nothing about the English question at all in the election. 

Instead he got totally blown off course with a series of controversies over various inaccurate claims. The result was that his campaign was a defensive one. That is the sort of campaign that you can fight if you are the incumbent. However to stand any chance of success as an “insurgent”, as Nigel Farage rightly pointed out in the UKIP Spring Conference, a campaign has got to be both positive and edgy!

There also seems to have been a failure to fully analyse both UKIP’s and Paul Nuttall’s strengths and weaknesses with regards this campaign. There was also a failure to fully understand the Labour opposition. In particular, there was a total failure to understand the role of Labour’s various Third Party Campaign front groups (such as the appalling and extremist “Hope Not Hate”) and the role that they play, not only in attacking their opponents in a way that doesn’t damage their candidate whilst they are doing it, but also it vastly increases the amount that can legally be spent on the campaign by those supporting Labour.

The outcome on the 23rd, on a dismal turnout from the 62,250 constituents of Stoke Central, was that 7,853 voted Labour (as compared with 12,220 who voted Labour in the General Election 2015).

By contrast UKIP only managed 5,233 as opposed to the 7,041 that voted for UKIP in the General Election. This is UKIP at their high watermark with their party just having achieved both a referendum and a Brexit vote and with Article 50 not having yet been activated. In order to win they only needed to have hung on to all those who voted for them in the General Election and gained a mere 813 extra people, out of the 79% that voted for Brexit in the EU referendum.

Instead of which their actual vote dropped by 1,808 votes. This was when UKIP had put up their Leader. No doubt therefore they have also put their organisational and financial best efforts in trying to win the seat. No doubt also UKIP spent the full £100,000 on the campaign that is allowed under electoral law.

On that same day of the result in Stoke, in Copeland, there was a still more dismal result for UKIP in which their vote in the General Election of 6,148 dropped to 2,025, below even the Liberal Democrats!

By contrast Theresa May and the Conservative strategy for these by-elections was completely successful. They have got an extra sensible sounding MP and humiliated Labour in Copeland, further undermining Jeremy Corbyn’s standing with the Parliamentary Labour Party.

They have a new Labour MP for Stoke who will be nothing but trouble for Jeremy Corbyn once he is in Parliament, but the result allows Corbyn a life-line so that he continues as Labour’s Leader.

The icing on the cake must however be to have lured Paul Nuttall and UKIP onto the rocks. I noticed that Esther McVey was rolled out, when Paul Nuttall was considering whether to stand, to say that she thought that if he stood he would get elected and various other Conservative figures said similar things, thus no doubt encouraging him to follow the rash course of standing.

In doing so Paul had, I think, taken insufficient notice of the fact that the Conservative leadership were aware at least six weeks before of Tristram Hunt’s intention to step down. This is because both the Culture Secretary and Theresa May herself were involved in signing off on him being able to take the job at the Victoria and Albert Museum. That six weeks was reportedly used by the Conservatives to leaflet and canvass the constituency unrestrained by any limitation on electoral spending.

No doubt this was done with the clear objective of ensuring that the Conservative vote held up enough to wreck UKIP’s chances of winning the seat by taking votes off the Conservatives.

The Conservative leadership has thus achieved the double success, that of seriously damaging both Labour and UKIP and of leaving both of their leaders badly damaged but attempting to struggle on.

A footnote to the campaign in Stoke is that the BNP, which used to have councillors in Stoke and was in contention to win the Elected Mayoralty, only managed 124 votes!

ENGLAND’S GREEN AND PLEASANT LAND TO BE BULLDOZED AND CONCRETED BECAUSE OF MASS IMMIGRATION

ENGLAND’S GREEN AND PLEASANT LAND TO BE BULLDOZED AND CONCRETED BECAUSE OF MASS IMMIGRATION


I was talking to a UKIP friend of mine recently. We were agreeing that the English Democrats had had a significant indirect impact on the EU referendum because it was us that first suggested that there should be a linkage made between mass immigration and our inability to control it whilst we were still members of the EU.

There are of course other issues where mass immigration has a direct impact on things that most English people would not want to see happen.

For instance at the moment it is the case that large parts of England are likely to be concreted over as part of a massive housebuilding push in order to accommodate not only the 10-15 million people that came into the country during the Blair years, but also May’s migrant millions.

In the period since Theresa May became Home Secretary, back in 2010, to date there has usually been in excess of half a million migrants coming into our country every single year.

So, even on the understated figures that Government usually comes out with, that must mean at least 3 million more population in the country. Therefore at least a couple of million new houses that have to be built as a result of May’s migration mess.

Simon Heffer wrote an article about this recently which was published in the Sunday Telegraph on 8th January 2017 under the Title “Javid’s folly would be to build in Tory back yards”. Although he is rather concentrating on the electoral prospects of the Conservatives, a matter which I have little interest in, nevertheless he makes many good points which we need to bear in mind.

Here are a few key quotations from his article:-

“Thanks primarily to two things – unchecked immigration and high divorce rates – we have insufficient housing. Prices are so high in the south-east that many live with their parents well into their 30s. Essential staff, such as teachers and those in the emergency services, struggle to find a home anywhere near their workplace. Something must be done and Sajid Javid, the Communities Secretary, has announced a White Paper on the matter.

The United Kingdom has roughly the same population as France, but in square miles is well under half the size. A disproportionate number of Britons live in England, and a disproportionate number of them live in or around London. We had a taste of Government policy last week, before the White Paper, in the announcement of 14 garden villages and three garden towns. The villages will provide around 50,000 homes and the towns will have at least 10,000 each. Even then, at today’s rate of immigration, we will within months be back to square one.

Some of the proposed villages are well-placed in Essex, for example, one is destined for an unremarkable corner of bleak farmland between the M25 and the Southend Arterial Road, and will if anything improve the landscape. But the Hertfordshire garden town will swallow up existing small villages, destroying their character and history, and eat up some green belt outside the postwar new town of Harlow. The Government seems to wish to avoid confronting one key issue, which a satisfactory White Paper would address explicitly: does the Government have a conception of something called rural England that would continue to exist in our increasingly overcrowded country and, if so, what will it do to protect it? Or should those of us who live in the countryside regard our environment as temporary, and at the whim of government?

I fear it has no such conception at all. It contemplates concreting over tracts of prime farmland just as we leave the Common Agricultural Policy and have to fend more for ourselves. This would also mean, in the south-east, that towns now separated by countryside will soon join up with each other, making huge new conurbations. Bullied by the Government, local councils will accede to this blight on the homes of hundreds of thousands of existing residents, and there is no shortage of developers (some of them Tory party donors) ready to exploit this weakness. Any idea that this will be done by local consent is rubbish: the problem is too acute, and the desire for an easy way out too pressing.

The White Paper will seek to reform planning laws to make such bullying irresistible. Mr Javid knows that just tweaking the system will have no appreciable results at all. But that is all right in theory: doing it in practice will be quite another matter. It not only means that hundreds of thousands of people who think they live in the countryside will wake up one day and realise that, very soon, they will not. It will also put additional stress on the road and rail network in a part of England where that infrastructure is already at breaking point. Mr Javid is far from stupid, and he ought to realise not just the practical difficulties of trying to cram a quart into a pint pot in the home counties, but also the electoral suicide his party could be committing if it pursues this course.”

(Here is the link to the original article >>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/07/sajid-javids-folly-would-build-tory-back-yards/ )

BREXIT – BEFUDDLED AND BE-JUDGED!


BREXIT – BEFUDDLED AND BE-JUDGED!


The High Court of Justice of England and Wales has made a preliminary and sensational ruling on how Brexit must be approached. The case, in addition to being politically significant, is of course legally and constitutionally significant as the High Court did pull out all the stops knowing that that was the case, with no less than three of the most senior judges in the England and Wales jurisdiction sitting on the case; the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, and Lord Justice Sales. The case itself is :- The Queen on the application of (1) Gina Miller & (2) Deir Tozetti Dos Santos – and – The Secretary of State for Exiting the EU. It can be found on the court website here:- https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/judgment-r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-eu-20161103.pdf

The case is worth reading if you are at all interested in the law of Constitution. 

There is however a potted summary here for those less interested in legal details >>>

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/summary-r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-eu-20161103.pdf

Here is the text of the Summary:-

“R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union

Summary of the judgment of the Divisional Court

References in square brackets are to paragraphs in the judgment.

The Question

1. The issue before the court is whether, as a matter of UK constitutional law, the Government is entitled to give notice of a decision to leave the European Union under Article 50 by exercise of the Crown’s prerogative powers and without reference to Parliament. This is a pure question of law. The court is not concerned with and does not express any view about the merits of leaving the European Union: that is a political issue.

2. It is accepted by all sides that this legal question is properly before the court and justiciable: under the UK constitution, it is one for the court to decide [5]. It turns on the extent of the Crown’s powers under its prerogative [explained at 24-29]. The Government accepts that neither the European Union Referendum Act 2015 nor any other Act of Parliament confers on it statutory authority (as distinct from the Crown’s prerogative power) to give notice under Article 50 [67-72, 76 and 105-108].

3. On 1 January 1973 the United Kingdom joined what were then the European Communities, including the European Economic Community. Parliament passed the European Communities Act 1973 (1972 Act) to allow that to happen since it was a condition of membership that Community law should be given effect in the domestic law of the United Kingdom and primary legislation was required to achieve this [1 and 36-54]. The European Communities have now become the European Union.

4. Pursuant to the European Union Referendum Act 2015 a referendum was held on 23 June 2016 on the question whether the United Kingdom should leave or remain in the European Union. The answer given was that the UK should leave [2].

 
5. The process for withdrawal is governed by Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, which states that once a Member State gives notice to withdraw there is a two-year period in which to negotiate a withdrawal agreement. If no agreement is reached in this time then, subject only to agreement to an extension of time with the European Council acting unanimously, the EU Treaties shall cease to apply to that State. The Government accepts that a notice under Article 50 cannot be withdrawn once it has been given. It also accepts that Article 50 does not allow a conditional notice to be given: a notice cannot be qualified by stating that Parliament is required to approve any withdrawal agreement made in the course of Article 50 negotiations [9-17].

6. Therefore, once notice is given under Article 50, some rights under EU law as incorporated into domestic law by the 1972 Act would inevitably be lost once the Article 50 withdrawal process is completed [57-66].


The Constitutional principles

7. The most fundamental rule of the UK’s constitution is that Parliament is sovereign and can make and unmake any law it chooses. As an aspect of the sovereignty of Parliament it has been established for hundreds of years that the Crown – i.e. the Government of the day – cannot by exercise of prerogative powers override legislation enacted by Parliament. This principle is of critical importance and sets the context for the general rule on which the Government seeks to rely – that normally the conduct of international relations and the making and unmaking of treaties are taken to be matters falling within the scope of the Crown’s prerogative powers. That general rule exists precisely because the exercise of such prerogative powers has not effect on domestic law, including as laid down by Parliament in legislation [18-36].

8. In the present case, however, the Government accepts, and indeed positively contends, that if notice is given under Article 50 it will inevitably have the effect of changing domestic law. Those elements of EU law which Parliament has made part of domestic law by enactment of the 1972 Act will in due course cease to have effect [76-80].

9. The central contention of the Government in the present case is that Parliament must be taken to have intended when it enacted the 1972 Act that the Crown would retain its prerogative power to effect a withdrawal from the Community Treaties (now the EU Treaties), and thereby intended that the Crown should have the power to choose whether EU law should continue to have effect in the domestic law of the UK or not [76-81].

Conclusion

10. The Court does not accept the argument put forward by the Government. There is nothing in the text of the 1972 Act to support it. In the judgment of the Court the argument is contrary both to the language used by Parliament in the 1972 Act and to the fundamental constitutional principles of the sovereignty of Parliament and the absence of any entitlement on the part of the Crown to change domestic law by the exercise of its prerogative powers [82-94, 97-104]. The Court expressly accepts the principal argument of the claimants [95-96].

11. For the reasons set out in the judgment, we decide that the Government does not have power under the Crown’s prerogative to give notice pursuant to Article 50 for the UK to withdraw from the European Union.

This summary is provided to assist in understanding the Court’s decision. It does not form part of the reasons for the decision. The full judgment of the Court is the only authoritative document.”

Following the release of this Judgment there has been an attack on the political and demographic origins of the three Judges, all three of whom are the product of Labour’s Lord Derry Irvine “Reforms” to the selection and promotion of the judiciary. Lord Irvine expressly said these had been engineered to “ensure that no-one with reactionary views could be appointed or promoted within the judiciary”. This expressed objective has clearly been achieved with these three judges. The

Lord Chief Justice background as an active Europhile was amply exposed in the Daily Mail article here >>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3903436/Enemies-people-Fury-touch-judges-defied-17-4m-Brexit-voters-trigger-constitutional-crisis.html

In the original version of the article, the Daily Mail also reported the Master of the Rolls, Sir Terence Etherton as being the first “openly gay” senior Judge and also as having married his boyfriend in “a traditional Jewish marriage ceremony”.

Lord Justice Sales was exposed as being one of Lord Irvine’s personal protégées.

So it appears that we can be reasonably confident of the personal views and political prejudices of all three judges!

From a lawyer’s point of view there was therefore, particularly with the Lord Chief Justice, good grounds for applying the approach which was adopted by the House of Lords in the Pinochet case to Lord Hoffman who had ruled based on his own political prejudices. The case can be found here>>> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldjudgmt/jd990115/pino01.htm

The most extraordinary aspect of this fiasco is that any reasonably competent country solicitor would have advised the Government that where a challenge was being made to legal rights to take action (in this case the Government giving notice under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty) the obvious thing to do is to get on with it and give the Notice.

This of course would have made it pointless continuing with the court case. The Notice would already have been accepted by the European Union and the process of leaving the EU would therefore be underway regardless of what any court had to say. In such cases the courts are very unwilling to give rulings on what are described as “moot points”. It follows that the fiasco is a product of delay and incompetence within the May Government.

Turning back to the Judgment, it is a Judgment that is more dubious on previous legal authority than it sounds as it is phrased in what has been described as “muscular” language. I would also respectfully suggest it seems to be over certain of its legal position. This is however partly a result of the incompetence of the Attorney General in agreeing that the case was “justiciable”.

As an example of arguments that show that the Judgment is more dubious than it seems, see here for an academic analysis >>> https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2016/11/04/the-high-courts-judgment-in-miller-a-brief-comment/

Here is the text of the article:-

“The High Court’s judgment in Miller: A brief comment

The following short comment on the High Court’s judgment in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2016] EWHC 2768 (Admin) was published on the Judicial Power Project’s website and is reproduced here with permission. The piece is part of a collection of short commentaries published by the Judicial Power Project; the full collection can be accessed here. I will be publishing a more detailed piece on Miller in due course.

Some of today’s press coverage of the judgment in Miller, accusing judges of acting undemocratically, is deplorable. It is entirely right and proper that the Court should determine the legal extent of executive authority. That is an axiomatic judicial function in a democracy founded on the rule of law. But what of the content of the decision?

The judgment is striking in its muscularity. The Court considered the Government case to be so weak that it judged it untenable before even considering the claimant’s arguments in detail. The Government’s case, said the Court, was ‘flawed’ at a ‘basic level’. Reading the judgment, one might be forgiven for thinking that the Government had advanced a heterodox argument of outlandish proportions. In fact, it was simply asserting that it could use a prerogative power to begin negotiations on the international plane. None of this is to deny the subtlety of the issues to which that contention gives rise concerning the relationship between EU and domestic law, and the role played by the European Communities Act 1972 in mediating that relationship. But as John Finnis has shown, the Government’s position is far from unarguable.

Once the Divisional Court had accepted — contrary to Finnis’s view — that EU law rights are to be considered domestic statutory rights enacted by Parliament, its focus inevitably shifted to the question whether the ECA was to be read as having displaced the Government’s ability to use the prerogative to begin the Article 50 process. In concluding that the ECA had indeed produced such an effect, the Court engaged in a highly creative process of statutory interpretation that involved relying upon the ECA’s status as a ‘constitutional statute’; treating the Act’s ‘constitutional status’ as evidence of Parliament’s intention — a view that is in tension with Laws LJ’s analysis in Thoburn; invoking certain ‘background constitutional principles’ that are relevant to statutory interpretation; and asserting that those principles are particularly relevant to the construction of constitutional statutes.

My point, in this short comment, is not to assess the correctness of the court’s conclusion on this matter. Rather, it is to observe that that conclusion — and the reasoning on which it is based — is highly contestable. Perhaps, therefore, the most surprising aspect of Miller is that the confident certainty of the terms in which the judgment is framed obscures almost entirely the complexity and contestability of the questions to which it gives rise, concerning the selection, content and interaction of the constitutional principles that form the prism through which the ECA falls to be examined.”

The core of the Judgment is that the central institution within the Constitution is the Crown in Parliament. Here is a section of the Judgment well worth quoting and bearing in mind.

“ The principles of constitutional law: the sovereignty of Parliament and the prerogative powers of the Crown

The United Kingdom constitution
 
18. The United Kingdom does not have a constitution to be found entirely in a written document. This does not mean there is an absence of a constitution or constitutional law. On the contrary, the United Kingdom has its own form of constitutional law, as recognised in each of the jurisdictions of the four constituent nations. Some of it is written, in the form of statutes which have particular constitutional importance (as we explain at paragraphs 43-44). Some of it is reflected in fundamental rules of law recognised by both Parliament and the courts. There are established and well-recognised legal rules which govern the exercise of public power and which distribute decision-making authority between different entities in the state and define the extent of their respective powers. The United Kingdom is a constitutional democracy framed by legal rules and subject to the rule of law. The courts have a constitutional duty fundamental to the rule of law in a democratic state to enforce rules of constitutional law in the same way as the courts enforce other laws.
 
19. In these proceedings, this court is called upon to apply the constitutional law of the United Kingdom to determine whether the Crown has prerogative powers to give notice under Article 50 to trigger the process for withdrawal from the European Union. The law we were taken to was primarily the law of England and Wales, with some reference to the position in the other jurisdictions in the United Kingdom, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Although this court only has jurisdiction to apply the law of England and Wales, we note that no-one in these proceedings has suggested that such parts of constitutional law in Scotland and Northern Ireland in relation to the interaction between statute and the Crown’s prerogative powers as are relevant to determine the outcome in this case are any different from the law of England and Wales on that topic. Accordingly, for ease of reference and in view of the general constitutional importance of this case we will refer to UK constitutional law.
 
The sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament
 
20. It is common ground that the most fundamental rule of UK constitutional law is that the Crown in Parliament is sovereign and that legislation enacted by the Crown with the consent of both Houses of Parliament is supreme (we will use the familiar shorthand and refer simply to Parliament). Parliament can, by enactment of primary legislation, change the law of the land in any way it chooses. There is no superior form of law than primary legislation, save only where Parliament has itself made provision to allow that to happen. The ECA 1972, which confers precedence on EU law, is the sole example of this.
 
21. But even then Parliament remains sovereign and supreme, and has continuing power to remove the authority given to other law by earlier primary legislation. Put shortly, Parliament has power to repeal the ECA 1972 if it wishes.
 
22. In what is still the leading account, An Introduction to the Law of the Constitution by the constitutional jurist Professor A.V. Dicey, he explains that the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty means that Parliament has:

“the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and, further, that no person or body is recognised by the law … as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament.”

(p. 38 of the 8th edition, 1915, the last edition by Dicey himself; and see chapter 1 generally).

Amongst other things, this has the corollary that it cannot be said that a law is invalid as being opposed to the opinion of the electorate, since as a matter of law:

“The judges know nothing about any will of the people except in so far as that will is expressed by an Act of Parliament, and would never suffer the validity of a statute to be questioned on the ground of its having been passed or being kept alive in opposition to the wishes of the electors.” (ibid. pp. 57 and 72).
 
23. The principle of Parliamentary sovereignty has been recognised many times in leading cases of the highest authority. Since the principle is common ground in these proceedings it is only necessary to cite the speech of Lord Bingham of Cornhill in R (Jackson) v Attorney General[2005] UKHL 56; [2006] 1 AC 262 at para. [9]:

“The bedrock of the British constitution is … the supremacy of the Crown in Parliament …”.
 
 The Crown’s prerogative powers
 
24. The extent of the powers of the Crown under its prerogative (often called the royal prerogative) are delineated by UK constitutional law. These prerogative powers constitute the residue of legal authority left in the hands of the Crown. As Lord Reid said in Burmah Oil Co (Burma Trading) Ltd v Lord Advocate [1965] AC 75, at 101:

“The prerogative is really a relic of a past age, not lost by disuse, but only available for a case not covered by statute.”
 
25. An important aspect of the fundamental principle of Parliamentary sovereignty is that primary legislation is not subject to displacement by the Crown through the exercise of its prerogative powers. But the constitutional limits on the prerogative powers of the Crown are more extensive than this. The Crown has only those prerogative powers recognised by the common law and their exercise only produces legal effects within boundaries so recognised. Outside those boundaries the Crown has no power to alter the law of the land, whether it be common law or contained in legislation.
 
26. This subordination of the Crown (i.e. the executive government) to law is the foundation of the rule of law in the United Kingdom. It has its roots well before the war between the Crown and Parliament in the seventeenth century but was decisively confirmed in the settlement arrived at with the Glorious Revolution in 1688 and has been recognised ever since.
 
27. Sir Edward Coke reports the considered view of himself and the senior judges of the time in The Case of Proclamations (1610) 12 Co. Rep. 74, that:

“the King by his proclamation or other ways cannot change any part of the common law, or statute law, or the customs of the realm”

and that:

“the King hath no prerogative, but that which the law of the land allows him.”
 
28. The position was confirmed in the first two parts of section 1 of the Bill of Rights 1688:

“Suspending power – That the pretended power of suspending of laws or the execution of laws by regall authority without consent of Parlyament is illegall.

Late dispensing power – That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regall authoritie as it hath beene assumed and exercised of late is illegall.”
 
29. The legal position was summarised by the Privy Council in The Zamora [1916] 2 AC 77, at 90:

“The idea that the King in Council, or indeed any branch of the Executive, has power to prescribe or alter the law to be administered by Courts of law in this country is out of harmony with the principles of our Constitution. It is true that, under a number of modern statutes, various branches of the Executive have power to make rules having the force of statutes, but all such rules derive their validity from the statute which creates the power, and not from the executive body by which they are made. No one would contend that the prerogative involves any power to prescribe or alter the law administered in Courts of Common Law or Equity…”

These principles are not only well settled but are also common ground. It is therefore not necessary to explain them further.”

This approach is, to be fair, consistent with the way our Constitution Law has developed. I have previously commented that democracy is very much a bolt-on to the oligarchic principles of the British Constitution. No clearer statement of that could really be sought from any legal Judgment.

In a genuine democracy it is the “People” and the “Nation” which is sovereign, not some constitutional construct like the “Crown in Parliament”. In a genuine democracy the “Crown in Parliament” would be seen to be the delegates of the People not their masters. The People within a democracy are “citizens” not “subjects”. The United States Constitution has a greater aspiration towards being democratic than our constitution which is why there is reference to “we the People…” and court cases are brought in the name of “the People” against the accused rather than as here “the Crown” against the accused.

So what we have in this case is a strongly worded logical Judgment based on the traditional unpinning of the Constitution arising out of the English Bill of Rights and 1689 Glorious Revolution, not on the theory of democracy or any ideas of nationhood.

It looks to me from the Judgment as if the Government may also have failed to argue a distinction between directly applicable EU rights that arise through the EU system and are directly applied as a result of the European Communities Act and have agreed that those rights are the same in essence as rights arising from either Common Law or Statute. Those are the rights which previous cases have upheld as being outside the power of the Royal prerogative to change.

That being the case it may well be that the Supreme Court next month will rule to uphold this Judgment. If that is the case then be in no doubt that the giving of notice under Article 50 will require primary legislation to go through Parliament. That is an Act to be passed by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords and to be given Royal Assent and to be implemented by an Order from the Privy Council.

Such legislation to become an Act of Parliament will be subject to all sorts of quibbles and delaying tactics by the Remainers who form a huge majority of Members of Parliament and Peers. It follows that we look like we are entering a major constitutional crisis at least equivalent to that of Lloyd George’s budget in 1911, which, combined with the Irish Question, got us perilously close to civil war with the then Leader of the Conservative Party involved in smuggling arms!

There is also the tempting question to Tories of whether the Conservatives can get electoral advantage by wrong-footing Labour into outright opposition to such a bill and then being able to get a two thirds majority in the House of Commons for a snap election under the Fixed Terms Parliament Act!

As a postscript would the Conservatives campaigning for a mandate to trigger the Article 50 notice be temptingly likely to achieve Theresa May’s aim of destroying UKIP?

It will also be interesting to see if Labour can actually survive as a Party outside of the metropolitan areas on a ticket of opposing Brexit when a vast majority of their voters in much of the rest of England voted to Leave in June’s EU Referendum!

What about UKIP?


What about UKIP?

I can’t start answering this question, which relates to the political future of UKIP, without mentioning the legal Latin expression “Functus Officio”.

Functus Officio means a duty completely finished, or to quote from Black’s Legal Dictionary:-

 “Latin: Having fulfilled the function, discharged the office, or accomplished the purpose, and therefore of no further force or authority. Applied to an officer whose term has expired, and who has consequently no further official authority; and also to an instrument, power, agency, etc. which has fulfilled the purpose of its creation, and is therefore of no further virtue or effect.”

The words of the second verse of that great Victorian funeral hymn “Abide with Me” also seems very suitable too. Here they are:-

“Swift to its close, ebbs out life’s little day;

Earth’s joys grow dim; its glories pass away;

Change and decay in all around I see;

O Thou who changest not, abide with me.”

It is however fair that I also mention Nigel Farage’s and UKIP’s highly significant role in getting David Cameron to make what for Dave was the greatest political mistake of his life. That role was in bluffing him into calling a referendum on our continued membership of the EU.

Andrew Marr writing in the New Statesman on 1st July reported that:- 

“According to one of those involved, this all started at a pizza restaurant at Chicago O’Hare Airport at the time of a Nato conference in 2012, when David Cameron and his closest political allies decided that the only way of scuppering Ukip and the Euro-hostile Right of the Conservative Party was to give the British people a referendum.”

We English People, and our Nation, will always owe a debt of gratitude to UKIP and its role in getting us the opportunity to democratically vote to Leave the EU.

But perhaps, rather like an effective catalyst in causing a chemical reaction, in doing all this UKIP may have caused its own destruction.

Of course at this stage it is not clear for sure what the outcome of UKIP’s leadership election is going to be, nor what will be left of their Party once they have finished fighting over its constitutional structure at the emergency EGM which Arron Banks is organising.

ESSEX POLICE COMMISSIONER ELECTION


ESSEX POLICE COMMISSIONER ELECTION


I issued the press release below last Wednesday which got a certain amount of coverage in Essex, as I was the only prospective candidate who had stood at the previous election.

I was in some ways a bit sorry to do this as I had been looking forward to the Police Commissioner elections which offer the opportunity to do a few hustings in which, so far, we have saved every single deposit. It simply was not however practical to fund all the elections that we were getting involved in, especially when Winston McKenzie’s potential candidacy was taken into account.

Also, and very importantly, in Essex looking at the field it was clear in any election prior to the 23rd June that UKIP was likely to do quite well.

Furthermore Bob Spink is, as I have said in the press release, an excellent candidate who in fact also has previously been in talks with us as a prospective English Nationalist so I had less difficulty, from a policy point of view, in supporting him and hope that my support and also the reduction in splitting the non-Tory vote may assist in getting Bob elected.

Here is the press release. What do you think?

ESSEX POLICE COMMISSIONER ELECTIONS UPDATE

Robin Tilbrook stands down to support Bob Spink


Robin Tilbrook, the Chairman of the English Democrats Party, who is also an Essex Solicitor and a past President of the Mid Essex Law Society, has announced that he is supporting Bob Spink for Essex Police Commissioner. (Photo attached)

Robin was going to stand again in the Police Commissioner Elections in Essex to be held on 5th May, but today, Thursday, 7th April, as nominations close, Robin has announced that he is not going to stand but instead is supporting Bob Spink and has seconded Bob’s nomination to be the next Essex Police Commissioner.

Robin Tilbrook said:- “I am delighted that Essex is going to have Bob Spink standing in this election. Bob is a really strong candidate who has a very real opportunity to win this very important executive post”.

Robin said:- “In many ways this election is for a ‘Boris’ or ‘Ken’ style Mayor of Essex. The winner will have a very important job to do in setting the policies, priorities, budgets and direction of not only policing in Essex, but also Essex’ Fire Service too.”

Robin continued:- “This role needs someone of Bob’s experience. Bob has been in the forces with ‘exemplary’ service and an Engineer and leading Management Consultant. He has also been a Police Authority Member, a County Councillor and a Police Cells Lay Visitor. He was also previously the hardworking MP for Essex’s Castlepoint. He was the Junior Government Home Office Minister (Police & Crime). His parliamentary chairmanships include the United Nations Assn UK, Parliamentary Science & Education Committee.”

“What a fantastic and impressive c.v. to put before the People of Essex!”

“I hope this election will see Bob elected and Essex policing set for a period of real and sensible reform to return our Police to their proper role of protecting us from criminals!”

SPEECH AT ENGLISH DEMOCRATS’ SPRING CONFERENCE, AT HUNTINGDON – 12TH MARCH 2016

SPEECH AT ENGLISH DEMOCRATS’ SPRING CONFERENCE, AT HUNTINGDON – 12TH MARCH 2016

Good morning Ladies & Gentlemen

Thank you to our organisers. We are gathered here near historic Huntingdon and also moderately near to the village of Tilbrook! We are also not far from the site of the Battle of Naseby which decided the first Civil War.

Oliver Cromwell, was one of England’s greatest men. He was born near here and grew up in the area. His uncle owned the Great House at Hinchingbrook (now the Huntingdon hospital).

Oliver went to Huntingdon Grammar School, the original building of which is in the centre of Huntingdon and is one of the best museums anywhere to see historical items from Cromwell’s life.

Here are some of Oliver’s famous sayings:-

“I was by birth a gentleman, living neither in any considerable height, nor yet in obscurity. I have been called to several employments in the nation-to serve in parliaments,- and (because I would not be over tedious ) I did endevour to discharge the duty of an honest man in those services, to god, and his people’s interest, and of the commonwealth; having, when time was, a competent acceptation in the hearts of men, and some evidence thereof.”

_____________________________________________________

Cromwell on his personal fortunes:-

“no one rises so high as he who knows not whither he is going.”
______________________________________________________

And

If only our politicians thought like this:-

“i desire not to keep my place in this government an hour longer than i may preserve england in it’s just rights, and may protect the people of god in such a just liberty of their consciences….”

Cromwell to the first protectorate parliament, 22 January 1655.

______________________________________________________

We should all like this saying:-

We are Englishmen; that is one good fact.

______________________________________________________

Who could disagree with:-

A few honest men are better than numbers.

______________________________________________________

And this is perhaps the most famous of all his recorded sayings.

“mr lely, i desire you would use all your skill to paint your picture truly like me, and not flatter me at all; but remark all these roughness, pimples, warts, and everything as you see me; otherwise i will never pay a farthing for it.”

_______________________________________________________

Another famous one is

“i had rather have a plain russet-coated captain that knows what he fights for, and loves what he knows, than that which you call a gentleman and is nothing else.”
Letter from Cromwell to Sir William Spring. Sept. 1643.

______________________________________________________

Cromwell said to one of the judges at the trial of King Charles I.1648.

“i tell you we will cut off his head with the crown upon it .”

______________________________________________________

Cromwell commented on the execution of King Charles I. Jan 1649 calling it

“cruel necessity”.

______________________________________________________

Oliver Cromwell has often inaccurately been accused of massacres of civilians in Ireland. After the storming of Drogheda.1649. The siege began on 3rd September and he had issued an order that no man found in arms was to be taken prisoner.

He said about the English Royalists jthat had been killed:-

“this is a righteous judgement of god upon these
barbarous wretches, who have imbrued their hands in so much innocent blood….”
______________________________________________________

Addressing the Rump parliament. April 1653. Cromwell famously said:-

“you have been sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!.”

______________________________________________________

­­­­­­ After his famous victory over a much larger Scottish Army at Dunbar on 3rd September 1650 he wrote:-

“God made them as stubble to our swords”

_______________________________________________________

On the Constitution he said:-

“in every government there must be somewhat fundamental, somewhat like a magna charta, that should be standing and unalterable…that parliaments should not make themselves perpetual is a fundamental.”
Cromwell in a speech to the first protectorate parliament, 12 September 1654.

______________________________________________________

­­­­­­ Cromwell’s last words which he said on the 3rd September this time in 1658

“my design is to make what haste I can to be gone.”

______________________________________________________

England was lucky in Oliver Cromwell who was the key figure in the post Civil War period but was not personally ambitious so he refused to be made King and he behaved more modestly and moderately, and dare I say more like the Englishman he was, than all too many others in his situation – like Napoleon, Stalin or worst of all Mao Tse Tung.

Turning to England and now; on Friday last week I was asked to do an early morning so-called “drive time” interview for LBC compered by Lisa Aziz and up against a Left-wing Republican called James from IB Times on the hot topic of the day which was whether the English Nation should be allowed to have our own National Anthem!

Having done these sorts of interviews on many occasions now over the last 15 years and always, upon mentioning one of the ‘E’ words (that is English or England!), always having been accused by whichever Leftist has been put up against me of being a “Racist” to have dared to mention it, I had the disorientating and dizzying experience of having this one say that he agreed that Jerusalem ought to be chosen as our national anthem. Also that the English Nation should be allowed to celebrate its unity and furthermore it was only right that we were allowed to choose our own national anthem! Ladies and gentlemen what do you think of that?

The discussion was brought on because a Labour MP, Toby Perkins from Chesterfield had a Private Members Bill being tabled that day for England to have its own national anthem. The Bill was supported by a Cross Bench group of Conservatives and Labour MPs. So at the heart of the Westminster Political Establishment and at the heart of the British Political Class there is starting to stir, at last, an awareness that England and the English Nation and the English People are now more than beginning to awaken to the fact that we are not being fairly treated.

On the other side there were people like the old Etonian MP for North Somerset, Jacob Rees-Mogg, still arguing against an English national anthem. The Rugby Football Union, the governing body of English rugby, came out against having an English anthem.

Also the revolting anti-English Greg Dyke, the Chairman of the Football Association, the ruling body of soccer. He is the man who once infamously said that the BBC was “hideously white”. Also various Tories and some Labour MPs were trying to undermine the Private Members Bill.

This is only one example of many others that I could pick where the English Question is now becoming more and more central and openly contested.

Ladies and Gentlemen what these developments show is that we are reaching the tipping point, we are getting to critical mass, we are getting to the key point that we have worked for all these years in our campaigning to energise English nationalism to become a force in British politics. I regard that as a potentially very optimistic sign for our future.

Before us on 5th May this year we have local elections and Police Commissioner elections. Let me just remind you about Police Commissioner elections. Being a Police Commissioner or PCC as the Establishment want to call them, that is a Police and Crime Commissioner, is actually a very significant job with serious executive power and a huge budget; with the ability to change the whole way in which a county police force operates and what crimes and investigations they prioritise. If we manage to get an English Democrat elected to the role of Police Commissioner we would be able to achieve a sensational change in the way that that part of the country is policed. I would therefore urge support for our Police Commissioner candidates and if you live in a county where we haven’t currently got a candidate and feel you might be interested in getting involved in this please do let us know. It is not too late.

We are going to hear more about this later and also about the London Mayoral election.

Then turning to the EU Referendum, in a mere 15 weeks, on the 23rd June we have the most important vote for the future of England. Those of you who follow my blog will have seen that I have been paying quite a lot of thought to it.

As I see it, the current opinion polls are evenly balanced with the majority at the moment slightly on the side of Remain. For those of us who want this historic once in a lifetime vote to produce an Exit result, we do need to find the right way of talking about this to persuade those people who are uncertain.

We have already seen that Project Fear has been unleashed by the Inners -although I have got some doubts as to whether Lord Stuart Rose of M&S will find his confirmation that Brexit would lead to higher wages will be quite as helpful for his cause as he may have hoped. He also said higher wages were “not necessarily a good thing”. Of course he meant for bosses of big companies and rich people like him!

There is also the structure of the referendum to consider. At the moment we are somewhat diverted by the fact that there are lots of arguments going on between the two leading rival groups who are trying to get Designation as the lead group. I think the way the discussions are being reported suggests that those leading these groups haven’t really worked out who ultimately controls the designation process. Technically that is the Electoral Commission. No doubt the Electoral Commission members themselves will be extremely conscious that they owe their appointments to the Government and will no doubt make sure that they do appoint, as the Designated group, the group which George Osbourne and David Cameron would most prefer to be appointed. The other groups, including our own group, will then be left to register as supporting groups.

At the moment it is being discussed as if it was a bad thing that there are so many groups, but the fact of the matter is that the In Campaign under the Act of Parliament under which the referendum will be held is not only allowed to spend £7m but also the EU can spend money too, whereas the Out Campaign is only allowed to spend £7m in total. The In Campaign also has the backing of the Government and the Civil Service and of big business so the playing field is very far from level. However individuals are allowed to spend up to £10,000 campaigning without registering with the Electoral Commission, but any registered campaign is allowed to spend up to £700,000. It follows that Out does need as many campaigns as possible to be registered so that we on our side can hope to match the overall spending of In.

I therefore think that our currently small campaign ‘Vote2Leave.EU’ may prove to be far more useful to the Cause of Out than anybody outside this room currently thinks.

As I mentioned earlier, I think it is also important to consider what arguments need to be deployed in order to maximise the chance of getting people to vote Out during the EU referendum.


Professor Matthew Goodwin has analysed some ways us Outers could win. Click here for the original article which has the charts to which he refers to >>> http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexitvote/2016/02/28/matthew-goodwin-examines-five-ways-the-outers-could-win/

The first question to consider is what is the current state of public opinion?

Professor Goodwin says that:-

Perhaps as much as 42% of the electorate are either unsure about how they will vote in the referendum, or fall into ‘soft Remain’ or ‘soft Leave’ categories. How can the Leave campaigns seek to win over these people?

Since David Cameron’s announcement that the referendum will be held on June 23, we have had a few new polls. What is the overall picture? In the Poll of Polls, the headline is Remain on 53% versus Leave on 47%. There really is everything to play for. We are exploring a different question: what are the most plausible scenarios whereby the Outers win?

We hear much about how they are the underdogs, but little about how their campaign could possibly deliver Brexit – based on research.

We now know that a large number of voters are ‘soft’ – people who are leaning toward Remain or Leave, but who readily admit that they could change their minds. In a recent YouGov poll of 4,000 adults it was suggested that as much as 42% of the electorate fell into this category or were Unsure about how they will vote. Much will depend on how successfully the Remain and Leave campaigns convert these voters. After all, the outcome of the referendum in Scotland was determined less by winning over the undecided than by convincing Yes voters to switch to No.

Here is how Professor Goodwin thinks Out could win:-

1. A populist anti-establishment revolt against threats to British identity


The research on Euroscepticism is clear about one thing – the more concerned that somebody is about threats to British identity, the more likely they are to back Brexit. This is reflected in a recent Chatham House briefing paper on the drivers of anti-EU attitudes – those who felt strongly concerned about the economic and cultural effects of immigration were consistently among the most likely to back Brexit. However, the key word is intensity.

It is also clear that Brexit is only a majority view among those who feel the most strongly concerned about threats to British identity. The first thing to say is that public anxiety over how the EU is seen to be undermining British identity is widespread. But it is also true that there is only majority support for leaving the EU among those who ‘strongly agree’ that the EU threatens Britain’s identity.

Even among those who only ‘agree’ about this threat to identity, Brexit lacks majority support, while those who do not feel culturally threatened back Remain in large numbers.

One possible path to Brexit, therefore, is to intensify this public angst over threats to British identity, pushing a larger number of people into the ‘strongly agree’ column. This is where the refugee crisis and net migration are especially important.

2. A populist anti-establishment revolt rooted in Englishness


This is the issue that we English Democrats are best placed to support.

Professor Goodwin says a different but related path to Brexit is a revolt against Brussels rooted more specifically in appeals to Englishness. This draws on research that shows that there is a very strong association between feelings of English identity and Euroscepticism. People who identify themselves as Leave voters consistently prioritise their Englishness over Britishness, whereas people who identify with Remain prioritise their Britishness over Englishness. Brexiters, therefore, may want to spend the next four months pitching to this English identity. On the other side, David Cameron would be well advised to avoid doing anything that might inadvertently fuel this Englishness (such as by reminding the English that they could free themselves from the Scots by voting for Brexit).

3. Open up a new flank – the National Health Service


There is a neglected but intriguing area in this referendum debate – the National Health Service. When voters were recently asked about the effects of Brexit on different areas of national life, such as Britain’s economy or global influence, the NHS was the one area where people appeared more convinced that Brexit might actually help rather than hinder. This shows the ‘net good’ effect of Brexit on the NHS (i.e. the percentage of voters who think the effect will be good minus the percentage who think it will be bad).

First, it is worth noting that the percentage of voters who think Brexit will have a good effect on the NHS is around twice as high as the percentage who think it would have a bad effect. Only the most committed Remain voters think that Brexit would have negative effects, while all other voters appear receptive to the idea that by leaving the EU Britain could invest more resources into its hospitals and improve public resources going through tough times.

‘Leave the European Union to save the NHS’, appears to be one line that might resonate.

That the Leave groups are targeting the NHS suggests that this finding has emerged in their own focus groups – and remember that the NHS is also cherished by the older, working-class voters who lean toward Brexit. This is why, when Labour was trying to contain UKIP last year, they devoted considerable effort to framing Nigel Farage’s party as a Thatcherite movement that wanted to privatise the NHS. Much will depend on whether Eurosceptics seriously go after this issue and how, in turn, the Remain camp responds.

A fourth way that Outers cross the line is by finding a messenger who can appeal to wavering voters and neutralise the ‘Cameron Effect’.

4. Cut through with a new messenger


Professor Goodwin says:- Make no mistake – David Cameron is a major asset for the Remain camp. The prime minister is, with the only exception of diehard Outers, the most trusted political voice in this debate. He will be able to make inroads into the soft Remain and soft Leave voters, and the Undecided, and we also find that Cameron might even help to mobilise middle-aged Labour and Liberal Democrat voters around the Remain flag. The Remain camp clearly know this, which is why Cameron is fronting almost every intervention. Given that Cameron is not an especially unpopular prime minister, this is a major hurdle that the Outers need to overcome. On the one hand they may be helped by the current position of Jeremy Corbyn, who at best appears like a reluctant passenger in the referendum debate. But on the other hand they are clearly going to struggle to reach across to the more moderate and risk averse voters. Finding a messenger who can do this and neutralise Cameron will be key. Boris Johnson playing a central, active and highly prominent role in the campaign is perhaps the only shot that Outers have.

5. Play the turnout game


Turnout is likely to be a major factor in Britain’s referendum result. The EU vote is not like the independence referendum in Scotland – there is no major groundswell of public enthusiasm. The issue of the EU has, traditionally, never excited the electorate. This introduces a risk for Remain and a potential advantage for Leave. What if the more pro-EU voters – the financially secure, higher income and university educated middle-classes, and the 18-30 year olds – decide that they simply cannot be bothered to vote?

This would contrast sharply to evidence which suggests that the Leave camp’s core followers – white pensioners – will be more determined to register their anti-EU views. At the general election last year it was widely believed that UKIP’s share of the vote would crash as polling day approached. That it remained static reflected the commitment of these diehard Eurosceptics. If Remain finds itself struggling to mobilise the young and financially secure professionals then the Leave camp, with a decent mobilisation strategy, could find itself pushing ahead on polling day.

6. Employ the winning formula


The past week has thrown considerable light on one central question: what pushes somebody from being a Eurosceptic into voting for withdrawal? There are lots of Eurosceptics in Britain – they are a clear majority.

But when it comes to the crunch only a smaller number are actually prepared to back Brexit. Why is this?

The new British Social Attitudes report has put forward one convincing explanation, suggesting that the Outers need to win two arguments. On the one hand, they need to mobilise the culturally threatened. But on the other they need to win the economic argument.

Put it this way, among voters who believe that the EU threatens Britain’s cultural identity AND are convinced that leaving the EU would improve the economy, support for Brexit is over 80%. But among voters who are only won over by the cultural argument but not the economic case, support for Brexit is only 40%. This is where the Outers could fall down – intensifying those cultural arguments, while failing to satisfy people who are more averse to the economic risks of Brexit. To win they will need to make headway on both of these fronts, but especially the latter.

So that is what Professor Goodwin advises us. I thought it was so interesting and informative that it was worth quoting extremely.

It is also worth mentioning the question of the EU’s ambitions to become a State. One of the frightening examples is the project to have an EU Army under the Command of the EU!

Also don’t forget that as of October, if we are still in the EU, then there will be in effect an easy almost open border with Turkey with no visa restrictions or the 76m mostly poor Muslim Turkish citizens that live there.

I was talking to my barber the other day who was telling me that around Chelmsford the biggest threat to his livelihood is the fact that there are now six or seven Turkish barber shops that have set up. The thought of an open border with Turkey was in itself enough to switch him to Out!

So I not only had a good haircut but also successfully canvassed him and all his family for Out. I urge you all to make the most of any similar opportunities!

For us English nationalists there is also the very interesting prospect that many of the likely outcomes of the EU Referendum will undermine the UK. In an extremely useful and interesting article Professor Rose of Strathclyde University sets this out and he has crunched the numbers for us:-
His heading is:-

Will the EU referendum trigger the break-up of the United Kingdom?

If England drags Scotland out of the EU, there will be trouble. But if Scotland keeps England inside, it could be double!

Here is what Professor Rose says: “On the night of the EU referendum, there will be three counts that matter. The first will show whether there is an overall British majority for staying in or leaving the EU. The second will show whether English voters are on the winning or the losing side. The third will show how likely it is that the United Kingdom will stay together.

That might sound drastic to some. But large differences in support for the EU among the different nations of the UK mean that many potential results are bad for the Union. Unless England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all agree in their answers to the referendum question, factions in each nation will be able to reject the result as illegitimate.

England contributes five sixths of the British electorate. To produce a UK majority for leaving the EU, regardless of the preference of other Britons, would therefore require 61 percent of English voters to endorse Brexit.

Opinion polls, however, show English voters tend to be more evenly divided, although often in favour of Brexit. Even if a British poll reported 51 per cent in favour of remaining in the EU, a majority of English respondents would be in favour of Brexit. This is because other UK nations are much more pro-European.

The National Centre for Social Research calculates that 55 per cent of Welsh, 64 per cent of Scots and 75 per cent of Ulster voters endorse the European Union on the basis of more than a dozen polls taken in the past year.

These numbers are also more stable than the equivalent figures in England.

So collectively, Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish voters will contribute about 11 per cent of the pro-EU vote. English voters would only have to add another 40 per cent to the UK total to create an absolute majority keeping the UK in the EU. But that would mean most English voters had endorsed leaving the European Union – only to have their wishes overriden by the other UK nations.

On the other hand, if 53 per cent of English voters voted to leave the EU, this would be enough to take the UK out of Europe against the preference of a majority of Scots, Welsh and Ulster voters.

The only result which would keep the UK united would be a narrow English majority in favour of remaining in the EU. In that scenario, all four parts of the United Kingdom were of one mind. For this to be true we would expect to see a UK-wide majority of more than 53 per cent.

On the basis of current polling, that is unlikely. Of 30 major British polls I have analysed, only ten reported a pro-EU majority so large that most English respondents agreed with their fellow Britons. An additional 13 polls showed majorities of up to 53 percent in favour of remaining in the EU, but such a narrow lead implies that most English people would be held in the EU against their will. And seven of the 30 polls actually showed enough English opposition to the EU to overpower the other nations’ leads.

A conflict between Britain’s nations on future relations with the EU would be a huge headache to the Prime Minister. Part of the argument for Scottish independence in 2014 was that England would no longer be able to “impose” decisions on Scotland. An English-led withdrawal of the UK from the European Union could trigger another referendum in Scotland on the linked issues of leaving the UK and joining the EU. That would confront the Westminster government with simultaneously negotiating the UK’s withdrawal from the EU and Scotland’s withdrawal from the UK.

Yet the opposite outcome – a UK majority to remain in the EU, and an English majority to leave – would also be a nightmare for Downing Street. Conservative Eurosceptics could denounce the result as illegitimate, but it would be politically impossible for the Eurosceptics to win a referendum on the issue of England withdrawing from the United Kingdom.

Even if a narrow English majority went along with other Britons and voted to stay in the EU, there could still be an absolute majority of Conservatives voting to leave. Determined Eurosceptics could then adopt Jeremy Corbyn’s doctrine that the party leader should represent his party’s members. This argument could be used as a weapon to extract promises of further anti-EU actions from Cabinet ministers wanting to succeed David Cameron as the next Conservative prime minister.

Whatever the feelings of English voters on the emotive issue of the EU, there is no escaping the fact that the outcome of the forthcoming EU referendum will be decided by the total vote of the United Kingdom. That is the price England pays for being British so says Professor Rose.

Here is a link to the original article>>> Will the EU referendum trigger the break-up of the United Kingdom? – Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12114578/Will-the-EU-referendum-trigger-the-break-up-the-United-Kingdom.html

Turning now to after the EU referendum. There is also a question mark over what happens to UKIP then. UKIP’s whole point has been to get an EU referendum and they and Nigel Farage in particular deserve greatest credit for getting it.

The large number of Conservative Ministers, MPs and Councillors who have supported Remain show, beyond all doubt, that the Conservative Party, left to its own devises, would never have given us a referendum. They are the Party which not only took us in under a false prospectus but also signed us up to various Federalist measures like the Single European Market and the Maastricht Treaty but are now mostly trying to keep us In. Perhaps, as Big Business loves the EU, it isn’t so surprising for the Party of Big Business to support the EU too?

But after the EU referendum what happens to UKIP?

Either we have voted to Remain and if so what is the point of the Party that sought a referendum? Or we have voted to Leave and again what is the point of the Party which sought a referendum? UKIP have also nailed their colours to the British Unionist mast.

So if Professor Rose is right then the next big question after 23rd June is not the European Union but the Union of the United Kingdom of Great Britain.

So Ladies and Gentlemen by the second half of this year we may be the Party that is front and centre on the key constitutional and national issue facing the English Nation.

That Ladies and Gentlemen is likely to be our moment of opportunity! Let us make sure that we are all ready for it! Who here is ready?

Thank you Ladies and Gentlemen for bearing with me.