Total Visits

Wednesday, 1 October 2014

CAMERON’S ENGLISH VOTES CHESS MOVE PUTS MILIBAND AND CLEGG IN EVEL CHECK

This is our press release about Cameron's speech today:-

CAMERON’S ENGLISH VOTES CHESS MOVE PUTS MILIBAND AND CLEGG IN EVEL CHECK

David Cameron’s speech today at the Conservative Conference in Birmingham was interesting for all those concerned with the English Question. At last a section of the British Political Establishment, which for the last 15 years has been happy to see English concerns about England’s rights dismissed, came out with a proposal which partly addressed the democratic representational part of the English Question.

The English Democrats welcome David Cameron’s English repositioning. David Cameron infamously told Andrew Marr that he would not change the unfair Barnett Formula which gives over £1600 extra to the average man, woman and child in Scotland compared to those in England (or £6,600 more to the average family). He said that his attitude was because “I’m a Cameron (and) there is quite a lot of Scottish blood flowing through these veins.”

EVEL may be a very little move which constitutionally speaking is unlikely to work very well. Significantly it only starts to answer the least important part (representation) of the English question because it does nothing about providing an English First Minister or Government for all the English only departments which are currently controlled exclusively from the British legislature at Westminster.

Robin Tilbrook, the Chairman of the English Democrats said:- “I welcome the fact that even a politician as hostile to English national feelings, as Dave Donald Cameron, who infamously said previously he would not even encourage English people to celebrate St George’s Day since he wanted to be the “Prime Minister of Great Britain and not just England” and who said he would “fight the little Englanders wherever he found them”. Even he has nevertheless been driven by however unworthy motives of political careerism to partially address the English Question.”

Robin, who is a senior litigation Solicitor with extensive experience of Constitutional Law, continued:- “The English Democrats are confident that, as a solution, English votes for English laws will not work for the reasons set out below in the annex to this press release, nevertheless David Cameron’s move will start a dynamic process in which we hope that the British Establishment’s united hostility to England and their attempts to break England up into “Regions” will be ultimately check-mated.”

“David Cameron is a spinner not a conviction politician and his interest in making this move is entirely as part of the political chess game within the Westminster elite.”

“David Cameron has done this not because he has any genuine conviction about the need to improve English democracy, but as a canny chess move to put Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg into political check. The legislative process will require their Parties to either come out in favour of this move which will damage their Party position in the House of Commons or to oppose it risking a significant political backlash from the 60.4% or 32 million adults in England that identified themselves in the 2011 Census as being English only and not British.”

Robin Tilbrook

Chairman, 

The English Democrats


English Votes for English Laws (“EVEL”) is a Westminster focussed political gimmick not a constitutionally valid solution to the “English Question” and cannot work for the following reasons:-

1. If EVEL is introduced without legislation it would probably be merely a procedural Convention, without the force of law. It is much easier for politicians to change Conventions than to repeal Acts of Parliament.

2. EVEL does not address who governs England (The English Question) and would lead to a situation whereby a non-English Minister could propose legislation but be unable to speak or vote in support of it. The Prime Minister (“PM”) appoints Ministers for English Departments. These appointees may be, and have been, from parts of the UK that are devolved and such Ministers are thus unaccountable to those whom their policies and actions affect. Similarly a PM can, and has had, control of all English matters even though they do not affect his own constituents.

3. EVEL does not address the issue of who scrutinises and revises laws for England. Uniquely in the UK it is only English domestic law that is passed to the House of Lords, many of the members of which are not from England.

4. (As in 1964) EVEL will create problems if a government is elected without a majority in England, in any such case the UK government would find it very difficult to pass legislation on matters that only affect England and would be impelled to break the EVEL Convention.

5. EVEL will not provide a voice for England either with regard to “Reserved matters” concerning, for instance, the distribution within the UK of Treasury funds nor in international fora such as the British/Irish Council or the EU. In contrast, each of the devolved administrations has both UK Secretaries of State and also Ministers within the devolved Executives to champion the interests of their citizens in these meetings and to influence the outcomes in their own countries’ favour.

6. All Members of Parliament (“MPs”) at Westminster should be elected equally across the UK to represent their constituents in the UK Parliament. EVEL will create two classes of MPs in Westminster. However since devolution Westminster MPs do not equally represent their constituents in all matters as they should do. There are now two categories of MP with reference to devolved matters; accountable and unaccountable. Some are accountable to the electorate that voted for them in all matters and some are not, namely those that have the power to debate and vote on English matters that do not concern their constituents.

7. EVEL is an unequal and short-term fix for a long-term problem. The constitution of the United Kingdom was unbalanced by Devolution and only a rational, coherent and logically defensible Federal system can realistically be expected to halt the slide towards the dissolution of the UK.

JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS IN ENGLAND - A POLITICALLY CORRECT STITCH UP?



JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS IN ENGLAND - A POLITICALLY CORRECT STITCH UP?


You may think that you live in a country where the best of England's lawyers are appointed to be our Judges. You would be wrong! Here is some detail on why!

Have a look at this:-

THE JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS COMMITTEE ("JAC") Equality Objectives 2012 - 2016 


The document starts off all sounding fine:-


"The Judicial Appointments Commission seeks to deliver processes which are fair and ensure all applicants receive equal treatment.
Under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 the JAC must select solely on merit. That combined with the requirement to encourage diversity in the range of persons available for selection will ensure that the most meritorious candidates will succeed and that the best judges will be appointed."


BUT then it begins to show the real agenda:-

"The Equality Act 2010 applied a general equality duty to the JAC. The equality duty requires public authorities to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations. In addition the JAC is subject to specific duties as set out in the regulations that came into force on 10 September 2011. The duty requires the JAC to publish relevant, proportionate information demonstrating compliance with the equality duty and to set specific, measurable equality objectives.

The JAC objectives for 2012-2016 are split into four distinct areas; outreach, fair and open processes, monitoring, and promoting diversity within our staff. Each objective and the associated outcomes are detailed below. Reference to statistical data in Objective 4 refers to four specific areas, namely; gender, ethnicity, disability and professional background. This is in line with the Commission's identified under represented groups. However, all protected characteristics, as defined in the Equality Act 2010, are considered when carrying out equality assessments."

"Objective 1
To widen the pool of candidates applying for judicial positions through communication and outreach activities"

"The JAC will continue to encourage the widest range of good quality candidates to apply for judicial vacancies. In order to meet this objective we will:
" Continue to explain the selection process through a balanced outreach programme linked to the exercise programme.
" Increase our online presence to help raise awareness and understanding.
" Continue to circulate details of vacancies to a wide network of partner organisations to promote opportunities to their members.
" Analyse candidate feedback following seminars and exercises to ensure available materials continue to be appropriate and relevant and meets candidate expectations.
" Improve feedback provided to candidates throughout the selection process."

Outcome measure…

" "Agreed outcomes of Barriers survey to be fed into the Diversity Forum Forward Look."


"Objective 2
To ensure that all JAC selection exercise policies, procedures and practices are free of any unintended bias ensuring all candidates experience a fair and open process"

" "Complete an equality impact assessment against all nine protected characteristics for all selection exercise materials and all changes to the selection process used to identify any bias (unintended or otherwise) and make amendments where necessary."
" "Continue to deliver equality and diversity training for all panel members as part of a tailored training package delivered before each exercise."

" "Continue to work with the Judicial Diversity Taskforce and steering group to implement the Neuberger recommendations and other related activities."

Outcome measure

" "Ensure progression rates for the reported groups are consistent throughout the selection exercise and where possible in line with or an improvement on the eligible pool".

"Objective 3
To monitor the diversity of candidates selected for judicial appointment (against the eligible pool where available) and take remedial action where appropriate"


" "Consider diversity at the three key checkpoints of the exercise, namely, application, short listing and selection day stage and seek to remedy any disproportional 'drop out' of candidates by protected characteristics as outlined in the Equality Act 2010 on which we have data."
" "Wherever possible we will use a previous comparator exercise to measure any increases/decreases in applications from women, disabled, black and minority ethnic candidates and solicitors in line with the Commission's identified under represented groups."
" "Continue to publish official statistics containing diversity breakdowns for public scrutiny twice yearly on the JAC website "
" "Invite equality representatives from the legal professions, i.e. Bar Council, Law Society and CILEx to equality assess qualifying tests and role plays making recommendations for change where appropriate."

"Objective 4
Promoting diversity in the workplace and ensuring that the JAC meet the requirements of the Equality Act 2010 as an employer"


" "Ensure regular updates and monitoring of the diversity breakdown of permanent staff through the HR system."

Outcome measure

" "Staff reflect the diversity of the general population at all levels."


Click here for the full article >>>
http://jac.judiciary.gov.uk/static/documents/jac_equality_objectives_2013.doc



The Judicial Appointments Commission is of course applying a system set for it by the Commissars of Political Correctness. Here are some key extracts from :-

THE REPORT OF THE ADVISORY PANEL ON JUDICAL DIVERSITY 2010


"DEVELOPING A DIVERSE POOL

Recommendation 12

The Panel recommends that the Bar Council, the Law Society and ILEX set out a detailed and timetabled programme of change to improve the diversity profile of members of the professions who are suitable for appointment at all levels. They should bring this plan to the Judicial Diversity Taskforce within 12 months of the publication of this report. This plan should include information on how progress will be monitored."


"STRUCTURED ENCOURAGEMENT

Recommendation 13

The legal profession and the judiciary should put in place systems for supporting suitable and talented candidates from under-represented groups to apply for judicial appointment."


"THE JAC'S INTERVIEWING PANELS

Recommendation 31

The JAC must assemble diverse selection panels. There should always be a gender and, wherever possible, an ethnic mix.

Recommendation 32

Panel chairs and members must receive regular equality and diversity training that addresses how to identify and value properly transferable skills and also to ensure that they are aware of any potential issues regarding their unconscious bias.

Recommendation 33

All JAC selection panel chairs and members should be regularly appraised and membership periodically refreshed. Poorly performing panel members should be removed."

"APPOINTMENT TO THE SUPREME COURT AND COURT OF APPEAL

Recommendation 41

The selection process for vacancies in the most senior courts should be open and transparent, with decisions made on an evidence base provided by the applicant and their referees in response to published criteria. No judge should be directly involved in the selection of his/her successor and there should always be a gender and, wherever possible, an ethnic mix on the selection panel.

Recommendation 43

The selection process to the Supreme Court for the United Kingdom should be reviewed to reduce the number of serving justices involved and to ensure there is always a gender and, wherever possible, an ethnic mix on the selection panel. This review should include consultation with the Lord Chief Justices of England and Wales and Northern Ireland and the Lord President of the Court of Session."


Click here for the full article>>>
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Reports/advisory-panel-judicial-diversity-2010.pdf



This "Report" was chaired by, and mostly written by, Baroness Neuberger. Its recommendations are sometimes referred to in official documents as "Neuberger guidelines".




Here is an extract from Baroness Neuberger's biography that may help clarify what mind-set and ideological background she brought to her work. It also clarifies what personal interests she might have brought to bear in writing the report.

"Rabbi Julia Babette Sarah Neuberger, Baroness Neuberger, DBE (born 27 February 1950; née Julia Schwab) is a member of the British House of Lords. She formerly took the Liberal Democrat whip, but resigned from the party and joined the Crossbenches in September 2011 upon becoming the full-time Senior Rabbi to the West London Synagogue.

EARLY LIFE AND EDUCATION
Julia Schwab was born on 27 February 1950 to Walter and Liesel ("Alice") Schwab. She attended South Hampstead High School and Newnham College, Cambridge, obtaining her Rabbinic Diploma at Leo Baeck College, London, where she taught from 1977-97. She was Chancellor of the University of Ulster from 1994-2000.

Her father was born in the UK to German Jewish immigrants who arrived before the First World War. Her mother was a refugee from Nazi Germany, arriving at age 22 in 1937. The Schwab Trust was set up in their name, to help support and educate young refugees and asylum seekers.

RELIGIOUS ROLES
Neuberger was Britain's second female rabbi after Jackie Tabick, and the first to have her own synagogue. She was rabbi of the South London Liberal Synagogue from 1977 to 1989 and is President of West Central Liberal Synagogue. She has been president of theLiberal Judaism movement since January 2007. On 1 February 2011, the West London Synagogue (a Movement for Reform Judaism synagogue) announced that she had been appointed as Senior Rabbi of the synagogue.

PARLIAMENTARY ROLES
Neuberger was appointed a DBE in the New Year Honours of 2003. In June 2004 she was created a life peer as Baroness Neuberger, of Primrose Hill in the London Borough of Camden. She served as a Liberal Democrat Health spokesperson from 2004 to 2007. On 29 June 2007, Baroness Neuberger was appointed by the incoming Prime Minister Gordon Brown as the government's champion of volunteering. She resigned from the Liberal Democrats upon becoming Senior Rabbi of the West London Synagogue.

PERSONAL LIFE AND FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS
Julia Schwab married Professor Anthony Neuberger.[8] They have two adult children, a son and a daughter. Anthony Neuberger is the son of Professor Albert Neuberger, and the brother of Professors Michael and James Neuberger, as well as Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom."



For further reference on Baroness Neuberger you might find this snippet interesting>>>

Rabbi Julia Neuberger (of West London Synagogue)'s daughter Harriet to be gay bride | Daily Mail Online

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2560965/SEBASTIAN-SHAKESPEARE-Rabbi-Julia-Neubergers-daughter-Harriet-gay-bride.html




It is also "interesting" to say the least that this is what Baroness Neuberger's brother-in-law said recently:-

"A career judiciary with fast-track promotion to higher courts may be required to overcome lack of diversity on the bench, the UK's most senior judge has suggested. City law firms use "honeyed words" to obscure their efforts in preventing talented solicitors from becoming judges, Lord Neuberger, president of the supreme court, said. He said without further changes the shortage of women and those from minority ethnic backgrounds would take too long to rectify.

In an interview with the UK supreme court blog, Neuberger also says that the courts system remains "chronically underfunded" and that the increase in litigants in person - due to cuts in legal aid - is leading to delays and "less good justice".

His comments, released in advance of the new legal term, will galvanise the debate over how to ensure that the judiciary better reflects the composition of society. Overall, 24.5% of court judges are women and about 5.8% are from ethnic backgrounds. Seven of the 38 judges in the court of appeal are women.
Of the 12 justices on the supreme court only one, Lady Hale, is a woman. Another of the justices, Lord Sumption, has said that under the current appointments system it will take 50 years to achieve a representative judiciary.

"A career judiciary where there is a potential fast track could be an option: such an individual could enter it at, say, the age of 35 as a junior tribunal member or possibly a district judge and work their way up," Neuberger told the UKSC blog, which is independent of the supreme court…"

Neuberger said that it should not be assumed that the problem will rectify itself. "I am not one of those people who optimistically thinks that if we just sit back it will all sort itself out and the judiciary will eventually include many more women and ethnic minorities," he said. Merit should still be an essential requirement "although to be fair, merit is a slightly flexible concept"."

Here is the full article>>>
Judiciary needs fast-track scheme to boost diversity, says top judge | Law | theguardian.com

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/sep/17/judiciary-needs-fast-track-scheme-boost-diversity-neuberger





Friday, 19 September 2014

PRESS RELEASE - SCOTLAND FAILS THE INDEPENDENCE TEST!

Here is our PRESS RELEASE -  


SCOTLAND FAILS THE INDEPENDENCE TEST!

The English Democrats commiserate with the Yes campaign and the Scottish National Party and Alex Salmond on the disappointing result of the Scottish Independence Referendum.  They should however be congratulated on an excellent campaign against all the lies and propaganda and dirty tricks put up by the British Political and Media Establishment. 

The abiding memory for the People of England of the Scottish Referendum will be the sight of senior “British” politicians demonstrating again and again and again that they have no interest in properly representing English interests, England or the English Nation and every intention of selling us down the river. 

Robin Tilbrook, the Chairman of the English Democrats said:- “It is now England’s turn to be heard and the English Democrats have every confidence that the People of England will reject the shabby deal concocted by the Unionist Westminster elite in a conspiracy against English interests.  This was rushed through for the purpose of subverting the democratic process in the Yes/No Scottish Referendum after the same gang had refused to allow the Devo-max option to actually be put on the ballot paper.   The Westminster elite has shown itself to be utterly self-interested, dishonest, undemocratic and unfit to run our country. So far as England is concerned the English Democrats call upon all those who care about England to block the implementation of “Devo-max” until exactly the same is offered for the whole of England as a national unit.”

Robin continued:- “The great danger now facing England is an equivalent, undemocratic, dishonest conspiracy by the Westminster elite to try to ram through, without any democratic mandate, their plans to break England up.  Any such attempt is totally unacceptable and is nothing short of an act of war against England.  It should be met with a response that is appropriate for an act of war!”

Have you seen the following link asking if I am the English Alex Salmond?  >>>? BBC News English Democrats Robin Tilbrook on party conference - YouTube

Robin Tilbrook
Chairman,
The English Democrats
Party Tel: 0207 242 1066
Twitter: @RobinTilbrook
Party Website: www.englishdemocrats.org
Chairman's FB
Key facts about the English Democrats
The English Democrats launched in 2002. 
The English Democrats are the English nationalist Party. We campaign for a referendum for Independence for England; for St George’s Day to be England’s National holiday; for Jerusalem to be England’s National Anthem; to leave the EU; for an end to mass immigration; for the Cross of St George to be flown on all public buildings in England; and we support a YES vote for Scottish Independence.
The English Democrats are England’s answer to the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru. The English Democrats’ greatest electoral successes to date include:- in the 2004 EU election we had 130,056 votes; winning the Directly Elected Executive Mayoralty of Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council in 2009 and also the 2012 referendum; in the 2009 EU election we gained 279,801 votes after a total EU campaign spend of less than £25,000; we won the 2012 referendum which gave Salford City an Elected Mayor; in 2012 we also saved all our deposits in the Police Commissioner elections and came second in South Yorkshire; and in the 2014 EU election we had 126,024 votes for a total campaign spend of about £40,000 (giving the English Democrats by far the most cost efficient electoral result of any serious Party in the UK).

Tuesday, 16 September 2014

THE WESTMINSTER ELITE OFFER TO SELL ENGLAND DOWN THE RIVER TO BUY OFF SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE - let's hope no takers!


THE WESTMINSTER ELITE OFFER TO SELL ENGLAND DOWN THE RIVER TO BUY OFF SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE

Constitutionally there is no power to make such promises because no Parliament can bind its successors. 


The promise to retain the Barnett Formula is shamelessly at the expense of England which loses £49 billion per year by the Barnett Formula. 

Having different tax regimes in different parts of the UK (Wales and N Ireland will surely demand the same) will set one part of the UK against another. That is a recipe for perpetual conflict. The same would apply between English regions if the Westminster elite manages to break up England.


Here is the report:-


David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg sign joint historic promise which guarantees more devolved powers for Scotland and protection of NHS if we vote No


WESTMINSTER'S three main party leaders have signed up to a historic joint statement that was demanded by the Daily Record on behalf of the people of Scotland.

Three party leader's promise to Scotland
The joint statement also rubbishes claims from the SNP that the Barnett Formula for calculating Scotland’s budget could be changed to leave Scots less money for public services.
It pledges: “Because of the continuation of the Barnett allocation for resources, and the powers of the Scottish Parliament to raise revenue, we can state categorically that the final say on how much is spent on the NHS will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.”
Last night, Brown said more powers for Scotland are now “locked in” to a No vote on Thursday .

“Not even the most ardent and optimistic nationalist would claim that there is an overwhelming majority for separation, as there was for devolution.
“I believe that there is, however, a programme of change that can bring the people of Scotland together.
“I sense that people want change that can unite Scotland, rather than divide Scotland.
“They want to know that a No vote does not mean no change and instead seek guarantees of change, locked in and clear assurances that from September 19, the pace of change will not stall but speed up.
“But they want a promise of change they can trust – without the risks and uncertainties of an irreversible separation. I believe they are saying to us, ‘Give us the guarantees of change and with
these guarantees, we can vote for a strong Scottish Parliament within the UK’.
“We have heard important statements in Glasgow on Friday by Ed Miliband and Scottish Labour Party leader Johann Lamont and in Aberdeen by the Prime Minister.
“I believe that tonight, having listened to what the pro-devolution parties are saying, we can give these guarantees, that lock in change that is better, faster, fairer and safer than anything the SNP can offer through independence.
“So let us lock in three guarantees that will deliver the best deal for a stronger Scottish Parliament
within the United Kingdom. The guarantees that we now have pave the way to the future – a great
Scotland as a driving, successful and vibrant nation playing its full part in Great Britain.
“I believe what I am saying locks in a period of constitutional improvement and progress in preference to the risk-laden and dangerous change offered from an irreversible separation from which there is no going back.” Cameron backed the timetable for more powers in an emotional speech in Aberdeen yesterday .
He told more than 800 party members and activists that the UK is not a “perfect country” and pledged to change it.
The PM added: “The question is, how do you get that change?
“For me it’s simple. You don’t get the change you want by ripping your country apart. You don’t get change by undermining your economy and damaging your businesses and diminishing your place in the world.”
Cameron said the plans outlined by the pro-UK parties amounted to “real, concrete” change.
He added: “The status quo is gone. This campaign has swept it away. There is no going back to the way things were. A vote for No means real change.
“We have spelled that change out in practical terms, with a plan and a process.
“If we get a No vote, that will trigger a major, unprecedented programme of devolution, with additional powers for the Scottish Parliament – major new powers over tax, spending and welfare services.
“We have agreed a timetable for that stronger Scottish Parliament – a timetable to bring in the new powers that will go ahead if there is a No vote. A White Paper by November, put into draft legislation by January.
“This is a timetable that is now agreed by all the main political parties and set in stone and I am prepared to work with all the main parties to deliver this during 2015.
“So a No vote means faster, fairer, safer and better change.”
Cameron seemed close to tears as he made a direct appeal to Scots to vote No. He admitted that many people might be tempted by a Yes vote just to get rid of his Government. But he warned Scots not to “mix up the temporary and the permanent”.
With his voice breaking, Cameron added: “Don’t think, ‘I’m frustrated with politics right now, so I’ll walk out the door and never come back’.
“If you don’t like me, I won’t be here forever. If you don’t like this Government, it won’t last forever. But if you leave the UK – that will be forever.
“The different parts of the UK don’t always see eye-to-eye. Yes, we need change and we will deliver it.
“But to get that change, to get a brighter future, we don’t need to tear our country apart.”
He asked Scots to consider what would provide the best future for them and their family when they cast their vote.
Cameron said: “As you stand in the stillness of the polling booth, I hope you will ask yourself this – will my family and I truly be better off by going it alone? Will we really be more safe and secure?
“‘Do I really want to turn my back on the rest of Britain and why is it that so many people across the world are asking, ‘Why would Scotland want to do that? Why?’
“And if you don’t know the answer to these questions – then vote No.”
Promises

Guarantee One

New powers for the Scottish Parliament.

Holyrood will be strengthened with extensive new powers, on a timetable beginning on September 19, with legislation in 2015.


The Scottish Parliament will be a permanent and irreversible part of the British constitution.

Guarantee Two

The guarantee of fairness to Scotland.


The guarantee that the modern purpose of the Union is to ensure opportunity and security by pooling and sharing our resources equitably for our defence, prosperity and the social and economic welfare of every citizen, including through UK pensions and UK funding of healthcare.

Guarantee Three

The power to spend more on the NHS if that is Scottish people’s will.


The guarantee that with the continued Barnett allocation, based on need and with the power to raise its own funds, the final decisions on spending on public services in Scotland, including on the NHS, will be made by the Scottish Parliament.


The Scottish Parliament will have the last word on how much is spent on health. It will have the power to keep the NHS in public hands and the capacity to protect it.


Here is the full article:- http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron-ed-miliband-nick-4265992

Monday, 15 September 2014

English Democrats welcomed to our Annual General Meeting and Autumn Conference 2014



Ladies and Gentlemen and fellow members of the English Democrats

I am delighted to see you today and welcome you to our Annual General Meeting and Autumn Conference.  The English Democrats were launched in August 2002 and we are now officially just over twelve years old.  That does seem to matter to journalists and commentators and others because it suggests to them that we are not going away.  Ladies and Gentlemen what do you think?  Are we going away? 


Picture of Stephen Elliott
Now Ladies and Gentlemen I have got a sadder duty to report to you that one of our leading members from the early days, Stephen Elliott, after a long and debilitating illness has died.  This is the announcement of his death that I made in my Blog:-

I have been given the sad news that Stephen Elliott one of the founder members of the English Democrats died on the 28th July 2014. 

Stephen had suffered for several years with an increasingly debilitating illness.  As a formerly very active man, to become increasingly unable to move was ever more frustrating. 

Stephen retained an interest in the development of the English Democrats and a member of the English Democrats and he remained a keen supporter of our work right up until the end. Indeed, with assistance, he was able to attend the Party's annual conference in 2012 in Leicester.  His death is very sad to report, but he will be remembered as one of those who gave freely of his time and money to help to build the foundations of our new politically active English Nationalism. 

Stephen was a proud Yorkshire man and was a reservoir of amusing stories.  At one time he had been an under-cover police officer pretending to be one of the student communists in order to keep an eye of subversive Leftists like Jack Straw, who was Labour’s Foreign Secretary, and was memorably called Sir Christopher Meyers, the British Ambassador in Washington, a “political pygmy”.  As a student Jack Straw had been a firebrand communist and hater of all things Western, British and English.

In later life, after leaving the police, Stephen became a successful entrepreneur and built-up a significant property portfolio.

Politically he joined the Steering Committee whose work led to the foundation and launch of the English Democrats in August 2002 at Imperial College, London.  For many years he was on our National Council and keenly watched our progress and supported our campaign generously. 

Stephen will be much missed by all those who remember him and our English nationalist cause is the poorer for his passing.  I do wish every condolence to his two daughters and his family at this sad time. 

So Ladies and Gentlemen I would ask you to all be upstanding and keep a minutes silence for departed merit.

Thank you very much Ladies and Gentlemen.

Since the last Spring Conference your National Council and your Chairman have been busy trying to advance England’s Cause.  Just to mention an example - there has been Derek Hilling, who appeared for us on BBC News recently with Charles Haywood.  Mark Easton, the BBC’s political correspondent even went so far as to say that although we are small we seem to have struck a chord with the English. 

Also we have stood in the EU election in May and in the most difficult electioneering circumstances when UKIP was getting wall to wall coverage we still got 126,000 votes for a campaign expenditure of about £40,000.

Video of launch

Video of campaign song

Also since then outside the National Council, Chris Newey has stood for us in a local by-election in Walsall.  Dr Julia Gasper is also standing in Oxford and  also Sam Kelly in York for us as we speak!

Also when the Scottish Independence Reference began we registered to support the YES campaign in the Scottish Referendum which got us a certain amount of coverage.  I was interviewed by the BBC and they did quite a reasonable political biography for me.  I was also interviewed by the Communist paper, The Morning Star, who did not like us supporting the Scottish nationalist cause, which they seemed to want to keep preserved for left-wingers!
IPPR picture


In mid-April the Universities of Edinburgh and Cardiff working for the IPPR (the Institute of Public Policy Research which is a Labour supporting think tank currently being investigated by the Charities Commission for excessive bias towards Labour), published some advance details of their research in order to help their friends at the BBC do some coverage of the English reaction to the Scottish Referendum.  That research showed that we are making progress.   Over 52% now want a separate English Parliament.  We also have been campaigning for an end to the unfair greater amounts of money being spent on Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland than on English people.  Now 56% support the abolition of the Barnett Formula.  They agreed with the statement that "Levels of public spending in Scotland (should) be reduced to the UK average: In 2012-13 identifiable public spending per capita in Scotland was £10,327, compared to the UK average of £8,940.

Even our more recent call for English Independence is now getting greater opinion poll support than carrying on with the existing political system, 19% support against 18%! 

Since these polls were conducted in mid-April there has been two broadcast Independence debates that we English have been permitted to see.

Picture of Darling and Salmond


Just consider what exactly Alistair Darling and Douglas Alexander told all those English people who listened:-

That all that is important to Scottish politicians is the interests of Scots.  Just remember that they have all also signed up for the Scottish Claim of Right.

Just remember the Scottish Claim of Right.

Video of Claim of Right

As the King James’ version of the Holy Bible says: “He that hath ears to hear let him hear”. 

What do you think the reaction of English people will be to that? 

My view too is that English people will be much more motivated and I am certainly finding already an audience amongst journalists. 

Since then we have had all the recent hullabaloo from the British Establishment. 

This has really helped us.  I did an interview with the Financial Times last week and this week have done interviews – 7 yesterday and have done an interview for BBC’s Eastern Region, Sunday Politics recorded for tomorrow. 

Later we are going to have a debate as to what our reaction should be in the event of a YES vote and also in the event of a NO vote.  I hope you will enthusiastically take part in that so that we can make sure our Party line is the most effective possible. 

So far as other parties are concerned, the BNP have now gone into utter meltdown and even Nick Griffin himself has been forced out of office and the leadership and now he is fighting over the money.  I am informed that they have substantially less party members than we do and are not so much the walking dead as the merely twitching. 

UKIP on the other hand clearly seem very much on the up at present, but their great weakness is that a lot people that support them are basically English nationalists and haven’t fully worked out which Party they ought to be supporting.  I think as time goes on UKIP will disappoint them and we will be in an ideal position to pick up mass support.  

Video of Nigel Farage on the English Question

 I hear that Nigel Farage has been saying that the English Democrats are finished.  I am certainly not finished. Are you finished? 

I have got a message for Nigel Farage – Not only are we not finished, but we have barely started! 

Just think that if, on the 19th September, we hear that the Scots have voted YES, UIKP will have to start thinking of its new name.  I think 18 months later after the negotiations finish and Scotland has become Independent we may talk sometimes of the Former United Kingdom.  Let’s see how that works for you UKIP. 

UKIP logo

What do you think Ladies and Gentlemen?
Labour
Conservative
Liberal Democrats
Ladies and Gentlemen before I finish I thought I would remind you and talk to you about a song written by Edward Carpenter who was one of the founders of the Labour Movement in the days when they were still patriotic and cared about ordinary English people and before the international Marxist Red Flag became popular with them.  Can I quote you some lines from his famous marching hymn – England Arise?

England, arise! The long, long night is over, Faint in the East behold the dawn appear, Out of your evil dream of toil and sorrow – Arise, O England, for the day is here! From your fields and hills, Hark! The answer swells – Arise, O England, for the day is here!

Here is a rendition of the song.  What do you think Ladies and Gentlemen?

Video link

Ladies and Gentlemen – Fellow English Democrats – Fellow English Nationalists – Let’s all stand together:-  England Arise!!!

Sunday, 14 September 2014

English Democrats: The SNP for England? English Democrats chairman Robin Tilbrook is asked by the BBC if his party is the closest thing to an English SNP.

 

English Democrats: The SNP for England?

 

English Democrats' chairman Robin Tilbrook is asked by Jo Coburn the BBC's Daily Politics interviewer if his party is the closest thing to an English SNP?


Jo Coburn chucked me several googlies. How do you think I did?

Click here for the link >>>

Sunday, 7 September 2014

English not voting for independence would be "an astonishing act of self-harm"! - George Monbiot's logic?


All of what George Monbiot says in his Guardian article below would apply equally to England.

I must say that it is a great article and I would certainly have given him full marks if he had submitted it to me when I was teaching and he was he was a very academically bright pupil at Stowe Public School back in the early eighties, if only there wasn't a slight confusion between the ideas of England and of Britain. Actually, of course, that confusion may be the Guardian editors's deliberate interpolation in their subheading and not what Gorge wrote at all.


Here is George's article:-

Scots voting no to independence would be an astonishing act of self-harm

England is dysfunctional, corrupt and vastly unequal. Who on earth would want to be tied to such a country?


Imagine the question posed the other way round. An independent nation is asked to decide whether to surrender its sovereignty to a larger union. It would be allowed a measure of autonomy, but key aspects of its governance would be handed to another nation. It would be used as a military base by the dominant power and yoked to an economy over which it had no control.

It would have to be bloody desperate. Only a nation in which the institutions of governance had collapsed, which had been ruined economically, which was threatened by invasion or civil war or famine might contemplate this drastic step. Most nations faced even with such catastrophes choose to retain their independence – in fact, will fight to preserve it – rather than surrender to a dominant foreign power.

So what would you say about a country that sacrificed its sovereignty without collapse or compulsion; that had no obvious enemies, a basically sound economy and a broadly functional democracy, yet chose to swap it for remote governance by the hereditary elite of another nation, beholden to a corrupt financial centre?

What would you say about a country that exchanged an economy based on enterprise and distribution for one based on speculation and rent? That chose obeisance to a government that spies on its own citizens, uses the planet as its dustbin, governs on behalf of a transnational elite that owes loyalty to no nation, cedes public services to corporations, forces terminally ill people to work and can’t be trusted with a box of fireworks, let alone a fleet of nuclear submarines? You would conclude that it had lost its senses.

So what’s the difference? How is the argument altered by the fact that Scotland is considering whether to gain independence rather than whether to lose it? It’s not. Those who would vote no – now, a new poll suggests, a rapidly diminishing majority – could be suffering from system justification. System justification is defined as the “process by which existing social arrangements are legitimised, even at the expense of personal and group interest”. It consists of a desire to defend the status quo, regardless of its impacts. It has been demonstrated in a large body of experimental work, which has produced the following surprising results.

System justification becomes stronger when social and economic inequality is more extreme. This is because people try to rationalise their disadvantage by seeking legitimate reasons for their position. In some cases disadvantaged people are more likely than the privileged to support the status quo. One study found that US citizens on low incomes were more likely than those on high incomes to believe that economic inequality is legitimate and necessary.

It explains why women in experimental studies pay themselves less than men, why people in low-status jobs believe their work is worth less than those in high-status jobs, even when they’re performing the same task, and why people accept domination by another group. It might help to explain why so many people in Scotland are inclined to vote no.

The fears the no campaigners have worked so hard to stoke are – by comparison with what the Scots are being asked to lose – mere shadows. As Adam Ramsay points out in his treatise Forty-Two Reasons to Support Scottish Independence, there are plenty of nations smaller than Scotland that possess their own currencies and thrive. Most of the world’s prosperous nations are small: there are no inherent disadvantages to downsizing.

Remaining in the UK carries as much risk and uncertainty as leaving. England’s housing bubble could blow at any time. We might leave the European Union. Some of the most determined no campaigners would take us out: witness Ukip’s intention to stage a “pro-union rally” in Glasgow on 12 September. The union in question, of course, is the UK, not Europe. This reminds us of a crashing contradiction in the politics of such groups: if our membership of the EU represents an appalling and intolerable loss of sovereignty, why is the far greater loss Scotland is being asked to accept deemed tolerable and necessary.

The Scots are told they will have no control over their own currency if they leave the UK. But they have none today. The monetary policy committee is based in London and bows to the banks. The pound’s strength, which damages the manufacturing Scotland seeks to promote, reflects the interests of the City.

To vote no is to choose to live under a political system that sustains one of the rich world’s highest levels of inequality and deprivation. This is a system in which all major parties are complicit, which offers no obvious exit from a model that privileges neoliberal economics over other aspirations. It treats the natural world, civic life, equality, public health and effective public services as dispensable luxuries, and the freedom of the rich to exploit the poor as non-negotiable.

Its lack of a codified constitution permits numberless abuses of power. It has failed to reform the House of Lords, royal prerogative, campaign finance and first-past-the-post voting (another triumph for the no brigade). It is dominated by media owned by tax exiles, who, instructing their editors from their distant chateaux, play the patriotism card at every opportunity. The concerns of swing voters in marginal constituencies outweigh those of the majority; the concerns of corporations with no lasting stake in the country outweigh everything. Broken, corrupt, dysfunctional, retentive: you want to be part of this?

Independence, as more Scots are beginning to see, offers people an opportunity to rewrite the political rules. To create a written constitution, the very process of which is engaging and transformative. To build an economy of benefit to everyone. To promote cohesion, social justice, the defence of the living planet and an end to wars of choice.

To deny this to yourself, to remain subject to the whims of a distant and uncaring elite, to succumb to the bleak, deferential negativity of the no campaign, to accept other people’s myths in place of your own story: that would be an astonishing act of self-repudiation and self-harm. Consider yourselves independent and work backwards from there; then ask why you would sacrifice that freedom.

Twitter: @georgemonbiot

Click here for the original >>> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/scots-independence-england-scotland