Total Visits

Saturday, 31 December 2011

The English Democrats' Chairman's New Years' Message

I hope that all English Democrats’ members, supporters and voters have already had a very Merry Christmas and I wish us all a very Happy New Year!

As the New Year approaches, it is worth considering both what we have achieved already, which I have tried to give some flavour of, in my three part 'Retrospectives', and also to look forward to the opportunities which the coming year will present.

An important milestone, that was reached in 2011, was our council election victories in Boston, Lincolnshire, where our excellent candidates, Elliott Fountain and Dave Owens, were elected as English Democrats councillors for the Borough. These were not the first English Democrats councillors, but their victories were our first ever election wins at this level, and I am sure there will be many more such results in the coming years for our Party. It is generally considered a significant milestone when a party reaches the point where it can win First Past the Post elections!

We fielded a very respectable 237 candidates across the country in the May elections, and some other excellent results, for a small Party at our stage of growth, were obtained.

2011 was also the year in which the new website was launched. We also had an excellent Party Conference, held in Leicester.

A number of organisational and administrational improvements were also set in motion in 2011, and I am sure the Party will benefit from these as we move into 2012. We have 'upped our game' considerably with a professional fund raising campaign and have also used the opportunity to prune our membership database from any natural wastage of lapsed members – an exercise which we hadn’t done for a couple of years. So I can now reveal that we have today 2992 proper party members as specified in our Constitution and a further more than 7,000 who have signed up to express their support. This is a useful point from which to focus on building up our donor and supporter base over the coming years.

The coming year will be an exciting one for our Party. 2012 will see mayoral referendums in eleven of the major cities of England, with some coming as a result of government legislation and others having been or to be triggered due to the hard work of our activists, as is the case, for example, in Salford. There our North West Chairman, Stephen Morris, is doing great work towards the success of that campaign. The Salford referendum gives the people of Salford their first chance to decide who will be their Council Leader on the 26th January (

In addition to this, there will be a Spring Conference on the 10th March and then 128 Local Authority elections on the 3rd May, at which our Party will strive both to stand more candidates than ever before and to ensure that some of those candidates emerge as victorious English Democrats councillors.

On the same day there will be elections in London, to the Greater London Assembly and also for the position of Mayor of London. Our capital desperately needs an English patriotic voice and it is important that we give London the best campaign that we can manage - and our plans are already well advanced!

In November the public will have the chance to elect Police and Crime Commissioners for every English Police Force area outside London. The English Democrats will field as many suitable candidates as possible in these elections, as some good old fashioned commonsense is badly needed in our Police Forces where their effectiveness is weakened and undermined constantly by red tape and politically correctness. Elected English Democrats' Police and Crime Commissioners will oppose the PC politicisation of our Police Forces and let our bobbies get on with doing what they do best - fighting crime!

So far I have only mentioned some of the main elections which are to be held in 2012. There will also be many other exciting projects and developments that our Party will be busy with.

As you may imagine, from the above photograph, I shall be looking to hanging out the Cross of St George right across England and I shall need all the support that you can give! So let's start the New Year determined to make much more real progress for England!

For now let me just wish all our members, supporters and voters a very Happy New Year. I look forward to working together to make 2012 a great year both for our Party and for England’s Cause!

Robin Tilbrook
The English Democrats

Friday, 30 December 2011

Retrospective - Part 3 - (2011)

Last year whilst we were pleased to have volunteers to stand in elections for the English Democrats but we had not worked hard to maximise the numbers of candidates in the May local elections because we would have needed to stand over 1,500 candidates to qualify for a Party Election Broadcast.
Below I set out our results for the 2011 local elections.  They naturally vary according to whether the English Democrats had any track record of standing in the relevant local authority or ward and also how much effort was put in.  All in all I think the results are very credible both to our Party and especially to our candidates.
We also stood in all 3 parliamentary by-elections and in several local elections.  Our reach is growing with the growing public awareness of us and of England’s Cause! 
I expect that this upward trend will continue – perhaps dramatically so next year – as we have now reached a critical mass of public awareness of our issues. More and more people in England are identifying their National Identity as “English” (see this opinion poll for startling evidence of this growing trend >>>
I believe that this politically hugely significant sea change in public awareness of our Cause is in no small part due to our over 25 million leaflets delivered so far (also Alex Salmond has helped a bit too!). 
Whatever the cause I am getting growing interest in the English Democrats and English nationalism from other politicians, journalists and also from academics.  They recognise that the slumbering giant of England is stirring and awakening – the interesting question is what will that giant and the English Democrats do in the coming year?


English Democrats' results for the May 2011 Local Council Elections

The percentages are based on valid ballot papers. (not all Councils in England had elections in 2011)

Ashfield District Council
Woodhouse Ward - Carole Terzza
Lab - 1081 44.18%  LibDem - 995 40.66%  ED - 371 15.16% 
Woodhouse Ward - Tony Ellis
Lab - 968 45.23%  LibDem - 943 44.07%  ED - 229 10.7% 
Barnsley City Council
Hoyland Milton Ward - Kevin Riddiough
Con - 314 9.49%  Lab - 1630 49.26%   ED - 290 8.76% 
Boston Council
Fenside Ward - Elliott Fountain Elected
BBI - 182 29.21%  Lab - 159 25.52%  LibDem - 51 8.19%  ED - 231 37.08%
Fenside Ward - David Owen Elected
BBI - 176 29.28%  Lab - 162 26.96%  LibDem - 68 11.31%  ED - 195 32.45%
Fishtoft Ward - Dee Bills
 Con -1502 40.33% Ind - 1199 32.20% Res A - 626 16.81%  ED - 397 10.66 %   
Kirton Ward - Mark Blackamore
Con - 573 28.25% UKIP 276 13.61% Ind 620 30.57% Res A 363 17.9%  ED - 196  9.66%
Pilgrim Ward - Jamie Taylor
Con - 146 42.44% UKIP - 93 27.03% Res A - 48 13.95%% ED - 57 16.57%
Skirbeck Ward - Callum McCuaig
Con - 397 25.42%  Lab 372 23.82% Ind 336 21.51% Res A 198 12.68%  ED - 259 16.58%
Skirkbeck Ward - Carl Rowe
Lab 390 43.24% Res A 206 22.84% ED - 306 33.92%
Staniland North Ward - Richard Green
Con - 66 15.64%  UKIP - 43 10.19%  Lab   - 118 27.96% Res A 110 26.07%  ED - 85 20.14%
Staniland South Ward - Darren Crozier
Con - 284 30.24%  Lab - 225  23.96% Res A 244 25.99%  ED - 186 19.81%
Staniland South Ward - Liam Blackamore
Con - 293 31.61%  Lab - 265 28.59% Res A 194 20.93%  ED - 175 18.88%
West Ward - Ross Isham
Con - 438  56.52% Res A 208 26.84%  ED - 129 16.65%
Bradford City Council
Wibsey Ward - Andrew Clarke
Con - 809 23.42%  UKIP - 363 10.51%   Lab - `1814 52.50%  LibDem  - 243 7.03%   ED - 226 6.54%
Brentwood Council
Warley Ward - Kim Burelli
Con - 978 45.94%   Lab - 259 12.17%  LibDem - 782 36.73%  ED - 110 5.17%
Bristol City Council
Bedminster Ward - Jon Baker
Con - 749 18.10%  Lab - 1694 40.93%  LibDem - 839 20.27%  Grn - 621 15%  ED - 111 2.68%
Filwood Ward - Barbara Wright
Con - 311 14.18%  Lab - 1400   63.84%  LibDem - 135 6.16%  Grn - 108 4.9% BNP - 112 5.11%  ED - 92 4.2%
Frome Vale Ward - Greg Shaw
Con - 1671 45.21%   Lab - 1358 36.74%  LibDem 218 5.9%  Grn - 243 6.57%  ED - 136 3.68%
Hartcliffe Ward - Stephen Wright
Con - 642 23.88%  Lab - 1500 55.8%  LibDem - 148 5.51%  Grn - 126 4.69%  ED - 272 10.12%
Hengrove Ward - Mike Blundell
Con - 1010 28.49%  Lab - 131 37.55%  LibDem - 924 26.06%  Grn - 91 2.57%  ED - 189 5.33%
St George West Ward - Eddie Tranter
Con - 432 13.49%  Lab - 1346 42.04%  LibDem - 936 29.23%  Grn - 229 7.15%  ED - 181 5.65%
Whitchurch Park Ward - Ray Carr
 Con - 449 15.74%  Lab - 1472 51.59%  LibDem - 688 24.11%  Grn - 90 3.15%  ED - 154 5.4%
Broxbourne Borough Council
Bury Green Ward - Chris Francis
Con - 1035 60.31%  Lab - 389 22.67%  ED - 292 17.02% 
Chestnut Central Ward - Ramon Paul Johns
Con - 1405 67.91%  Lab - 423 20.44%  ED - 241 11.65%
Rosedale Ward - Steve McCole
Con - 642 53.95%  Lab - 214 17.98%  ED - 334 28.07%                           
Wormley and Turnford Ward - William James Dewick
Con - 1250 59.13%  Lab - 543 25.69%  ED - 321 15.18% 

Bury Council
Besses Ward - Stephen Morris
Con - 462 16.5%  UKIP - 138 4.93%  Lab -  1523 54.39%  LibDem - 468 16.71%  ED - 209 7.46%
Holyrood Ward - Valerie Morris
Con -  584% 16.32%  Lab - 1508 42.13%  LibDem 1314 36.71%  ED - 173 4.83%
Dartford Borough Council
Bean and Darenth Ward - Stephen Culliford
Con - 908 20.92%  Lab -  416 9.58%  ED - 227 5.23%
Bean and Darenth Ward - Gary Rodgers
Con - 886 20.41%  Lab - 362 8.34%  ED - 185 4.26% 
Bean and Darenth Ward - Neil Tibby
Con - 824 618.98%  Lab - 358 8.25%  ED - 175 4.03%
Brent Ward - Jerry Chatterton
Con - 1152 18.93%  Lab - 779 12.8%  ED - 252 4.14% 
Brent Ward - Mike Tibby
Con - 1129 18.55%  Lab - 638 10.48%  ED - 211 3.47% 
Brent Ward - Mitchel Jackson
Con - 1115 18.32%  Lab - 616 10.12%  ED - 193 3.17% 
Castle Ward - Francis Maud
Con - 337 56.35%  Lab - 122 20.4% Ind 83 13.88%  ED - 56 9.36% 
Greenhithe Ward - Dianne Cooper
Con - 1565 38.48%  Lab - 871 21.42 Res A 1540 37.86%  ED - 91 2.24% 
Heath Ward - Carol White
Con - 4267 68.50%  Lab - 1685 27.09%  ED - 268 4.31% 
Joyce Green Ward - Glen Garderner
Con - 492 26.14% Lab - 1055 56.06% Lib Dems 159 8.45%  ED - 176 9.35% 
Joydens Wood Ward - Laurence Williams
Con - 5144 74.48% Lab - 1531 22.16%  ED - 232 3.36% 
Littlebrook Ward - Paul Wells
Con - 489 27.10%  Lab - 1089 60.37%  ED - 226 12.53% 
Newtown Ward - Darren Staines
Con - 951 16.56%  UKIP - 842 14.66%  ED - 265 4.61% 
Newton Ward - Jim Read
Con - 938 16.33%  UKIP - 733 12.76%  ED - 225 3.92%
Newton Ward - Louise Uncles
Con - 898 15.63%  Lab - 679 11.82%  ED - 213 3.71% 

Princess Ward - Christine Dunmall
Con - 1591 38.97%  Lab - 2223 54.46%  ED - 268 6.57% 
Stone Ward - Paul Cooper
Con - 1845 47.95%  Lab - 1811 47.06%  ED - 192 4.99%
Sutton Hawley Ward - Chris Bousfield
Con - 1777 67.90%  Lab - 703 26.86%  ED - 137 5.26% 
Town Ward - Andy Waghorn
Con - 533 48.63%  Lab - 391 35.68% Ind 43 3.92%  ED - 129 11.77% 
Town Ward - Nathan King
Con - 495 50.46%  Lab - 354 36.09% Ind 26 2.65%  ED - 106 10.81% 
West Hill Ward - John Griffiths
Con - 1145 18.22%  Lab - 756  12.03% Ind 218 3.47%  ED - 258 4.10%
West Hill Ward - Michelle Duncan
Con - 1142 18.17%  Lab -  666 10.59%  ED - 225 3.58% 
West Hill Ward - Steve Uncles
Con - 1028 16.35%  Lab - 660 10.5%  ED - 188 2.99% 
Willington Ward - Terresa Cannon
Con -  2031 72.90%  Lab - 638 22.90%  ED - 117 4.2%
Doncaster City Council
Adwick Ward - Vivian Woodrow
Con - 509 14.9%  Lab - 2326 68.07%  LibDem - 259 7.58%   ED - 323 9.45%
Askern Spa Ward - Malcolm Woodrow
Con - 831 20.64%  Lab - 2205 54.77%  Independent 416 10.33% ED - 574 14.26%
Bentley Ward - Tony Wagstaff
Lab - 1937 61.03%  Independect 498 15.69% ED - 739 23.28%
Bessacarr and Cantley Ward - Keith Hewitt
Con - 1006 21.19%  Lab - 1371 28.88%  LibDem - 1614 34%  ED - 756 15.93%
Edenthorpe, Kirk Sandall and Barnby Dunn Ward - Fred Gee
Con - 837 - 18.89%  Lab - 1618 36.51%  LibDem - 384 8.89%  ED -  928 20.94%
Edlington and Warnsworth Ward - John Brennan
Con - 292 7.55%   Lab - 1856 48.01% BNP 153 3.96% Independents 1053 27.24%  ED - 512 18.20%
Finningley Ward - Nigel Berry
Con - 2217 41.43%   Lab - 1327 24.8%  LibDem - 670 12.52%  ED - 1137 21.25%
Great North Road Ward - Steve Grocott
Con - 551 15.12%  Lab - 2195 60.24%  LibDem - 161 4.42%  ED - 492 13.5%

Hatfield Ward - Mick Glynn
Con - 556 14.44%  Lab - 1519 39.45 Independent 773 20.08% Residents Association 329 8.55%  ED - 673 21.87%
Sprotborough Ward - Barbara Hewitt
Con - 1629 38.44%  Lab - 1398 32.99% Green 549 12.95% ED - 662 15.62%
Stainforth and Morrends Ward - Margeret Holt-Taylor
Con - 471 15.18%  Lab - 1582 51% BNP 288 9.28% Independent 135 4.35% Residents Association 232 7.48%   ED - 394 13.28%
Wheatley Ward - Roy Penketh
Con - 500 14.58%  Lab - 1867 54.45%  LibDem - 276 8.05%  ED - 786 22.92%
East Lindsey District Council
Chapel St Leonards Ward - Tim Burrett
Con - 958 37.10% Independents 1358 52.59%  ED - 266 10.30% 
ConningsbyTattersall/ Ward - Ronnie Ford-Kennedy
Con - 1123 48.55%  LibDem - 701 30.31%  ED - 489 21.14%
East Riding of Yorkshire Council
Hessle Ward - Victoria Carte
Con - 893 22.45%  Lab - 1334 33.54%  LibDem - 1459 36.39%  ED - 291 7.32%
Hessle Ward - Peter Mawer
Con - 673 17.5%   Lab - 1335 34.71%  LibDem - 1471 38.25%  ED - 367 9.54%
Hessle Ward - Michael Burton
Con - 793 20.48%   Lab - 1257 32.46%  LibDem - 1269 32.75 Independent 220 5.68%  ED - 333 9.12%
Tranby Ward - Michael Cassidy
Con - 683 21.21%  Lab - 1077 33.45%  LibDem - 1093 33.94%  ED - 367 11.4%
Tranby Ward - Peter Asquith-Cowen
Con - 581 18.87%  Lab -  1058 34.36%  LibDem - 1046 33.97%  ED - 394 12.8%
Willerby and Kirkella Ward - Joanne Robinson
Con - 2163 45.78% Lab - 801 16.95%  LibDem - 1443 30.54%   ED - 318 6.73%
Willerby and Kirkella Ward - Graham Robinson
Con - 2300 48.84%  Lab - 682 14.48%  LibDem - 1324 28.12%   ED - 403 8.56%
Willerby and Kirkella Ward - John Ottaway
Con - 2039 44.26%  Lab - 705  15.3%  LibDem  1476 32.04%  ED - 387 8.4%
Epping Forest District Council
Chipping Ongar, Greensted and Marden Ash Ward - Robin Tilbrook
Con - 669 42.83%  Lab - 155 9.92%  LibDem - 491 31.43% Green 99 6.34%  ED - 148 9.48%

Erewash Borough Council
Hallam Fields Ward - Giles Farrand
Con - 888 33.76%  Lab - 1450 55.13%  ED - 292 11.1% 
Hull City Council
Boothferry Ward - David Rust
Con - 260 8.04%  UKIP - 204 6.13%  Lab -  1402 43.34%  LibDem - 1432 37.19%  ED - 166 5.13%
Derringham Ward - Billy Hughes
Con - 215 7.20%  UKIP - 268 8.98%  Lab - 1243 41.64%  LibDem - 1139 38.16%  ED - 120 4.02%
Newington Ward - Tineke Robinson
Con - 102 4.84%  Lab - 1204 - 57.09%  Libdem - 680 31.29%  ED - 143 6.78% 
Pickering Ward - Peter Mawer
Con - 169 5.21%  Lab - 1658 51.14%  LibDem - 1203 37.11%  ED - 212 6.54% 
Kettering Borough Council
Brambleside Ward - Derek Hilling
Con - 1383 43.29%  Lab - 1033 37.36%  ED - 349 12.62% 
St Peter Ward - Kevin Sills
Con - 1783 61.36%  Lab - 890 30.61%  ED - 233 8.00% 
Kirklees Council
Denby Dale Ward - Paul McEnhill
Con - 2514 41.11%  Lab - 2285 37.36%  LibDem - 392 6.41%  Grn - 443 7.24%  BNP - 206 3.37%  ED - 276 4,51%
Leicester City Council
Humberstone and Hamilton Ward - David Haslett
Con - 4638 38.16% Lab 6800 55.95% Ind 274 2.25% ED - 442 3.64% 
Leeds City Council
Ardsley & Robin Hood Ward - Joanne Beverley
Con - 1377 23.55%  UKIP - 384 6.57%  Lab - 2847 48.68%  LibDem - 360 6.16%  ED - 880 15.05%
Morley North Ward - Tom Redmond
Con - 874 12.69%  Lab - 1599 23.22%  LibDem - 199 2.89% Inds 3642 52.88%  ED - 573 8.32% 
Morley South Ward - Chris Beverley
Con - 736 11.56%  Lab - 2129 33.44%  LibDem  180 2.83% Inds 2076 32.61%  ED - 1245 19.56% 

Liverpool Council
Central Ward - Steve Greenhalgh
Con - 161 8.41%  Lab - 1348 70.43%  LibDem - 144 7.52%  Grn - 178 9.3%  ED - 83 4.34% 
Old Swan Ward - Steve McEllenborough
Con - 118 2.87%  UKIP - 202 4.92%  Lab - 2689 65.51%  LibDem - 751 18.29%  Grn - 97 2.36% Lib 116 2.83 TUSC 74 1.8%%  ED - 58 1.41%
St Michaels Ward - Neil Kenny
Con - 143 3.65%  UKIP - 70 1.79%  Lab 1341 34.23%  LibDem - 326 8.32%  Grn - 1978 50.48& Lib 31 .79%  ED - 29 0.74% 
Warbreck Ward -Lee Walton
Con - 110 2.81%  UKIP - 124 3.17%  Lab - 3190 81.46%  LibDem - 337 8.61%  Grn - 34 0.87% Lib 66 1.69%  ED - 55 1.4% 
Medway Council
Chatham Central Ward - Karen Streafield
Con - 2323 25.14%  UKIP - 314 0.03%  Lab - 5699  61.69%  LibDem - 659 7.13%  ED - 242 2.62% 
Lordswood and Capstone Ward - Phoebe Troy
Con - 1618 58.52%  UKIP - 256 9.26%  Lab - 712 25.75%  ED - 179 6.27% 
Peninsula Ward - Dean Lacey
Con -  1557 56.03%  Lab - 898 19.68%  LibDem - 282 6.18%  Grn - 351 7.69%  ED - 476 10.43%
Peninsula Ward - Ron Sands
Con - 2125 54.03%   Lab - 975 24.79%  LibDem - 298 7.58%   ED - 535 13.6%
Princess park - Daniel Logan
Con - 1488 53.62%  Lab - 968 34.88%  LibDem - 119 4.29%  ED - 200 7.21% 
Rochester West Ward - Agita Sudraba
Con - 1658 50.23%  Lab - 1029 31.17%  LibDem - 246 7.45%  Grn - 280 8.48%  ED - 88 2.67%
Strood North - Philip Varnham
Con - 2016 47.8%  Lab - 1390 32.95%  LibDem - 318 7.54%  ED - 282 6.69% 
Strood South - Michael Walters
Con - 1576 42.7%  Lab - 1395 37.79%  LibDem - 207 5.61%  ED - 513 13.9% 
Walderslade Ward - Sean Varnham
Con - 1280 44.83%  Lab - 490 17.16%  LibDem - 121 4.24%  
Medway Parish
Hoo St Werburgh (East Ward) - Ron Sands
Bamber - 601 22.77% bhattal - 298 11.29% Chambers - 329 12.46% Hipsey - 305 11.55% Perfect - 500 18.94% Sands - 347 13.14 % Elected ED

North Hertfordshire District Council
Letchworth Grange Ward - Charles Vickers
Con - 924 35.86%  UKIP - 165 6.4%  Lab - 1085 42.1%  LibDem - 185 7.18%  Grn - 145 5.63%  ED - 73 2.83% 
Pendle Council
Earby Ward- James Jackman
Con - 1145 53.73%  Lab - 513 24.07%  LibDem - 210 9.85%  ED - 263 12.34% 
Earby Parish - James Jackman - Elected Uncontested
Peterborough Council
Fletton and Woodston Ward - Kevin Roddis
Con - 1220 47.88%  Lab - 845 33.16%  Grn - 253 9.93%  ED - 230 9.03% 
Northborough Ward - Simon Potter
Con - 695 60.43%  UKIP - 85 7.39%  Lab - 134 11.65%  ED - 236 20.52%
Orton Longueville Ward - Graham Murphy
Con - 999 40.38%  UKIP - 292 - 11.8%  Lab - 942 38.08%  ED - 241 9.74% 
Park Ward - Maria Goldspink
Con - 1220 40.14%  Lab - 1555 51.17%   Grn - 151 4.97%  ED - 113 3.72%
Stanground Central Ward - Stephen Goldspink
Con - 996 39.79%  Lab - 818 32.68% Ind 105 4.19%  ED - 584 23.33% 
Portsmouth City Council
Baffins Ward - Ian Ducane
Con - 1251 28.65%  Lab - 683 15.64%  Lib Dem  -1842 41.78%  Grn - 216 4.95 Ind 149 3.41%  ED - 243 5.57%
Copnor Ward - David Knight
Con - 1402 38.29%  Lab -  864 23.59%  LibDem - 1094 29.87%  ED - 302 8.25%
Drayton and Farlington Ward - Dave Ward
Con - 3074 63.95%  Lab - 925 19.24% LibDem - 555 11.55%  ED - 253 5.26%
Eastney and Craneswater Ward - Peter Lawrence
Con - 1369 34.21% Lab - 603 15.07% LibDem - 1842 46.03%  ED - 188 4.70% 
Rochford District Council
Hockley Central - Thomas Broad
Con - 1577 74.14%  UKIP - 255 11.99%  ED - 295 13.87% 
Hullbridge Ward - John Hayter
Con - 990 42%  Lab - 402 17.06% Grn - 425 18.03%  ED - 540 22.91% 
Lodge Ward - Jason Hodson
Con - 901 63.54%  LibDem - 276 19.46%  ED - 241 17% 

Sweyne Park Ward - Alan Twydell
Con - 673 56.84%  LibDem - 316 26.69%  ED - 195 16.47% 
Rossendale Council
Stackstead Ward - Tony Justice
Con - 221 22.78%  Lab - 605 62.73%  ED - 144 14.85% 
Salford City Council
Little Hulton Ward - Arthur Johnson
Con - 297 12.97%  UKIP - 165 7.21% Lab - 1522 66.46% LibDem - 106 4.63%  ED - 200 8.73% 
Walkden North Ward - Laurence Depares
Con - 387 15.55%  UKIP - 188 7.56% Lab - 1604 64.47% LibDem - 116 4.66%  ED - 193 7.76%
Walkden South Ward - Paul Whitelegg
Con - 1784 49.71%  UKIP - 167  4.65%  Lab - 1379 38.42% LibDem - 142 3.96%  ED - 117 3.26% 
Sefton Council
Derby Ward - Dean Mcgrane
Con - 95 3.48%  UKIP - 404 14.79%  Lab - 2071 75.81%  LibDem - 107 3.92%  ED - 55 2.01% 
Solihull Council
Dorridge/Bentley Heath Ward - Andrew Taylor
Con - 3094 68.83%  Lab - 350 7.79%  LibDem - 544 12.10%  Grn - 210 4.67  Res A - 120 2.67%  ED - 177 3.94%
Elmdon Ward - Robert Lassen
Con - 1299 32.56%  UKIP - 221 5.54%  Lab - 580 14.54%  LibDem - 1648 41.31%  Grn - 77 1.93% Res A - 46 1.15%  ED - 118 2.96% 
Knowle Ward - Frank O'Brien
Con - 2931 68.92%  Lab - 435 10.23%  LibDem - 317 7.45%  Grn - 297 6.98% Res A - 80 1.88%  ED - 193 4.54% 
Lyndon Ward - David Reynolds
Con - 1041 26.42% UKIP - 131 3.32% Lab - 760 19.29% Lib Dem - 1605 40.74% Grn - 131 3.32% Res A 14 0.36% ED - 258 6.55%
Stoke City Council
Baddeley, Milton and Norton Ward - Leslie (Sammy) Simpson
 Con - 3320 28.82%  UKIP - 410 3.56%  Lab - 3381 29.35%  LibDem -566 4.91%  BNP - 439 3.81% Ind - 2025 17.58% Res A 1124 - 9.76 ED - 253 2.20.%
Tameside Council
St Michaels Ward - Dave Timpson
Con - 716 24.93%  UKIP - 145  5.05%  Lab - 1627 56.65%  Green - 145 5.05%  ED - 239 8.32% 

Tandridge District Council
Bletchingley and Nutfield Ward - Daniel Beddoes
Con - 122 14.17%  UKIP - 243 28.22%  Lab - 211 24.51%  LibDem - 231 26.83%  ED - 54 6.27% 
Three Rivers District Council
Croxley Green Ward - Roger Holmes
Con - 620 30%  Lab - 248 12% LibDem - 1022 49.44%  ED - 177 8.56% 
Croxley Green Parish Council - Roger Holmes
Con - 1881 29.97% Lib Dem - 1870 29.79% Ind - 1767 28.15% Res A - 411 6.55% ED - 348 5.54%
Tunbridge Wells Council
Sherwood Ward - Jojo Stanley
Con - 813 47.8%  UKIP - 192 11.29%  Lab - 340 19.99%  LibDem - 235 13.82%  ED - 121 7.11% 
Walsall Council
Pheasey Park Farm Ward - Christopher Newey
Con - 1782 48.35%  UKIP - 429 11.64%  Lab - 1161 31.5%  LibDem - 104 2.82%  ED - 210 5.7% 
Wealden Council
Hailsham East Ward -
Con - 282 45.41% Lab - 121 19.48% Lib Dem - 145 23.35% ED - 73 11.76%
Wellingborough Council

Croyland Ward - Terrence Spencer

Con - 2802 69.65%   Lab - 735 18.27%  ED - 486 12.08%

Retrospective - Part 2

I will continue the story of how the English Democrats have progressed with this Summary of General Election performances and Parliamentary by-elections and EU elections.

By-elections, 2004-2005
Date of election Constituency Candidate Votes %
15 July 2004 Birmingham Hodge Hill Mark Wheatley 277 1.4
30 September 2004 Hartlepool Ed Abrams 41 0.1


General Election 2005
The English Democrats contested 24 seats, receiving a total of 15,149 votes, an average of 631 (range 221 to 1216). The percentage share of the vote ranged from 0.6% to 3.4%, with an average of 1.45%. We got almost no mention in the media but did distribute a single unaddressed leaflet using the Royal mail election distribution in most of these seats.
Constituency Candidate Votes %
Aldershot Gary Cowd 701 1.7
Basildon Ms Kim Gandy 510 1.2
Bristol North West Michael Blundell 828 1.7
Chatham & Aylesford Michael Russell 668 1.6
City of Chester Ed Abrams 308 0.7
Chesterfield Ian Jerram 814 1.8
Copeland Alan Mossop 662 2.0
Doncaster North Michael Cassidy 561 1.8
Epping Forest Robin Tilbrook 631 1.4
Grantham & Stamford Benedict Brown 774 1.6
Greenwich & Woolwich Garry Bushell 1216 3.4
Hexham Ian Riddell 521 1.3
Ipswich Jervis Kay 641 1.3
Lancashire West Stephen Garrett 525 1.2
Leeds North West Adrian Knowles 545 1.2
Norwich South Christine Constable 466 1.1
Reigate Harold Green 600 1.4
Saffron Walden Raymond Brown 860 1.6
Sevenoaks John Marshall 751 1.7
Southend West Jeremy Moss 701 1.8
Staffordshire South* Garry Bushell 643 2.5
Vauxhall Janus Polenceus 221 0.6
Wakefield Paul McEnhill 356 0.8
Wantage Gerald Lambourne 646 1.2

*Note the South Staffordshire election was postponed until 23 June due to the death of a candidate

By-election 2008
Date of election Constituency Candidate Votes %
10 July 2008 Haltemprice and Howden Joanne Robinson 1714 7.2 Our best Parliamentary election result YET!

General Election 2010
The English Democrats stood 107 candidates in the 2010 general election. (106 is the minimum number required to qualify for a Party Election Broadcast.) The EDP received 64,826 votes, or 0.3% of the vote in England, won only one deposit in Doncaster North with 5.2% and overall 0.2% of the vote in the United Kingdom. We were determined to qualify for the Party Election Broadcast and here is a link to it >>> What do you think?
Constituency Candidate Votes %
Ashfield Tony Ellis 1102 2.3
Beckenham Dan Eastgate 223 0.5
Bedfordshire Mid John Cooper 712 1.3
Bexleyheath & Crayford John Griffiths 466 1.1
Blyth Valley Allan White 327 0.8
Bosworth Kames Lampitt 615 1.1
Brent North Arvind Tailor 247 0.5
Brentford & Isleworth David Cunningham 230 0.4
Brentwood & Ongar Robin Tilbrook 491 1.0
Bristol East Stephen Wright 347 0.8
Bristol North West Ray Carr 635 1.3
Bristol South Craig Clarke 400 0.8
Bristol West Jon Baker 270 0.5
Bromley & Chislehurst Jon Cheeseman 376 0.9
Broxbourne Debbie LeMay 618 1.4
Bury South Valerie Morris 494 1.0
Calder Valley Barry Greenwood 157 0.3
Camberwell & Peckham Yohara Robby Munilla 435 0.9
Cambridgeshire North East Graham Murphy 387 0.7
Cambridgeshire North West Stephen Goldspink 1407 2.4
Chatham & Aylesford Sean Varnham 400 0.9
Chelmsford Claire Breed 254 0.5
Chelsea & Fulham George Roseman 169 0.4
Chester, City of Ed Abrams 594 1.3
Chesterfield Ian Jerram 1213 2.6
Chippenham John Maguire 307 0.6
Cities of London & Westminster Frank Roseman 191 0.5
Colchester Eddie Bone 335 0.7
Dartford Gary Rogers 2178 4.3
Daventry Alan Bennett-Spencer 1187 2.3
Devon North Nigel Vidler 146 0.3
Dewsbury Michael Felse 661 1.2
Don Valley Bernie Aston 1756 4.0
Doncaster Central Lawrence Parramore 1816 4.4
Doncaster North Wayne Crawshaw 2148 5.2
Dover Michael Walters 216 0.4
Ealng Southall Sati Chaggar 408 1.0
East Ham Barry O'Connor 822 1.6
Eastleigh Tony Stephen 249 0.5
Eltham Mike Tibby 217 0.5
Enfield North Raquel Weald 131 0.3
Enfield Southgate Ben Weald 173 0.4
Epping Forest Kim Sawyer 285 0.6
Erith & Thamesmead Laurence Williams 465 1.1
Esher & Walton Mike Kearsley 307 0.6
Fareham Joe Jenkins 618 1.1
Gillingham & Rainham Dean Lacey 464 1.0
Gloucester Alan Platt 564 1.1
Gosport Bob Shaw 622 1.3
Gravesham Steven Uncles 1005 2.1
Greenwich & Woolwich Topo Wresniwiro 339 0.8
Haltemprice & Howden Joanne Robinson 1485 3.0
Hampshire East Matt Williams 710 1.4
Harborough David Ball 568 3.1
Hastings & Rye Rodney Bridger 339 0.7
Havant Fungus Addams 809 1.8
Hayes & Harlington Cliff Dixon 464 1.1
Holborn & St Pancras Mikel Susperregi 75 0.1
Hull East Mike Burton 715 2.1
Hull North Michael Cassidy 200 0.6
Hull West & Hessle Pater Mawer 876 2.8
Hyndburn Christopher Reid 413 1.0
Isle of Wight Ian Dunsire 1233 1.8
Islington South & Finsbury John Dodds 301 0.7
Kettering Derek Hilling 952 2.0
Kingswood Michael Blundell 333 0.7
Leeds North West Alan Procter 153 0.4
Lewisham East James Rose 426 1.0
Lincoln Ernest Coleman 604 1.3
Louth & Horncastle Colin Mair 517 1.0
Meon Valley Pat Harris 582 1.1
Northampton South Kevin Sills 618 1.6
Old Bexley & Sidcup Elaine Cheeseman 520 1.1
Orpington Chriss Snape 199 0.1
Penistone & Stocksbridge Paul McEnhill 492 1.1
Peterborough Rob King 770 1.7
Poplar & Limehouse Andrew Osborne 470 1.0
Portsmouth North David Knight 1040 2.4
Portsmouth South Ian DuCane 400 1.0
Rayleigh & Wickford John Hayter 2219 4.2
Redditch Vincent Schittone 255 0.6
Rochester & Strood Ron Sands 2182 4.5
Romford Peter Thorogood 603 1.3
Rossendale & Darwen Michael Johnson 663 1.4
Salford & Eccles Stephen Morris 621 1.5
Selby & Ainsty Graham Michael 677 1.3
Sevenoaks Louise Uncles 806 1.6
Sheffield Hallam David Wildgoose 586 1.1
Southend West Terry Phillips 546 1.3
Stevenage Charles Vickers 366 0.8
Stockton North Ian Saul 1724 2.9
Stratford-On-Avon Fred Bishop 473 0.9
Streatham Janus Polenceus 229 0.5
Sutton & Cheam John Dodds 106 0.2
Tonbridge & Malling Lisa Rogers 390 0.8
Uxbridge & South Ruislip Roger Cooper 403 0.6
Vauxhall Jose Navarro 289 0.7
Warwickshire North David Lane 411 0.9
Wellingborough Terry Spencer 530 1.0
West Bromwich East Mark Cowles 1150 3.0
Westminster North Edward Roseman 99 0.3
Weston-Super-Mare John Peverelle 275 0.5
Winchester Mark Lancaster 503 0.9
Workington Rob Logan 414 1.1
Worsley & Eccles South Paul Whitelegg 1334 3.2

By-elections, 2011

Date of election Constituency Candidate Votes %
13 January 2011 Oldham East and Saddleworth Stephen Morris 144 0.4
3 March 2011 Barnsley Central Kevin Riddiough 544 2.2
15 December 2011 Feltham and Heston Roger Cooper 322 1.38

Summary of EU Parliamentary election performance
Year Number of English Regions Contested Total votes GB Percentage of vote Saved deposits GB Change (percentage points) Number of MEPs
2004 5/9 130,056 0.8 0 N/A 0
2009 9/9 279,801 1.8 1 +1.0 0
In 2009 we made sure that we qualified for the PEB. Here is a link >>> What do you think?

Note the English Democrats do not stand in Scotland or Wales in the European Elections although the results are displayed as a proportion of the GB results (Northern Ireland has a different electoral system)

Welsh Assembly elections
2007 Welsh Assembly (3rd May 2007)
Due to the English Democrats stance on the status of Monmouthshire, the English Democrats stood in the three constituencies in Monmouthshire and in the South Wales East region. They came 16th place nationwide with 0.2% of the vote.

Constituency Candidate Votes %
Monmouth Ed Abrams 804 2.7
Newport East Michael Blundell 429 2.2
Newport West Andrew Constantine 634 2.7
Regional lists Votes % +/- %
South Wales East 1,655 0.9 n/a

2011 Welsh Assembly (5th May 2011)
The English Democrats stood 5 candidates in the South Wales East region and contested only one individual constituency, Monmouth. The vote in Monmouth fell by 0.2% but regional vote increased by 0.2%. They came 11th place nationwide with 0.1% of the vote.

Constituency Candidate Votes % +/- %
Monmouth Steven Uncles 744 2.5 -0.2

Thursday, 29 December 2011

Retrospective - August 2002 to February 2010 (the BBC view)

As we approach the New Year and the campaigns of 2011, I wanted to set out what has been achieved so far in establishing the English Democrats as a viable English nationalist party. Like Caesar's Gaul I shall divide this into three parts.

For the first part and in doing this for the period up to February 2010 I don't think that I can do more objectively than to quote materially in full from the obviously not pro English Democrats internal briefing paper to BBC Political Journalists on the English Democrats dated 25 February 2010. It includes consideration of the Electoral Alliance that we were building in preparation for the General Election. It reads as follows:-

"The Alliance for Democracy – English Democrats/Jury Team
Last updated: 25-Feb-2010 11:36
Millbank x36359

1. Alliance for Democracy
2. English Democrats
3. Jury Team

1. Alliance for Democracy

On 13 February, 2010, the English Democrats and Jury Team launched the Alliance for Democracy campaign and manifesto for the 2010 general election.

Whilst remaining independent political parties, they pledged to “campaign on a common policy platform” and not to field candidates against each other in individual constituencies. They declared their intention to field “at least 350 candidates in the 2010 general election across England, Scotland and Wales”.

In addition to candidates from both parties fighting the election “in a co-ordinated manner”, they declared that “other non-discriminatory political parties and groups with similar views are welcome to become associates of the Alliance”.

Alliance for Democracy Policies (published 13 February, 2010)

Reforming our democracy to change the people’s relationship with the state by holding referendums on

- The status of the UK within the EU (UK Electorate)
- Setting up an English Parliament (English electorate)
- The status of Scotland within the UK (Scottish electorate)
- Giving the Welsh Assembly similar powers to the Scottish Parliament (Welsh electorate)
- Reducing the number of MPs by a third (from 650 to 433)
- Changing Commons elections to proportional representation
- Requiring referendums on petition by 5% of the electorate

Legislating for the following policies and then having an authorising referendum before they become law

- Limiting government borrowing to 10% of expenditure
- Protecting bank customer deposits from casino banking
- Limiting benefits to 80% of the after tax minimum wage
- Sentencing violent criminals to “army style” punishment
- Limiting UK troops in Afghanistan to the NATO average
- Requiring private medical insurance for non-EU citizens
- Establishing 10 year residence requirement for UK Citizenship
- Requiring stores to let customers leave excess packaging

Strengthening Parliament

- MPs to be free to vote in line with their best judgment on issues not in their manifesto
- MPs to be paid according to civil service pay scales
- MPs to serve for only three full terms of five years
- Elected Representatives (Prevention of Deception) Act to be passed
- Independent Politicians Complaints Commission to be set up
- Cap donations to political parties
- Members of Select Committees to be elected by MPs
- Gold-plating of EU directives to be stopped
- General elections to take place every five years

Improving the Running of Government

- The House of Commons to elect the Prime Minister
- Prime Minister to appoint junior ministers jointly with Cabinet Ministers
- Departments to be run by a Board
- Government statistics to be published by an independent body

Contacts for the Alliance
Tel: 08700 624 555

By Post:
Alliance for Democracy
PO Box 65106
London SW1P 9PN

2. English Democrats

The English Democrats party was established in 2002 and Robin Tilbrook is its Chairman. Mr Tilbrook is a solicitor in Essex. In annual financial accounts submitted to the Electoral Commission, the English Democrats gave their membership as 172 in 2002, 775 in 2003, 1,011 in 2004 and 1,202 in 2005. Since 2005 I have not seen any published membership figures.

In the 2003 local elections held across most of England, the party contested one seat out of the 10,427 fought received 123 votes.

In the June 2004 elections to the European Parliament, the party contested five of the nine English regions and secured 1.4% of the total votes cast in those five regions. In the local elections fought in England one the same day, they contested nine of the 4,815 seats up for election and received 1,943 of the 6.8 million votes cast.

In the 2005 general election, the party fielded 24 candidates in England (all of whom lost their deposits) who received a total of 15,149 votes – 0.01% of all the votes cast in England. In the local elections held on the same day, the party contested 11 of the 2,396 seats fought and received 3,026 votes out of the 11.7 million cast.

In the 2006 local elections, the party fielded 16 candidates in the 4,300 contests and received around 5,000 votes out of the total 7.9 million cast.

In the 2007 local elections, where 10,486 seats were contested, the party fielded 78 candidates who received a total of 19,705 votes.

In the May 2008 London Mayoral election, the party’s candidate received 0.4% of the total first preference votes cast. Among the 2,840 seats contested in council elections across England that same day, the party fielded 45 candidates who received a total of 11,340 votes.

In the June 2009 European parliament elections, the party contested all nine of the English regions with the following res

Votes %
East Midlands 28,494 2.3
Eastern 32,211 2.0
London 24,477 1.5
North East 13,007 2.2
North West 40,027 2.4
South East 52,526 2.2
South West 25,313 1.6
West Midlands 32,455 2.3
Yorks. & Humber 31,287 2.6

Total votes cast 279,797 2.1

In the 2009 local elections held on the same day, some 2,318 seats were contested and the English Democrats fielded 76 candidates who received a total of 36,507 votes.

The party’s most spectacular result to date was in the Mayoral election in Doncaster, held on the same day as the European Parliament election, where they narrowly won.

4 June, 2009 Doncaster Mayoral election result

1st Prefs % 2nd Prefs Total votes %
Michael Maye Ind
17,150 22.8 7,840 24,990 49.6
Peter Davies ED 16,961 22.5 8,383 25,344 50.4
Sandra Holland Lab 16,549 22.0
Jonathan Wood Con 12,198 16.2
David Owen BNP 8,175 10.9
Stuart Exelby Ind
2,152 2.9
Michael Felse Ind
2,051 2.7
Turnout: 34.9

The BBC commissioned an NOP among 500 residents of Doncaster (sampled 2-7 January, 2010) to test levels of awareness, as well as attitudes towards, the Mayor of Doncaster. The poll suggested that 63% of adults in Doncaster preferred their council to be run by a cabinet of councillors, compared with 22% who preferred a directly-elected Mayor. Some 54% said they would vote against Doncaster’s current system of a directly-elected Mayor in a referendum (34% said they would vote for). And 13% could correctly name the English Democrat Mayor of Doncaster (Peter Davies).

Westminster Parliamentary by-elections

In by-elections contested by English Democrats, the party received the following vote shares:

Birmingham, Hodge Hill (15.7.04) 1.4%
Hartlepool (30.9.04) 0.1%
Bromley & Chislehurst (29.6.06) 0.7%
Ealing, Southall (19.7.07) 0.4%
Sedgefield (19.7.07) 0.6%
Crewe & Nantwich (22.5.08) 0.7%
Henley (26.6.08) 0.5%
Haltemprice & Howden (10.7.08) 7.2%*

* Not contested by either Labour or the Lib Dems


Robin Tilbrook, Chairman – English Democrats & Alliance for Democracy Spokesman
E-mail: –

3. Jury Team

The Jury Team was launched in March 2009 by Sir Paul Judge, Director General of the Conservative Party (1992-5). He was formerly chairman of Premier Brands, a major food company, and is said to have a personal fortune of £30 million. According to the Electoral Commission, the Jury Team spent £344,522 on its European Parliament election campaign (of which 46% was spent on media activities)

The Jury Team subscribe to two additional policies that do not appear in the Alliance manifesto above, namely: “allowing state schools to opt out from local authority control” and “introducing ‘no-fault’ compensation for public bodies”.

In the June 2009 European parliament elections, the party contested all nine of the English regions with the following result:

Votes %
6,257 0.6
3,793 0.6
English regions
East Midlands
7,362 0.6
Eastern 6,354 0.4
7,284 0.4
North East 2,904 0.5
North West
8,783 0.5
South East 14,172 0.6
South West 5,758 0.4
West Midlands
8,783 0.6
Yorks. & Humber.
7,181 0.6

Total votes cast 78,569 0.5

Westminster Parliamentary by-elections

In the one by-election contested so far by the Jury Team, the party received the following vote share:

Glasgow North East (12.11.09) 1.3%


Sir Paul Judge, Leader – Jury Team and Alliance for Democracy Spokesman

Tuesday, 27 December 2011

Alex Salmond is The Times' 2011 'Briton of the Year'

Congratulations are due to Alex Salmond not only for winning this rather inappropriately misnamed award (given to the leading opponent of Britishness)but also on his being a constitutional game changer.

As the Times' leader says:- "One incumbent politician managed to defy the odds, to win re-election despite everything, to win a majority when the election system was designed to prevent anyone winning a majority, to come from behind to destroy his opponents. That politician was Alex Salmond."

His achievement includes even kickstarting the adamantly anti-English British Coalition Government into considering the English Question even if they can't yet bring themselves even to mention the "E" word!

As the Press Association reported recently:-
"A commission to resolve the so-called West Lothian Question will start work in February, the Government has confirmed.

Cabinet Office minister Mark Harper said the commission would then report by the end of the next Parliamentary session, in the spring of 2013.

In response to a written question by Conservative Mark Lancaster, MP for Milton Keynes North, Mr Harper said work had been on-going since the Government's last announcement on the issue in September.

He told MPs: "We have been in consultation with House authorities on how the commission can best address the relevant issues on the business and procedures of this House.

"It is my intention for the commission to start work in February 2012 to report by the end of the next session, in spring 2013.

"I will make a further statement on the commission in the new year."

Saturday, 24 December 2011

English Taxpayers mugged Olympicly

This Article, on the Society of Procurement Officers' website, tells all those who have ears to hear or eyes to see a telling tale of how, in practice, the (post-colonial?) 'British' government rules England.

The price for any spending of English Taxpayers' money in England is a payment of Danegeld to the increasingly fractious and demanding, not to mention separatist, Nations of Scotland and Wales.

This wholly unjustifiable policy (aka the 'Barnett Formula') is applied even to British 'Vanity Projects' like the 2012 Olympics.

A project which, I might add, not only provides no benefit to the English but also in which we, as a Nation, are not even permitted to be represented by any English National Teams whatsoever!

Here is the article >>>

Olympics consequential funding

Sector: Central Government

Date: Thu 22nd Dec 2011, 14:11:32



Working together through the Joint Ministerial Committee (JMC) the UK, Scottish and Welsh Governments and the Northern Ireland Executive have reached agreement on an inter-administration dispute concerning the application of the Barnett formula to funds set aside for regeneration and transport within the budget for the Olympics Games in 2012.

The issue was discussed at a plenary meeting and helped clarify unresolved issues in the dispute. It also confirmed administrations’ shared interest in resolving those issues creatively and constructively with a view to ensuring the success of the 2012 Olympic Games. The meeting’s communiqué noted agreement ‘to consider the matter further to examine ways in which progress [could] be made’.

The administrations have agreed:
?to reaffirm their shared commitment to the success of the 2012 Olympics and other major sporting events in the UK.
?that there have been significant changes in public finances since this dispute first arose and that they should therefore not revisit decisions on the Olympics budget first made by the previous UK Government.
?that the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive will receive a one-off sum equivalent to the Barnett formula consequentials of relevant changes to Olympics funding since the present UK Government took office in May 2010. These sums amount to £30.2m, of which the Scottish Government will receive £16m, the Welsh Government £8.9m and the Northern Ireland Executive £5.4m (rounded to the nearest £100,000).

Wednesday, 21 December 2011

No, Mr Salmond, some of it’s ENGLAND’s Oil!!

So far Scotland and the Scottish National Party have had it all their own way claiming that North Sea oil is Scottish.

As a lawyer I can tell Alex Salmond that the normal International Conventions for determining the National Territorial Boundaries of the coastal Seabeds between Nations would suggest that up to half of North Sea oil is within English territorial waters, if you apply the geological test, and a quarter if you apply the average of the national land boundary test.

I therefore call upon the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and President of the Board of Trade, Mr Vince Cable, to institute a proper judicial enquiry to establish the boundary without further delay or prevarication.

The English Democrats are the only Party campaigning for English national interests to be properly represented. As part of our campaign, we now call for the respective national ownership of the off-shore territorial seabed, and therefore of the mineral resources, be judicially determined between England and Scotland.

This determination will allow the claims of the Scottish National Party as to Scottish oil to be properly allocated. In the highly probable event of Alex Salmond winning a referendum for independence of Scotland, that there will already be a binding determination at least on this issue out of the many other issues that will need to be resolved between the successor national states after the dissolution of the United Kingdom. This would also be an important step if full fiscal autonomy is to be granted to Scotland, under so called “Devo Max”.

The English Democrats will be organising a demonstration outside the Department of State for Business Innovation and Skills early in the New Year to follow up this call. I would therefore call for volunteers to take part in a demonstration. Would all those interested please email

Sunday, 18 December 2011

When the Euro collapses will there be fighting?

This is the question which our military planners appear to be considering, if this article by the eminent and not usually over excitable Professor Michael Clarke, who is the director general of the Royal United Services Institute, is to be believed.
Here is his article:-

Britain's Armed Forces face a new enemy Cost-cutting and the euro crisis are real and present dangers for Britain's hard-pressed Armed Forces.

The Chief of the Defence Staff, General Sir David Richards, was doing no more than stating Government policy this week when he said that the single biggest strategic risk facing the country today is economic rather than military. “No country can defend itself if bankrupt,” he said in his annual review of defence policy at the Royal United Services Institute.

Britain is still one of only three significant Nato members, out of 28, who spend 2 per cent of their GDP on defence. Nevertheless, the country is facing volatile times in austere circumstances. We need to think strategically, he maintained, and reform the Armed Forces even while they are extensively stretched. It’s a challenge akin to rebuilding the ship while still at sea.

To those who lament recent defence cuts as somehow lacking in strategy, the Government’s answer is therefore simple. Britain’s grand strategy – as immediate and overwhelming as anything in 1940 – is to maintain the country’s triple-A credit rating in the international markets. Without that, no credible defence strategy would be affordable.

As the country’s top military officer, Sir David is duty-bound to set out the Government’s grand strategic case in this way. But he also has to deal with the consequences of it. He has to speak military logic to the politicians, and political logic to the military. He does not interpret his role, and nor should he, as the champion of the military in a public battle with Downing Street for resources. Grandstanding against the Government is not his job, and certainly not Sir David’s style. But what he said was also the tip of a nasty iceberg that he and others can see drifting ever closer to the ship of state.

The tip of the iceberg, it has to be said, is not all bad. Britain remains a significant military player; the fourth largest military spender, behind the US, China and Japan, and ahead of France and Russia. If the first division of real military power only includes the United States, Britain stands in the top half of the second division that presently consists of Russia, China, France and India. And though Britain and France will drift towards the foot of that division over the coming decade, they will not be quickly relegated from it, if only because there is such a yawning gap to the third division below.

None the less, Sir David also knows that to stay in the game at all, military forces have to be credible and able to be used in different situations at short notice. Forces that look impressive on paper, or forces that take years to mobilise, are no use to Britain in the 21st century, and no one would bet on a period of idleness for the military in the near future.

So in the present climate, military chiefs have got to balance the risks of their trade in a different way. Last year’s defence review took 7.5 per cent out of the defence budget and committed the MoD to eliminating its famous “black hole” of unfunded future commitments that was, in reality, about £27 billion net. This summer, the Government put 0.4 per cent back into the defence budget as a whole to guarantee forward equipment programmes, but now the autumn statement extends existing defence cuts from 2015 out to 2017 and it would be foolish to rule out even further tightening before we get to 2017.

For Sir David, the new balance of risks is relatively clear. Britain aims to keep as many military capabilities as possible intact and “rebalanced” by 2020. By that time we plan to have a smaller Army of only 82,000, but a bigger, usable Reserve; a small force of new US jets to serve with the Eurofighter Typhoon; an effective strike aircraft carrier; refurbished nuclear forces; next generation electronic assets – the new battle winners – and a reformed MoD to manage it all.

But to get there, Sir David will have to save considerable amounts of money by holding some of his present force elements at lower readiness, relying on allies and partners to do other things, and accepting that in many areas a “good enough” level of technology will suffice, as long as the expertise of military personnel who operate it can be kept at its present high level.

Sir David’s problem is not so much balancing the risks in a military sense; all good commanders can do that. It’s the politico-military balances that are hardest to strike; when predictable casualties send politicians running for cover, or when changes in a battle plan send the media into gloomy prognoses of defeat. There is no pain-free use of the military instrument – even in Libya this year. Not all battles can be won, even in victorious campaigns. And some campaigns, where victory is simply impossible, may still be worth fighting.

What Sir David is saying about the rest of the planning iceberg is that British defence will get worse before it gets better, and that if the politicians want to keep reaching for the military lever, they will have to be braced for the political and human costs of doing so. Libya was a relatively easy military campaign, but it was still a politically close run thing once it became clear that the operation would last more than a fortnight.

More to the immediate point, he knows that the crisis in the euro area has become life or death to his chances of getting his defence forces to 2020, even in the sort of shape envisaged by the 2010 defence review. The Government’s reaction to domestic recession has been austerity in public spending, accompanied by growth strategies targeted on particular sectors. If the Government reacts in the same way to any new recession, defence would likely suffer further austerity and is very unlikely to be an area for targeted growth. All that was implicit in Sir David’s speech.

What he didn’t mention was that part of the iceberg that really worries the planners; perhaps for the good reason that it’s too early to press the panic button, or maybe for the bad reason that the prospects are just too awful to talk about in public. However the euro crisis plays out next year, we may see the return of real insecurity to the European continent itself.

The crisis has been technocratic so far; next year it will become political. If the euro is saved, it will be by a greater fiscal integration between the prosperous north European countries. If it is not, there will be chaos across southern Europe. Either way, we are witnessing a rapid and fundamental political shift from a continent that was long stabilised along an east/west axis, to one that will be defined by its north/south differences.

Some economic and political basket cases in the south will find themselves dealing with an acrimonious and introverted group of more prosperous northern countries trying to re-fashion some version of the grand integration project. Uncontrolled migration pressures will increase; organised crime will flourish on the imbalances between north and south, there will be less to prevent insecurity in the Balkans getting worse, or to prevent a Vladimir Putin under pressure from testing where Nato’s “red lines” really are. It will be a good year for populist parties everywhere who will freely allocate the blame for the chaos they see around them.

This is not the prelude to some cataclysmic European war. But it is probably the beginning of a new surge of human insecurity in and around the backyard we have come to see as nicely secure. And the United States is in no mood to bail the Europeans out of a mess they think we have made for ourselves. If insecurity returns to our continent over the next couple of years, Sir David will really have his work cut out finding the forces to deal with its effects, and 2020 will seem a long way away.

Professor Michael Clarke
Position: Director General

Michael Clarke is currently the Director of the Royal United Services Institute. Until July 2007 he was the Deputy Vice-Principal and Director of Research Development at King's College London, where he remains a Visiting Professor of Defence Studies. He was the founding Director of the International Policy Institute at King's College London from 2001-2005 and Head of the School of Social Science and Public Policy at KCL in 2004-05. He was, from 1990 to 2001, the founding Director of the Centre for Defence Studies at King's. He was appointed as Professor of Defence Studies in 1995.

He has been a Guest Fellow at The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, and a Fellow in Foreign Policy Studies at the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London. He has been senior Specialist Adviser to the House of Commons Defence Committee since 1997, having served previously with the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee 1995-7. In 2004 he was appointed the UK member of the United Nations Secretary General's Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters. In 2007 he was appointed as one of the Security Commissioners at the Institute for Public Policy Research. In 2009 he was appointed to the Prime Minister's National Security Forum in pursuit of the new National Security Strategy launched in 2008.

Thursday, 15 December 2011

Is UKIP here to stay?

The heading of this item superficially might seem perverse at a time when UKIP appears to be riding high but see what you think after considering what Peter Oborne has to say.

Peter Oborne is the Daily Telegraph's chief political commentator and one of our most thoughtful political analysts. At the beginning of November, he wrote the interesting Article below.

The article's originality is not so much about UKIP as about his theory of the split within the ranks of Conservatism which UKIP represents.

The implication of Peter Oborne's theory is that if the official Conservative Party shifted its positioning to encompass Euroscepticism then UKIP would be reabsorbed. Interestingly we have had corroboration of just such a probability in this recent polling >>>

Here is Peter Oborne's article:-

As the landscape starts to shift, Ukip can create political havoc

November 2nd, 2011

The modern history of the Conservative Party has been poorly understood, mainly because it has been written by the winner – the modernising faction that undermined the leadership of William Hague and Iain Duncan Smith before seizing control after the 2005 election defeat.

These modernisers like to portray recent Tory history as a victory for change, pragmatism, progress and sanity. But this relentlessly optimistic account ignores the central truth: the Conservative Party formally split in the decade that followed the political assassination of Margaret Thatcher in 1990.

The first manifestation of this split was the creation of the Anti-Federalist League by the distinguished historian Alan Sked in 1991, at just the time that the Maastricht Treaty was signed. The decision to deprive eight Conservative MPs of the whip in the mid-1990s was another significant moment. Sir James Goldsmith’s Referendum Party took the disintegration process one stage further.

Sir James was far more successful than is widely appreciated, and forced the Conservative government to pledge a referendum on future European treaty changes. He also sucked away many Tory activists. When the Referendum Party folded after his death the following year, these activists tended not to return to the Conservatives. Many of them gave their loyalty to Ukip, the protest party led by Nigel Farage which now campaigns for Britain to leave the European Union.

In contrast to the racist BNP, which tends to attract former Labour supporters, Ukip is in reality the Conservative Party in exile. Many of its senior members wear covert coats and trilbies, making them look like off-duty cavalry officers. They are fiercely patriotic and independent.

Farage himself is a very jolly chap who smokes, drinks and occasionally gets into minor trouble. He is instantly recognisable as the kind of man who would have served loyally in the post-war Conservative Party and would have been popular with opposition parties. He is one of the relatively few politicians I actually look forward to meeting. Indeed, Mr Farage, who abandoned the Tories on the day that Margaret Thatcher quit as party leader, is entirely representative of his membership, many of whom are small businessmen, or served in the Armed Forces, and are extremely public-spirited.

It was widely noted that party activists were heavily outnumbered by lobbyists at this year’s Conservative conference. One of the reasons was that so many Tory activists have gone off to join Ukip. Practically all of its supporters were instinctively at home in the party of Margaret Thatcher. A steady trickle of former Tory grandees have defected to Mr Farage’s party: Alexander Hesketh, the former treasurer and chief whip in the House of Lords, is the most recent.

If a Left-wing party had reached Ukip’s size and consequence, the media would be fascinated. But, because of its old-fashioned and decidedly provincial approach, it has been practically ignored. In the 2004 European elections, the party gained a sensational 16 per cent of the vote. Had it been the Greens or the Communists that had pulled off this feat, the BBC would have gone crazy. Instead it chose not to mention this event, coolly classifying Ukip as “other”.

For the metropolitan elite, the party scarcely exists. This is why last Sunday’s YouGov poll showing that support for Farage’s party had crept up to 7 per cent – just one point fewer than the Liberal Democrats – gained no coverage. But the significance of this is very great. I believe that Ukip is about to take over from the Lib Dems as Britain’s third largest political party.

The Lib Dems are finished for the foreseeable future – the invariable fate of the smaller party in a coalition government. They will be fortunate to retain a dozen seats at the next general election. Meanwhile, Ukip will probably overtake them in the polls over the coming months, most likely pulling well ahead as the general election approaches. The European elections, due in two and a half years’ time, will provide an important test: my guess is that Ukip will perform very strongly, while the Lib Dems will be all but wiped out.

It is becoming painfully apparent that Paddy Ashdown and Charles Kennedy made a historic mistake at the end of the last century. Had the Lib Dems then made the decision to reflect popular opinion and challenge the European Union, they could have been a genuinely radical party, capable of confronting head-on and overtaking their two main rivals. Instead (to the despair of several of their MPs), they timidly chose to become a voice of the European machine in Brussels, meaning they became part of the consensus and were never able to make the breakthrough they wanted.

As a result of this failure of nerve and vision, Britain’s political architecture is about to be transformed. Since the Second World War, our third national party has been on the Left. This has meant that Conservative governments have often been pulled towards the centre, while Labour governments have had crucial cover. We are now moving towards a new era, in which the most significant third force may be on the Right.

The consequences of this are, at this stage, hard to predict. It is possible that Ukip may develop into a rebellious third party, like Jean-Marie Le Pen’s Front National in France, but this is unlikely: Le Pen’s party was semi-fascist, and Ukip seems too fundamentally British, conservative and decent to go down that frightening route. Furthermore, our electoral system holds back Ukip, just as it does the Lib Dems. Though it is easier now to imagine the former surging to victory in a by-election, with the latter extinguished as a vehicle for protest votes, it is virtually inconceivable that Mr Farage’s party can win parliamentary seats at the next general election.

But Ukip can still exercise a determining influence. The strength of its national support means that it holds the future of scores of Tory MPs in its hands. By running a candidate in a marginal seat, it can deprive the Tories of a few thousand votes, more than enough to cause him or her to lose – indeed, one Tory, David Heathcoat-Amory, ironically himself a Eurosceptic, blames Ukip for his loss in the 2010 election.

Meanwhile, the party can throw its weight behind Tory candidates fighting for their lives against Lib Dem or Labour rivals. But in return, of course, it is entitled to demand a price and insist that those candidates pursue strong anti-European policies. This ability to determine or affect the result in individual constituencies means that Ukip can intervene dramatically in the Tory civil war over Europe which broke out after last week’s Commons vote. It can terminate the careers of ministers and loyal backbenchers, while throwing a lifeline to rebels.

Ukip’s strength is very easy to explain. The leadership of the three mainstream parties have made an error. They are determined to cleave to the centre ground. Ukip alone has the courage to stand outside this cosy alliance and to cause havoc. Meanwhile, it goes without saying that a Tory leader can never win an election so long as the broader Conservative movement is so painfully split.

Wednesday, 14 December 2011

Supporting the Out of EU Campaign

Last September the celebrity journalist and commentator, Jon Gaunt ("Gaunty"), asked to come and speak at the English Democrats' Annual Conference. He spoke to us about the launch of his, then new, EU referendum campaign group. As you would expect from English nationalists, Jon and his campaign were enthusiastically supported by one and all!

I was therefore delighted when Jon mentioned to me a few days ago that his group is now aiming to run local referenda in the LibLabCon leaders' contituencies. Jon then asked would the English Democrats help - especially in Doncaster North, Ed Miliband's constituency?

I immediately spoke to our Executive Mayor of Doncaster, Peter Davies, and he was also delighted to help and to throw the weight of his mayoralty and therefore of Doncaster MBC behind the campaign! I look forward to the progress of a campaign which will put Ed Miliband's kneejerk Islington Europhilia to a stress test! The English Democrats will be doing all we can to help!

Here is Jon Gaunt's Press Release:-
Now Is The Time – Cameron Should Let The People Decide
The British public now has even less of a say in the EU yet still pays £51m a day

The Vote UK Out of EU Campaign welcomes David Cameron’s stance on the EU Treaty yet demands the Prime Minister goes one step further and offers to put the question on the future of EU membership in a straight in/out referendum to the British public.

The Prime Minister should be congratulated for refusing to sign the Treaty but as a result it is clear that we are more isolated than ever before. Now is the time to go further. In previous polls taken by the Vote UK Out of EU Campaign, people across Britain have made their views clear – they want out.

They have had enough of the endless regulation, the ridiculous waste of billions of pounds of our money and politicians bossing us around who were not elected here in the UK.

In response to this widely held view, the Vote UK Out of EU Campaign has announced that it is to hold three independently run referendums in the party leader’s constituencies of Witney, Sheffield Hallam and Doncaster North. These will be run by the Electoral Reform Services and will be completely independent from the campaign. Paid for by campaign supporters including businesses, the campaign has been encouraged by emails of support and generous donations made online since the announcement of the referendum. Furthermore, individuals are now coming forward offering to pay for a referendum in their constituency.

Commenting on this and David Cameron’s refusal to put the question to the British public, Vote UK Out of EU Campaign spokesman, Jon Gaunt said:

“We congratulate David Cameron but he hasn’t gone far enough. He has left us even more isolated and more vulnerable than before. Britain is a strong nation and can survive without being held back by other EU countries – now is the time to trust the British public and put the question to them via a referendum.

Jon Gaunt goes onto add:

“When the British people realise that they have even less say on how their £51 million a day is being spent in the EU, they will quite rightly demand their money back. When this country is in a deep recession, how can we justify spending this outrageous amount of money? It has to stop. What is David Cameron frightened of? Our referendum next May will put even more pressure on him to do the right thing and offer the opportunity to the rest of the UK”.

The UK is now a member of a “two speed” Europe with the other 26 member states jammed in the slow lane. However, the UK could be speeding along in the fast lane if Cameron heads for the exit that leads to giving the British public an in/out referendum on EU membership.

Click here for the press release >>>

Sunday, 11 December 2011

Democracy in Policing?

Police and crime commissioners | Home Office Circular
Here is potentially a useful item for all those who think Policing and the Criminal Justice system in general are too focused on Social Engineering and Political Correctness issues and are far too little focused on good old fashioned English Common Sense and on enforcing Law and Order.

Later next year the Govenment is planning to take a slightly modified leaf out of The English Democrats' manifesto and have this potentially important post directly elected throughout England except for London. Click here >>>

These elections are planned to be held on 15th November 2012!

The English Democrats will certainly be standing in these elections on our very strong Law and Order Manifesto commitments - and, if the electoral system used for these elections is fair, then we can expect some success!

Here is what we say on Political Correctness:-

3.19 Political Correctness

3.19.1 The English Democrats share the public concerns as to the harm caused to our society by political correctness.

3.19.2 The English Democrats unreservedly condemn this intolerant creed. We reject the self-righteousness of political correctness and condemn the ideology as an evil. Political correctness is incompatible with a free and democratic society.

3.19.3 One key aspect of political correctness is that a person, an institution or a government is politically correct when they cease to represent the interests of the majority, and become focused on the deliberate subversion of English national culture and interests, the denigration of English history and of the English themselves, and the promotion of the objectives of minority pressure groups.

3.19.4 Political correctness is grounded in the capture of state institutions, with official spokespeople, legislative powers and sanctions for breaches of political correctness. It is this capture of state institutions which makes political correctness so oppressive and dangerous. This must end.

3.19.5 The English Democrats will take whatsoever measures are necessary to remove political correctness from both national and local government, including the various quangos and other government bodies funded either directly or indirectly by the taxpayer. These measures will include the following three steps: Firstly, those educational establishments, legal establishments, quangos, departments or other government organisations that are promoting political correctness will be fundamentally reconstituted and/or have their funding withdrawn or, where appropriate and if possible, be closed down. In particular, the so-called Commission for Equality and Human Rights will be closed. Private organisations that promote political correctness will not be awarded government contracts. Secondly, the English Democrats recognise that those institutions that are run by state appointees are the most detached from public opinion and are more likely to become politically correct. The English Democrats will, where practical, ensure that senior public employees, such as police chief constables and senior judges, are democratically approved by the community they serve. This will be achieved either via direct elections or via approval by democratically elected representatives. Many senior public posts will be subject to a maximum occupancy period, for such senior public employees to be accountable to the public will form a part of a bulwark against political correctness. Thirdly, the English Democrats will carry out a review of all laws and regulations, and will amend or, where appropriate and if possible, completely repeal those laws and regulations that foster and promote political correctness.

And here is what we say on Policing:-

2.11 Policing

2.11.1 Policing is an increasingly difficult job due to changes in our society, which now lacks the social cohesion and shared values that once gave us a mostly peaceful and well-ordered way of life. Our cities have become places where it is impossible to perform traditional communal policing.

2.11.2 English Democrats seek a return to a system of policing which recognises the principle that all citizens are treated equally. In their efforts to prevent crime and catch criminals the police should not be hindered and demoralised by unreasonable ideological constraints.

2.11.3 We should not lose sight of the fact that the basis for the maintenance of law and order in England rests on a firm foundation of active participation by law-abiding citizens. A relationship of trust and co-operation between citizens and police is essential to effective policing and the prevention of crime. With that in mind, it is reasonable to expect that policing should not be oppressive. The aim is a peaceable society in which liberty and justice can flourish.

2.11.4 It is essential that the police force be adequately trained and resourced.

2.11.5 Police forces should be more democratically accountable than at present. This would require the election of Chief Constables or the Police Authorities which appoint them.

2.11.6 English Democrats call for the creation of a scheme enabling businesses to pay for their security staff to train and register as Special Constables, their powers of arrest applying to their place of work and its neighbouring streets. Such registered security staff would be subject to Police staff performance monitoring and discipline.

2.12 The Legal System

2.12.1 The primary role of a legal system is to provide the means for settling disputes. It should enable those who suffer loss, in the form personal injury, theft, or damage to property, to be properly compensated by the party at fault. Laws, and the penalties for breaking them, should comply with the principles of natural justice.
As societies have become more complex, so have their law codes. To a great extent, this is unavoidable.

2.12.2 However, states and their governing elites are extending the reach of law into areas that infringe upon individual liberties. The result is a body of law which is more restrictive and complex than it need be.
Many of the customs and principles of English law are being undermined in the political quest for greater conformity with Continental ideas and practices. Law is being used as a tool for imposing dogma. One of the consequences of these changes is that the police are increasingly being made the enforcers of political doctrine and moving further away from their traditional role of upholding the delicate balance between Order and Liberty.
2.12.3 In order to obtain justice, citizens must feel able to consult and employ the services of the legal profession. Many people are deterred from this by the procedures and costs of the present legal system. Improvements have been made in recent years but more needs to be done to make the system user friendly and efficient.

2.13.4 The English Democrats favours less law and a simplification of law. There are far too many matters currently covered by the criminal law. There should be a drastic reduction and rationalisation of the number and extent of criminal offences.
2.13.5 We must reform the jury system but not abandon it because the jury provides a democratic check on the legal system. The law is not the property of lawyers; it belongs to the people and should serve their needs.
Our preference is for a return to comprehensible, just and effective law. Given its current chaotic state, the law should be codified.

2.13.6 Once the criminal law has been properly codified, the English Democrats would ensure that the criminal law is vigorously policed and enforced.

2.13.7 Except in an emergency there should be a single annual implementation date for new law. This will help rectify the current muddled situation where no one can be sure, without considerable effort or expense, whether a clause of a new Act has been brought into force or not. Also, some rules, for example the Civil Procedure Rules, are being rewritten so frequently that new editions are being published more than once a month! This leads, not surprisingly, to the shameful situation where no-one, not even the judiciary, can be sure of the current rule in force without first making unreasonable efforts to research the point.
2.13.8 In order to avoid such excessive complexity developing again, a monitoring system should be devised which ensures that new law is unambiguously comprehensible and properly and efficiently enforceable. This could be a function of a reformed Second Chamber.
2.13.9 The English Democrats respect the right of victims of crime to defend themselves and their property against criminals. The English Democrats would extend the right of self-help.
2.13.10 The English Democrats believe that every victim of a criminal offence should have the right to address the court on the question of sentence and for the court to be required to bear the victim’s views in mind when passing sentence.
2.13.11 It is not acceptable that 100,000 hardened criminals commit over half of all crime in the U.K. Once a criminal is identified as beyond effective rehabilitation he or she must be kept out of the community until no longer a risk.
2.13.12Prisons should be designed and equipped so that prisoners are not subject to degrading conditions

2.14 Drugs and Alcohol

2.14.1 English Democrats believe that government should encourage a healthy lifestyle which makes the minimum use of “recreational” drugs of all kinds and only reasonable use of alcohol. The Government’s drug policy is failing to control the use of illegal drugs and its alcohol policy appears to be making the problems worse.

2.14.2 The English Democrats favour an independent and open minded, English enquiry into alcohol and drug abuse. This should consider, amongst other issues, the pros and cons of legalising the use of cannabis and its health and social consequences. The enquiry should consider health and social consequences. We recognise that there are good arguments on either side. What is needed is a proper conclusion to the debate for England so that it is possible to move on with an agreed stance and suitable measures.

2.15.3 It is clear that the current policies for dealing with problems of addiction are not working adequately and there is an ever rising tide of criminality arising from, in particular, drug abuse. Addiction problems are very difficult to solve and require careful analysis. One particularly frustrating aspect of addiction is that family and friends are often aware of the plight of the addicted person but unable to do what is best for them. One area of reform should be greater provision for addicts to be subject to compulsory treatment in secure care.

2.15.4 All those who commit criminal offences whilst under the influence of drugs or alcohol should be subject to compulsory assessment and if found to be addicted should immediately be taken into such care.

2.15.5 The most important aspect of the fight against drug dealing criminals is that any policy should seek to destroy their market, protect the public, and punish offenders.

2.15.6 The English Democrats intend to raise gaol sentences for drug dealing in Class A drugs graduating from a fixed five year term as a minimum doubling it for any subsequent re-offence.

2.15.7 Registered Class A drug addicts will be placed in secure drug rehabilitation schemes rather than sent to prison, where active participation in the detoxification programme will be a requirement of their sentence. Failure to comply with the detoxification programme may result in secure custody within a prison environment as per a graduated tariff based on previous antecedence.

2.15.8 Addicts with children will be put on the 'at risk' register and custody of children will be dependent on an addict's ability to detoxify. Addicts failing to successfully complete detoxification will not have their children returned to them, the rights of the children must be paramount and either familial custody or foster parents will be sought until detoxification has been completed. The return of children will be conditional on regular detoxification checks.

2.15.9 Addicts wishing to seek help for their addiction will be registered at a specific medical centre, one which is outside of the GP network.

2.16.10 The government will provide a dedicated County based Drug Management Service for those who are addicted to Class A drugs. Registration as a drug addict will require regular visits to the centre under a personally structured drugs management programme.

This might include: doses of drug to which the person is addicted whilst awaiting to attend a detoxification scheme Provision of supervised medical care and clean syringes to minimise contamination & safe disposal. Maintenance doses for repeatedly defaulting addicts Family Health Visitor Sessions - to ensure children of ex addicts are thriving Employment/Training/Housing referrals and counselling Those who commit criminal offences, and who are found to be using drugs, will be expected to prove that they were not funding their drug use by their criminal activity. Those who fail to do so will be placed on a drug’s rehabilitation programme and will be detained until they have been free of drug use for 6 months. Upon release, they will be monitored to ensure that they remain drug free and will be re-detained if they fail to do so.

Saturday, 10 December 2011

"England was “God’s Firstborn” in the formation of the nation-state world"

These are the current Royal 'Coats of Arms':- respectively for the Kingdom of England and also the one for the Kingdom of Scotland

The title to this item is a phrase that took my fancy. It appears in the thought provoking article below, from The Scotsman. It is both a gem in itself and is a true statement about England's unusually long existence - we reached union as a nation state in 927 AD - beat that anyone!

Tom Nairn is no friend to English Nationalism but the article is still worth the read. Here it is:-
What future for monarchy in our changing nation?
Published on Friday 9 December 2011 00:00

In the new edition of his book ‘The Enchanted Glass’, Tom Nairn looks at the impact of nationalism on an institution that helped to shape the United Kingdom

THE Enchanted Glass originally appeared in 1988, with the middle-aged Elizabeth II in a pink hat and white gloves waving from its cover; twenty-three years later she’s still waving, and guaranteeing the stability of the British Crown for some years to come. Her son will then almost certainly succeed for a while as Charles III, with grandson William following on. So we find the Crown institution still hard at work re-establishing itself as a twenty-first century enterprise.

Nearly all commentators predict Great Britain’s continued decline, as ex-imperial status turns into increasingly unavoidable marginality, screened by special relationships, the Commonwealth, and other old club subscriptions. The UK has so far striven to keep up appearances, via a kind of half-honourable decline: unwilling negotiations with retreat, rather than outright defeat, the goal; a piecemeal and staged withdrawal rather than mere eviction from the historical stage. However, the climate of accelerating decline brings other changes in its wake.

A very minor one is that a mistake in this book’s first edition is more noticeable. I see now how I failed to focus sufficiently on one key motive for the successful working of “enchantment”: what one could call “surrogacy”, in the sense of an English-identity diversion from standard-issue nationalism to the symbolic supranationality of a Royal Crown and Family. The unusual intensity and emotion of the latter has come from certain peculiarities of the former: as if a communal feeling unable to find appropriate modern expression has been compelled to find compensatory voice in another way, or upon a different (though related) level. Such deeper emotion contains a usually unacknowledged advantage. It absolves the majority English nationality from the customary “-ism” of recent history. No Anglo-nationalism is felt necessary in the standard nineteenth- and twentieth-century form. Of course such feeling manifests itself none the less, in sub-standard form – round the edges, as it were, through panic over immigration, and distrust of “outsiders” and multiculturalism. However, the political expression of such ideas has been very limited, mainly by a “British” National Party tied to extinct racism as well as to state decline.

The resultant problems are the by-product of longer-range historical location. As Liah Greenfeld points out in her classic Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity (1992), England was “God’s Firstborn” in the formation of the nation-state world: but this very priority meant that the English would not themselves become just another state, a national polity like all the rest. Naturally the English had to adapt themselves to the world they had set in motion and fostered, during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. But they did so in two main ways, both of which have now lost most of their sense. One was simply expansion: the “greater England” represented by colonization and the emigration of one generation after another over the era of empire. The other was a “little England” of rurality and imagined roots, supposed to have both preceded imperialism and in some ways persisted through it as an enduring substratum.

The point of monarchy was the way it suited this unique double life. In 1688: The First Modern Revolution (2009) Steve Marcus has shown how the revolutionary improvisations did lead to a make-over: an institution “over and above” mere government was created, but not a form of absolutism. The British “Crown” compromise then acquired quasi-global reach, to preside over a wide variety of countries and cultures. Now the glass’s enchantment reflected back a story that apparently reconciled the spiritual and the material: religion and economic progress, God’s Firstborn cohabiting with free trade, industrial revolution and capitalism. All modern nations have done something like this, perhaps; but for God’s firstborn, monarchy offered the most convenient way of doing the trick – a trump card to be treasured across the age of nationalism and imperialism.

Edwin Jones’s The English Nation: The Great Myth (2000) has described how Protestantism was reinterpreted and mobilised for the task. Alongside Pincus’s 1688, a substantial re-analysis now exists of the context within which both revival and transformation of the monarchy became central to Anglo-British statehood. As “constitutional monarchy”, the Crown mythology was an instrument for holding such a “united kingdom” together. Three-quarters of the latter was of course England; but Scotland, Wales and Ireland remained too significant to be either absorbed or ignored. So crucial was this factor that the later ruling class imported foreign monarchies to make the grade and keep things going, not once but twice. After the 1688 upheaval, the Dutch William of Orange became king, and then (when that line ran out of heirs) princes from the tiny German state of Hanover were invited to take over: the “Hanoverians” of 1714 and later. Queen Victoria was one of them. Incomers can learn ways of making themselves more native than their hosts, and these Germans worked hard at it. They became the “Windsors” during World War I, grafting themselves on to a still successful and expanding multinational enterprise. The Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II fifty-eight years ago set new standards for the age of TV and tabloid media, an example which we currently see the future King William learning to emulate.

But he and Queen-to-be Catherine do so in increasingly difficult circumstances. As ever the problem is “England”. The Crown is less popular in Scotland and Wales, and has a different sort of importance for many in Northern Ireland, but maintaining a United Kingdom remains vital, a matter of life and death as well as emotion and flag-waving. On 5 May, 2011, local elections in England coincided with those for the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the devolved authority in Northern Ireland. Power had originally been given to these countries with the aim of strengthening “Britishness”, and carrying on the substance of 1688. But for the Scots, matters couldn’t help appearing quite differently. Their place in the Glorious and Bloodless set-up was fixed by a parliamentary treaty of 1707: an international accord intended to underwrite the monarchical fusion of a century earlier. Thus the new 2011 parliament in Edinburgh can’t help seeing itself as more than an administrative convenience. The Scottish National Party did so well on 5 May, 2011, that Alex Salmond’s resultant government is bound to use its power to (at least) challenge and modify 1707. A referendum on independence has been proposed. This might be lost, of course, like the Quebec one of 1995. But the principle would none the less be established of the right to secede via popular vote at some later time.

At such a juncture, some commentators have suggested another possible outcome: why not replace the “Union” with a federal or confederal structure, a “looser” state form that might (so to speak) carry forward useful aspects of British multinationality? Though attractive to many, the notion simply cannot help forcing the argument back on to the English ground: more than three-quarters of any such body don’t care much one way or another. Not only is there no devolution in prospect for England’s majority, the latter is, not surprisingly, quite satisfied with the de facto authority Great Britain provides, and subscribes energetically to the colourful symbolism which monarchy bestows upon their preponderance.

In Wendy James’s terms, the English are specimens of The Ceremonial Animal (2003), a nation for whom anthropological customs and observances have assumed the role that nationalism has provided in most modern-period states. By contrast, what Plaid Cymru and the SNP offer are aspirations towards this standard national identity “-ism”, akin to most other members of (or candidates for) “the Spirit of the Age”.

It is also sometimes thought Scandinavia offers a model … or a way out. After all, the Baltic countries are also monarchies, where a concretely “national” icon is conjoined with the shared, but more abstract, common ground of social democracy. Is there any reason why the British-Irish realm should not follow that example? What the position fails to acknowledge is of course the difference in background. Apart from the odd problem of establishing Welsh, Scottish and Ulster royal houses, what the unifying centre seeks is different as well. Great Britain’s ideological demands are for a much stronger multinational focus of allegiance: something more like that of the nineteenth-century Hapsburg domain in Central Europe, and befitting a recent Great Power with a permanent Security Council seat.Nor is this disparity likely to be resolved via any change of mind or movement, since it has longer-range or “structural” elements a whole population has inherited and used to define itself.

In this context of break-up, monarchy has become stressed to the limit: each new lapse or misfortune is accompanied by exaggerated flag-waving and over-rehearsed adulation. Prince William and Catherine Middleton, right, can’t help falling into a trap formed of the hysteria of counter-decline and a wilful failure to quit a darkening stage. Prince Charles has already prepared the way for this survival strategy, with his theatre of determined populism: too “with-it” by half, a modernising exhibitionism that deliberately underestimates the factors of tradition and retrospect that national identity requires. His antics have marked a meaningful shift of emphasis, one that appears likely to prevail for some years, once Elizabeth II takes her leave.

However exaggerated and ambiguous, it may be that the Prince of Wales’s posture also echoes deeper shifts under way. Decades of half-apologetic, “ironical” Royalism are likely to leave their own diminished heritage, currently being handed down to the future King William. In 1688, Pincus shows how “like all modern revolutions … 1688-9 was a struggle ultimately waged between two competing groups of modernisers”, which a traditionalist centre ground had to accept. But if the future brings a more self-conscious “little England” with it above all, with the departure of the Scots, then ongoing modernisation (or re-modernisation) could be quite different.

Most formulae for perpetuating the United Kingdom envisage some sort of “federalism” or looser association of equal-status units, and are accompanied by redefinitions of “independence” for Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England. Occasionally this is hopefully modified by notions of regional autonomy, of the kind that John Prescott attempted without success to foster in the English North-East. However, the resounding defeat of that attempt by popular referendum makes the route seem most unlikely. Britannic “confederation” (or whatever) cannot either avoid or minimize English nationalism. Four-fifths of the electorate would be invited to shift allegiance from “Anglo-Britain” to a quite different model, one inevitably according much greater importance to “the periphery” and especially to Scotland.

The simple unlikelihood of this transfer puts Scottish separation and statehood in a perspective that is different and, it can be argued, simpler and more acceptable both in the archipelago and internationally. By comparison with reforming God’s Firstborn this is, surely, a relatively minor change. Furthermore, one survey after another has shown the English public relatively indifferent to the alteration. “Westminsterism” attaches far more significance to Great Power stature and the Security Council seat than do most English or British subjects. Also, the “detachment” of the Monarchy could prove useful, if the institution can distinguish itself more definitely from the disintegrating heritage of Union and Empire. It looks as if the true choice of kings Charles and William will be between burial among the ruins of the ancien régime or some new, more modest function as symbol of “federal” identity chosen to carry on some selected features of such lengthy coexistence and societal interpenetration: the less-than-Great, less-united Kingdom of a European Union member, one that takes “modernization” and formal democracy more seriously.

Republican Monarchy? The term appears self-contradictory, and yet nothing else corresponds to what may be emerging right now, following the decisive SNP victory in the Scottish Parliamentary election. There will be a referendum on Scottish independence quite soon, and Premier Alex Salmond has repeatedly made it clear he does not want outright republicanism to be part of the bid. The future envisaged is therefore one of statehood equality over the former United Kingdom, in which a crowned head of state will remain, as the symbol of partnership and good will, established social and personal relations, and the historic closeness derived from 1688. It should also change and probably moderate the “surrogacy” mentioned earlier, through which English national identity has been transmuted into an adulatory obsession with royalty. One way the English have avoided “little England” (the country on its own) has been the curiously amplified elevation of a regal family dynasty described in this book, informally shared by the peripheral countries. A formal agreement between the periphery and the core-majority, by contrast, could include the acceptance of monarchy in a spirit different from what has so far prevailed. In effect, the replacement of “enchantment” and emotionality by a straightforward calculation of joint benefits and their costs.

What does “resignation” from the former Great Power club (Security Council position, et al) truly mean? The Westminster-British political elite will naturally cling on to it. Without an “ethnically” English resignation from the outward-reaching model, therefore, the change has to come from the periphery, by a return to themselves of the archipelago’s minority nationalities. Fortunately, this seems to be under way, and has been given a great boost by the 2011 elections in Scotland. Different varieties of nationalism there, in Wales and Northern Ireland, are bound in turn to require a novel style of constitution that could certainly include monarchy but of a somewhat different style from the one imposed by (as one might put it) the glamour of backwardness. A distinctly English input would be demanded from the four-fifths majority, as well as the assorted democratic minorities. There’s nothing “little” about this, in any demeaning or has-been sense: merely the acceptance of reality in a rapidly globalizing world. The finality of that imparts a comparable importance to what “we” all are, the distinctive deposit of past time or “history”. First-round nationalism accompanied and voiced first-round industrialization, and it can be argued that second rounds are now in formation, involving not the end but the renewal and advancement of “who we are” – of the collective identities derived from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

• This is an edited extract of the foreword to the new edition of Tom Nairn’s The Enchanted Glass: Britain and Its Monarchy, published by Verso this month.