Total Visits

Thursday, 30 October 2014

South Yorkshire Police Commissioner by-election

David Allen - English Democrats

Today is voting day in the South Yorkshire Police Commissioner by-election - which is an election using the Second Preference voting system.

Our English Democrats' candidate David Allen is head and shoulders above the other candidates in this election as was shown in the BBC Radio Sheffield debate broadcast yesterday.  To listen to this please click here >>>

The debate begins at 02:02:40
Anyone who doesn't vote is wasting this opportunity to make a difference! 
Should we also frankly say that anyone who doesn't vote is an Idiot who is handing the election to those very people who have betrayed the trust placed in them?
As Wikipedia ( says An idiot in Athenian democracy was someone who was characterized by self-centeredness and concerned almost exclusively with private—as opposed to public—affairs. Idiocy was the natural state of ignorance into which all persons were born and its opposite, citizenship, was effected through formalized education. In Athenian democracy, idiots were born and citizens were made through education (although citizenship was also largely hereditary). "Idiot" originally referred to "layman, person lacking professional skill", "person so mentally deficient as to be incapable of ordinary reasoning". Declining to take part in public life, such as democratic government of the polis (city state), was considered dishonorable. "Idiots" were seen as having bad judgment in public and political matters. Over time, the term "idiot" shifted away from its original connotation of selfishness and came to refer to individuals with overall bad judgment–individuals who are "stupid".

Thursday, 23 October 2014

Interview on Russia Today

A few days ago I was interviewed on Russia Today television by the lovely Marina Kosareva about the impact in England of the Scottish Referendum.
Here is a link to the item >>>
What do you think?

Sunday, 19 October 2014

The English do not want England divided up to suit politicians

Daily Telegraph reports on IPPR findings

The Brit/Scot Telegraph journalist Iain Martin writes below about a key finding of the IPPR report. Here is the link to that report >>>

This finding is that there is virtually NO popular or democratic demand from the English People for any form of devolution which involves the break up of England.

There is however a clear agenda from the British Establishment, as well as from the EU, which calls for England to be Regionalised. Fortunately for the English nation they can't agree on the details!

The purpose of the Establishment agenda is clear as Charles Kennedy let slip when he said, while he was Leader of the Liberal Democrats back in 1999, that he supported Regionalisation because "in England Regionalisation is calling into question the idea of England itself".

As English Nationalists the real question about the Union of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is:- Should we accept that England must be broken up to allow the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish to feel comfortable and unthreatened by alleged English dominance?

An example of this thinking is what Jack Straw said when he described the English as "potentially very aggressive, very violent" and also claimed "that the English had used their "propensity to violence to subjugate Ireland, Wales and Scotland".

OR should we, as English Nationalists, loudly, forcefully and uncompromisingly say that we would prefer the UK to be broken up rather than allow England to be broken up?

I know where I stand on this issue. United England first, second and third! Where do you stand?

Here is Iain Martin's article:-

The English do not want England divided up to suit politicians

By Iain Martin

While Gordon Brown was burbling on in the Commons yesterday about the constitution, and in his usual fashion taking no responsibility whatsoever for the mess he helped cause, a fascinating report was being discussed elsewhere.

The Future of England Survey was produced by constitutional specialists and is based on in-depth polling on attitudes.

It is worth reading it in its entirety, particularly now that all manner of schemes are being suggested by politicians for the creation of regional government in England in the wake of the Scottish referendum. Whatever the merits of such proposals, and the need for some larger cities to be given the powers that booming London enjoys, the report makes clear that there is almost no enthusiasm on the part of English voters for the country being divided up into regional assemblies.

It looks as though English voters grasp what Gordon Brown and some of his Labour colleagues cannot. England is a country. Even with regional government – which isn't going to happen – there would still be English laws on justice, education health and so on, which voters understandably do not see as the business of MPs sent by the Scots, Welsh or Northern Irish.

The option which attracts most support, which avoids the creation of a new and expensive English parliament, is some form of English votes for English laws in the Commons.
As one of he authors of the report, Professor Charlie Jeffrey of Edinburgh University, puts it:
"People in England are not just reacting against their ‘others’ in Scotland and the EU. They are also searching more positively for an institutional recognition of England that can express their concerns better than the current political system, which submerges the representation of England within the wider UK’s institutions in Westminster and Whitehall. From the various alternatives, the most preferred one is – as David Cameron now seems to have recognised – English votes on English laws in the House of Commons."

With some compromise by all parties at Westminster, with new protocols and cooperation with the devolved assemblies and the Scottish parliament, such an arrangement is perfectly workable, as I explained here.

The risk now for Labour, as it bizarrely allows its position to be dictated by Brown and the other Scots who spoke so loudly in the Commons yesterday against English votes for English laws, is that it ignores a critically important development. That is the emergence of a distinct English identity requiring constitutional recognition. If the party continues down this path – with the direction dictated by Scots – it is not inconceivable that in time it could come to be seen as innately anti-English. Some Labour MPs in England see the danger, even if the party leadership does not.

A more self-confident UK Labour party would recognise the English demand for fairness in a new constitutional settlement, accept English only votes in the Commons and set about winning a majority of seats in England again.

Friday, 17 October 2014

IPPR Report on Englishness

IPPR Report on Englishness

Here is the IPPR's long awaited report on the rising sense of Englishness and its political impact.  
The research was done in April but the publication was kept back so as not to give advantage to the SNP in the Scottish Independence Referendum. 
The IPPR is a Labour think tank so their focus is on issue that Labour should take into account in developing their electoral strategy.

The report is worth the read for all English Nationalists as it does give clear statistically based guidance on the contours of the developing political English nationalism.

Tuesday, 14 October 2014

Tuesday 14th October:- Super Tuesday for English Question? IPPR Report on Rising English Nationalism and the Conservatives launch their EVEL plans!

Tuesday 14th October:- Super Tuesday for English Question? IPPR Report on Rising English Nationalism and the Conservatives launch their EVEL plans!

All English Democrats will be interested by the Report of the IPPR:- "Taking England Seriously: The New English Politics", to be published on Tuesday, 14th October. The Report shows significant English demand for:- an English Parliament; "EVEL" (English Votes for English Laws), answering the "English Question"; English Independence; and ending the "Barnett Formula". 

The Institute for Public Policy Research research results show that in mid April 54% of the English wanted an English Parliament and 15% supported English Independence. 

Also on Tuesday, at last, a section of the British Political Establishment, which for the last 15 years has been all too happy to see English concerns about England’s rights dismissed, is coming out with a proposal which at least seeks to partly address the democratic representational part of the "English Question". 

The English Democrats welcome the Conservative’s English repositioning as "Sinners come to repentance". We see EVEL as only the start of a political Dutch auction. EVEL, in itself, is only a very little move which constitutionally speaking is unlikely to work very well. Significantly it only starts to answer the least important part (representation) of the English question because it does nothing about providing an English First Minister or Government for all the English only departments which are currently controlled exclusively from the British legislature at Westminster.

The IPPR Report shows the need for the British Establishment to take the "English Question" seriously but their polling was done in mid-April. More up to date polling now needs to be done since the tide of English public opinion has moved on. This is partly in response to witnessing the exploitive, anti-English and self-centred tone of the Scottish Referendum.

An example of this movement is that The Sun on Sunday recently published an ICM poll done in England for The Campaign for an English Parliament which showed 65% for an English Parliament and 40% for English Independence. Even that polling was done before the Scottish 'Vows' by the LibLabCon trio!

A still more recent unscientific poll shows 44% (nearly 10,000 respondents) for English Independence:-

This more recent polling evidence suggests that English support for English Independence may already represent a greater proportion of the whole electorate than the referendum support for Independence in Scotland!

The "United Kingdom" is now therefore at a critical turning point; akin perhaps to the Gladstone Home Rule moment, when Tory intransigence then doomed the long term integrity of the Union. If England is not going to be treated fairly in getting a substantial measure of national home rule, when Scotland gets total Home Rule, then English demand for Independence from the UK will continue to rise.

Robin Tilbrook, Chairman of the English Democrats said:- “I welcome the evidence of the Institute for Public Policy that there has been a significant continuing increase in English Nationalism. England is increasingly responding to our calls for English Home Rule. We have also long called for the end of the discriminatory Barnett Formula. English taxpayers’ money should only be used fairly for the needs of our People. If the IPPR’s research had been conducted more recently they would have found even greater growth in English Nationalism.” 

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Friday, 10 October 2014

A strange thing about the way the so-called main stream media operate in the “United Kingdom” today

A strange thing about the way the so-called main stream media operate in the “United Kingdom” today

In the run up to elections there often appears to be a sudden surge of media stories claiming that the British political system is offering a real choice. 

The article below by Janet Daley entitled “Politics is now a bare-knuckle fight again” is very much a case in point.  
Instead of any sort of analysis Ms Daley makes wild claims of there being some great philosophical difference between David Cameron and Ed Miliband.  

By implication she is dismissing the alternative view that both of them are simply careerist members of a political class that hyper inflates relatively trivial differences between their respective parties in order to excite some interest from supporters who are thereby deceived into thinking that there is a real difference between their policies.  Also that their rhetoric is meant to placate some vocal critics like UKIP for David Cameron or Len McClusky of Unite for Ed Miliband.  As it used to be put, when I was in the army, “bulls**t baffles brains!”.  

I would suggest that in fact a more considered study of both parties would be far more likely to come to the conclusion that the British political system is more like a Punch and Judy show where both parties are substantially the same but make a great show of a fight on the “stage”. 

Consider Labour’s and Conservative’s policies towards England:-  Both the leaderships want us to remain in the EU; Both want to continue very similar policies on immigration;  Both wish to spend more money than they actually receiving in tax revenue, thus in the long term beggaring the country in order to, in the short term, give themselves political advantage;  Both believe in Liberal Internationalist, Neo Colonial,  Military interventions across the world; Both believe in vast additional borrowing to pay Foreign Aid; Both intend to build over vast swathes of English countryside to deal with a housing crisis which is fundamentally caused by having allowed probably over 5 million immigrants into the country in an almost wholly uncontrolled manner over the last 10 years!  Where’s the difference Janet?

Despite all this Janet Daley’s article shows she wishes to puff up what are fundamentally piffling differences over a little bit of tax here or there!

See what you think.

British politics is now a bare-knuckle fight again

For the first time in a generation, voters will have a chance to make a real difference at the general election in 2015

By Janet Daley

  Politics is back – by which I mean real politics when people with actual differences of opinion are up to a fight for public support and the approval of the electorate. The centre ground, once decreed to be the only territory on which elections could be won, is now a no man’s land, a demilitarised zone, an empty space evacuated by the serious parties in preparation for a genuine fight to the death over fundamental beliefs. After those two starkly contrasting party conferences, we know that what will be on offer at the next election is a choice not just between rival sets of government policies, but competing philosophies of the good society and radically differing ideas of how government should encourage virtuous b_ehaviour.

In two equally astonishing leaps, the party leaders have embraced diametrically opposed positions on the role of government and the responsibility of the private individual. Ed Miliband’s Principle of Together is nothing less than the old model of socialist communality in which the desires of the individual must always be subsumed under collective need, and the state is the distributor of economic fairness. David Cameron’s vision is of a country in which personal responsibility for oneself and one’s family is paramount, in which hard work is rewarded and self-determination is a social ideal. This isn’t just a political or economic disagreement: it’s a profound ethical parting of the ways.

By accident or intention, everybody has effectively accepted that the ceasefire is over. The entire national conversation about how we should be governed no longer needs to be held within the confines of soft Left consensus. The Tories will talk unashamedly of free market, low-tax low-spend, small government Conservatism, and Labour will unequivocally endorse big government, state-sponsored collectivism. Political discourse has not been as visceral as this since the 1980s. There will be an urgent and meaningful debate about the principles which determine the conditions in which life is lived. Isn’t that wonderful?

For the first time in a political generation, you the voter – whom this is all supposed to be about – will have a chance to make a real difference. Instead of a phony war between political leaders who were marketing themselves as slightly improved versions of each other, there will be two radically opposed conceptions of what government is for, and what responsibilities ordinary people should be expected to assume. If you are old enough to remember, you may say that we have had this argument before: the general election of 1983 put the choices as starkly as they could be put, and the country made its judgment so decisively that Labour had to re-invent itself to get back into the discussion. True enough. Yet here we are again, being offered a re-run. And what makes it particularly interesting is that it may not turn out the same way.

Maybe the country is made of different stuff than it was back then. Perhaps it has been softened up by Labour’s extension of welfare dependency into the middle classes and by the remarkably effective media assault on market forces. Nor do the times seem quite so desperate: the lights are not going out and the nation is not being regularly held to ransom by lawless trade unions. Yes, it could end differently this time. But at least we will get to talk about it. There will be a chance once again to debate the most important social questions of our time and to bring the democratic process back to life.

What that means is that everybody’s voice will matter. The most pernicious aspect of the “centre ground” mentality was that it was, ironically, so illiberal. It narrowed the acceptable limits of political possibility to a tiny range of received opinions. Anyone who could not subscribe to that set of premises or social attitudes was simply beneath consideration. Either you agreed with the consensus or you were not fit to participate. (Or as one particularly enthusiastic proponent put it, you are so out of touch with modern life that you might as well go away and die.) Bizarrely, the centre ground merchants became, in the end, so mutually affirming and autocratic that they seemed not to notice how ugly their certainty had become.

Never mind that the tenets of the orthodoxy were in fact mutually contradictory – the promotion of gay marriage being at odds, for example, with respect for ethnic minority cultures, or the regard for women’s rights clashing with the rules of some religions – and so could not actually be enforced with any consistency. Politicians all had to make the same untested incoherent pledge to a vague liberal niceness. It was the sympathetic intention that mattered – not the logic or the fact that the programme was actually impossible to implement. It is on the practical implementation that these two competing world views will be tested. The Miliband option offers little so far in the way of detail except for commitments to yet more public spending while at the same time accepting the need (more or less) to cut the deficit.

But the Tories, even hamstrung by coalition, have begun to show the country what their approach might mean. Iain Duncan Smith has argued from the start that his welfare reforms were not just designed to cut government spending. His case has always been that welfare dependency is more than a waste of money: it’s a waste of life. It is human potential that is being squandered as well as taxpayers’ wealth. That is a microcosm of the brave new Conservative pitch: the clearest practical justification of the claim that the Tories are now the real party of compassion and social justice.

As I say, the country may not be ready to buy this. It may not see the economic or moral sense in allowing people to keep more of what they earn in the first place, instead of taking a large portion of it away, and then handing it back to those the state believes to be deserving. It may have become convinced that people do not necessarily know what is best for themselves and their families, or that, left to their own devices, they will make only self-serving, anti-social choices.

But at least we can go at it now for all we are worth: make the case, have the full-blown, bare-knuckle barney without having to pretend that there are no real grounds of contention. The outliers at the more extreme ends of the spectrum who had been forced out of mainstream political discourse altogether – the Occupy movement, the Ukip recruits and beyond – can come back on to the pitch. The democratic process will be able to encompass the red-blooded as well as muted shades of pink. And oddly enough, with a reasonable amount of good will, this will make democratic politics more genuinely liberal than it has been for decades.

  Here is Janet Daley’s article >>> British politics is now a bare-knuckle fight again - Telegraph

Monday, 6 October 2014

Is England "Better Together" in the UK? Some Fiscal Facts.

Here are the latest British official estimates of the tax raised in each of the three 'home' nations and province to the end of the 2012/13 financial year.
These figures should not be treated as exact to the last million because there are difficulties in allocating revenue to particular parts of the UK, for example, with corporation tax, but they are broadly indicative of what each country collects in tax. 
There are two sets of figures to show the differences when oil and gas is allocated on a geographical and a population basis.

Table 1 Total HMRC Receipts (Geographical Split of North Sea Revenues), £m 2012-13

UK                England    %           Wales      %       Scotland   %        Northern Ireland %
469,777   400,659 85.3%    16,337 3.5%   42,415 9.0%       10,331   2.6%
Table 2 Total HMRC Receipts (Population Split of North Sea Revenues), £m

469,777   404,760 86.2%    16,652 3.5%   37,811 8.0%        10,518    2.6%
Compare this with public spending for each of three small home countries in the calendar year 2013 (ie Not including UK spending on Welfare, Pensions, Defence, Aid, Foreign Affairs etc):
Scotland      £53.9 billion – deficit  of £12 billion approx. between tax raised and money spent
Wales            £29.8 billion – deficit of £13 billion approx. between tax raised and money spent
N. Ireland         £19.8 billion – deficit of £9 billion approx. between tax raised and money spent
So an identifiable £34 Billion a year subsidy from England to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and no contribution from them for any UK expenditure which therefore all comes from the pockets of English Taxpayers.
Better Together?

NB differences between tax raised and money spent are based on Table 1 figures which give the most favourable interpretation of Scotland’s tax position (£16.1 Billion for Table 2 Figures).