HOW MUCH ENGLISH MONEY WILL BE USED TO BUY DEMOCRATIC UNIONISTS' SUPPORT IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS?

HOW MUCH ENGLISH MONEY WILL BE USED TO BUY DEMOCRATIC UNIONISTS' SUPPORT IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS?

The current level of Barnet Formula style annual block grant from the English taxpayer to Northern Ireland is standing at £10.4 billion per year.  That is somewhat more than the total net subscription/subsidy to the European Union that so much of the argument during the European Referendum campaign was about! 

That adds up to a subsidy to every man, woman and child in Northern Ireland of £5,437 more public money than they will averagely have paid in taxes being paid to the population of Northern Ireland which is as per the 2011 Census, £1,810,863 (£1.8m).   This means that, as set out in the House of Commons Briefing Paper number 04033, published on the 8^th March 2015, whereas the average Government spend per head in England was £8,638 in Northern Ireland it was £11,106. 

Dominic Lawson, the son of Mrs Thatcher’s Chancellor of the Exchequer, Nigel Lawson, and who is a former Editor of the Sunday Telegraph, wrote in the Sunday Times on June 18^th (see below) that “there are no more successful shakers of the magic money tree than Northern Ireland’s politicians”.  The question is how successful will the DUP be in shaking the English magic money tree? (or as I would rather put it picking English pockets!).

I seen reported rumours of an extra 1.4 Billion or an extra £2.5 billion and have even heard a rumour, which like all such rumours of course is un-attributable and unverifiable, that the demand may even be an extra billion for every one of the ten DUP votes in the House of Commons.  If the latter is true, that would of course then lead to a doubling of the figures which I gave above, with over £10,000 of English Taxpayers’ money being spent on average for every man, woman and child in Northern Ireland!

In the past we in the English nationalist Cause have tended to compare our country’s treatment with that of Scotland.  This is partly because of the success of the SNP in highlighting the independence issue for Scotland and thereby successfully blackmailing the British Political Establishment to try to buy Scottish votes for the Union.  This latest development will of course not be generally about buying Northern Irish votes for the Union, but specifically buying the votes of the 10 DUP MPs in the House of Commons.

It will be interesting to see whether English People do begin to realise that they are being taken for fools with perhaps by as much as £20 billion of cuts on English hospitals, schools, roads, students etc., because of the fact that that money has been spent in Northern Ireland.

As mentioned above Dominic Lawson wrote in an article on June 18 2017, 12:01am, in The Sunday Times

“We are all being DUPed into a merry splurge”

In the article he writes:- “The DUP is socially conservative — reflecting the communities it represents — but in other respects it is to the left of the party May leads. Or, perhaps more accurately, it is populist. Its manifesto opposed the Conservative policy of removing the pensions triple lock and introducing means-testing for the winter fuel allowance. At the same time it advocated that the province be exempted from the BBC licence fee and air passenger duty. Its determination on this last point is apparently what’s holding up the deal: the chancellor, Philip Hammond, is understandably reluctant.

You get the picture. There are no more successful shakers of the magic money tree than Northern Ireland’s politicians. Figures released by the Office for National Statistics last month showed that while Scotland consumed £2,824 more in public expenditure per capita than it raised in taxes — a source of irritation to the English — the average inhabitant of Northern Ireland consumed £5,437 more public money than they paid in taxes. There has been a payment from London to Ulster of about £10bn in each of the past three years, slightly more than the UK as a whole has been paying — net — to the EU.

Obviously, the latter is to foreign countries, while the colossal transfers across the Irish Sea are to poorer fellow countrymen and women, with all the demands of solidarity that status entails. But it is quite a racket. To give just one example: if a legal chambers in London gets a call from Northern Ireland, the clerk will take it with a song in his heart. While legal aid in England has suffered drastic changes in allowable charges, in Ulster legal aid is, as one practitioner put it to me cheerfully, “still the same old gravy train”.

In England legal aid was one of the non-ring-fenced areas of spending that most felt the effects of what David Cameron and George Osborne offered as the solution to a national credit card maxed out by Gordon Brown: “austerity”, they called it, and the word stuck.”

GENERAL ELECTION RESULTS

GENERAL ELECTION RESULTS

Amongst all the Tory angst and delusional crowing from the Labour side, as well as the fall out for the Liberal Democrats there has been very few reports about the English Democrats’ results. 

Before getting on to those I would just like to point out that, although Theresa May made many mistakes in both the calling and the conduct of the General Election, the sheer numbers of people voting Conservative did actually go up quite significantly. 

The Labour vote went up by slightly more, but the results aren’t a product of their increase in the vote, they are a product of more effective targeting by Labour than by the Conservatives. 

In particular Mrs May made the mistake of calling the General Election whilst it was still during the Universities’ term time and therefore lost several seats by small margins because of the student vote.  It also appears that some Labour student voters voted twice from some of the more idiotic boasting on social media!  I shall be drawing that to the attention of the police and of the Electoral Commission. 

Despite having somewhat increased their seats the Liberal Democrat Leader was forced out as a result of a coup within the Liberal Democrats.  This appears to have been orchestrated by Brian Paddick, whose only known achievement is to have been a senior policeman promoted, so far as one can tell, mainly because of him being gay, rather than because of any merit of his as an effective police officer. 

Tim Farron has expressly confirmed that it is no longer possible to be a Liberal Democrat and a genuine practicing orthodox Christian, let alone a scripturally based Evangelical Christian. As I have said in a previous blog, our politically correct British political Establishment has now decided that it is a breach of “fundamental British values” (sic!) to believe as Christ states in the New Testament:- “I am the way, the truth and the life:  no man cometh unto the Father but by me” (John 14.6). 

So far as UKIP is concerned, they have, of course, not only failed to win any seats but also lost the one seat that they had actually won in Clacton. They also lost almost all of their deposits. A result made worse by their leadership’s decision to stand 377 candidates instead of the 106 which would have been all that would have been required in order to qualify them to get all the publicity that they did in fact get during the election. 

So far as the English Democrats are concerned, we were not prepared for the election and, indeed, had spent all that was available on our standing in the local and Mayoral elections and so were only able to put up 7 candidates with the short notice given.  Most of our candidates did not distribute any leaflets, but in any case the issue, as we now know over many years’ experience, is not so much getting a single leaflet out, but much more importantly having the manpower resources to knock on doors, to have got data on our potential supporters already collected and to be allowed to do further leafleting of all potential supporters to make sure that they did actually turn out and vote. 

As our results show we are nowhere near achieving that yet. 

We do however fully intend to be at the position where we can win some seats at the next General Election. 

That is the aim which I am setting the English Democrats and we will be working towards achieving that and hope to be successful in doing it, provided of course that the next General Election isn’t called on another sudden whim by whomsoever happens to be the then Leader of the Conservative Party!

Here are our election results:-

North East Cambridgeshire – Stephen Goldspink – 293

Barnsley East – Kevin Riddiough – 287

Barnsley Central – Stephen Morris – 211

Holborn & St Pancras – Janus Polenceus – 93

Clacton – Robin Tilbrook – 289

Bradford South – Therese Hirst – 377

Doncaster North – David Allen – 363

I would also like to say thank you very much to our candidates for standing in the General Election and for keeping the flame of English nationalism burning. 

To quote the English theologian and historian, Thomas Fuller, in his religious travelogue 'A Pisgah-Sight of Palestine And The Confines Thereof' of 1650:-

“It is always darkest just before the Day dawneth”!

THERESA MAY'S JUNE 8TH GENERAL ELECTION DEBACLE

THERESA MAY'S JUNE 8TH GENERAL ELECTION DEBACLE

What a difference two months make in the new weak and wobbly British political landscape!


Two months ago we had the usual county council local elections occurring with some of George Osborne’s new “Metro” mayoral elections. Theresa May and the Government was regularly reassuring people that there was not going to be any General Election until 2020.


We are told that Theresa May then, on a walking holiday with her husband in Wales, decided that she was going to call a General Election.


Certainly in terms of the strategic and logistical background it does generally seem to have been an ill-considered and whimsical decision. One thing that we do know about May is that she does not consult widely. She only talks candidly to an inner circle of loyalists who are said to number no more than eight, including her husband and Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill West.


It has been leaked that nobody in the Cabinet was consulted about the decision and they were simply presented with a fait accompli that the decision had been made and that they were going for it. The same appears to be true about the disastrous manifesto and her further poor decision not to take part in any head-on TV debates with Corbyn.


The result is that her reputation has gone from Machiavellian Mastermind to Blithering Blunderer within the space of a few weeks!


Jeremy Corbyn on the other hand, to listen to journalist reports, has gone from Unelectable Loony Lefty to Populist Pied Piper in the same period!


Ignoring the hype what can sensibly be identified as the elements of May’s poor decision-making!


Politicians often think that they are the masters of electional planning. It is however true that whilst they have a lot of experience of the tactics of electioneering, they may not be the best judges of strategy and what needs to be considered at a strategic level.


Two startling examples of Mrs May’s failure to think through the strategy is that, if she had merely had the election a month later, the students from the universities would have been dispersed to their homes all over the country, in many cases not having a vote registered there and the string of Conservative losses such as Canterbury, Bath, Bristol West, etc. and Nick Clegg’s loss of Sheffield Hallam would not have taken place. Those are completely explicable in terms of the student vote. The fact that issue wasn’t even considered before timetabling the election must demonstrate vividly the lack of strategic planning within her process of decision making to call the election.


Another issue which is difficult to reconcile with any suggestion that there was a strategic element in the decision-making process is that the Government only needed to wait until October 2018 before the new House of Commons boundaries would come into force. These boundaries have been calculated on current populations and are thought to make it much easier for the Conservatives to get an overall majority. For a Conservative Leader to ignore that advantage in deciding to call an election shows a staggering lack of strategic thinking.


More generally I do not think that Theresa May succeeded in persuading voters that the election was really necessary for the purpose that she claimed to be calling it, i.e. as a mandate to push through her Brexit negotiations. Her unwillingness to take part in televised debates helped to make Jeremy Corbyn look a much more effective leader than she was. Her frankly rather silly slogans didn’t help to improve her standing.


We can’t however ignore the further example of catastrophic decision-making process which led to her producing her manifesto, without proper consultation with her Cabinet colleagues. It made even pensioners in English country towns and villages all across the land who had never voted for any other party other than the Conservatives in their lives, question whether they really wanted to support such a blunt attack on their interests. 


Indeed the manifesto was so bad in terms of populist appeal, that if you were minded towards a conspiracy theory then you might think that Mrs May had actually tried to lose the election! Personally I generally are more inclined to “cock-up” this “conspiracy” theory. I think that what has happened is not only a demonstration of Mrs May’s inadequacies, but also more generally how poor the British parliamentary system is at producing people to occupy leadership positions who genuinely have any real leadership abilities and characteristics.


Theresa May is one example of somebody with virtually no natural leadership ability. So of course was Gordon Brown another example. Jeremy Corbyn seemed to be similar but the fact is that when he was able to break out of the Westminster bubble effect, he does seem to have shown some considerable personal leadership qualities. The fact remains though that the establishment's party system regularly seems to give people leadership titles and puts them into leadership roles which they are clearly personally unsuited to filling.

Some coverage of the Clacton campaign

 As a candidate in Clacton I was contacted by the local paper:-

Dear General Election candidates for Clacton

The Daily Gazette will be running a series of ‘big questions’ over the next three weeks, which will see all candidates asked to give 200-word answers to each of three questions.

For the Clacton seat, your answers will be published on May 17, May 24 and May 30.

The first question is:

How did you vote in the EU referendum? Do you stick by that decision? And why?

I replied:-

"I campaigned and voted for Leaving the EU and I am delighted by the result and the shockwaves that it has sent through the British Establishment. The next big issue is the "English Question".

That's the rights and interests of the English to be fairly treated!"

 

That was published on 16th May 2017 with this article:-

A SELF-DECLARED Little Englander is campaigning for Clacton to have the UK’s biggest St George’s Day Party.

Solicitor Robin Tilbrook, 59, from Ongar, will be standing for the Clacton seat in the upcoming General Election.

Mr Tilbrook, leader and chairman of the English Democrats, is hoping former Ukip voters will turn to his party.

He said: “We have been campaigning for quite a long time on the ticket of trying to get an English parliament, first minister and government within a federal UK.


“The union of the UK costs us much more money as English people than the EU ever did.

“A House of Lords committee looking at the Barnett Formula in 2009 reported that the union costs us £49billion a year, which is what England subsidises Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland every year.

“There are some very serious issues that need to be addressed in Clacton and properly funded by Government, whether that is health, mental health or infrastructure.

“It is all down to where the money goes.

“The Government spends far less per every man woman and child in England than they do in Scotland.”

Mr Tilbrook said a fairly-funded England could afford to fund crime prevention and to fund health services, including an increase in doctors and to maintain Clacton Hospital’s minor injuries service.

He added: “In terms of uplifting things, we would pledge for Clacton to have the biggest St George’s Day celebration in England.”

 

(Here is a link to the original >>> http://www.clactonandfrintongazette.co.uk/news/15289602._Little_Englander___anti_knife_campaigner_and_finance_graduate_fight_to_be_MP/) 

BBC Daily Politics Interview

BBC Daily Politics Interview

In recent times it has become ever clearer to anyone interested in politics that the so-called mainstream media has long given up on professional, or in many cases, even ethical standards in its determination to propagandise for its own mostly Left-Liberal internationalist, pro EU/NWO view point. There are, of course, some honourable exceptions.



However I would not normally include the BBC in such exceptions!



There are however residual aspects of standards of professionalism within the BBC which cannot be found in ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5 or Sky.



One example there is that as part of a tick box exercise of maintaining political impartiality, the English Democrats do get invited occasionally to take part in news or current affairs programmes, such as the Daily Politics.



On Monday 15th May, I was invited to go to the Daily Politics studio at Millbank, Westminster. I was interviewed by Jo Coburn, details of whose background can be found here >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo_Coburn



Jo of course carries a Scottish name and I do not think there is any doubt as to her credentials as a Left-Liberal internationalist, pro EU/NWO.



I have been interviewed by Jo Coburn on various occasions before and would say that she has always been polite, but has asked much more hostile questions of me than I see her asking those interviewees from the Left! 


This is of course a price that has to be paid for daring to mention, let alone stand up for, the taboo ‘E’ words of “England” and the “English”! Here is the interview >>> None of the "established parties" have a manifesto for England, but they have policies for Scotland and Wales, says the leader of the English Democrats. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/election-2017-39923071/general-election-2017-english-democrats-leader-robin-tilbrook



Have a look and see what you think.

Labour conspiring to break-up England at Cardiff meeting on 29th March 2017

Anti-English conspirator?

Even long-term Labour Party stalwarts now realise that Labour is set on conspiring to break-up England!

Here is what a former MP and minister, who is now a Director of the Centre of English Identity and Politics at the University of Winchester, Prof John Denham wrote on the 30th March 2017:-


“There can be no Labour recovery unless Labour wins England. Labour’s wipe out in Scotland and it’s current third place in the polls there leaves the party in an even weaker position than in England. It will actually be easier to win an English majority than in Britain as a whole.


What Labour says and does about England is critical. Which is why yesterday’s devolution summit looks like such a bad move. The plan is clear. A federal Union of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales and the regions. These regions – that virtually no one in England wants or recognises – will not have the same powers as Scotland or Wales, but some limited devolution from the UK federal government. I’m in favour of a federal UK based on the four nations. I’m in favour of devolution within England. But it should be the English people who decide how this is to be done.


I must admit that I’m unclear how official this taskforce is, though the presence of Jon Trickett and Jim McMahon give it front bench endorsement. But it is a curious body to decide on the carve up of a nation.


The leaders of Welsh and Scottish Labour are there. As are three English male mayoral candidates who have yet to be elected. The women mayoral candidates were not present. One man represents all of English local government. No one present has an unambiguous brief to represent the interests of England as a whole. And little has been said about consultation within the party, let alone the promised, wider, constitutional convention.


Those involved have been studiously vague about the details of their plans for England, but we can glean quite a lot from Gordon Brown’s recent speech, Jeremy Corbyn’s interviews and other policy statements.


I hope I’m wrong but this seems to be how Labour’s 2020 manifesto for England is shaping up:


England will be divided into regions that few support and were rejected in the North East in 2004
These regions will be under the rule of the UK government (made up of MPs from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland as well as England) and will only get limited powers devolved from it.
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will get new powers as of right. England will get no new powers.
The English regions will not get the same legislative powers as Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland currently enjoy.
No elected body will speak for England as a whole
Laws affecting England will continue to be made by MPs from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. English Votes for English Laws will be repealed.
There will be no executive dedicated to implementing policy for England as a whole.
English regions will be denied control of their own resources.
England will still pay for the Barnett formula and and the use of English resources will be determined by the UK federal government
Scotland will gain new fiscal powers but England will still underwrite the UK’s social security bill.
Scotland will be able to sign international treaties; England will have international treaties signed for it by the UK federal government. 
The dynamic leadership being shown by Labour English councils will be marginalised in favour of new regional assemblies.
English local authorities will not gain any additional powers as of right

It’s clear how this works for Scotland. Much less clear who in England would vote for it. And that is where, in the immediate future, Labour’s recovery must come…. Instead we seem to be drifting towards the dismemberment of England and the undermining of its legitimate interests.”



Here is Labour’s own report on that meeting (or should I say anti-English conspiracy?):-

“Labour say constitution “no longer fit for purpose” as devolution taskforce meets

Labour has said the UK’s constitution is “no longer fit for purpose” as the party’s devolution taskforce meets in Cardiff today (29th March 2017)


The taskforce which will look at how to redistribute powers and resources across all nations and regions after Brexit.


“As leading Labour figures from across the UK, we reject this Whitehall power grab – and call on the UK Government as part of the Brexit negotiations to agree to the transfer of powers over agriculture, fisheries, regional policy and environmental protection to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh and Northern Irish Assemblies.”


The proposals developed through the taskforce with form the basis of a Labour-led Constitutional Convention, which will look at a federal framework of nations and regions.


The taskforce includes former prime minister Gordon Brown, Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale and former Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott. Jon Trickett, Labour’s Cabinet Office Spokesperson will be involved in helping draft the plans.


Shadow Welsh Secretary Christina Rees, shadow local government and devolution minister Jim McMahon are also members. As are Andy Burnham, Steve Rotheram and Siôn Simon – the party’s mayoral candidates for Greater Manchester, the Liverpool City Region and the West Midlands.


The ideas that come out of the taskforce will be shared in a nationwide constitutional convention.”


Take note of the role of Andy Burnham, that long-term enemy of England, of Englishness and of English patriotism! Burnham is standing as Labour’s candidate for Mayor of Greater Manchester (against our Stephen Morris).


Here is what he said in a recorded, televised interview of Andy Burnham, uploaded to YouTube on the 21st August 2010 entitled:-

“Andy Burnham not in favour of an ‘English’ Parliament”

This is a verbatim transcript of the whole of that uploaded interview with Andy Burnham. The Interviewer asked Andy Burnham:-

“A recent survey returned 68% of English People in favour of an English Parliament. The Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish are all benefiting from their own Parliament and Assemblies working in their interests. Isn’t it time the people of England were consulted on an English Parliament working in the interests of the People of England?”


Andy Burnham replied:-


“What I see around Europe is a trend towards nationalist or even regional based politics and politics based on geography and I must say I don’t like it. It doesn’t speak to me. It’s happening in Belgium, the Belgium’s are becoming very fractured along regional lines. It is happening in the Netherlands. It has obviously happened in Wales and Scotland with the both nationalist parties in those places gaining support and I don’t have that view on politics.”


“Politics for me is about values, not about geography, it is not about defending territory. It is about what kind of person you are and what kind of society you are going to build and what message do you send out about yourself. Are you open to working with other people, other places and not having a narrow nationalist view of politics and no I don’t tend towards an English Parliament.”


“I do want to see more power vested in the English “Regions” and I campaigned for Regional Assemblies to give more democratic power to the “Regions”. I would have a democratically constituted House of Lords, elected House of Lords, where the “Regions” would have their voice drawn from regionalists.”


“The Lords should be a true voice of the “Regions” rather than London. It is a London dominated House of Lords at the moment and I would change it in that way, but no I wouldn’t have an English Parliament. I am born in Liverpool, of Irish ancestry, of Scottish links in the past and close to Wales. I consider myself British and I as Culture Secretary campaigned for a British football team at the Olympics because I consider myself to be British first and foremost. I am proud to be British and I don’t like this trend towards the break-up of the United Kingdom.”

The link to the original uploaded interview can be found here >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTjgz6Dr8Ns


So there we have it. Now we know why Andy Burnham is one of Labour’s conspirators trying to break up England in collusion with Leaders from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland!


In Burnham's own words:-

“I wouldn’t have an English Parliament." "I am born in Liverpool, of Irish ancestry, of Scottish links in the past and close to Wales. I consider myself British”!

IS A UNILATERAL DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE ("U.D.I.") THE WAY TO GO FOR SCOTTISH NATIONALISM?

IS UDI THE WAY TO GO FOR SCOTTISH NATIONALISM?

Over the last week or so we have been entertained by the spat over the Scottish Referendum between Nicola Sturgeon and Theresa May. Andrew Marr's programme had it commented that it was “handbags at dawn”! 


Nicola Sturgeon has been saying that she wants to call another Scottish referendum before Brexit is complete, i.e. in about 18 months. Theresa May has been saying that she does not want it called for at least 6 years!


The process is that the Scottish Parliament will vote on the issue this week. Given the political balance in the Scottish Parliament of SNP and the Scottish Greens, it is inevitable that the resolution will be passed.


The resolution will then be formally submitted to the British Government, in accordance with the legislation which was passed by Westminster when it was agreed between David Cameron and Alex Salmond on holding the first referendum.


An interesting and real question will be whether Theresa May actually has legal power to refuse or delay a resolution made by the Scottish Parliament which fully complies with the legislation?


It may therefore be that in the drumroll of press releases one of them will be an Application by the Scottish Government for Judicial Review! If Theresa May loses such a Judicial Review, after her fiasco over the BREXIT case, she, and the British Government, will be utterly humiliated.


Whereas if Nicola Sturgeon were to lose the Judicial Review it could be useful to her as part of the case for the Scottish Parliament to go ahead and hold its own referendum (as an act of non-violent civil disobedience), unregulated by the British State. This would be in opposition to the British State, on much the same footing as Catalonia has held a referendum in which there was a majority for Catalonian independence, but which the Spanish State has sought to quash.


Unlike Spain, Britain no longer has a sizeable army that could be deployed to crush a rebellious civilian population and consequently there will be nothing practical to stop a Scottish Government, which having won an unofficial referendum then declare a Unilateral Declaration of Independence (“UDI”)!


Indeed from the Scottish Nationalist point of view I can see very good reasons to do so which will gel nationalists support into an even harder block of determined supporters than it currently has in Scotland, with Scottish nationalists being literally ready to fight in order to protect Scottish independence.


Much the same process occurred in the early 20th Century in Southern Ireland but then the British State had the whole might of the imperial British army to try to hold down the population of Ireland against its Will. Even so this proved to be an utterly futile and bloody exercise.