Total Visits

Tuesday, 26 May 2015



I notice that in the last few days we have had a number of articles from the Europhiliac media, like the Times Leader on Tuesday May 19th, talking up the prospect of having the In/Out Referendum next year, probably next May.

The noteworthy fact is that it is the Europhiliacs in the Conservative Party who generally want to get it over with quickly rather than many of their more Eurosceptic voices. The Eurosceptics want the referendum in 2017. This set me to thinking why that would be? I also started to consider how the referendum would be conducted.

The Eurosceptic argument for having the referendum in 2017 was to allow David Cameron a full and reasonable opportunity to negotiate repatriation of powers to Westminster. Thus if nothing sensible is offered Eurosceptics will be able to prove that the EU is un-reformable and thus we are better off out.

In the meanwhile, however, of course various voices within the EU, including Angela Merkel and the President of the EU Commission, Jean Claude Junker, have made it clear that there will be no meaningful negotiation with substantial powers being returned. In these circumstances it is easy to understand why Europhiliacs would want to get the referendum over with as quickly as possible before voters can start to build-up resentment that so little is being offered, which, of course, would help in building a head of steam for British exit from the EU (“BREXIT”). 

Then of course there is the serious question of what version of the electorate will be given the entitlement to vote in the referendum. I notice that some, particularly Labour and SNP voices, are currently saying that 16 year olds should be allowed to vote, who of course have had the “benefit” of 10 years of Europhile propaganda, at public expense in their schools and are therefore thought to be likely to mostly vote in favour of staying in.

There is however the wider question of whether the electorate will be restricted to just British citizens or the General Election franchise which includes Irish citizens as well and various other categories, including some Commonwealth voters. Particularly and rather more alarmingly whether it will be the local government franchise which would include all those EU citizens who have registered on the electoral roll. If the millions of EU citizens resident in the “United” Kingdom are permitted to vote then that will make it much more unlikely that the vote will be in favour of “BREXIT”. The franchise will therefore be a crucial battleground. David Cameron appears to have indicated recently that he has conceded the Eurosceptic demand for the franchise to the General Election one but we all need to check the Bill’s wording on this when it is published.

Then there is the question of how the EU referendum itself will be conducted. Perhaps the model to consider is the referendum organised by John Prescott when he was Deputy Prime Minister. This was when Prescott hoped to start the process of breaking up England by getting a democratic mandate to separate the artificially created “Region” of the North-East. Labour had recently gerrymandered this “Region” to give itself a permanent majority (N.B. John Major’s original “Northern Region” gave the Conservatives an impregnable majority by including Cumbria).

It is worth remembering that in that referendum the preamble to the question which was put on every ballot paper miss-stated as fact a number of inaccuracies and misleading claims designed to encourage people to vote in favour. There was widespread protest, including even the usually useless Electoral Commission, but nevertheless that wording was included in the Act which meant that it had to be on the ballot paper by law. The question itself was somewhat loaded as well in favour of a Yes vote, all of which gave Labour, it thought, the best chance of winning that referendum.

If loading the question and misleading the voter wasn’t enough then they also thought that they wanted to make the referendum a conquest between North-Easterners and Tory “toffs”. So even though Neil Heron, the metric martyr, had got a highly successful No campaign going and was undoubtedly almost single handedly the principal reason why the result was a No vote, nevertheless Labour manipulated the setting up appointment of a No campaign so that a Tory millionaire businessman, John Elliott, was put in charge of it.

I notice on Twitter and Facebook that some over excitable UKIPers seem to think the pro-BREXIT campaign might be led by them with Nigel Farage. I would be very surprised if that was the case. I think it is much more likely that Cameron will engineer it so that it is led by a Labour figure. By doing this he will aim to split Labour on the issue and make it as repellent as possible for Conservative loyalists to vote in favour of BREXIT.

The most credible leader from the Labour side of the BREXIT campaign would be Frank Field. For that reason I think he will be excluded and the appointee will be a less credible Labour figure but one who has at least some Eurosceptic credentials. Would you like to speculate on who that person will be?

I suspect also that the time period given for the referendum will be short so that the BREXIT campaign cannot really get going and the amount awarded to the Yes and No campaigns will be kept to the statutory minimum with the smallest permitted ceiling on spending by third parties. This will allow the Europhile media to have the maximum influence possible.

The leading media organisation in trying to influence the public to vote to remain in the EU will of course be that media outlet which has by far the largest and most dominant market share of all in our media, this is of course the, partly EU funded, BBC. It doesn’t require any imagination to guess which result the BBC will be supporting!

However event though the cards will most likely be stacked as heavily as possible against a Yes to BREXIT result that should not lead us to total despair. In the North-East referendum 79% voted to reject the break-up of England despite all the cards being stacked against that result. Despite also the BBC’s efforts on behalf of the Labour Party in the recent General Election, we now know that many of our fellow citizens weren’t taken in. The big question is whether that will happen again this time. What do you think?

Saturday, 23 May 2015

Vienna’s “Gay” traffic lights

Vienna’s “Gay” traffic lights

I am not often asked to comment on matters arising from the activities of the militant Gay Rights lobby. However I was recently asked, at quite short notice, to comment on this item.

My basic attitude to the whole gay, homosexual, lesbian, bi-sexual, transsexual lobby and agenda is that, people should be generally free and unmolested to live their private lives as seems appropriate to them if they are doing no harm to others.

However in my view it is also the case that, no-one else should be forced by law or pressurised to condone their actions or lifestyle if they disapprove of those for whatever reason, especially because of religious scruples.

Furthermore public money (i.e. taken from taxpayers by coercion) should not be used in the interests of this or any other special interest groups. Public money is in my view basically held in trust to be spent on matters that are in the national and public interest.

In short I support the mantra “Equal Rights but not Special Rights”.

Here is the clip of my interview from RTTV >>>

Robin Tilbrook Discusses Gay-themed Traffic Lights in Vienna on RT International

What do you think?

Friday, 22 May 2015



The English Democrats are now beginning to gear up for the Police Commissioner Elections in May 2016 and I am the English Democrats candidate for Police Commissioner for Essex.

In the last Police Commissioner Elections all our candidates retained their deposits and in one case our candidate came second. This was with a miniscule budget of less than £1,000 spent throughout all of England!

Next year we are going to make a more serious effort to get some of our candidates elected. We intend to stand throughout England and we are looking for volunteers.

I shall be standing on the basis of trying to get elected so that I can change the direction of policing in Essex.

Here is what I shall be saying to the people of Essex:-

Essex Police Commissioner Election

Robin, Tilbrook, Chairman of the English Democrats will be our candidate for Essex.

The Police and Crime Commissioners replaced the previous largely ineffective and anonymous Police Authorities with a Directly Elected Commissioner with the power to hire and fire the Chief Constable and allocate the Police Force’s budget and set priority policies.

Our slogan for this election will be 'English Democrats -"MORE POLICE - CATCHING CRIMINALS!"'

Robin Tilbrook said:-

“Our manifesto has good old fashioned English common-sense policies for policing and I expect will strongly appeal to the electorates of most English Constabularies.Elected English Democrats’ Police and Crime Commissioners will purge their police forces of political correctness and focus their police forces on catching real criminals and maintaining traditional English Law and Order rather than Politically Correct social engineering projects.

“If elected I shall increase the policng budget for Essex and resist the "Conservative's" secret plans to cut it which are leading to the disasterous loss of hundreds of police constables and of reducing our police force's capability to catch criminals and maintain Law and Order in Essex!

I also intend to seek a mandate from the people of Essex that every police station should fly the Cross of St George; that “communities” budgets are used to promote Essex’s celebrations of St George’s Day and upon a zero tolerance attitude on the part of Essex’s police force to petty crime and anti-social behaviour, that blights so many of our communities.

“I fully intend to use the Police Commissioners power to dismiss the Chief Constable in the event of non-compliance.”

"MORE POLICE - CATCHING CRIMINALS! Traditional English Law and Order; Cracking down on real criminals and gangs. Criminals should be afraid, not good citizens!

Zero tolerance for political correctness in Essex policing!

The “Conservatives” plan to privatise and to cut hundreds of front line police officers! We oppose any cuts to real policing.

On 5th May 2016 - Vote English Democrats for more and for tougher policing in Essex.

See our policies on:

Robin Tilbrook is the English Democrats’ candidate. He is an Essex solicitor, past President of the Mid Essex Law Society and Chairman of the English Democrats."

Relevant parts of the English Democrats’ manifesto are below:

1.6 The English Flag

1.6.1 We call for the compulsory flying of the English flag, the cross of St George, on all state-maintained public buildings in England.

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

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.

3.20 St George’s Day

3.20.1 The people of England should be able to celebrate St George’s day as a National Holiday.

Thursday, 21 May 2015

The ‘shy’ English nationalists who won it for the Tories and flummoxed the pollsters

The ‘shy’ English nationalists who won it for the Tories and flummoxed the pollsters

After the General Election I was called into the Russia Today Westminster Studio at Millbank Tower to give an interview on my view on what had happened. Here is a link to this video>>> .

It is interesting to see that Professor Eric Kaufmann of the London School of Economics has produced a similar analysis. Here is the link to his analysis >>>

What do you think?

Friday, 15 May 2015



One of the things that has been interesting about the General Election is that the British media's reaction to any discussion of English interests and rights has been often hysterically anti-English In article after article David Cameron and the Tories have been accused of “whipping up”, “stoking” or some other pejorative verb with regard to raising the question of English national interests.

This reaction is when, to any sensible observer, Dave “I’m a Cameron and there is quite a lot of Scottish blood flowing in these veins” is a ludicrously unlikely candidate to be described as an English nationalist or even in any way personally interested in raising English nationalism.

We know from all his remarks about “fighting the little Englanders wherever he finds them” and his hostility to an English Parliament, etc., etc., that he is by no means an English nationalist. In fact he is an outright enemy of English nationalism, yet the mainstream media’s hatred of England, the English and English nationalism is such that however mild and minimalistic a proposal is made to correct the blatant unfairness of the current devolution arrangements, nevertheless many mainstream British media commentators can be found rushing forward to howl their disapproval!

Over the years we have heard enough about homophobia and Islamophobia and various other alleged "phobias" which the politically correct wish to make utterly unacceptable. I propose an addition to this list, since it is a hopeless task to get rid of it altogether, and that is:- ‘Anglophobia’. I accuse the mainstream British Establishment Media of persistent and blatant Anglophobia!

The response of our people to Anglophobia needs to change radically if we are to make any serious headway as a Cause.

Any expression of Anglophobia should be treated as a “Hate Crime” and should be reported to the police.

If the police refuse to accept the report or decline to take action, then those of us who do the reporting should make sure that we have obtained the relevant police officer’s name and number and a complaint to their force's police complaints department should be made against that police officer (or officers) alleging that they have failed to act or have acted in the way that they have out of Anglophobia, which is of course a branch of racism and is a "hate crime".

Over the years I have heard people say that you cannot be racist against the English. Anyone who says this simply doesn’t know the law, as legally speaking racism isn’t only about race. It does include national identity, national origin and nationality. It is on this basis that any Anglophobic comments or actions, or inactions, should be challenged in a way that brings it home to journalists, police officers, officials and political opponents that Anglophobia will no longer be tolerated and that instead will be “sanctioned”.

I suggest that, as a first step, we make contact with whichever police officer in our local areas is charged with dealing with political and electoral crimes and let them know what is intended.

Every time a complaint is made we need to issue a press release, not only for the purposes of putting journalists on notice that they will be sanctioned, but also with a view to getting it reported.

Even if it is reported in a hostile way, which is, of course, very likely, we should remember that politics is a zone of conflict and therefore any actions involving conflict and taking the fight to our enemy will in the long run be well worth it.

I suggest that our mottos, adapting the anti-racism sloganizing, should be “Unite against Anglophobia!”, “Say no to Anglophobia!”, "No to Anglophobic racism!".

Wednesday, 13 May 2015



Back in the 17th Century there was a popular song called ‘The World Turned Upside Down’ which it is said that the band of the British Garrison played as they marched out after the surrender at Yorktown to the American rebels to make the point they thought that it was contrary to the natural order of the world for “Yankee Doodle” to have beaten the world conquering Red Coats of the British Army. Here is a link which includes the tune third >>>

Above is a picture of the surrender at Yorktown.

Although no such tune was played in the recent General Election it may be, with hindsight, that the result in Scotland will be seen as a similarly epoch marking change. Yorktown occurred before the United Kingdom came into existence in 1801 with the Union with the Kingdom of Ireland. It did of course however come after the foundation Union of the United Kingdom in 1707 between the Kingdoms of England and Scotland to create the new United Kingdom of Great Britain.

It is the United Kingdom of Great Britain which is again under threat as a result of the almost total victory of the Scottish National Party in Scotland reducing each of the three British Establishment parties to a rump of one MP only. It isn’t now only Conservative MPs that there are less of in Scotland than pandas. The same applies to both the Liberal Democrat MPs and Labour MPs! It is the 56 (out of 59) SNP MPs that will over the next 5 years until the next General Election on the 7th May 2020 that will mark out the increasing need for a nationalist voice for England. There is of course only one political party that is interested in being that voice, which is of course the English Democrats.

That brings me on to the next most interesting result in the General Election which was the nemesis of UKIP. All the academic commentators including Drs Matthew Goodwin and Rob Ford had pointed out in their studies that UKIP’s appeal depended to a very large extent upon an English nationalist base.

It always was a contradiction that a party with a British nationalist leadership should actually depend upon an English nationalist support base. UKIP, despite the books and articles published about it, which I think should have been a matter of detailed and careful study by the leadership of UKIP, failed to learn the lesson and during the course of the General Election published a manifesto which managed to barely mention England let alone provide for a proper English nationalist vote winning set of policies. As a result UKIP had left clear space on the political spectrum for the Conservative Party to “triangulate” them.

We therefore then had the spectacle of a specifically English manifesto being launched by the Conservatives. It was therefore a strange backdrop to the great change of heart that seems to have occurred amongst the electorate at the last moment that in fact the party that was ticking most of the boxes of English nationalism (with talk of reducing immigration, an EU referendum, English votes for English laws, and an English manifesto and talking up the need for fairness for England) should in fact be the generally fairly anti-English Conservative and Unionist party whose Leader not so very long ago had been talking about his determination to fight “Little Englanders” wherever he found them!

In contrast the party that had been talked up as being a potential voice for English nationalism, namely UKIP, went from bad to worse not only with his interview by their MEP for Scotland in which he made clear that he thought UKIP were all about maintenance of the British Union (rather than of course about England). Click here >>>

Then, a few days later, UKIP actually launched a specifically Scottish manifesto without having done anything of the sort for England. Nigel Farage even talked about increasing the Barnet Formula rip-off of English taxpayers to give the Welsh yet more of English taxpayers’ money!

The UKIPs mis-positioning of itself on the English question, which for some commentators seems wholly inexplicable but seemed quite inevitable to me, given what I have seen of the internal party politics at the leadership level of UKIP, not only left the Conservative Party in a good position to undermine UKIPs appeal, but it also undermined UKIP’s position in trying to get the English white working class vote to come over to them in many former Labour seats. (Click here for an academic article on this >>> ).

So far as Labour was concerned the Conservative appeal to English nationalism and also their scaremongering over the impact of the Scottish National Party, not only insured an even more massively impressive result for the Scottish National Party in Scotland, but also unsettled some of Labour’s support in England.

Whilst the Conservative appeal to English nationalism has delivered a bumper and largely undeserved harvest to the Conservative Party in this election, the long term effect may well be of much greater interest to us English nationalists.

The fact is of course that for the first time one of the major British Establishment parties (since the First World War) has appealed to and called upon English nationalism to help it. In the long term I think that can only do the English nationalist cause good as English nationalism has now become much more of a mainstream phenomenon.

Interestingly I am aware that even the Conservative Party had great difficulty in placing stories that were pro-English nationalism in the “mainstream media”. Also their very appeal to it raised a storm of protest by all sorts of media luvvies. One of the results is that the media has come out of cover and exposed itself as being infested with Anglophobes (anti-English).

The Anglophobic British media is a factor in national politics in England which we English nationalists need to deal with. In my view we need to be looking at an assertive policy of attempting to get anyone who comes out with Anglophobic views not only prosecuted, but, if at all possible, excluded from journalism by Ofcom. Until we make Anglophobia as dangerous to the careers of journalists as racism, Islamophobia and homophobia are currently seen to be, we cannot hope to make an effective breakthrough without being unfairly blocked or attacked by the Anglophobia British mainstream media.

The other feature of course of the General Election was the probable end of the Liberal Democrats. Given that the only purpose to many of its voters of the Liberal Democrats Party was simply that it was a vote for none of the above and, as it turned out, that only a few of their votes were actually for Liberal Democrats’ policies it is difficult to see them making a recovery or indeed of there being any point in there being any such recovery.

In short, I think this General Election will turn out to be a sea change that nationalists will look back on with some affection as we move more towards nationalism as the driving force in our politics!

Tuesday, 12 May 2015

General Election

While this election has been not only very long and was fixed in the calendar for several years, it has been interesting to see that there has been much more polling evidence than usual, particularly with Lord Ashcroft’s polls.

It has also been interesting to see that despite the £100 million or more that the Establishment parties and UKIP have spent between them on billboards, leafleting and social media based canvassing and telephone canvassing it seemed to have made very little difference between the two main parties until the last moment; more of that later!

These were interesting elections in the second tier of parties about the SNP, the Liberal Democrats and UKIP. Now we see their results!

So far as UKIP is concerned the result was a devastating disappointment. Not only has UKIP proved a disappointment to English nationalists, as per one of my earlier blog articles, but won’t even have satisfied their British nationalist supporters.

The SNP’s results in Scotland have brought the end of the Union very much back onto the agenda. One of the burning issues of the next five years will therefore I think be the need for a voice for English nationalism.

In the last 18 months it has been UKIPs time in the sun. Their failure to deliver leaves, I think, the way wide open for the only English nationalist party to come forward.

The English Democrats are now an experienced party of campaigners dedicated to England and our English nation and will not be blown off course by the winds and noise of political storms and while we may not agree with the Scottish National Party on the vast majority of their policies, the one thing that we do agree with them on is the need for an effective voice for our Nation.

In an imaginary play we might have:-

Stage directions: Enter - triumphant SNP contingent.

Exit - dejected Liberal Democrats and UKIP contingents.

Enter - determined band of English Democrats with Cross of St George flat flying to cries of horror and alarm from the British Media Establishment chorus!

Thursday, 7 May 2015



Ladies & Gentlemen

I would also like to thank the Returning Officer and all his/her helpers who have worked on this election and also those voters who have voted for me and for the English Democrats.

I have enjoyed standing in this election and playing my part in flying the flag for England and for English nationalism.

I am going to be very interested in seeing what now happens. If, as the polls suggested, Labour is able to form a minority government only with the assistance of the Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru and possibly Sinn Fein and other Irish nationalists, then I fully expect many voters who voted for other parties to wish that they had voted for the English Democrats to be a voice for England. 

That voice will be sorely missed because for the next 5 years we may have a government which is more anti-English than any government that England has had since the Norman Conquest.

As I speak poor England is now being delivered into the hands of our Nation’s enemies.

I hope that the experience of the next 5 years will ensure that never again will anyone who cares for England vote for any party which hasn’t got “Putting England First” at its very heart!



When Nigel Farage got re-elected as Leader of UKIP there was a distinct move in UKIP, for a time, to portray itself as being, at least to some extent, an English nationalist party. 

Given the various dirty tricks and other activities that were going on with UKIP at the time against us, it seemed obvious to the English Democrats’ National Council that these moves were just designed to undermine the English Democrats, rather than a genuine change of heart.

Over the years since we have had various people say to us that UKIP is an English nationalist party and try to persuade us that we should therefore join forces.

It is obvious from looking at Twitter, Facebook and the internet generally that there are a great many others out there who had also thought of UKIP as being an English nationalist party.

During the course of this General Election the scales should have fallen from all those peoples’ eyes as UKIP has shown itself to be very clearly not an English nationalist party. Nigel Farage has even expressly denied being an English nationalist (and, indeed, even a British nationalist, no doubt to the somewhat surprise of his British nationalist members!).

Not only has Nigel Farage’s new UKIP (British) manifesto very limited mention of England or the English, but their slogan in this election was “Believe in Britain”. Also despite clear commitments in the past to produce an English manifesto it has not been produced. In stark contrast they did launch a Scottish-only manifesto. Last, but not least, we have had a series of very clear remarks from others in the leadership of UKIP that they are British Unionists and not about English nationalism at all.

Probably the clearest example is the comments of David Coburn MEP, who before he became elected as an MEP had for many years been UKIP’s principal organiser in London. Click here for a link to YouTube where we have recorded his very clear answer as to where UKIP’s national loyalties lie >>>

In fact, of course, nobody should have been surprised, the answer was always in UKip’s name! I wonder if people would have understood that more easily if they had called themselves BRITKIP?

What do you think?

Friday, 1 May 2015

Professor Robert Tombs on the Uniqueness of England

Professor Robert Tombs on the Uniqueness of England

For my birthday I was given a book:- 'The English and their History' by Professor Robert Tombs. 

This is a book that I would recommend to anyone interested in the history of England and the English people. Here is an extract which particularly appealed to me. See what you think:-

“What is unique about England lies in the realm of politics: the early development, in response to Viking invasions, of a powerful kingdom occupying a defined territory, with a system of government in which a large part of the population participated, whether they liked it or not – through courts and juries, through tithings, through labour, taxation and military service, through the use of royal coins, and, for the powerful, through royal councils and parliaments. 

Some historians have suggested that this made England the prototype of the nation-state. Similar institutions to those of England had existed at times in other parts of Europe, particularly under the empire of Charlemagne, but they were swept away. In England they survived. Being a powerful and yet vulnerable kingdom, able to raise taxes and impose law and order, and yet subject to disputed royal succession and foreign invasion, it’s Kings needed the support of their people, and the people high and low needed to control the actions of their Kings. Anglo-Saxon institutions, some of very ancient origin, were preserved and developed by the post-Conquest monarchy, which extended royal justice and created a common law. 

The country of Bede’s gens Anglorum was never divided up into autonomous and warring feudal territories. Instead, the “community of the realm” imposed the rule of law on its powers and on its post-Conquest monarchs to a degree unique in Europe.

The common law in Magna Carta was seen not as revolutionary innovations, but as restatements of ancient principals. The distinctiveness of the common law became a source of pride …

This (took) on weighty ideological significance: the law was claimed to be above and beyond royal absolutism and hence the safeguard of liberty. This significance it has subsequently retained, at least subliminally. 

Moreover by an unpredictable historical twist, “the insular and arcane learning of the small band of lawyers who argued cases in the corner of Westminster Hall became the law by which the third of the people of the earth were governed and protected, the second (after Roman Law) of the two great systems of jurisprudence known to the world”.

Continuity is crucial in this story. Many of the jumbled ingredients of nationhood, beliefs, myths, institutions, customs, loyalties – that were already present in the 9th Century were revived or reinvented in the 12th. 

Thereafter they gained in potency because they persisted, deriving legitimacy from their ever growing antiquity, enhanced by linking them with the real or mythical pasts of St Edward the Confessor and King Arthur. England’s laws and institutions came to seem untouchable and immutable, as if in the nature of things, dating from time immemorial. They could then be seen in Edmund Burke’s famous phrase of 1791, as creating “a partnership between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born”. In such ways nations and identities are “constructed”: that is made by people, and not determined by geography, genes or blood.”