ENGLISH DEMOCRATS AND VERITAS TO MERGE
Therese Hirst, the Leader of Veritas, is joining the English Democrats as Deputy Chairman and National Council Member.
Veritas and the English Democrats will have a joint National Party Conference on 18th and 19th September at which one of the resolutions will be merger. Therese has been the Leader of Veritas, Robert Kilroy-Silk’s old Party for 7 years.
The English Democrats are also pleased to announce that Therese Hirst will be standing for us in the May 2016 Police Commissioner Elections as our candidate in West Yorkshire.
We intend to stand a full slate of 37 candidates for all the Police Commissioner positions in England. Despite spending less than £1,000 nationally on the last Police Commissioner elections, all English Democrats’ candidates retained their deposits and, in one case, came second. Next year we intend to work hard to get some of our candidates elected so that they can change the direction of policing in their county.
Robin Tilbrook, the Chairman of the English Democrats said: “I am delighted to welcome Therese as a member of the National Council and to appoint her as Deputy Chairman. I am also looking forward to welcoming the other members of Veritas to the English Democrats. Gradually all those people who are English patriots are waking up to the need for England to have its own political voice. I welcome that!”
Therese Hirst said:- “I am delighted to announce my joining the English Democrats and happy to be welcomed onto the National Council and as Deputy Chairman. I think the time has come for everyone concerned about England's future to join together to make the English Democrats a stronger voice for England!"
Robin Tilbrook
Chairman,
The English Democrats
During Parliamentary Elections there are often Hustings events. These are often organised by schools, churches or local media. All candidates are often invited but sometimes the organisers are selective about whom they invite - not always fairly.
Wherever we have been the victim of unfair selection I am urging people to protest about selective invitations to hustings. Here is my correspondence:-
Dear All
Please find below a letter that I have written to my Returning Officer regarding electoral expenses, together with a letter that I wrote to Brentwood County High School regarding one of the hustings that I was not invited to.
Please adapt these letters to write to your Returning Officer regarding any hustings that you know that you were not invited to and to the person organising the hustings.
Letter to Returning Officer
Re: General Election 2015 - Candidates Expenses Returns - Hustings
I am writing to put you on notice that there were, I believe, at least three hustings (there may well have been more) in the recent General Election in the Brentwood and Ongar constituency where I was not invited to take part. The Electoral Commission’s Husting Events Rule 8, as enclosed, has made it clear that in the circumstances that not all the candidates were invited to take part in any hustings that the candidates who were invited have to make declaration of the cost of that hustings as part of their electoral expenses.
I am therefore giving notice that I do require this cost to be included in the other candidates expenses forms and require you to reject any of the other candidates’ expenses forms if they do not include these items.
I would confirm that I was only invited to one hustings, which was the Radio Phoenix FM hustings. The other candidates I believe were invited to all other hustings and therefore the cost of each of those hustings should be included in their returns. I am aware that I was not invited to either the Brentwood High School hustings, or Brentwood School hustings or the Anglo-European School hustings. All three of these hustings should therefore appear in all the other candidates’ expenses returns.
Please confirm receipt of this letter.
Yours faithfully
R C W Tilbrook
Chairman
The Headmaster
Dear Sir
Re: General Election Hustings
As you may know, I was one of the six candidates in the recent General Election for Brentwood and Ongar.
I note that you did not invite me to take part in the hustings which your school organised but which the other candidates were invited to.
Perhaps you had not read the enclosed explanation of the rules on hustings prepared by the Electoral Commission, as you did not send me any explanation for my exclusion, let alone the “objective reasons” specified in Rule 6.
Be that as it may, I would now ask you to let me have details of the cost of the hustings and also to confirm that you have notified the other candidates of that cost, which must be included in their election expenses returns as a donation which your school has made to their campaigning.
Yours faithfully
R C W Tilbrook
Returning Officer
B Borough Council
Dear Madam
Re: General Election 2015 - Candidates Expenses Returns - Hustings
Thank you your telephone message regarding my letter to the Council dated the 20th May. I have written letters to the organisers of the hustings, and enclose copies for your information.
Yours sincerely
R C W Tilbrook
A week ago we had the death of Charles Kennedy, the former Leader of the Liberal Democrats. His death cannot have been entirely unexpected, not only because of longstanding ill-health issues, but also that those were not unlinked with his now well-known alcoholism. Having lost his seat, despite the fact that there were further opportunities beckoning him, the temptation to drink must have been overwhelming.
It has however been interesting to see how his death has been reported by the British Establishment Political class and the comments that they have made, which all seem to be along the lines of what a wonderful warm person he was. I did not know him personally and, indeed, never met him so I cannot vouch either way for that.
The one certain thing that I do know about him which has an impact on my attitude to him is that, not surprisingly, as a Lib Dem Leader, he was a highly enthusiastic Europhile who, not only as a Lib Dem, but also as a Scot, hated the “very idea of England”.
Indeed he told a Dumfermline meeting of Liberal Democrats back in 1999, when he was their Leader, that he was an enthusiastic supporter of Regionalisation “Because Regionalism in England is calling into question the very idea of England itself”. Nothing could really be clearer as to his Anglophobia. That is enough to damn him politically as far as I am concerned.
It is however interesting to consider the British Political and Media reaction to mr Kennedy's death. Especially, in light of the kind of comments that they have made about Alex Salmond’s comment in which he simply tried to suggest that Charles Kennedy might have had some sympathy for the Europhile SNP brand of Scottish nationalism. This may after all be true, since it certainly is the case that Mr Kennedy was keen, as any Europhile would be, to break up the old great Nation States so they could be more readily digested by the emerging EU State.
We are hearing a lot about Magna Carta at the moment but we don’t need to go back nearly as far as that to a day when it was quite normal for rival politicians not merely to hate each other but to try to get their rivals executed when they fell from power. That was the normal state of affairs in England as recently as the early 18th Century and in the 17th Century it was all too typical.
Of course in those days politicians generally sincerely believed in their politics. Also then the difference between the various political groupings was a serious matter of principle, as opposed to the sort of cosy club that now prevails and which Alex Salmond would appear to be in danger of being blackballed from!
Here is an example of the type of article which I am refering to:-
With Charles Kennedy’s death a light has gone out in Scottish and British politics
The late former Liberal Democrat leader always had a smile on his face, but was every inch the serious politician
By Alan Cochrane
Charlie Kennedy was one of those fortunate people who didn’t need a surname. To everyone, throughout Scotland and over the entire political world, he was just Charlie. Thus when I received a text shortly after six thirty this morning asking: “Have you heard about Charlie,” I knew at once who we were talking about.
And, sadly, I also at once guessed the worst. To many, if not most, of those who knew Charlie Kennedy it was not an exactly surprising, if still appalling, bit of news that he had died a little over three weeks after losing his seat in his beloved Highlands in the general election.
I take nothing away from the Ian Blackford, the SNP candidate who defeated Charlie – he has all the attributes necessary to turn out to be an accomplished MP – but with Kennedy’s death a light has gone out in Scottish and British politics.
That may appear as an over-worn cliché but Charlie Kennedy did brighten every room, every company, every conversation he entered. He was a marvellous communicator an engaging companion and will be missed terribly.
There was an impish quality to his public persona and he was seldom without a smile on his face but he was every inch the serious politician and was a hugely successful Liberal Democrat leader – at least with the public.
He demonstrated in spades his political skills in what was perhaps his finest political hour – when he withheld his party’s support from George Bush’s invasion of Iraq, leaving only the Tories on their own in backing Tony Blair. It was tactical masterstroke which increased dramatically his party’s support in the country in the 2005 general election.
But you cannot talk about Charlie Kennedy without talking about his battle with booze. He did not hide his struggle with drink. At first when challenged about his drinking, he tried to laugh it off and insisted that as a Highlander it was not exactly an unnatural trait for him to enjoy a dram. However, he did eventually concede that it was a problem that had got out of hand and he did try to tackle it. But it did contribute to his losing the leadership of the Lib Dems and thereafter his position in the political firmament gradually receded.
However, his popularity with the general public never diminished and he played a key part in fighting by-elections for the Lib Dems and was one of the stars of the all-party Better Together campaign last year in fighting off the SNP led plan to break up Britain. Charlie spent the bulk of that campaign in his native Highlands, helping to ensure that it voted ‘No’ to independence.
I didn’t see much of Charlie recently, and I had the impression that of late he seldom ventured out of his Highland fastness. However, when last we encountered each other he pointed at me and with a huge grin asked the assembled company: “I see a large edifice over there. It looks like Alan Cochrane.”
You couldn’t really use such a description about Charlie Kennedy. He may have put the beef on a bit lately but he will best remembered as that slight, red-haired Highlander with a permanent grin on his face.
But there was nothing insignificant about his political standing and the affection in which he was held by the people who matter most – the voters.
He will be much missed.
(To see original article, click here >>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11645170/Voters-will-remember-Charles-Kennedy-with-affection.html).
IS DOUGLAS CARSWELL A PLANT?
Douglas Carswell’s attitude to the £3.2 million which UKIP is entitled to under the so-called 'Short Money' rules is, on the face of it, inexplicable.
It could be that he is deliberately using his position to damage UKIP but another possible explanation is the old adage “there is no fool like a clever fool”.
Douglas Carswell appears to be ideologically a Thatcherite ultra who objects to taxpayers’ money being spent on almost anything but in particular on politics. In some ways this might be considered to be commendable, but is obviously a profoundly impractical idea when he represents a party like UKIP which must seriously need that money. I gather UKIP may have spent something in the order of £10 million on the General Election compared to the much bigger Conservative Party, with far greater brand awareness and electoral credibility, which apparently has spent over £60 million.
The Short Money payments would also be extremely useful for UKIP to be used as part of the organisation and preparation for the In/Out EU Referendum. In short the decision to reject it caused by Carswell’s intransigence can only be described as obtuse.
It is however interesting that Douglas Carswell had a track record of being a thorn in David Cameron’s side. Also when he went over to UKIP and caused a by-election, it was interesting that the Conservatives didn’t put in a big hitter against David Carswell, but instead put in a virtually unknown actor, who, despite their polling research on the English nationalist sentiments of many residents of Clacton, didn’t raise the English nationalist issue at all, either in the by-election or in the General Election. Could it be that the leaders of the Conservative Party wanted the highly disruptive, egotistical, ideological obsessive Carswell disrupting the ranks of their enemy? It would surely have been feasible to encourage him to jump and with “plausible deniability” to enable him to get re-elected.
In case it might be said that 'surely nobody would be that devious?' I am aware of cases where outside of politics exactly that has been done where people who are trouble are given excellent references for them to go and work for competitors. In one particularly repellent case, a teacher, who had been caught, as it was put, “interfering with small boys” whilst working for a State school, in the days of the Greater London Education Authority, being given an excellent reference to get him out and to get him working in the private sector, with a view to damaging the private sector’s reputation once he was caught there!
Whether it is so or not however having Douglas Carswell in UKIP has certainly been an un-mixed blessing for the Europhile Conservative Party’s leadership!
The only point it gives me significant reservations about this theory is the fact that David Cameron himself doesn’t appear to be sufficiently clued up and or, indeed, sufficiently Machiavellian to have done such a thing. Could it however be significant that this all happened whilst that Wizard of Oz, Lynton Crosby, was in town?
UKIP AND THEIR MISSING ENGLISH MANIFESTO
In the General Election, as I told Russia Today in this interview click here >>>
UKIP's leadership should have known, from the work of Professors Matthew Goodwin and Rob Ford, in their book “Revolt on the Right”, that UKIP’s best opportunity was to move into being English Nationalists.
I had always thought that, as a result of my discussions with Nigel Farage and other leaders within UKIP, that in fact UKIP would never go for this, as their leadership are too much focussed on being an old fashioned British nationalist party.
I have of course been saying this to anyone that would listen within the system, including some influential people within the Conservative Party. I don’t think that it is any coincidence that the Conservatives had spotted that UKIP’s leaders unwillingness to commit to English nationalism was a potentially serious weakness in UKIP’s position.
In the run up to the General Election the Conservatives had begun to make noises that would please less critical English nationalists, such as commitment to English votes for English laws and Cameron’s comments immediately after the Scottish referendum, they had not gone as far as agreeing to have an England specific manifesto, despite the obvious need for such a specific manifesto in a partially devolved “United” Kingdom. What however did happen was they waited to see what UKIP would do.
In the event UKIP opened themselves up to being triangulated (in the Blairite language i.e. outmanoeuvred) on the English nationalist flank by the mistakes of launching a British manifesto with very few mentions of England in it and then they compounded this mistake by launching a Scotland specific manifesto and a Welsh specific manifesto and a Northern Irish specific manifesto, but none specifically for England.
Once UKIP had done this the Conservatives came out with their specifically English manifesto. Although this was a fairly thin piece of work and its detail would not satisfy committed English nationalists, it wasn’t aimed at us, it was aimed at ordinary English people who are feeling increasingly left out of the devolutionist way in which the United Kingdom is going.
Anecdotally I can say from talking to quite a lot of people it worked brilliantly. One of the best examples being a sub-post master living locally where I live in Essex, who told me that although he and his family were long term trade unionists and Labour voters, even he in the end couldn’t bring himself to vote for Labour and for the first time ever he voted Conservative in order to keep the SNP from having a decisive say over England and being able to get Scotland even more favourable treatment than it has already!
As English nationalists we must of course hope that the habit of voting along national lines will grow!
I do think Scotland’s history suggests it will. After all it was Labour that was riding the Scottish nationalist lion in the 1980s as a way of undermining the Conservatives there. Once people got into the habit of voting along national lines they were far more open to voting for a specifically Scottish nationalist party!
 |
| Back in the Day! |
THE IMPERIALISTIC ROOTS OF MULTI-CULTURALISM
It is an ironic fact that multi-culturalism as a device for managing disparate and disjointed populations is not entirely a post-war, Left-Liberal concept.
My own family have some roots in British Malaya when what is now Malaysia and Singapore were part of the British Empire and I was born there in the British Military Hospital Kinrara, Kuala Lumpur.
Before the war British Malaya was politically run by British colonial officials on an imperialist multi-culturalist basis just like many other “colonies” throughout the Empire.
In colonial Malaya there were various ethnicities. There were the native Indians who lived quite primitive lives in the jungle and who were either Animist or Christian. There was also a dominant population of Malays who were originally Indonesian colonists and pirates, who are predominantly Muslim and whose leaders were the various “Sultans”. Then there were the Chinese who, during the 19th and 20th centuries, given all the various misfortunes of China, came as settlers. They were very hard-working, upwardly mobile, vying to be professionals or business people (legitimate or triad) and also as settlers to clear and farm the jungle lands.
Then there were also the British ourselves who brought over, from India, the Tamils to work, in particular, in the tea plantations. We also brought over Sikhs to act especially as police and security guards.
All these communities were kept in a degree of antagonism and separation, allowing British officials to deal with “community leaders”.
These Communities were encouraged in multi-culturalist ideas of “community cohesion” and of maintaining their own separate ways as part of an imperialist agenda to divide and rule; which is of course an imperialist doctrine which goes at least as far back as ancient Rome (“divide et impera”).
British officials found this multiculturalist arrangement very convenient, as all the various groups were concerned about the encroachments of the others. This enabled British administrators to seem interested in maintaining the concerns of each of the groups, whilst ensuring that the general population couldn’t combine to demand independence.
I think it likely that this situation would have continued quite possibly up until today if it hadn’t been for the Japanese invasion and the subsequent attempts by Chinese communists under Mao Tse Tung to destabilise the post-war arrangements.
I think it may well prove to be the case once all the files are opened that we will see that the more recent doctrines of multi-culturalism originated partly through Whitehall officials dusting off these old Colonial Office policies and re-badging them! Wouldn’t that be an irony?
We make this Point in our manifesto:-
3.16 England and Multi-Culturalism
3.16.1 It is a fact that during the past forty years people of many different cultures have come to live in England. Our country is in that sense a multi-cultural society. However, multi-Culturalism is an ideology which suggests that a mix of many cultures in one society is desirable and that it is the duty of government to actively encourage cultural diversity within the state. Further, it suggests that all cultures should be treated as equal. A logical extension of this is that all languages, histories and law codes should be treated equally. This is clearly impossible in a unified country. All ethnic groups should be free to promote their own culture and identity but the public culture of England should be that of the indigenous English. This position is consistent with the rights of indigenous nations everywhere.
Our Candidate in Weston-super-Mare got this letter published in his local paper. Well done Clive!
SMALLER PARTIES GET A BIGGER SAY IN POLL
UKIP and the Green Party polled five million votes between them and each party ended up with one seat.
The SNP polled fewer than one-and-a-half million votes and won 56 seats. That’s over 90 times more seats per vote. Do we need any more proof that “first-past-the-post” has to go? This system of voting does two things. It skews the result of an election by giving the largest parties a disproportionate number of seats for the votes they got.
More insidiously, it alters the way many people vote. If the candidate who represents their views has little chance of winning, many people instead vote for the candidate who is most likely to defeat the one they do not want to win.
In other words, instead of voting for the candidate they want, they vote against the one they don’t.
If every vote is to count, we need proportional representation. In a multi-party democracy, first past the post is anti-democratic and must be replaced.
