Sunday, 29 January 2012

(Some) MEPs oppose the murder of South African farmers

Thankfully not all MEPs are willing to turn a blind eye to murder just because the circumstances are irreconcilable with politically correct orthodoxy.

See also: A very important Written Declaration in the European Parliament

Saturday, 28 January 2012

English Democrats campaign reported in the Financial Times

I've just noticed an article on page 4 of Thursday's Financial Times regarding our (as we now know, successful) campaign for an elected mayor in Salford.

The article is entitled;

Salford emerges from the shadows as vote begins on having an elected mayor.

In the article it is stated that;

John Merry, the Labour council leader, does not welcome the referendum - triggered by a petition from the nationalist English Democrats party - but is happy with the attention.

Later it reads;

Raising expectations and failing to meet them is dangerous. Stephen Morris, of the English Democrats, which collected more than 10,000 signatures in support of a mayoral referendum - the requisite 5 per cent of voters - says 39 years of Labour rule has failed Salford. "We have one of the highest council taxes in the country and higher than average crime and poverty."

We seem to be witnessing a steady increase in our party's profile in the media as our party grows and increases in popularity. Party chairman Robin Tilbrook's appearance on BBC News 24 earlier this week is another example of this phenomenon.

It is a real privilege to be involved in such a vibrant and growing party. The English Democrats are indisputably on the rise, however one cares to measure such things. These are exciting times indeed for our party and the patriotic cause.

Be a part of it by joining the English Democrats here.

Friday, 27 January 2012

PRESS RELEASE: English Democrats' David, slays Salford Labour’s Goliath!


English Democrats' David, slays Salford Labour’s Goliath!

Today the English Democrats are delighted to announce that our nationwide campaign for directly elected Council Leaders (aka Mayors) for every local authority in England has borne its first fruit - despite an increasingly desperate and dishonest campaign by the Salford Council Labour Party.

Salford is the first local authority where we collected the required 5% of the electors’ signatures (c. over 8,500) to trigger a referendum to give the voters of Salford the chance to change their Council’s leadership, from the old back-scratching and buggins’ system, to one of democratic election by all the voters. The result was, out of 31,091 votes cast, 17,344 were in favour of an elected Mayor and 13,653 were against. Therefore in May there will be an election for Salford’s first directly elected Council Leader.

Stephen Morris, our North West Chairman and Salford Mayoral Campaign Organiser said:- “This result, where the turnout was quite similar to the usual turnout in Council elections, showed that even Salford Labour Party’s usual supporters have turned against it! I am now looking forward to bringing Mayoral Referendums to Bolton and Wigan as soon as possible.”

Robin Tilbrook, the Chairman of the English Democrats said:- “This is a fantastic day for local democracy in England and shows that the way is open to achieving a better and more transparent leadership in local authorities across England. We would like to get everyone more actively involved in local politics and we believe we will succeed in doing so, if they can see that the old one party local political machines are being replaced by Mayoral elections which give the electorate a real choice!”

Robin continued:- “Even David only needed a little stone to bring Goliath crashing down! Now our Party will redouble our efforts in collecting signatures to trigger further referenda the length and breadth of England”.


Robin Tilbrook,
The English Democrats,
PO Box 1066, Norwich, NR14 6ZJ

Party Website:

Personal Blog:

Tuesday, 24 January 2012

EU Threatens English Homeowners

Here is my latest article from the English Democrats website...

It has been revealed that EU regulations currently being worked on in Brussels threaten to push up mortgage rates in the UK and cause large numbers of homeowners to default on their mortgage payments.

As part of the bank capital directive - a large reform package which is expected to come into force as early as 2013 - banks are expected to declare all EU loans to be in default when they are 90 days in arrears. Though such rules are commonplace in many other EU member states, this would have a significant impact in the UK, where mortgagors are given up to 180 days grace.

The imposition of these regulations will make the danger of default more likely for large numbers of English homeowners and this will have a significant knock-on effect, ensuring a smaller number of successful mortgage applications and higher rates for those who manage to get them.

The tighter timescale involved will also mean that banks will have less time in which they can work with customers to try and avoid default, a procedure known as forbearance.

The Bank of England's latest Financial Stability Report has revealed that on top of the 1.2 percent of mortgagers who are in appears, a further 0.5 percent are in forbearance, meaning that the proposed regulations will increase the rate of mortgagors in arrears by nearly half as much again.

We in the English Democrats firmly oppose the imposition of financial regulations from unrepresentative bureaucrats in Brussels which will hurt English homeowners during a depression which was largely caused by the irresponsible actions of the very banks whom this directive is geared towards supporting.

It is only by freeing ourselves from the unacceptable constraints imposed by our membership of the European Union that we will be in a position to firmly reject such harmful legislation. The English Democrats will continue to campaign on this issue and argue that for this reason, and so many others, our people would be well and truly better off out of the EU!

Friday, 20 January 2012

Leeds English Democrats push for YES vote in mayoral referendum

Pictured: Leeds Civic Hall

On May 3rd voters in Leeds will have the chance to vote to fundamentally change the system by which decisions are made by Leeds City Council. The referendum on whether Leeds should have an elected mayor does not seem to have received too much publicity so far, which somewhat belies the significance of this referendum.

We in Leeds English Democrats are campaign for an emphatic YES vote in this referendum as the elected mayor system is far more democratic than the current system.

I was a councillor on Leeds City Council between 2006 and 2010 and I have witnessed at first hand the way in which the Lord Mayor of Leeds is currently elected.

It is done in a thoroughly devious way as a result of deals between the biggest groups in the council and is used to reward cronyism.

Yet this is just the tip of the iceberg as regards why a change in the system would be desirable.

Shifting to a directly elected mayor would not simply mean changing the way that the Lord Mayor of Leeds is elected. The Lord Mayor is primarily a ceremonial position, which bears little resemblance to elected mayors who have real political power.

An explanation of this system, which I have borrowed from Robin Tilbrook's blog, can be found below.

Please get in touch if you would like to support our campaign for a yes vote. You can start by liking our new Facebook page here.



The possibility of having directly elected Executive Mayors (Council Leaders) was introduced in the Local Government Act 2000.
THE UK currently has 13 directly elected mayors.

Several Mayors are Independents and are not beholden to an Establishment Party. Ken Livingstone won in London as an Independent after the Labour Party refused to endorse him. Stuart Drummond, Hartlepool United’s club mascot H’Angus the Monkey, won in 2002 on the back of a jokey campaign. He has been re-elected twice since and is doing an excellent job for his town. Former senior policeman Ray Mallon won in Middlesbrough as an Independent in 2002 and won re-election in the recent election by a landslide. The first elected mayor of Mansfield in 2002 was the Independent candidate, Tony Eggerton, who has since been re-elected in 2007; his victory led to Independents eventually being the majority on the council. The first elected mayor of Bedford was also an Independent. Other mayors have been elected from political parties not forming the majority amongst councillors.

The Choices

The choices for models of political leadership within local governance are:-

1. Elected Mayor The Mayor is directly elected by all the local authority’s voters and serves for four years. He or she would choose up to 10 councillors as cabinet members. The mayor cannot be removed from office by councillors, which makes sense as he or she was not appointed by the councillors. Advisory overview and scrutiny committees hold the mayor and cabinet to account and assist in policy development. This is the most democratic option as it gives the people the choice.

2. Strong Leader By contrast to the directly elected Mayor, the Leader is secretly elected by the councillors of the local ruling party. The Leader appoints a cabinet and has all the same powers as the Elected Mayor. As a result of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act, by 31st December 2010 councils must adopt either an “Elected Mayor” or a “Strong Leader” system. The Strong Leader system means that the Leader is appointed by the council (in reality the ruling party) for four years. The Leader is therefore beholden for his position to the largest party on the Council and so answers to them and not to the wider electorate.
This choice is the one preferred by local political elites because it gives them power over the people with the least chance of effective opposition.

3. Councillor Committees This is the old Committee system and was widely criticised as being too slow and too lacking in transparency and has now been phased out as an option.

The Mayoral System

A directly elected Mayor can take decisions with a Cabinet (of councillors) appointed by the Mayor.

A directly elected Executive Mayor would be elected for a four year term by all residents eligible to vote in local elections.

The local authority’s “Executive” (or “Cabinet”) is made up of between three and ten councillors, including the elected Mayor. Elections for Councillors continue as normal.

Councillors have a role in the scrutiny of the Mayor’s decisions on major issues, including the council tax and major policy decisions. Committees of Councillors continue on planning, licensing and regulatory functions. In other matters the Mayor is free to decide how decisions are made, and the Mayor takes most decisions on a day to day basis instead of committees of councillors.

Councillors who are not members of the Cabinet would continue to have some important functions, including representing their local communities. They can monitor and comment on the performance of the Mayor and Cabinet – the scrutiny role referred to above.

• The Mayor provides highly visible local political leadership

• The Mayoral system provides a single, accountable leader directly responsible to the voters

• The mayoral system leads to faster decision making

• It gives the Mayor power to get policies into place quickly

• A fixed four year term ensures some continuity combined with direct accountability to voters

In Torbay the Elected Mayoral system has recently caused the Councillors to abolish the whip system as it is no longer necessary.

How to get a Mayor System for your Local Authority

The mechanism by which local authorities can move, from whichever governance system that they now operate, to the clarity of a directly elected executive mayor is by local referendum. The local referendum can be triggered:- First by the councillors voting for it (highly unlikely! – (turkeys/Christmas!); Second by the Secretary of State ordering it; Or, third, and most useful from our point of view, by a public petition. The petition threshold is surprisingly easy to cross, requiring the signatures of 5% of the registered electors. In most local authorities this is less than 5,000 signatures.

The consequences of obtaining a petition are governed by the Local Government Act 2000, which decrees that in the event that a petition validly signed by 5% of the electors calling for a referendum on a directly elected executive mayor being received by the council’s returning officer, there must, by law, be a local referendum.

If the majority of those that vote in the referendum are in favour, then there must be a directly elected mayor. The law therefore enables the vested interests of local ruling parties and councillors to be swept aside. Such petitions therefore have legal consequences which are unlike most petitions, which are merely an expression of protest by people and which are, unless they are in the interests of the ruling party, usually ignored.

Electoral Advantages

Mayoral elections are a much more of a level playing field between all candidates than the usual run of English elections where the three Establishment parties have tremendous advantages in terms of money and organization.

In Doncaster, for example, while the English Democrats had been campaigning over the previous four years we had few other advantages except a hard hitting entry in the mayoral booklet (which is sent by the local Returning Officer to every elector as part of the system of mayoral elections) Also there is the Supplementary Vote System which in Doncaster enabled us to win on second preferences. As the BBC news coverage of the election did not even mention us, or our candidate, once during the campaign it is clear that mayoral elections are winnable solely by effort on the ground (and an excellent candidate!).

In addition the result of winning a mayoral election is that, subject to the restraints of his office, the successful candidate is in power in that local authority. It follows that it is also much more practical for a small party or for an independent to gain control of a local authority through the directly elected mayoral system than any other electoral strategy. The effect of doing so is strategically important as it undermines the British Establishment parties.

Friday, 13 January 2012

Eurozone Bailout Article

Here is my latest article from the English Democrats website...

It has emerged that English taxpayers could still be left footing the bill for the bailout of profligate eurozone economies after Prime Minister David Cameron enraged a number of his own MPs by refusing to rule out paying for a bailout via Britain's contributions to the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Mr Cameron claimed; "We have set out our conditions for contributing more to the IMF. We support countries and not currencies or currency zones. The IMF shouldn't be doing what the eurozone itself should be doing."

Despite this, it is clear that there is a significant likelihood of English taxpayers contributing towards further bailouts via the IMF, once again making a mockery of the Tories' hot air on this issue.

Back in October, Chancellor George Osborne told MPs in Westminster; "Britain will not be putting money into the bail-out fund either directly or through the IMF."

He went on to claim that: "The IMF exists to support countries, it does not exist to support currencies...The IMF contributing money to the eurozone bail-out fund, no; Britain contributing money to the eurozone bail-out fund, no. That is Britain's clear position."

The Tories position on the EU is demonstrably anything but 'clear'!

The news comes in the wake of the publication of an expert report that revealed that families will be better off out of the EU.

The report, published by Professor Patrick Minford, an economist at Cardiff Business School, revealed that living standards would rise as Britain enjoyed freedom from the "haven of (EU) regulation and state intervention".

He added; "What the EU does is raise the prices of most things traded within Europe through protection given to its single market by trade arrangements.

"Cars, computers, clothes, machinery, food - all have their prices held up by the restrictions on imports from cheaper sources, often China, but also India, New Zealand and South Korea.

"Outside the EU the prices of what we buy would be the cheapest available in the world - our industries would sell their output on their capacity to meet world competition. We would all benefit from buying freely in the world market at world prices. Our living standards would rise."

With an ever growing body of academic opinion showing that we would be better off out of the EU, the English Democrats will continue to campaign strongly on this issue in order to give the English people a chance to speak out on this vitally important matter, something which David Cameron and his Liberal Democrat chums have steadfastly refused to do.

Wednesday, 4 January 2012

Supermarkets' Halal Scandal

Here is my latest article from the English Democrats website...

The symptoms of the metastasis of political correctness in our society manifest themselves in various ways. An example is the way in which meat procured through the cruel practice of religious ritual slaughter is peddled to English consumers, often without them even knowing it.

It was revealed in a newspaper investigation that was published this week that a number of large UK supermarket chains are surreptitiously selling halal meat including lamb and chicken to unwitting customers. Waitrose, Marks & Spencer, Sainsbury's, Tesco, Somerfield and the Co-op have all been exposed for their thoroughly unethical behaviour. ASDA have refused to comment.

The cruel practice of halal slaughter involves subjecting the sorry animal in question to unthinkably agony. Rather than stunning the animal before it is killed, it is deemed necessary for the animal to be fully conscious and aware as its throat is cut while a Muslim prayer is recited. The animal then spends its last living moments painfully bleeding to death. The duplicity of the supermarkets in question has now been thoroughly exposed.

When contacted by the Mail on Sunday about this outrage, Tesco and Waitrose were initially reluctant to admit they sold any halal meat. Tesco said in a statement: 'It is not the case that all the meat we sell is halal or that our suppliers only offer halal meat.'

Yet when quizzed further, a spokesman said: 'All our New Zealand lamb is halal-slaughtered, as is 35 per cent of our UK lamb. Less than five per cent of our chicken is halal.'

A Waitrose spokeswoman claimed: 'I can confirm that Waitrose does not sell any halal meat.'

Yet only a day later, another spokeswoman said: 'You mentioned the [Islamic] prayer said at the point of slaughter. This applies to all our lamb but not to beef or poultry.'

M&S initially claimed: 'No meat sourced by M&S from the UK is halal.' But when asked about lamb, a spokeswoman said: 'Our New Zealand lamb is halal-slaughtered but pre-stunned.'

A spokesman for Sainsbury's said: 'The abattoirs that supply us with lamb are licensed by the Muslim authorities and a prayer is said when the animals are killed.'

Any talk of 'pre-stunned' halal meat should not be allowed to obscure the issue in question either. The RSPCA has exposed the way in which in the rare cases in which this happens, the current used is less than that deemed appropriate by Western standards, ensuring the animals in question are still subjected to an unacceptable level of completely unnecessary suffering.

The English Democrats will continue to speak out against the evils of political correctness in all its forms as we strive to rebuild our English nation on a foundation of decency, compassion and reason.

FPÖ New Year Meeting

Tuesday, 3 January 2012

2012 - the year of nationalist renewal?

I would like to take this opportunity to wish all the readers of this blog a happy New Year.

Although some may find the making (and, often within a relatively short space of time, the breaking) of new year's resolutions to be somewhat clichéd, I view the beginning of a new year an a good opportunity to take stock of one's life and reflect on what one has achieved so far and what is to come.

Last year I joined the English Democrats and this was undoubtedly one of the biggest political decisions of my life. This caused quite a stir at the time, but now that the dust has settled and I have had some time over the Christmas break to reflect on things I can honestly say that it was also one of the best political decisions that I have ever taken. As we move into 2012 I have a feeling of optimism about the future which I have not had for some time.

It may sound as though I am simply rehashing what I said in my recent conference speech by stating this but I feel it is worth reiterating nevertheless.

I am very pleased that a number of other good nationalists have joined me in the English Democrats over the past few months. Eddy Butler is the most high-profile example, but there are other excellent political activists, including here in Yorkshire, who have done likewise.

That said, some other patriots have chosen not to join the English Democrats and to join other parties instead, and I wish them well. The same goes for those who are still undecided as to where to go or what to do next.

2012 is going to be a very important year for all patriots. I wrote about some of the different elections that are due to be held in this article, and it is in such elections as these that it will be demonstrated which patriotic political parties are serious players and worthy of support and which are not.

I have been a political activist my whole adult life and I have learned that there is nothing like an election to sort out the talkers from the doers. People may 'talk the talk' with regard to our struggle all year round but when these same people are then suddenly uncontactable around election time and far too busy to deign to engage in electioneering then their true colours are finally revealed.

I welcome yearly elections (which we have in West Yorkshire, with just a one- in-every-four-years gap) as this ensures that our nationalist activist base is constantly being tested; our organisational tools are constantly being sharpened on the whetstone of our political opposition.

What applies to individual activists applies to political parties too of course, and there has been much debate in nationalist circles as to what constitutes the correct political party, strategy, and even ideology. Happily, as the May elections approach, the time for philosophising is drawing to an end and the time to 'put up or shut up' is nigh.

It is certainly preferable for political parties from the non-politically correct patriotic section of the political spectrum to avoid standing against one another wherever possible. Although we may argue that our parties are nothing alike and share little common ground, the average voter rarely shares this assessment, and it is clear that the many nationalist-populist parties that will be aiming to fight the coming elections share the same voter base to some degree or another.

I am a committed English Democrats activist but I am not so arrogant that I see fit to attack those who do not wish to share my party allegiance. Patriots in all parties should focus all their energies on local campaigning in the coming months in order to ensure that we see the maximum possible number of rays of hope on the electoral landscape come May.

I began this article by saying how new year's resolutions are often broken. Let us all resolve right now to dedicate every bit of our energy in 2012 to positive work for our respective organisations and leave the bickering to our mutual opponents in the far left. And let us make sure this is one new year's resolution that we all stick to.