The English Democrats have formed an unholy alliance with some other minor parties and called it the Alliance for Democracy.
Joining the English Democrats in their "Anglo-Christian Democratic Alliance of Political Parties" are the Christian Party "Proclaiming Christ's Lordship", Jury Team, Popular Alliance, the UK Fascist First Party and Veritas. Strangely absent are the England First Party, a BNP off-shoot that the English Democrats formed an electoral pact with during the 2009 EU elections.
Let's have a look at the English Democrats' new bed-fellows:
The Christian Party ... well, what can I say? The Christian Party is headed up by a Scottish Reverend and has a homophobic, anti-abortion, illiberal manifesto. As well as the UK Christian Party, there is a Christian Party Scotland and Christian Party Wales - something the English Democrats criticise other British political parties for!
Jury Team isn't even a proper party, it's just a rich bloke paying deposits for no-hopers who can't make it onto a party list. Jury Team candidates collectively gained only half a percent of the national vote between them in the 2009 EU elections.
The Popular Alliance is an off-shoot of UKIP and Veritas, itself an off-shoot of UKIP. The Popular Alliance has a policy to "restore British culture, tradition and history, especially in schools". Their website describes them as a "Political party opposing Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem, UKIP, Veritas and BNP as an alternative for government".
The UK First Party is yet another UKIP off-shoot and already has an alliance with the Popular Alliance. The UK First leadership and its handful of activists consist mainly of disgruntled former UKIP members including Greg Limp-Wrist, one of the EU moles who writes on the anti-UKIP "Junius" blog.
Veritas is the original UKIP off-shoot, formed by Robert Kiljoy-Slick when he threw his teddy out of the pram after failing to get himself installed as leader. Veritas' biggest achievement is to still be in business despite having virtually no success in its 5 year history. Robert Kiljoy-Slick once tried to take over the English Democrats but failed.
The combined vote in the 2009 EU elections of every party in the Alliance for Democracy (Veritas and Popular Alliance didn't stand any candidates) was just 4.4% - 1.8% less than the BNP, slightly over half the Green vote and just over a quarter of the UKIP vote. Three of the six parties in the Alliance for Democracy are UKIP off-shoots, one of them is specifically opposed to one of the others, one of them has a "British" party to cover England with local parties for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and all of them except the English Democrats are UK parties.
I'm not sure how you can have an alliance of Anglo-Christian parties in England, Scotland and Wales as they claim to be and I'm surprised that the English Democrats are so keen to declare themselves a Christian party when one of their national council members and founder members, who happens to be one of their best people, is Jewish. There's even a Scottish and Welsh branch of the alliance!
I could be wrong, of course, but I seriously doubt anyone will be unduly concerned about this schizophrenic alliance of British/Scottish/Welsh/English nationalist Christian (apart from non-Christians) unelectable political parties.
Thursday, 7 January 2010
wonkotsane is an author at Bloggers4UKIP.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
58 comments:
They sound like a bunch of real winners.
Don't forget the Christian Party were invited to join forces with UKIP by a former MEP/UKIP leader.
Their leader spoke at a conference attended by over 500 UKIPer's in Weston Supermare. Although it has to be said most of us who attended were conned into believing it was a strategy conference to leave the EU.
The Peoples' Front of Judea!
Electoral pacts make sense when faced with the first past the post system, the system that will be used in Britain's Genereal Election 2010.
Winning parties must be broad coalitions. Every big party has a left wing and a right wing.
The Labour party has always had its loony left, and the Conservatives their hard right wing.
UKIP should be more accommodating to people with varying views.
The main difference between the English Democrats and UKIP is that the English Democrats want an English Parliament.
This English parliament would run along similar lines to the Scottish and Welsh parliaments.
There are also many people in UKIP that want an English Parliament.
The people running the English Democrats could very well have stayed within UKIP, and just been a wing of UKIP.
Three of the other parties in this new coalition are splinter groups that have split off from UKIP.
It is a great shame that these splinter groups could not have been kept within the UKIP fold.
We would all have been stronger if we could have all stayed together.
Of course all members of a political party must adhere to the party's constitution.
UKIP's constitution consists of a pledge to get Britain out of the EU.
UKIP also believes in controlling immigration but done in a nonracist way.
It would not be possible to have people in UKIP who do not believe in these two basic things.
But appart from this UKIP should be able to accommodate a variety of political views.
Bob, I don't think we need people like the Christian Party, it's a one man and his dog affair.
Steve, UKIP is already a broad church - left wing, right wing, socialist, conservative, libertarian, authoritarian. But these lot are all no-hopers. You only have to look at people like Greg Limp-Wrist and Roberty Kiljoy-Slick to see why we're better off without the loonies that found or join spin-off parties like the UK Fascist Party and Veritas.
People have joined UKIP from all the major political parties.
UKIP has members from Labour, LibDem and the Conservatives.
UKIP is broad enough to accommodate all these new members from this very wide variety of backgrounds.
So it is a great shame that so many former UKIP members have broken away, and formed tiny little parties of their own.
Wonkotsane
You said quote
"You only have to look at people like Greg Limp-Wrist and Roberty Kiljoy-Slick to see why we're better off without the loonies that found or join spin-off parties like the UK Fascist Party and Veritas."
End of quote
This is a perfect example of what I mean. Robert Kilroy-Silk was a really great person for getting publicity for UKIP.
He certainly kept within the constitution of the party.
When he split from UKIP and created Veritas, we lost a lot of very good people.
I think he would have been a very good leader of UKIP,had he been given the chance.
I believe that I could well have been an MP by now it Robert Kilroy-Silk had become leader of UKIP.
In fact it is my opinion that UKIP would probably have between twenty to thirty MPs, if Robert Kilroy-Silk had become leader.
We live under a first past the post system. Under this system parties that win are all broad coalitions.
UKIP must be a broad coalition of people with varying views, that all adhere to the UKIP constitution.
We also must involve people that have slightly different views to the pure UKIP line.
People like the English Democrats and Veritas should never have broken away from UKIP.
If they had stayed within UKIP, then we would all have been stronger because of it.
If UKIP is to win seats in the Westminster Parliament we must not allow the anti-EU vote to be split amoung a host of tiny little parties, all with very similar views.
Where is the evidence to suggest the English Democrats broke away from UKIP? It was founded by an ex-Tory actually.
Just because lots of people have chosen to leave UKIP for the EDP, doesn't make it a break-away group.
The EDP didn't split from UKIP, Steve is wrong. I don't think there's been a net migration to the EDP, there have been plenty of EDP people defecting to UKIP but because UKIP is a grown-up party there's no need to announce every new member like it's an achievement.
Most rational, anti-EU people will see that splitting the vote is counter-productive and that UKIP has a greater chance of gaining seats than all of the others put together.
Can we not woo the membership of these parties? Is there nothing we can offer them?
I think this helps UKIP immensely. Their reorganisation this late on might spill a few votes due to some voters being unsure; the name itself will ring "loony left" alarm bells in some voters minds; having one party to rebut on doorsteps makes it easier too.
Has anyone really thought about how there are no right-of-center parties besides UKIP?
That being said, I hope this party takes a seat in a location that UKIP can't, just to detract from LibLabCon
"Christian party - what can I say?" Didn't know UKIP shared the same hostility to Christian values as the Lib Lab Con.
Must say you guys are getting a bit PC now you're hoping to be accepted and promoted by the MSM. And while you're dismissive of traditional Christian values, perhaps you could check with Lord Pearson - he appears to be all for that sort of thing.
Well said, Steve Halden. I really hope Lord Pearson manages to make UKIP a more organised party and rein in those that say things designed to put off potential voters.
Prole, even though I'm not religious in any way, shape or form, I still believe in Christian values (to a certain extent). Take a look at the Christian Party's manifesto before you judge! The include:
Banning abortion
Curfews for children
More restrictions on Sunday trading
A tax on "mind pollution" (18 certificate games and films, etc.
Mandatory reading of the bible in Scottish schools
Mandatory religious education in all schools
Teaching of creationism in schools
Public "health" campaigns against homosexuality
Replacing the Welsh flag because the dragon is "satanic"
They're nutters.
You cannot possibly have electoral pacts with groups that hold extremist views, or views which run counter to UKIP own constitution and policies. To think otherwise is frankly quite politically naive.
If the logic was a sound one there is no conceivable reason why UKIP could not have formed a pact with the BNP. As has often been said many BNP policies, shadow UKIP's. Using the broad church theory we should ignore the racist, homophobic, white supremacist approach and share the 'agreed' ground.
That would be complete and utter political suicide.
You cannot possibly have electoral pacts with groups that hold extremist views, or views which run counter to UKIP own constitution and policies. To think otherwise is frankly quite politically naive.
If the logic was a sound one there is no conceivable reason why UKIP could not have formed a pact with the BNP. As has often been said many BNP policies, shadow UKIP's. Using the broad church theory we should ignore the racist, homophobic, white supremacist approach and share the 'agreed' ground.
That would be complete and utter political suicide.
You cannot possibly have electoral pacts with groups that hold extremist views, or views which run counter to UKIP own constitution and policies. To think otherwise is frankly quite politically naive.
If the logic was a sound one there is no conceivable reason why UKIP could not have formed a pact with the BNP. As has often been said many BNP policies, shadow UKIP's. Using the broad church theory we should ignore the racist, homophobic, white supremacist approach and share the 'agreed' ground.
That would be complete and utter political suicide.
You cannot possibly have electoral pacts with groups that hold extremist views, or views which run counter to UKIP own constitution and policies. To think otherwise is frankly quite politically naive.
If the logic was a sound one there is no conceivable reason why UKIP could not have formed a pact with the BNP. As has often been said many BNP policies, shadow UKIP's. Using the broad church theory we should ignore the racist, homophobic, white supremacist approach and share the 'agreed' ground.
That would be complete and utter political suicide.
"You cannot possibly have electoral pacts with groups that hold extremist views"
You mean like UKIP? Yeah, I thought so too.
The sound you can hear is the last dice rolling across the table! This "rag bag" bunch really are drilling a hole in the bottom of the barrel - as you say Jury Team are not even a party as such, the Christian Party clearly got bored with being in a joint-ticket alliance with the small-c-conservative Christian Peoples Alliance; I can't imagine how many BT Telephone boxes were used for the last Veritas conference...
In this election, of all elections, the main three parties will dominate proceedings. "Alliance for Democracy" is an also-ran ticket. They'll need all the luck in the world when the £500 deposits run out...
(The word verification for this post is 'derisy', it's as if it knows the subject of the post :) )
What you mean traditional Christian values like Iris Robinson.
It's got nothing to do with PC it's about living in 21st century and abandoning medieval sky fairy superstitions and upholding moral values because that is the right thing to do not because a sky fairy will cast a spell on you if you don't
Wonko,
The Christian Party wants to replace the Welsh flag because of the dragon on it? It looks like they want to out do anything that Ian Paisley ever stood for.
The fundamental beliefs of UKIP are leaving the European Union, and restricting immigration in a nonracist way.
Obviously people that disagree with these two fundamental tenets cannot be members of UKIP.
From what I know of the English Democrats and Veritas, all these people could have very happily complied with basic tenets of the UKIP constitution.
I was speaking to one of the national organisers of the English Democrats recently and he led me to believe that most of their membership were people who had left UKIP about the issue of having a separate parliament for the English.
The proposed English parliament will be run along the lines of the Scottish and Welsh parliaments.
If you consider how much UKIP, Veritas and the English Democrats have in common, it is much greater than the issues on which we disagree.
When fighting under the first past the post system, people of similar views should all bunch together.
If we all split into tiny little parties, just so we can all claim perfect purity of doctrine, then none of us will have much success under the first past the post system.
UKIP should be more accommodating to people with varying views, just so long as they believe in the basic tenets of leaving the European Union, and restricting immigration in a nonracist way.
Steve,
I have to disagree with you. If you broaden the scope of UKIP to embrace the beliefs of the likes of English Democrats then you will end up like the "broad church" Conservatives who collectively can't make up their mind whether we should be in the EU or not and whether or not to do anything (much) about immigration.
It is my understanding that UKIP wish the United Kingdom to continue to exist. The creation of an English Parliament would be one more step towards the break up of the union. I don't think it is possible to undo the damage done so far by devolution, but it might just be possible to call a halt at he status quo.
Animal, an English Parliament is essential. The status quo is neither acceptable nor sustainable.
http://www.thecep.org.uk/wordpress/constitutional-case/the-solutions/
http://www.thecep.org.uk/wordpress/constitutional-case/conclusion/
@wonko
Are you saying that an English Parliament is official UKIP policy?
Religion is based on faith, which is the negation of reason. Consequently is has absolutely no place in politics.
If one takes morality as a matter of commandment, and wants to take away other people's freedoms in order to make up for one's own lack of self esteem, then one is evil, and I want nothing to do with such people.
Not yet but hopefully it will be soon. Both myself and many others within the party are advocating this. There is a lot of misinformation about devolution and a lot of misconceptions as a result. There are a handful of anti-devolutionists left on the UKIP members forum who cling to the same disproven myths as justification for opposing the will of the majority of the electorate but thankfully they are now very much in the minority. And with Lord Pearson setting out Swiss-style referenda as a key UKIP policy, it would be inconsistent for the party to oppose something that commands such overwhelming support amongst the electorate that it would be one of the very first questions to be put to a referendum. I am confident that UKIP will see sense and support devolution soon.
wonkotsane, as you might expect I totally disagree with both on the numbers in UKIP who disagree with your view, you were never able to get further than a handful in support during your sustained campaign. Secondly I believe the call for a English Parliament within the public is more of a protest against the devolved government the other three have. If UKIP is truly a Unionist party then having devolved assemblies is totally different to devolved Parliaments.
As for Swiss style referenda that is not a Pearsin initiative that has long been a UKIP policy and is in our Constitutional changes dpolicy published 2 years ago.
Bob, when I joined the members forum devolution wasn't talked about. When I started talking about it, 99% of the responses were negative based on the misinformation put about by the anti-devolutionists. Now the majority of responses are in favour or at least agnostic. Other people are starting topics about it and countering the arguments put across by the anti-devolutionists.
As for motivation for people supporting an English Parliament - yes, a lot of it is down to the fact that the rest of the UK has devolution but England doesn't. But what about the support in the celtic nations? You know as well as I do that the Scots would declare independence if the Brits tried to take their parliament away and Stormont is one of the conditions for the IRA to stop blowing people up. Devolution is here to stay, the status quo is unsustainable and a bigger threat to the continued existence of the UK than the European Empire.
I didn't say Lord Pearson had come up with the Swiss-style referenda policy, merely that he had made it a key policy.
Membership of the Campaign for an English Parliament is increasing all the time. The English Democrats are still an electoral irrelevance but they are gaining support. It took the SNP 70 years from being founded to running Scotland. It won't take that long for England because the principle of devolution has already been established.
We can lead or we can follow. We could try opposing of course but even the Tories realised what a disaster that policy was.
wonkotsane
I know that for some time you have been campaigning for UKIP to adopt the line of having an English parliament.
And I know that others in UKIP have also been campaigning for this change in policy.
As this is the only difference between UKIP and the English Democrats, dont you agree that the English Democrats should be inside the UKIP fold, and working as a wing of the party.
By splitting off and launching a separate party on this single issue, dont you agree that it has weakened both UKIP and the English Democrats.
If every time there was a single issue difference people left and formed their own party, there would be thousands of political parties in Britain.
We have to work in a first past the post system and to be successful you have to be a broad church.
Everyone that is anti-EU and believes in restricting immigration in a nonracist way should be in the UKIP fold.
It's all very well UKIP and the EDP having similar policies, but the fundamental difference is in the name. With 'English' in their name, you know that a Party will put England first. But with 'UK', England isn't, and it perpetuates the tiresome situation where 'English' is so often conflated with 'British'.
That is why many EDP members wouldn't contemplate joining UKIP.
The question of having and English parliament cuts across party lines.
The Conservatives call it the West Lothian question.
This is where Scottish MPs can vote on issues that affect only England.
But because of devolution English MPs can never vote on the same issues that affect only Scotland.
This issue cuts across party lines
It isn't that simple. The BNP supports an English Parliament, but do we really want them representing us in that matter?
The UKIP policy on the West Lothian question is to have English days at Westminster.
On the English days, issues that only affect England will be discussed and Scottish MPs are not allowed to vote.
This goes part way to solving the problem, but it would not be the powerhouse of ideas, that an English parliament would be.
For this reason it does not please everyone.
Anonymous
Any sort of coalition between similar thinking people, would have to be restricted to mainstream nonracist parties.
The broad church of views would have to be limited to people that support the main tenets of the UKIP constitution
This is getting out of the EU, and restricting immigration in a nonracist way.
Wonkotsane seems to be trying to convince us that UKIP are going to liberate England. Even if he is right in saying that a few in the grass roots have been agreeing with his stance he seems to be out of date or out of something.
First of all the new leader made an offer to the Tories to disband the Party. Some commitment! When he got turned down honest Nigel revealed that it had been a dastardly cunning plan after all.
I want to know how Wonko is going to convince the new leadership to give England a parliament.
They stitched you up by conspiring dodgy donations, used that to bankrupt you and kick out English Nigel and impose YUP---- You've guessed TWO Scotsmen who are rabid nationalists. A takeover!
Come on Wonka even you must blush at your optimism, or are you now going to belated claim that it was all a cunning plan to steal EDP votes?
Apart from the EDP party leaders are:-
Brown, Scotsman
Cameron, Scot born in London.
Glegg, Russo/Dutch parentage.
Ukip, Lords Pearson/Monckton Scots.
BNP, Welshman born in Essex and prefers to live in Wales.
You need at least some cultural, historic, genetic, ancestral attachment for your country to fight for it. Ask Salmond.
Anonymous
You are right that wonkotsane is trying to persuade us that an English parliament is the best way forward for Britain.
He and a number of other UKIP members have been trying to do this for some time.
The West Lothian question cuts across party lines. I think that all parties agree that there is some unfairness that Scottish MPs at Westminster can vote on issues that only affect England.
While English MPs cannot vote on many issues that only affest Scotland because this is covered by the devolved Scottish parliament.
Anonymous
The reason for UKIP's very existance is to get Britain out of the European Union.
If the Conservative Party had promised a referendum on leaving, this could have achieved UKIP's objectives.
All genuine UKIP members would have been delighted had this offer been taken up, as we could have all united and campaigned for leaving the EU in a referendum.
This would have given UKIP a huge boost and made us a real force in British politics.
UKIP would have got stronger and stronger as as the referendum campaign got going.
Anonymous
There is not a lot of convincing to do to persuade the party that England needs some sort of English control over England.
The official line is already that there should be English days when English MPs discuss matters that only refer to England.
The Conservative have similar ideas to deal with what they call the West Lothian question.
This issue cuts across party lines and there is already some degree of agreement between all parties. that something needs to be done to deal with the West Lothian question.
Martin
I have read some things about the English Democrats by looking at their website.
As far as I can see the only difference between the English Democrats and UKIP, is that the English Democrats want an English parliament and UKIP wants "English Days" in Westminser to discuss issues that only refer to England.
An English parliament would be a powerhouse of ideas to improve England, and this would not really happen with "English Days" at Westminster.
Martin
At the moment "English Days" at Westminster would not satisfy the demands of the English Democrats.
But if these "English Days" could be boosted a bit, then maybe something might be agreed that could please both UKIP and the English Democrats.
There is already some cross party support for some sort English control over England.
It is my opinion that UKIP and the English Democrats should be working together, and not against each other.
These two parties have so much in common, that they should be working together.
The West Lothian Question was actually coined by Enoch Powell when an Ulster Uninionist MP back in 1987, in respnse to the then West Lothian MP Tam Dyall.
That aside this is just an example of the divide that 'unionists of other UK countries want to perpetuate, and English Parliament that deprived the others of a right to a say on English matters would lead to a demise in the Union that is Britain and Nothern Ireland. That certainly is not UKIP policy, and I doubt it ever will be.
UKIP Website
Policies
Constitution UKIP Policy 2009
How we are Governed Page 4
West Lothian & English Questions
We would retain national bodies but replace national representatives with Westminster MPs from that nation:
The 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament would be replaced by the 55 Scots Westminster MPs, the 60 Welsh Assembly Members replaced by the 32 Welsh Westminster MPs, with similar arrangements over time in Northern Ireland with its 18 MPs to normalise UK affairs.
To be fair to England, the 545 English Westminster MPs would meet the same week a month in Westminster for English days in an ‘English Parliament’, debating English-only legislation. MPs would divide time between national Parliaments and Westminster for devolved or Union business.
UKIP Website
Policies
Constitution UKIP Policy 2009
How we are Governed Page 9
West Lothian Question
3.3.5 We propose to retain the existing national bodies – the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly, but to replace the existing nationally elected representatives with their equivalent national representatives in the Westminster Parliament, meeting, say, one week in every month in plenary, plus some committee days around Westminster.
The remaining time would be spent sitting as the UK Parliament. The United Kingdom will be rebalanced, and England treated more fairly, by the introduction of ‘English days’ involving only English MPs in Westminster, and calling this an ‘English Parliament’, but with no extra buildings or politicians.
The English Parliament would debate English-only legislation and matters.
The English Parliament would restore England to its rightful recognition alongside the United Kingdom’s other constituent nations, and help remove resentment of unfair treatment.
It is clear that both UKIP and the English Democrats both believe in having an "English Parliament."
Our only difference is how that English Parliament should be set up.
As we are so close in our beliefs it seems only sensible that both UKIP and the English Democrats should work together, and not against each other.
Under the first past the post system of voting, parties with similar views should work together so as to avoid splitting the anti-EU vote.
Most of us know the policy, the fact remains the others wouldn't go along with it, for pretty obvious reasons.
The Barnet formula is of far more concern to the English than some appeasement of a Parliament.
I'd like to say that none of the SNP MP ever vote on English only matters in Westminster. They never have done.
Just for the record. :)
Sub, absolutely right and that's something the other "British" parties could learn from - if it wasn't for whipped Scottish Liebour MPs we wouldn't have foundation hospitals or university top-up fees in England.
UKIPs purpose should be to re-empower the people by leaving the eu and putting a directly elected (and accountable) parliament back in charge.
Then all of the people can decide what kind of devolution we want, and expect the government (whoever they are) to implement it.
UKIP does not need to have a view on an english parliament - it just needs to make the british parliament supreme and accountable.
Post a Comment