Steve Uncles

Since my articles on the English Democrats (here and here) the poster known as KeyStage2 at the British Democracy Forum has changed his handle to "Fredsucks".

>>>>>

Not that it particularly matters whether he calls himself English Democrat, Kentishman, KeyStage2 or Fredsucks. My opinion of him is the same.

Over at the English Democrats Party forum there is a timely post from a newcomer called "Sindividual" that questions the EDP's policy of threatening to sue the pants off anyone that suggests that they might be a tad racist. I expect that Sindividual's post will be deleted but it's worthy of discussion I think.

Sindividual brings to our attention this sentence from the EDP website:

The EDP takes a hard line on anyone suggesting the English Democrats are racist and will seek legal remedy for anyone slandering the party in this way.

The reason that this is of particular interest to me is that I once received an official email from the English Democrats threatening to sue me for "slander" for something I had written about them. I think they meant libel, but then I'm no expert on defamatory laws. It all came about because their party strategist, Steve Uncles, had been on the forum canvassing opinion on whether an English Democrat government (perish the thought) should make it law for all food produced in England to display the English flag on its packaging.

I thought that this was well over the top and offered the opinion that such a policy would make them look like a bunch of "quasi-fascists". Before I knew it I had received an official email from another English Democrat, Christine Constable, telling me in no uncertain terms that I should withdraw the remark and make a public apology or face legal action. I wrote a considered email back, the gist of which was "F*ck off you stupid c*nt" (and come to think of it that actually phrase may have been used, without the asterisks).

When I performed a search for "quasi-fascist" to determine whether their legal threats against me had any sound basis, I was astounded to come across the blog of (the now sadly departed) Chris Lightfoot whom the English Democrats had also threatened with legal action for use of the exact same phrase.

Anthony Wells, who now runs UK Polling Report, offered up the following piece of information to the comments on Lightfoot's blog:

Goldsmith vs Bhoyrul and Others (1997) set the precedent that political parties cannot sue for defamation. Mr Justice Buckley ruled that "Defamation actions or threat of them would constitute a fetter on free speech at a time and on a topic when it is clearly in the public interest that there should be none."

I have no idea whether or not this is correct. But it should be because unfettered criticism of political parties is a vital part of our democracy. And even if criticism of a political party is ill-conceived, over-the-top, or even completely groundless, it would be a tragedy for democracy if individuals were prevented from criticising politicians and parties for fear of legal censure.

The irony of the statement on the English Democrats' website does not lie in its apparent contradiction of the Goldsmith vs Bhoyrul precedent. For me the irony lies in the fact that I have correspondence from Steve Uncles stating that a former member of the English Democrats' National Council - who stood for them as a candidate - is "uncomfortable around black people" and "refused to speak to anybody black" whilst out campaigning for the English Democrats. It would seem that Uncles is himself sailing pretty close to the defamation wind, unless of course their candidate was actually "uncomfortable" and could be proven to have been so.

Whether Uncle's "uncomfortable" allegation was just a one off email for my benefit (whatever that might be), or whether it was part of a wider smear campaign against that individual, I will never know. Unfortunately my attempts to get some clarification on this matter, and about the EDP's meetings with the far-right, and about Uncles conduct on public forums, have resulted in Steve Uncles threatening to have me "arrested for harassment".

It's not just Chris Lightfoot and I that have been at the receiving end of the EDP's bully-boy tactics. The EDP's former National Secretary was also threatened with legal action:

Posing as a democrat, an English democrat at that, this extreme hypocrite Uncles now seeks to abuse his presence here by attempting to marginalise me here on the British Democracy Forum! This is the man who comes here to gloat about having recruited ex-UKIP members etc.

The fact is that Mr Uncles has been (is) unable to dispose of my valid criticisms about his conduct and about the EDP. Had he been able to give proper answers to my questions, he would have done so and would not be resorting to the pettiness displayed in this thread and elsewhere. Amazing isn't it ~ one person afforded a fair hearing can see off the EDP here!!

Steven Uncles has threatened legal action on allegedly on a 'no win no fee' basis, but I still await to hear from his legal representatives.

The source of the public fallout appears to be a disagreement over the extent of democracy within the English Democrats:

It will be ironic if the man "making up" the "stories" that 5 English Demcorats NC members in 2004 loaned the English Democrats funds to "control the Party" ends up paying off all of the party debts due to his continued deflamatory statements.

One has to wonder at the wisdom of these legal threats, and again at the wisdom of the EDP washing their dirty laundry on public forums. I'd be interested to hear from anyone else that has received such threats from the EDP. In my opinion it is unacceptable conduct for a political party. I'd also be interested to read your thoughts on whether you think political parties should threaten to sue individuals for defamation of character, irrespective of whether or not they are even permitted to do so.

In the CEP's Summer "Think of England" magazine Frank Field offers up a condensed version of his Chancellor's speech to the University of Hertfordshire:

the English Question and immigration are intricately linked in two significant respects. Both issues are still no go areas for most major British politicians. Both issues feed the BNP vote.

According to Frank, not only should the democratic unfairness be addressed, but action is also required because "the English Question is being taken up seriously by the BNP". As regular readers will know I have been warning about the BNP's attempts to leap aboard the English bandwagon for a considerable time, and as my recent post on the English Democrats showed my concerns in this direction don't appear to have been shared by all. In fact the English Democrats appear to see a benefit in the far-right joining the English cause.

Over at the British Democracy Forum, English Democrat, Steve Uncles, states that "I think it's great [that] 3 Different Flavours of English Nationalists are Standing in Elections this year", whatever flavour of English Nationalism they represent. One of the flavours to which he refers is the distinctly racial England First Party, with whom Steve Uncles has met, and whose policies include:

• Repatriation of all immigrants to their lands of ancestral origin
• Capital punishment for all murderers
• Restoration of the gibbet, stocks and whipping post for serious violent offenders, paedophiles, sex pests and drug dealers.
• The abolition of the Islamic faith and demolition of all mosques

When questioned as to whether he supports the restoration of the gibbet Steve Uncles jokes, "It's a printing error, I believe they want to still be able to get their giblets so they can make Chicken Soup!".

It's not just the England First Party, Steve Uncles also invites British National Party members over to English nationalist forums for the purpose of debate. Debate about what exactly? The answer may be revealed by the breathless excitement with which another English Democrat, David Lane, announces that the BNP are discussing a name change to the English National Party (ironically a name registered to the EDP themselves):

The English effect is happening !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Both UKIP and the BNP are debating changing their names on their respective web sites.

THIS IS A QUOTE FROM A BNP FORUM

"Controversy is not the purpose of this thread.

For several reasons I think the BNP should change the Party's name to the English National Partry.

Scots, Irish and Welsh quite rightly have their own Nationalist Parties which are acceptable, even to the Establishment. But these Nationals are also British. Whenever anyone mentions British Nationalism it is as though the Black Death has returned. I have no idea why Scots, Welsh or Irish Nationalism is ok but not 'British'. For much the same reasons I think we should have an English Parliament. The 'other' Brits can sit in our Parliament but not vice versa. It would not only ruff the collars of those politiciams who hate the English, it may also be attractive to voters. Also, in an English Parliament, 'British' people would not be able to sit in it."

===============================================
Looks like British is out and ENGLISH is in, both UKIP and BNP are now debating name changes !!!!!!!!

In case you missed it I draw your attention to:

"Also, in an English Parliament, 'British' people would not be able to sit in it."

As I have highlighted previously, it is the belief of the BNP that an English parliament should contain only the ethnic English, hence the quotes around the word British.

In an article on the English Democrats News blog Steve Uncles recognises that the BNP are adopting English nationalism for pragmatic reasons and suggests that a change of name and loyalty would be beneficial to them:

The failing BNP along with failing UKIP realise the English Nationalism is the only viable alternative political view point.

The problem these Unionist parties have is that they don't have England or English in their name - the English Democrats is the only way forward.

And it gets worse. In this email to a fellow English nationalist Steve Uncles suggests infiltrating the English Independence Party to affect a merger with the English Democrats:

What about infiltrating the English Independence Party

After all, you could claim that you have "fallen out" with the English Demcorats, as we don't have a policy of English Independence.

You may also be able to vote out/demand their silly immigration policy is scraped, as a reason for joining, and then vote to merge with the English Democrats after this is achieved.

It would then give us an angle on what is going on, with a possiblity of neutralising them.

I guess that Martin, and Alan may also be interested.
(English Democrats special forces?)

We may have our different views, but we are all trying our best for England.

What-do-ya-think ?

Steve

The silly immigration policy to which Steve refers is the encouraged repatriation of "post-WW2 non-European mass immigrants to return to their countries of origin, culture and extended families" to "restore a SINGLE, EXCLUSIVE ENGLISH CULTURE as a basis for government policy". Silly indeed, but why would he want to incorporate these people into the English Democrats Party; is support for an English parliament his only criteria?

In addition the EDP have also written to England's Parliamentary Party to suggest a merger, and they are completely obsessed with both UKIP and Veritas, with their one notable scalp being the defection of the West Dorset UKIP branch to the EDP. An obsession that led Dr Richard North to observe that:

English Democrats, by the way - superficially attractive - is, inter alia a sink hole for little Englanders. Some of the names I recognise as trouble-makers from UKIP days, people whom UKIP was fortunate to lose when they deserted to Veritas and who have since found refuge in their final bolt-hole as the Kilroy party falls apart.

The EDP will doubtless take pride in such an attack from a unionist political opponent (even if he is, like them, Eurosceptic). But what if North has a point, what if all this courting of fringe parties is populating the English Democrats with a load of undesirables, with dubious motives, from the fringes? And what if the perception that the English movement is populated with such people is preventing it from becoming a mainstream movement?

Recruitment for recruitment's sake appears to be the raison d'être. One English Democrat correspondent on Political Betting even boasts that he has "converted many BNP voters into supporters of an independent English Parliament and English Democrat voters". He then hopefully adds, "Race does not enter our politics". I'm sorry to be a party-pooper, but if you recruit from the BNP then race will enter your politics.

The England effect, if it does happen, needs to be a cross-party, mainstream and pluralist campaign for English national emancipation; it will not come about from an unholy alliance of ethnic nationalists, eurosceptics and disaffected British nationalists, and it will not benefit from people that are in it for purely pragmatic reasons.

The Campaign for an English Parliament, who will have stalls at the Conservative and Liberal Democrat conferences, tend to focus their attention on persuading the centre-ground of the benefits of a political Englishness. For me it is the CEP's policy that represents the way forward, but regrettably the actions of other English nationalist groups have held the CEP back in that respect.

Frank Field is correct, the English Question and Immigration are linked, but not only in the two ways that he describes. They are also linked in a third way because there is an overlap between civic English nationalists, campaigning for a constitutional Englishness, and ethnic English nationalists primarily concerned with what England can do for them; an overlap that is reinforced by the EDP's attempt to tap into the pool of ethnic nationalism and British nationalism to garner support for their goal of an English parliament. In doing so they make a strategic and ethical mistake.

I reiterate my previous advice to the English Democrats:

There’s a huge centre-ground of people who vote Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat, and it’s those people that the English Democrats need to attract. This won’t be achieved from a position in the gutter. The EDP have never taken my advice on anything (which is why I reluctantly write this article), and perhaps they won’t now, but for what it’s worth here’s my advice: Stop meeting with racists, instead you should fight them; differentiate yourselves from ethnic nationalists in the minds of the public, help show that English nationalism is not soft white nationalism; move yourself out from the fringes, focus on the mainstream; stop poaching from other parties, recruit from your own ranks, and; for all our sakes start preaching the progressive nationalist values that I think you believe in, make those your main focus and people will find common ground with you.

The wisdom of English Democrat, Steve Uncles (I had a good chuckle at this press releases and follow up comment).

English Democrats London Mayoral Candidate - Matt O'Connor, today announced in a press conference close to his "Shock Scot" Campaign Poster at London Bridge Railway station, that he would be launching a new "Hard Hitting" English Parliament Campaign Group in May 2008, directly after the London Mayoral Elections.

He explained that the English Parliament issue is a "Killer Issue" and the established "Campaign for an English Parliament" is virtually invisible to most members of the public,and that's after 10 years of existance, he continued it's difficult to understand what the leadership of the Campaign for an English Parliament have been doing, it's time for a fresh radicle approach to gain justice for England, and maximum publicity for the issue.

He promised to firmly establish the "English Parliament" issue at the very top of the political agenda, once outside the restrictions of an the Mayoral Election Campaign, in a similar way to his Fathers-4-Justice campaign.

"I'll make sure the established politicians can no longer ignore the will of the English people"

The Campaign for an English Parliament recently rejected an offer by Matt O'Connor to speak at their "Future of England Conference" on April 26 in London, as they were afraid it may attract "too much attention".

ENDS

Actually it was the wrong sort of attention they were worried about.

The snub by the CEP in not allowing Matt O'Connor to speak at the "Future of England" conference was not a good move by the CEP, and could have been a key note speech for Matt O'Connor in the London Campaign.

The occassional snipes by some of the CEP bloggers with regards the English Democrats is also something the English Democrats have never responded to, the CEP go over board to quite rightly let other organisations know that the CEP is an inclusive Campaign Group, however some of the bloggers for the very same CEP want to try to imply that the English Democrats is linked to the "Far Right", at any opportunity they have, this is not something that should occur, and is of course totally incorrect.

It is worth remembering that a proportion of those in the CEP are paid up members of the Conservative Party, Labour Party and indeed one bizarre individual chose UKIP instead of joining the English Democrats to stand in a Council Election - difficult to understand ! - these "Party" members have their own agenda.

The current Vice-Chairman of the CEP was the English Democrats Chairman of Oxfordshire for a while, he was approached by and became a Conservative and I believe is trying to get a career as a politician in the Conservative & Unionist at all cost party !

It won't do any harm to have Two Campaigning Groups for an English Parliament.

There was the organisation (and still is) "Families Need Fathers" but this group although government funded never achieved the same publicity as Fathers-4-Justice.

I'd suggest that Matt Man is a better "front man" then Michael Knowles, for an English Parliament Campaign Group however I am sure they will end up working together.

Wry smile from Mike Knowles. Yes, I know it's easy to be wise after the event, but even so it's bloody funny given recent events: Steve Uncles arrested.

Since this unseemly business was cleared up Steve Uncles has ended his silence and popped up on the British Democracy Forum to announce his belief that it's time for all English parties to "put aside their differences to agree a common strategy and campaign for the European 2009 Elections." It sounds reasonable enough until you realise that one of the parties Uncles is talking about is the England First Party. For me, and all the English nationalists that I know, such differences are impossible to put aside.

Sadly it was no great surprise to read that Matt O'Connor had accused the English Democrats Party of involvement with the far-right:

“I realised the English Democrats were working with ‘England First’ and had no choice other than to resign there and then.

“They try to present themselves as respectable ‘Middle England’ with leading members being solicitors and housewives.

“But the reality is something far different.

No great surprise, but still a disappointment because four years previously I had contacted the English Democrats over this very issue to warn them about their association with Third Way and, specifically, The Freedom Party through their English Lobby. Due to my naming of specific individuals the English Democrats accused me of being a member of Searchlight, but having assured them that I was not I eventually received the following reply from them:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven Uncles"
Cc: Christine Constable; Robin Tilbrook
Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2004 3:52 AM
Subject: English Democrats - 'Partner Parties

Dear Gareth

Just to respond to your question about 'English Democrats Party - Partner Parties'

English Lobby

The English Lobby was set up by Christine Constable, and included

English Democrats
Freedom Party
Third Way

All parties (I understand) had differing policies, but they shared the desire to have an English Parliament.

Christine has since been told that the some members of the Freedom Party are former National Front, and also they seem to be having some internal squabbles so it has been difficult to communicate with them.

Therefore the English Lobby is now officially just

English Democrats
Third Way

=============================================

I have personally had conversations with the following parties

Liberals (Old)
Countryside Party
Senior Citizens Party

England First
English Independence Party
New England Party

The Senior Citizens Party is led by a founder CEP member, so they are in favour of an English Parliament, but also in favour of Regional Assemblies.

England First is led by Mark Cotterill [link added by Toque], who has a history of White Nationalism, however (he says) that some of his members are far more moderate in terms of racism - before you totally dismiss them, then I would suggest you have a meeting, after all most of their agenda is pro-English.

We communicate with England First, to ensure that we don't put up candidates against each other in the same election - I am sure you would agree that this is tactically sensible.

Countryside Party - we are trying to make them aware of the English Constitutional mess we are in.

Liberal Party - we have manage to convince the Liberals that English issues need to be addressed.

To conclude

We speak and lobby a large number of parties, including UKIP, Conservatives, and Labour and Liberals.

We also try to speak to Scottish and Welsh Nationalists.

We do not have any formal channels with the BNP.

There are only four active English Nationalist Parties that I am aware of.

English Democrats (Non-Racist)
New England Party (Non-Racist)
English Independence Party (Some Racist views)
English First Party (Some Racist views)

I am not personally a racist, however I do not think that this should stop me (and anyone from the English Democrats Party) talking to other English Parties, who may have some racist views - for a start you may be able to 'convert' them if you talk to them !!!!!!

As for the ECC, this is 'open' to all those interested in the future of England, so we can't really shut people out of this.

Steve Radford, Chairman of the Liberal Party is openly 'gay' but I think you would agree that this should not stop the Liberals taking part in the ECC.

The Countryside Party, want to chase foxes, again, does this preclude these people from debating the future of England ?

The Senior Citizens Party, as I see it is prejudice against people under the age of 50, again this is not something I agree with, but should it preclude them from taking part in the ECC ????

Both the England First Party, and the English Nationalist Party, are suggesting policies of voluntary repatriation, well again, this is not something that I think they should have in their policies, but again does this preclude them from discussing the future of England ??????

I have a personal rule that I always meet people before making a judgement on what they are, or what they have supposed to have done.

I would strongly suggest that the CEP sends someone to meet with England First before you jump to conclusions, and demand that they take links off of their site, as these sort of communications will cause bad feeling - there are enough people to fight, without creating a few more!!!!!!!!

Focus on what you have in common with people, rather then what you have that is different - that's my advice anyway.

Hope this helps

Steve

It is deeply worrying that the English Democrats think you can 'convert' racists into English nationalists by talking to them. Not only does it display an astonishing naivety, but one also has to ask "Why?". As an avowedly civic nationalist party the English Democrats ought to be putting up candidates against racist ethnic nationalists and fighting them on the doorsteps with an inclusive brand of English nationalism. Trying to convert right-wing goons, or negotiating a strategic alliance with them, is not only morally repugnant but also down-right stupid and self-defeating.

That racists can be converted into English nationalists appears to be beyond doubt if the EDP website is to be believed. In this article Alan Winder (who according to some sources has links with the National Front, BNP and Combat18) describes his journey from white nationalism to British nationalism to English nationalism, as if it's a quite natural progression; English nationalism as a position of convenience when political reality has extinguished the political potency of other nationalisms. Frankly I'm appalled by it because that's not how I arrived at English nationalism, and I have no desire to be associated with such people. But unfortunately - as an English nationalist - I am associated with it because of the contacts the EDP forge and the drivel that they publish on their website.

The EDP's Alan Winder article even hotlinks to now removed images on the England First Party website

Due to a recent acrimonious party split, in which two national council members left the English Democrats, it was revealed that the EngDems had yet again been meeting with the England First Party, which is presumably the source of Matt O'Connor's accusations. Naturally I was horrified. Steve Uncles confirmed to me that two meetings had taken place with the England First Party, one in 2003 and one in 2007, and went on to reveal his strategy: "it is highly unlikely that he will get elected if two English parties stand in the same area". But a different story emerged from the English Democrats Communications Officer, Ed Abrams, who told me that "NO meeting was ever agreed to or sanctioned by the NC of our party", and "if a meeting did take place then it was down to that individual and nothing to do with the party"..

The obsession that the EngDems have with minor fringe players is, in my opinion, damaging to the cause of civic nationalists like me. As well as these various little English parties they've also tried to poach the likes of Winston McKenzie and Robert Kilroy-Silk from Veritas, and then came their one notable success: Matt O'Connor.

There's a huge centre-ground of people who vote Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat, and it's those people that the English Democrats need to attract. This won't be achieved from a position in the gutter. The EDP have never taken my advice on anything (which is why I reluctantly write this article), and perhaps they won't now, but for what it's worth here's my advice: Stop meeting with racists, instead you should fight them; differentiate yourselves from ethnic nationalists in the minds of the public, help show that English nationalism is not soft white nationalism; move yourself out from the fringes, focus on the mainstream; stop poaching from other parties, recruit from your own ranks, and; for all our sakes start preaching the progressive nationalist values that I think you believe in, make those your main focus and people will find common ground with you.

UPDATE: See The English effect is happening!

Do you remember the hostilities between the English Democrats and Matt O'Connor? Well, according to a contributor to the British Democracy Forum things have escalated:

We can confirm that Steve Uncles was arrested this Monday at a Hampshire Police station for harassment of Mr O'Connor's family. We also understand Robin Tilbrook is also going to be interviewed in relation to the same charges. We will be making a formal statement when we have all the information.

Obviously the word 'allegedly' should be used here, somewhere, because you shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet. It might be that Matt's new party "Endeavor" is engaging in a bit of publicity seeking. If not then it's bad news for English Democrats because according to the Electoral Commission Uncles and Tilbrook have bankrolled the party to the tune of £17,000 and £54,000 respectively.

Upon hearing of O'Connor's intention to resign as the EDP's London mayoral candidate Steve Uncles commented "The only way he can actually resign is if he dies".

From the English Democrats' Forum and the British Democracy Forum comes this dispatch from Steven Uncles, Party Secretary for the English Democrats:

English Democrats London Mayoral Candidate - Matt O'Connor, today announced in a press conference close to his "Shock Scot" Campaign Poster at London Bridge Railway station, that he would be launching a new "Hard Hitting" English Parliament Campaign Group in May 2008, directly after the London Mayoral Elections.

He explained that the English Parliament issue is a "Killer Issue" and the established "Campaign for an English Parliament" is virtually invisible to most members of the public,and that's after 10 years of existance, he continued it's difficult to understand what the leadership of the Campaign for an English Parliament have been doing, it's time for a fresh radicle approach to gain justice for England, and maximum publicity for the issue.

He promised to firmly establish the "English Parliament" issue at the very top of the political agenda, once outside the restrictions of an the Mayoral Election Campaign, in a similar way to his Fathers-4-Justice campaign.

"I'll make sure the established politicians can no longer ignore the will of the English people"

The Campaign for an English Parliament recently rejected an offer by Matt O'Connor to speak at their "Future of England Conference" on April 26 in London, as they were afraid it may attract "too much attention".

ENDS

A dyslexic CEP, just what England needs.

The English Democrats have unwisely leaked an email from former member Andrew Constantine, details of which are to be found on the British Democracy Forum.

Hi guys

This is a "musing on a Saturday afternoon" moment, but I am wondering whether we should entertain a move to independence either by another formal NC motion at the AGM in Sept 2008 - or at least by setting up an "independence crazies" formal section of the party.

I have some pragmatic reasons for this musing:

1. Most days I manage to speak to someone about our policies. I am not managing to convert, or even influence, many. Perhaps I am a poor salesmen, but I believe that the real issue is that many folks do not understand the UK constitution, do not appreciate what having n English parliament implies, and get hung up about what "English" means. Compare and contrast with the simplicity of the SNP policy and its media coverage. There would be no doubt about what "Independence for England" means; nor would it raise questions about nationality, race etc.

2. We are not managing to inspire others sufficiently well to build the party quickly enough. Our official policy is an English parliament within a Federal UK. It appeals to a number English nationalists, but we are not succeeding in getting any big hitters to finance us. The fact that a person is rich and successful in business does not mean they are necessarily very bright when it comes to constitutional theory. "Independence for England" is a simple and effective message.

3. The SNP might assist us if we move to independence. Even informally we could pinch material from their websites, leaflets etc. I have just done this on the cogs forum as an example.

4. Our media coverage is often very limited. Some of the same reasons that apply above might be relevant here. A journalist might hesitate to write about us when they see the emphasis we place on the adjective "English". "Independence for England" is of course more extreme, but it is also similar and matches the SNP message. So the media can see at a glance what we are about.

Important reasons for great caution on this issue

My key concern is not to damage the party.
We cannot afford any factionalism.

UKIP are in real poor condition and we are the natural home for disillusioned UKIPpers whilst we argue for a federal UK.

Query - As a first step - It is possible to have a sub-set in the party calling for independence without damaging the party and our cause?

Kind Regards, Andrew

Andrew was an EDP national council member until a spat over EDP policy and some bitter in-fighting led to his resignation and the formation of the Free England Party. The ill will continues as Andrew's Telegraph blog shows.

This wasn't going to be a political blog but some people just make me so angry......

Take these two for example

They look like fine upstanding fellows don't they? Honest, dependable, straight-talking......you'd have thought so wouldn't you?

Well, you'd be wrong because it would appear that they are nothing less than a couple treacherous toads.

Steven Uncles (of the English Democrats Party) has received this email:

Iain Dale is the chap on the right of the photo, he was the failed prospective parliamentary candidate that the English Democrat candidate stood down for in Norfolk during the UK general election. Mr Dale was also a participant in the English Constitutional Convention, the stated aim of which is "To draft a plan for a Parliament for the People of England, within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in furtherance of both the proclamation in the United Nations Charter of the sovereign right of the self-determination for nations and peoples and the precedent set by the United Kingdom (UK) government's Devolution Acts for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland."

The chap on the left of the photo is David Davis who, in 2001, wrote:

If each of the other nations of the United Kingdom is going to have its own parliament , then England's choice should be no less. If Labour truly believes that this is the proper future for the people of Scotland and Wales, their logic must mean the same for England. This means equal treatment in all respects. Not just financially, although we should have funding equality for England, Scotland and Wales. Nor just in Westminster representation - although we should have that equalised from the next election, not in fifteen years time as Labour propose.

The people of England deserve no less than the same choice as the peoples of Wales and Scotland last September: a referendum on whether they want a parliament of their own. In their own words, Labour should trust the people - in this case the people of England. An English parliament, on the same basis as the Scottish one, will be the minimum that the English people are likely to be satisfied with.

Anything less will lead to disaffection and discontent, to a belief that the English are being treated as second class citizens in their own land. If Labour wanted to bring about the dissolution of the United Kingdom, that disaffection would be the way to do it.

This was consistent with David Davis' support of the 1998 English Parliament referendum bill during which debate he said:

My argument concerns what would happen if there were not an English Parliament, but an English Grand Committee, or English-designated legislation or English-designated days. In those circumstances, the UK Government could propose a health Bill which, because it would be an English health Bill, would be defeated. The Executive would be defeated time and time again on principle planks of their manifesto. How long would this Government put up with that situation? Straight away we would have a major constitutional crisis.

[...]

We must have an English Executive. If we have anything other than that, we cannot solve the problem. That is why I arrive at my position--not by emotion or sentiment, but by the elimination of the other possibilities. If we choose the other possibilities, we will have a constitutional crisis, and then we really will have a problem with English nationalism. At that point, the English will feel badly treated.

I have one minute to deal with some of the canards, so I shall be brief. It is argued that such conflict does not happen very often, but we are legislating for centuries. If it happens once, it is a problem, and in centuries it will happen much more often.

Some argue that an English Parliament would accelerate the break-up of the Union. My argument is based on my experience in Canada, which has a similar federal system. There are much greater tensions between Quebec and Ontario than there ever are between Scotland and England, yet the federal system has withstood the pressures.

So what has changed in the intervening years? Not a lot, other than the urgency with which the issue of English representation needs to be addressed. The apparent about turn of Mssrs Davis and Dale must be seen as a cynical ploy to deceive the Conservative Party voters. Sadly it looks as if Alfie the OK was correct when he said that Davis would forget his principles in his bid to become Tory leader. And it also looks like the English Democrats have been led a merry dance by Iain Dale too.

The new found belief in 'English Votes on English Matters' in preference to an English parliament and executive may make Davis a Conspiracy-of-the-Toads-monger because it looks very much to me as if he is going back on his strongly held beliefs in order to garner support from his electorate - in this case the parliamentary Conservative Party.

Read Wonko's take on this