Today's most viewed
| NEWS |  | | | | | | | | | | | WEST HAM | | | SOUTHEND UNITED | |
|
|
|
Nationalists to stand in Rayleigh election
FOUR members of a party supporting the creation of an English Parliament will stand in Rayleigh for May's local elections.
The English Democrats will field candidates in the town's Central, Lodge, Trinity and Whitehouse wards.
The party wants devolution for England, creating a federal system within the UK and the withdrawal of the whole country from the European Union.
The party's Eastern Counties chairman, Brian Lee, 73, said: "We thought it would be better to make a big spread in Rayleigh, rather than scatter too thin. We should be able to maintain a good challenge.
"There are about 60 Scottish MPs who have no power over their own country because of devolution, but can influence English laws.
"We are being governed by foreigners and a lot of people are getting fed up with it."
Paula Hayter, a teacher who attracted 30 per cent of the vote in Rayleigh Lodge ward last year, will stand in the same ward again. Kim Gandy will stand in Central ward, Mrs Hayter's husband, John, will stand in Trinity ward, and Ken Bennett, also a former UKIP activist, will stand in Whitehouse ward.
8:08am Sunday 23rd March 2008
Print 
Email this 
CommentPosted by: bob, wickford on 9:06am Sun 23 Mar 08
about time too, england is waking up ;-))
about time too, england is waking up ;-))
Posted by: rimmer, essex on 9:20am Sun 23 Mar 08
About time to!!
I am sick to death of Scotsman ruling this country.
Cameron name also sniffs of Scotland!!
About time to!!
I am sick to death of Scotsman ruling this country.
Cameron name also sniffs of Scotland!!
Posted by: evilc, essex on 9:22am Sun 23 Mar 08
Great Lets stop at the border OUR money going out!!to feed our biggest critics and spongers!!
Great Lets stop at the border OUR money going out!!to feed our biggest critics and spongers!!
Posted by: the undertaker, crays hill on 10:12am Sun 23 Mar 08
This is good to see, But i would like to see all these minority parties who want to put our country first, amalgamate under one umbrella and make a real challenge to the three mainstream corrupt parties.
This is good to see, But i would like to see all these minority parties who want to put our country first, amalgamate under one umbrella and make a real challenge to the three mainstream corrupt parties.
Posted by: Mad as a box of ex-UKIP fruitcakes, Barking mad on 10:15am Sun 23 Mar 08
Brian Lee and Ken Bennett - former UKIP fruitcakes.
Now join another nutty party!
Lets look at a recent English Democrat result - 20th March 2008 - Vassall ward - London Borough of Lambeth.
Lib Dem 1209
Lab 859
Con 206
Green 109
EngDem 8
Ind 7
8 VOTES - and it takes 10 people to nominate you!!!
Brian Lee and Ken Bennett - former UKIP fruitcakes.
Now join another nutty party!
Lets look at a recent English Democrat result - 20th March 2008 - Vassall ward - London Borough of Lambeth.
Lib Dem 1209
Lab 859
Con 206
Green 109
EngDem 8
Ind 7
8 VOTES - and it takes 10 people to nominate you!!!
Posted by: evilc, essex on 10:32am Sun 23 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Mad as a box of ex-UKIP fruitcakes[/bold] wrote:
Brian Lee and Ken Bennett - former UKIP fruitcakes. Now join another nutty party! Lets look at a recent English Democrat result - 20th March 2008 - Vassall ward - London Borough of Lambeth. Lib Dem 1209 Lab 859 Con 206 Green 109 EngDem 8 Ind 7 8 VOTES - and it takes 10 people to nominate you!!![/quote] Are you a KGB agent?
Mad as a box of ex-UKIP fruitcakes wrote:
Brian Lee and Ken Bennett - former UKIP fruitcakes. Now join another nutty party! Lets look at a recent English Democrat result - 20th March 2008 - Vassall ward - London Borough of Lambeth. Lib Dem 1209 Lab 859 Con 206 Green 109 EngDem 8 Ind 7 8 VOTES - and it takes 10 people to nominate you!!!
Are you a KGB agent?
Posted by: Silky, Rayleigh on 10:58am Sun 23 Mar 08
No problem with English MP's only being able to vote on English issues but remember Scottish devolution kick-started because for a time in the 1980's they were ruled by an English? political party that had no MP's north of the border. I just hope the English Democrats can keep out some of the nut cases which seem to attach themselves to political parties of this type, believe me there are plenty in the SNP, otherwise you are finished before you begin.
No problem with English MP's only being able to vote on English issues but remember Scottish devolution kick-started because for a time in the 1980's they were ruled by an English? political party that had no MP's north of the border. I just hope the English Democrats can keep out some of the nut cases which seem to attach themselves to political parties of this type, believe me there are plenty in the SNP, otherwise you are finished before you begin.
Posted by: common sense person, southend on 4:06pm Sun 23 Mar 08
Have this party considered where England will get its water and oil from?Most of it at present comes from Scotland or off the Scottish coast.
I am sure that the Scots will be offered a better price from Europe than we could possibly afford.
I must admit i sometimes do despair of the present 3 parties but this latest political party is living in some dim and very distant past.
Have this party considered where England will get its water and oil from?Most of it at present comes from Scotland or off the Scottish coast.
I am sure that the Scots will be offered a better price from Europe than we could possibly afford.
I must admit i sometimes do despair of the present 3 parties but this latest political party is living in some dim and very distant past.
Posted by: cheryl, Argyll on 6:10pm Sun 23 Mar 08
Lambeth? That's the borough where only 23% of the schoolkids are White isn't it? No wonder they all vote Lib Dum and Lie-bore.
You make me laugh, you call Scots foreigners, yet you call Africans and Asians "British". You're all so frightened of being called racist that you welcome the extinction of your own race.
Spineless, mindless and downtrodden; your Anglo-Saxon, Viking and Celtic ancestors would be ashamed of you all.
Lambeth? That's the borough where only 23% of the schoolkids are White isn't it? No wonder they all vote Lib Dum and Lie-bore.
You make me laugh, you call Scots foreigners, yet you call Africans and Asians "British". You're all so frightened of being called racist that you welcome the extinction of your own race.
Spineless, mindless and downtrodden; your Anglo-Saxon, Viking and Celtic ancestors would be ashamed of you all.
Posted by: Andrew, Shoeburyness on 6:38pm Sun 23 Mar 08
[bold]Glad to see a party for England and the people of England. Although I fear that if they do not get their purpose and agenda out to the public they will poll badly.
The Welsh have Plaid Cymru, the Scots have the Scottish National Party, why shouldn't England also have a voice?
I'm betting those who speak against this party are not England born.[/bold]
Glad to see a party for England and the people of England. Although I fear that if they do not get their purpose and agenda out to the public they will poll badly.
The Welsh have Plaid Cymru, the Scots have the Scottish National Party, why shouldn't England also have a voice?
I'm betting those who speak against this party are not England born. Posted by: John, UK on 7:17pm Sun 23 Mar 08
I reckon that once the overspill of Poles Kurds Indians Chinese Zimbawbians Vietnamese Ukranians and Kosovans move into Rayleigh from Southend Grays Basildon and Tilbury you might not get many votes.
I reckon that once the overspill of Poles Kurds Indians Chinese Zimbawbians Vietnamese Ukranians and Kosovans move into Rayleigh from Southend Grays Basildon and Tilbury you might not get many votes.
Posted by: the undertaker, crays hill on 10:21pm Sun 23 Mar 08
[quote][bold]cheryl[/bold] wrote:
Lambeth? That's the borough where only 23% of the schoolkids are White isn't it? No wonder they all vote Lib Dum and Lie-bore. You make me laugh, you call Scots foreigners, yet you call Africans and Asians "British". You're all so frightened of being called racist that you welcome the extinction of your own race. Spineless, mindless and downtrodden; your Anglo-Saxon, Viking and Celtic ancestors would be ashamed of you all.[/quote] Thats a bit of a strong accusation coming from a scot, whos hero "bonnie prince charlie" absconded from the fray in a womens dress....!
If thats all you have to offer on this forum im not suprised you live in a one horse town with a one cell brain.
Obviously you arent the sharpest tool in the box, so why dont one of your redneck cousins do you up the bottle and make another ginger haired cabbage.
cheryl wrote:
Lambeth? That's the borough where only 23% of the schoolkids are White isn't it? No wonder they all vote Lib Dum and Lie-bore. You make me laugh, you call Scots foreigners, yet you call Africans and Asians "British". You're all so frightened of being called racist that you welcome the extinction of your own race. Spineless, mindless and downtrodden; your Anglo-Saxon, Viking and Celtic ancestors would be ashamed of you all.
Thats a bit of a strong accusation coming from a scot, whos hero "bonnie prince charlie" absconded from the fray in a womens dress....!
If thats all you have to offer on this forum im not suprised you live in a one horse town with a one cell brain.
Obviously you arent the sharpest tool in the box, so why dont one of your redneck cousins do you up the bottle and make another ginger haired cabbage.
Posted by: Mark, Southend on 11:20pm Sun 23 Mar 08
And why shouldn't the English have their own party? English can actually encompass all colours. Unfortunately this word "British" applies to no one. If you're born in England surely you're English. British is a cop out. Quite simply England - Love it or leave it. British - go to Britain - a country that belongs in the past. I'm English and proud and wish we had a candidate for Southend. In fact I would vote for any part that could kick out the traitor party - sorry Labour.
And why shouldn't the English have their own party? English can actually encompass all colours. Unfortunately this word "British" applies to no one. If you're born in England surely you're English. British is a cop out. Quite simply England - Love it or leave it. British - go to Britain - a country that belongs in the past. I'm English and proud and wish we had a candidate for Southend. In fact I would vote for any part that could kick out the traitor party - sorry Labour.
Posted by: steve on 12:08am Mon 24 Mar 08
[quote][bold]the undertaker[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]cheryl[/bold] wrote: Lambeth? That's the borough where only 23% of the schoolkids are White isn't it? No wonder they all vote Lib Dum and Lie-bore. You make me laugh, you call Scots foreigners, yet you call Africans and Asians "British". You're all so frightened of being called racist that you welcome the extinction of your own race. Spineless, mindless and downtrodden; your Anglo-Saxon, Viking and Celtic ancestors would be ashamed of you all.[/quote] Thats a bit of a strong accusation coming from a scot, whos hero "bonnie prince charlie" absconded from the fray in a womens dress....! If thats all you have to offer on this forum im not suprised you live in a one horse town with a one cell brain. Obviously you arent the sharpest tool in the box, so why dont one of your redneck cousins do you up the bottle and make another ginger haired cabbage.[/quote] Brilliant!
the undertaker wrote:
cheryl wrote: Lambeth? That's the borough where only 23% of the schoolkids are White isn't it? No wonder they all vote Lib Dum and Lie-bore. You make me laugh, you call Scots foreigners, yet you call Africans and Asians "British". You're all so frightened of being called racist that you welcome the extinction of your own race. Spineless, mindless and downtrodden; your Anglo-Saxon, Viking and Celtic ancestors would be ashamed of you all.
Thats a bit of a strong accusation coming from a scot, whos hero "bonnie prince charlie" absconded from the fray in a womens dress....! If thats all you have to offer on this forum im not suprised you live in a one horse town with a one cell brain. Obviously you arent the sharpest tool in the box, so why dont one of your redneck cousins do you up the bottle and make another ginger haired cabbage.
Brilliant!
Posted by: Kim Gandy, Rayleigh on 7:52am Mon 24 Mar 08
So wht's the definition of a fruitcake then? Somebody whose views you don't agree with?
And Cheryl has a point about Lambeth.
On my first outing in Basildon a few years ago, for the EDP, I poled 510 votes, beating Labour and Lib Dems.. So there!
Pulling out one random statistic like that isn't convincing anybody. OK so mine is also a random statistic but let's see where positive inroads can be made.
I am not a politician, I am a working mother. I have no agenda other than to be a voice for those who are fed up with the way things are.
I am not an expert in the way local government is run but if elected I would find out wouldn't I?
At least I'm not some complacent red-faced local fatcat Tory, nor am I some insipid politically correct left winger.
I have knocked on many doors in previous elections and listened to the sorts of moans I hear above.
People have had enough of not being heard.
They want alternatives and that isn't always going to mean BNP.
People shouldn't vote for the main three just because "I've always done it and my father did it before me".
We all know their agendas are anti English; nothing to choose between the lot of them.
Anyway, for the record, it takes a lot to stand for what you believe in and nobody here should criticise unless they are prepared to have a go themselves.
And beihg EDP doesn't make you anti Scottish. It just makes you anti paying for someone else to have a government and a raft of freebies that you cannot enjoy yourself.
Plain and simple.
One of my favourite colleagues at work is a Scot and she agrees.
Thanks to those above who have posted supportive comments.
It's nice to be encouraged instead of put down.
If I am voted in, I will listen to what it is that people think are the big issues. I cannot change the world but I am willing to listen and to help.
And if I knock on your door, I will be listening to YOUR views and ideas and I will NOT be asking you who you are voting for, nor offering incentives, like the Tories do.
If I don't knock on your door, please realise there are hundreds of houses and lots of people to get to and being a working person like most others I will have limited time.
If elected I will MAKE time for meetings etc.
So wht's the definition of a fruitcake then? Somebody whose views you don't agree with?
And Cheryl has a point about Lambeth.
On my first outing in Basildon a few years ago, for the EDP, I poled 510 votes, beating Labour and Lib Dems.. So there!
Pulling out one random statistic like that isn't convincing anybody. OK so mine is also a random statistic but let's see where positive inroads can be made.
I am not a politician, I am a working mother. I have no agenda other than to be a voice for those who are fed up with the way things are.
I am not an expert in the way local government is run but if elected I would find out wouldn't I?
At least I'm not some complacent red-faced local fatcat Tory, nor am I some insipid politically correct left winger.
I have knocked on many doors in previous elections and listened to the sorts of moans I hear above.
People have had enough of not being heard.
They want alternatives and that isn't always going to mean BNP.
People shouldn't vote for the main three just because "I've always done it and my father did it before me".
We all know their agendas are anti English; nothing to choose between the lot of them.
Anyway, for the record, it takes a lot to stand for what you believe in and nobody here should criticise unless they are prepared to have a go themselves.
And beihg EDP doesn't make you anti Scottish. It just makes you anti paying for someone else to have a government and a raft of freebies that you cannot enjoy yourself.
Plain and simple.
One of my favourite colleagues at work is a Scot and she agrees.
Thanks to those above who have posted supportive comments.
It's nice to be encouraged instead of put down.
If I am voted in, I will listen to what it is that people think are the big issues. I cannot change the world but I am willing to listen and to help.
And if I knock on your door, I will be listening to YOUR views and ideas and I will NOT be asking you who you are voting for, nor offering incentives, like the Tories do.
If I don't knock on your door, please realise there are hundreds of houses and lots of people to get to and being a working person like most others I will have limited time.
If elected I will MAKE time for meetings etc.
Posted by: Margaret Stoll, Rochford on 9:34am Mon 24 Mar 08
Mark of Southend - you wish there was an EDP candidate in Southend. Well, there could be - why don't YOU stand?
Kim is right. It's all about pounding the streets and knocking on doors, at this stage anyway. And that's the ONLY reason that I am not standing myself, in Rochford, is that I haven't got the physical capability of doing that. I'm what's called an 'Armchair Activist' instead, I do what I can.
I hope that my Anglo-Norse ancestors will not have reason to be ashamed of me. As an old warrior is reputed to have said: 'Our courage must grow as our strength fails'.
We have a lot of threats facing us, but some of us have nailed our colours to the mast and won't go quietly.
Mark of Southend - you wish there was an EDP candidate in Southend. Well, there could be - why don't YOU stand?
Kim is right. It's all about pounding the streets and knocking on doors, at this stage anyway. And that's the ONLY reason that I am not standing myself, in Rochford, is that I haven't got the physical capability of doing that. I'm what's called an 'Armchair Activist' instead, I do what I can.
I hope that my Anglo-Norse ancestors will not have reason to be ashamed of me. As an old warrior is reputed to have said: 'Our courage must grow as our strength fails'.
We have a lot of threats facing us, but some of us have nailed our colours to the mast and won't go quietly.
Posted by: Cheeky, Southend on Sea on 8:57pm Mon 24 Mar 08
[italic]On my first outing in Basildon a few years ago, for the EDP, I poled 510 votes, beating Labour and Lib Dems.. So there![/italic]
(Like the pantomime)
"Oh no you didn't"
Kim,
It is "polled" not "poled" and you [bold]DID NOT[/bold] beat the labour and libdems by 510 votes at all.
You are getting muddled up, your first outing was for Basildon in Crouch Ward in 10th June 2004 where you beat the Labour and Lib Dems, but not the Tories, election results as follows:
Conservative = 1121
English Dems = 420
Labour = 272
Lib Dems = 261
So, you beat Labour by 148 and Lib Dems by 159.
In your second outing on 5th May 2005 you came [bold]LAST[/bold] with 510 votes, election results as follows:
Labour = 18720
Conservative = 15578
Lib Dem = 4473
BNP = 2055
UKIP = 1143
Green = 662
English Democrats = 510.
If you want to further your political career I suggest that you get your facts right before you go bleating off about what you have and haven't done.
On my first outing in Basildon a few years ago, for the EDP, I poled 510 votes, beating Labour and Lib Dems.. So there!
(Like the pantomime)
"Oh no you didn't"
Kim,
It is "polled" not "poled" and you
DID NOT beat the labour and libdems by 510 votes at all.
You are getting muddled up, your first outing was for Basildon in Crouch Ward in 10th June 2004 where you beat the Labour and Lib Dems, but not the Tories, election results as follows:
Conservative = 1121
English Dems = 420
Labour = 272
Lib Dems = 261
So, you beat Labour by 148 and Lib Dems by 159.
In your second outing on 5th May 2005 you came
LAST with 510 votes, election results as follows:
Labour = 18720
Conservative = 15578
Lib Dem = 4473
BNP = 2055
UKIP = 1143
Green = 662
English Democrats = 510.
If you want to further your political career I suggest that you get your facts right before you go bleating off about what you have and haven't done.
Posted by: ?, ? on 9:23pm Mon 24 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Cheeky[/bold] wrote:
[italic]On my first outing in Basildon a few years ago, for the EDP, I poled 510 votes, beating Labour and Lib Dems.. So there![/italic] (Like the pantomime) "Oh no you didn't" Kim, It is "polled" not "poled" and you [bold]DID NOT[/bold] beat the labour and libdems by 510 votes at all. You are getting muddled up, your first outing was for Basildon in Crouch Ward in 10th June 2004 where you beat the Labour and Lib Dems, but not the Tories, election results as follows: Conservative = 1121 English Dems = 420 Labour = 272 Lib Dems = 261 So, you beat Labour by 148 and Lib Dems by 159. In your second outing on 5th May 2005 you came [bold]LAST[/bold] with 510 votes, election results as follows: Labour = 18720 Conservative = 15578 Lib Dem = 4473 BNP = 2055 UKIP = 1143 Green = 662 English Democrats = 510. If you want to further your political career I suggest that you get your facts right before you go bleating off about what you have and haven't done.[/quote] Now only someone like Grillo would be bored enough to BOTHER to RESEARCH all that.......Yawn
Cheeky wrote:
On my first outing in Basildon a few years ago, for the EDP, I poled 510 votes, beating Labour and Lib Dems.. So there! (Like the pantomime) "Oh no you didn't" Kim, It is "polled" not "poled" and you DID NOT beat the labour and libdems by 510 votes at all. You are getting muddled up, your first outing was for Basildon in Crouch Ward in 10th June 2004 where you beat the Labour and Lib Dems, but not the Tories, election results as follows: Conservative = 1121 English Dems = 420 Labour = 272 Lib Dems = 261 So, you beat Labour by 148 and Lib Dems by 159. In your second outing on 5th May 2005 you came LAST with 510 votes, election results as follows: Labour = 18720 Conservative = 15578 Lib Dem = 4473 BNP = 2055 UKIP = 1143 Green = 662 English Democrats = 510. If you want to further your political career I suggest that you get your facts right before you go bleating off about what you have and haven't done.
Now only someone like Grillo would be bored enough to BOTHER to RESEARCH all that.......Yawn
Posted by: Cheeky, Southend on Sea on 9:42pm Mon 24 Mar 08
I haven't researched it, it's my job to know about it and I have it all on file !
Even you must agree that to be a reasonable candidate you've got to get your facts straight !
I haven't researched it, it's my job to know about it and I have it all on file !
Even you must agree that to be a reasonable candidate you've got to get your facts straight !
Posted by: ?, ? on 9:50pm Mon 24 Mar 08
I dont trust any of them!
I dont trust any of them!
Posted by: Mark, Wickford on 8:23am Tue 25 Mar 08
Now that is bad. Really bad.
If a politician can't even be trusted to tell the truth about something as obvious as election results then we really have no hope with this one.
There is no way on Earth I would lend my vote to a compulsive liar.
I was initially tempted by some of the EDP's policies, having become sick of the mainstream parties myself, but to find one of their candidates openly lying, and stating that their main competition was the BNP.... I'm running a mile from this lot.
The EDP want an English parliament. Why? Who wants yet another level of bureaucracy and corruption? How will you deal with Westminster? What about foreign policy? Where will you get your taxes from?
This isn't an idea, it's a travesty. And if it's all backed by lies, well.... if you vote for them and by some miracle they get in, you only have yourselves to blame.
Incidentally I see this lie was corrected a month ago on the page with the story "Southend Council budget walkout". So it wasn't a mistake - it was a deliberate lie.
For shame. For shame.
Now that is bad. Really bad.
If a politician can't even be trusted to tell the truth about something as obvious as election results then we really have no hope with this one.
There is no way on Earth I would lend my vote to a compulsive liar.
I was initially tempted by some of the EDP's policies, having become sick of the mainstream parties myself, but to find one of their candidates openly lying, and stating that their main competition was the BNP.... I'm running a mile from this lot.
The EDP want an English parliament. Why? Who wants yet another level of bureaucracy and corruption? How will you deal with Westminster? What about foreign policy? Where will you get your taxes from?
This isn't an idea, it's a travesty. And if it's all backed by lies, well.... if you vote for them and by some miracle they get in, you only have yourselves to blame.
Incidentally I see this lie was corrected a month ago on the page with the story "Southend Council budget walkout". So it wasn't a mistake - it was a deliberate lie.
For shame. For shame.
Posted by: John, UK on 8:54am Tue 25 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Cheeky[/bold] wrote:
[italic]On my first outing in Basildon a few years ago, for the EDP, I poled 510 votes, beating Labour and Lib Dems.. So there![/italic] (Like the pantomime) \"Oh no you didn\'t\" Kim, It is \"polled\" not \"poled\" and you [bold]DID NOT[/bold] beat the labour and libdems by 510 votes at all. You are getting muddled up, your first outing was for Basildon in Crouch Ward in 10th June 2004 where you beat the Labour and Lib Dems, but not the Tories, election results as follows: Conservative = 1121 English Dems = 420 Labour = 272 Lib Dems = 261 So, you beat Labour by 148 and Lib Dems by 159. In your second outing on 5th May 2005 you came [bold]LAST[/bold] with 510 votes, election results as follows: Labour = 18720 Conservative = 15578 Lib Dem = 4473 BNP = 2055 UKIP = 1143 Green = 662 English Democrats = 510. If you want to further your political career I suggest that you get your facts right before you go bleating off about what you have and haven\'t done.[/quote] Oh Dear Kim just a few comments ago you were spouting off about how you are or were a journalist and you are the ones who tell us the truth.
Cheeky wrote:
On my first outing in Basildon a few years ago, for the EDP, I poled 510 votes, beating Labour and Lib Dems.. So there! (Like the pantomime) \"Oh no you didn\'t\" Kim, It is \"polled\" not \"poled\" and you DID NOT beat the labour and libdems by 510 votes at all. You are getting muddled up, your first outing was for Basildon in Crouch Ward in 10th June 2004 where you beat the Labour and Lib Dems, but not the Tories, election results as follows: Conservative = 1121 English Dems = 420 Labour = 272 Lib Dems = 261 So, you beat Labour by 148 and Lib Dems by 159. In your second outing on 5th May 2005 you came LAST with 510 votes, election results as follows: Labour = 18720 Conservative = 15578 Lib Dem = 4473 BNP = 2055 UKIP = 1143 Green = 662 English Democrats = 510. If you want to further your political career I suggest that you get your facts right before you go bleating off about what you have and haven\'t done.
Oh Dear Kim just a few comments ago you were spouting off about how you are or were a journalist and you are the ones who tell us the truth.
Posted by: Margaret Stoll, Rochford on 10:56am Tue 25 Mar 08
Mark of Wickford, the questions you ask are too many and too complicated to be answered in the small space available here. The answers are all available however: see the CEP website www.thecep.org.uk
Or look at the EDP website and read 'Policies' http://www.englishde
mocrats.org.uk/
Regarding taxes, we are ALREADY paying taxes! The difference would be, we wouldn't be paying via the Barnett Formula to subsidise Scotland and Wales. Many of us are tired of paying taxes for things that we don't benefit from in England, and there are numerous examples of this. There have been heart-rending examples of war heroes going blind, drugs are available which would help them but not available in England! There was a recent poll of the people of Berwick-on-Tweed who saw that numerous examples like free tuition fees, drugs, care for the elderly etc were available just a few miles to the north of them. They'd seen that they would actually be better off living in Scotland! And don't tell me that the Scots are better off because of oil (which is running out anyway). They're better off because of the Barnett Formula.
Mark of Wickford, the questions you ask are too many and too complicated to be answered in the small space available here. The answers are all available however: see the CEP website www.thecep.org.uk
Or look at the EDP website and read 'Policies' http://www.englishde
mocrats.org.uk/
Regarding taxes, we are ALREADY paying taxes! The difference would be, we wouldn't be paying via the Barnett Formula to subsidise Scotland and Wales. Many of us are tired of paying taxes for things that we don't benefit from in England, and there are numerous examples of this. There have been heart-rending examples of war heroes going blind, drugs are available which would help them but not available in England! There was a recent poll of the people of Berwick-on-Tweed who saw that numerous examples like free tuition fees, drugs, care for the elderly etc were available just a few miles to the north of them. They'd seen that they would actually be better off living in Scotland! And don't tell me that the Scots are better off because of oil (which is running out anyway). They're better off because of the Barnett Formula.
Posted by: Andrew, Shoeburyness on 11:00am Tue 25 Mar 08
Mark wrote: [italic]The EDP want an English parliament. Why? Who wants yet another level of bureaucracy and corruption? How will you deal with Westminster? What about foreign policy? Where will you get your taxes from[/italic]
[bold] Since Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland were granted their own Assemblies and Parliaments the people of England (everyone in England, not just the English, this is NOT a race thing) have been left disadvantaged. In Wales people get free prescriptions, free hospital parking, free eye checks and free dental checks, in Scotland they get the same, they also have no tuition fees and have this year frozen council tax and have proposed scrapping council tax totally and replacing it with a much fairer local income tax system. Those are the direct result of Wales and Scotland having their own Assembly and Parliament.
NONE of this has happened in England, because the people of England have NO-ONE to speak for the country as a whole. So consequently the people of England are now footing the bill for all these changes in the rest of the UK, witness the coming increase in prescription charges in England, the increase in hospital parking charges, the increases in council tax.
Surely an elected, visible English Parliament, representative of the people of England and accountable to them , is preferable to the unelected, faceless, non-representative, unaccountable quangos like the East Of England Regional Assembly.
Surely an elected English parliament is preferable to a Westminster government that only sees England as a cash cow for the rest of Britain to have free perks left right and centre.
Surely an elected English parliament is preferable to a Westminster government that refuses to use the words England and English, always referring to 'Britain' whenever they mean England.
The Campaign for an English Parliament is more relevant today than it has ever been.[/bold]
Mark wrote:
The EDP want an English parliament. Why? Who wants yet another level of bureaucracy and corruption? How will you deal with Westminster? What about foreign policy? Where will you get your taxes from
Since Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland were granted their own Assemblies and Parliaments the people of England (everyone in England, not just the English, this is NOT a race thing) have been left disadvantaged. In Wales people get free prescriptions, free hospital parking, free eye checks and free dental checks, in Scotland they get the same, they also have no tuition fees and have this year frozen council tax and have proposed scrapping council tax totally and replacing it with a much fairer local income tax system. Those are the direct result of Wales and Scotland having their own Assembly and Parliament.
NONE of this has happened in England, because the people of England have NO-ONE to speak for the country as a whole. So consequently the people of England are now footing the bill for all these changes in the rest of the UK, witness the coming increase in prescription charges in England, the increase in hospital parking charges, the increases in council tax.
Surely an elected, visible English Parliament, representative of the people of England and accountable to them , is preferable to the unelected, faceless, non-representative, unaccountable quangos like the East Of England Regional Assembly.
Surely an elected English parliament is preferable to a Westminster government that only sees England as a cash cow for the rest of Britain to have free perks left right and centre.
Surely an elected English parliament is preferable to a Westminster government that refuses to use the words England and English, always referring to 'Britain' whenever they mean England.
The Campaign for an English Parliament is more relevant today than it has ever been. Posted by: Andrew, Shoeburyness on 11:02am Tue 25 Mar 08
Mark wrote: [italic]The EDP want an English parliament. Why? Who wants yet another level of bureaucracy and corruption? How will you deal with Westminster? What about foreign policy? Where will you get your taxes from[/italic]
[bold] Since Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland were granted their own Assemblies and Parliaments the people of England (everyone in England, not just the English, this is NOT a race thing) have been left disadvantaged. In Wales people get free prescriptions, free hospital parking, free eye checks and free dental checks, in Scotland they get the same, they also have no tuition fees and have this year frozen council tax and have proposed scrapping council tax totally and replacing it with a much fairer local income tax system. Those are the direct result of Wales and Scotland having their own Assembly and Parliament.
NONE of this has happened in England, because the people of England have NO-ONE to speak for the country as a whole. So consequently the people of England are now footing the bill for all these changes in the rest of the UK, witness the coming increase in prescription charges in England, the increase in hospital parking charges, the increases in council tax.
Surely an elected, visible English Parliament, representative of the people of England and accountable to them , is preferable to the unelected, faceless, non-representative, unaccountable quangos like the East Of England Regional Assembly.
Surely an elected English parliament is preferable to a Westminster government that only sees England as a cash cow for the rest of Britain to have free perks left right and centre.
Surely an elected English parliament is preferable to a Westminster government that refuses to use the words England and English, always referring to 'Britain' whenever they mean England.
The Campaign for an English Parliament is more relevant today than it has ever been.[/bold]
Mark wrote:
The EDP want an English parliament. Why? Who wants yet another level of bureaucracy and corruption? How will you deal with Westminster? What about foreign policy? Where will you get your taxes from
Since Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland were granted their own Assemblies and Parliaments the people of England (everyone in England, not just the English, this is NOT a race thing) have been left disadvantaged. In Wales people get free prescriptions, free hospital parking, free eye checks and free dental checks, in Scotland they get the same, they also have no tuition fees and have this year frozen council tax and have proposed scrapping council tax totally and replacing it with a much fairer local income tax system. Those are the direct result of Wales and Scotland having their own Assembly and Parliament.
NONE of this has happened in England, because the people of England have NO-ONE to speak for the country as a whole. So consequently the people of England are now footing the bill for all these changes in the rest of the UK, witness the coming increase in prescription charges in England, the increase in hospital parking charges, the increases in council tax.
Surely an elected, visible English Parliament, representative of the people of England and accountable to them , is preferable to the unelected, faceless, non-representative, unaccountable quangos like the East Of England Regional Assembly.
Surely an elected English parliament is preferable to a Westminster government that only sees England as a cash cow for the rest of Britain to have free perks left right and centre.
Surely an elected English parliament is preferable to a Westminster government that refuses to use the words England and English, always referring to 'Britain' whenever they mean England.
The Campaign for an English Parliament is more relevant today than it has ever been. Posted by: Mark, Wickford on 11:14am Tue 25 Mar 08
[italic]Those are the direct result of Wales and Scotland having their own Assembly and Parliament.[/italic]
No, they aren't. They are a result of people in Scotland having parties that propose these policies, and an electorate that votes for them. Meanwhile we seem to continue to mess around with the same old liars in England.
We have an existing infrastructure - Westminster and local councils - that are more than adequate to deliver the same advantages to residents of England that the rest of the UK enjoys, without having to complicate the issue with yet another level of Government. And we all know that the English parliament would just blame Westminster for any problems - and vice versa - and nothing would get done. It would be like Network Rail, only more expensive and less effective.
Comparing quangos as an alternative is a meaningless point, with all due respect to Andrew. Nobody is proposing them as an alternative - in fact, most people would rather have NO quangoes and NO new governments. We just want the existing system, which has served us pretty well for centuries, to stop being so corrupt and useless. Which means replacing the people, not the system.
This policy of the EDP and their not-so-truthful candidates is a recipe for disaster.
And Margaret - the Barnett Formula is already under consideration for cancellation, even by Barnett himself. So it might be a good idea if you think of another policy, just in case your thunder is stolen just before 1 May.
Those are the direct result of Wales and Scotland having their own Assembly and Parliament.
No, they aren't. They are a result of people in Scotland having parties that propose these policies, and an electorate that votes for them. Meanwhile we seem to continue to mess around with the same old liars in England.
We have an existing infrastructure - Westminster and local councils - that are more than adequate to deliver the same advantages to residents of England that the rest of the UK enjoys, without having to complicate the issue with yet another level of Government. And we all know that the English parliament would just blame Westminster for any problems - and vice versa - and nothing would get done. It would be like Network Rail, only more expensive and less effective.
Comparing quangos as an alternative is a meaningless point, with all due respect to Andrew. Nobody is proposing them as an alternative - in fact, most people would rather have NO quangoes and NO new governments. We just want the existing system, which has served us pretty well for centuries, to stop being so corrupt and useless. Which means replacing the people, not the system.
This policy of the EDP and their not-so-truthful candidates is a recipe for disaster.
And Margaret - the Barnett Formula is already under consideration for cancellation, even by Barnett himself. So it might be a good idea if you think of another policy, just in case your thunder is stolen just before 1 May.
Posted by: Margaret Stoll, Rochford on 11:16am Tue 25 Mar 08
I completely agree with Andrew of Shoeburyness, who put it far better than I ever could.
There are actually plans afoot, via the EU, that England should disappear as a country and be referred to only as 'the English regions'. It's said to be 'too big' to be administratively managed. In that case why isn't it big enough to have its own Parliament! Listen to news items on the BBC. Anything referring to a person from Scotland is always 'the Scottish tennis-player' or whatever. A young girl from Devon murdered in Goa is described as a 'British girl' or worse, a 'Briton'.
An English Parliament would NOT mean an extra layer of bureaucracy and corruption, but rather, less of these! What need is there to split England into 9 regions approved by Europe? England has been run successfully by county and borough councils for many years - where's the need for unelected regional assemblies? It's because of Europe, that's where it comes from.
Andrew, are you going to the conference on Saturday 26th April on 'The Future of England' in central London? Anyone who has questions to ask would be well advised to come to that. Again, it's all on the CEP's website: www.thecep.org.uk
I completely agree with Andrew of Shoeburyness, who put it far better than I ever could.
There are actually plans afoot, via the EU, that England should disappear as a country and be referred to only as 'the English regions'. It's said to be 'too big' to be administratively managed. In that case why isn't it big enough to have its own Parliament! Listen to news items on the BBC. Anything referring to a person from Scotland is always 'the Scottish tennis-player' or whatever. A young girl from Devon murdered in Goa is described as a 'British girl' or worse, a 'Briton'.
An English Parliament would NOT mean an extra layer of bureaucracy and corruption, but rather, less of these! What need is there to split England into 9 regions approved by Europe? England has been run successfully by county and borough councils for many years - where's the need for unelected regional assemblies? It's because of Europe, that's where it comes from.
Andrew, are you going to the conference on Saturday 26th April on 'The Future of England' in central London? Anyone who has questions to ask would be well advised to come to that. Again, it's all on the CEP's website: www.thecep.org.uk
Posted by: Andrew, Shoeburyness on 11:28am Tue 25 Mar 08
Mark wrote: [italic]No, they aren't. They are a result of people in Scotland having parties that propose these policies, and an electorate that votes for them. Meanwhile we seem to continue to mess around with the same old liars in England.[/italic]
[bold]The advantages in Wales and Scotland are the direct result of them having devolved Assembly and Parliament that can decide health, education and council tax matters to suit their own countries.
The people of England do not have that choice. We get the Westminster parliament where Scots and Welsh MPs who voted for the abolition of tuition fees, prescription charges etc. in their own countries, vote to keep them in England.
An English Parliament is the ONLY way the people of England will ever achieve parity with the rest of the UK.[/bold]
Mark wrote:
No, they aren't. They are a result of people in Scotland having parties that propose these policies, and an electorate that votes for them. Meanwhile we seem to continue to mess around with the same old liars in England.
The advantages in Wales and Scotland are the direct result of them having devolved Assembly and Parliament that can decide health, education and council tax matters to suit their own countries.
The people of England do not have that choice. We get the Westminster parliament where Scots and Welsh MPs who voted for the abolition of tuition fees, prescription charges etc. in their own countries, vote to keep them in England.
An English Parliament is the ONLY way the people of England will ever achieve parity with the rest of the UK. Posted by: Mark, Wickford on 11:57am Tue 25 Mar 08
Andrew, something tells me we'll never agree on this issue!!
I think the crux is your statement "An English Parliament is the ONLY way the people of England will ever achieve parity with the rest of the UK."
Yet, as I said - and as you also appear to concede - the Westminster Parliament DOES have the power to do this. So an English Parliament is not the "only" way, just your preferred way.
So I return to my argument, which is that we can get the same "advantages" as the Scots and Welsh simply by passing the relevant laws in Westminster. And not therefore requiring an additional level of Government, to add to the existing confusion of who is responsible for what.
All that is missing is the political will - the system to bring these changes into effect already exists.
Hence, I am not convinced by the case for an English Parliament - and many of my fellow Englishmen and women are the same.
Andrew, something tells me we'll never agree on this issue!!
I think the crux is your statement "An English Parliament is the ONLY way the people of England will ever achieve parity with the rest of the UK."
Yet, as I said - and as you also appear to concede - the Westminster Parliament DOES have the power to do this. So an English Parliament is not the "only" way, just your preferred way.
So I return to my argument, which is that we can get the same "advantages" as the Scots and Welsh simply by passing the relevant laws in Westminster. And not therefore requiring an additional level of Government, to add to the existing confusion of who is responsible for what.
All that is missing is the political will - the system to bring these changes into effect already exists.
Hence, I am not convinced by the case for an English Parliament - and many of my fellow Englishmen and women are the same.
Posted by: Margaret Stoll, Rochford on 11:57am Tue 25 Mar 08
You've answered your own question, Mark!
Mark wrote: No, they aren't. They are a result of people in Scotland having parties that propose these policies, and an electorate that votes for them.
So why haven't the people of England got a party that proposes policies beneficial to England, and a party that votes for them, as you put it?
We have - it's called the English Democrats Party and its slogan is 'Putting England First'.
Why not get involved, Mark - say what you have to say where it matters instead of talking about 'we seem to mess around with the same old liars in England'.
We have a Prime Minister to whom it seems to be actually painful to use the word 'England' or 'English'. Both he, the present Chancellor, and other senior politicians, signed a Declaration that 'they would put the interests of Scotland first'. Given that, do you wonder that there is a growing number of people who want politicians who are prepared to commit themselves to 'putting the interests of England first'?
You've answered your own question, Mark!
Mark wrote: No, they aren't. They are a result of people in Scotland having parties that propose these policies, and an electorate that votes for them.
So why haven't the people of England got a party that proposes policies beneficial to England, and a party that votes for them, as you put it?
We have - it's called the English Democrats Party and its slogan is 'Putting England First'.
Why not get involved, Mark - say what you have to say where it matters instead of talking about 'we seem to mess around with the same old liars in England'.
We have a Prime Minister to whom it seems to be actually painful to use the word 'England' or 'English'. Both he, the present Chancellor, and other senior politicians, signed a Declaration that 'they would put the interests of Scotland first'. Given that, do you wonder that there is a growing number of people who want politicians who are prepared to commit themselves to 'putting the interests of England first'?
Posted by: Mark, Wickford on 12:12pm Tue 25 Mar 08
Margaret - I thought joining discussions like this means that I *am* involved, doesn't it? I am taking my opportunity to have my say where it matters - and if you object to me calling the political classes 'liars' then I would refer you to any number of recent funding scandals, cash for honours, or even blatant spinning of election results from your candidate on this very page.
It seems you are only objecting to my contribution, or lack thereof, because we disagree on this issue.
Yes, the EDP claim to have policies to back up it's slogan. Yet we also see it's candidates lying about voting results, and peddling tabloid trash like "There are actually plans afoot, via the EU, that England should disappear as a country and be referred to only as 'the English regions'", or claiming that there is a secret Scottish mafia bent on destroying England. That sounds like paranoid nonsense to me, I'm afraid. The world seems to have moved on and left you behind.
Margaret - I thought joining discussions like this means that I *am* involved, doesn't it? I am taking my opportunity to have my say where it matters - and if you object to me calling the political classes 'liars' then I would refer you to any number of recent funding scandals, cash for honours, or even blatant spinning of election results from your candidate on this very page.
It seems you are only objecting to my contribution, or lack thereof, because we disagree on this issue.
Yes, the EDP claim to have policies to back up it's slogan. Yet we also see it's candidates lying about voting results, and peddling tabloid trash like "There are actually plans afoot, via the EU, that England should disappear as a country and be referred to only as 'the English regions'", or claiming that there is a secret Scottish mafia bent on destroying England. That sounds like paranoid nonsense to me, I'm afraid. The world seems to have moved on and left you behind.
Posted by: Mark, Wickford on 12:33pm Tue 25 Mar 08
To add to my point on the extra layer of politicians, bureaucracy and cost which an English Parliament would bring us. This is precisely one of the reasons why the people of England’s North East voted against having a regional assembly. No one wants more government, more politicians, and more expense – presumably including the EDP. Yet the previous devolutions ten years or so ago carefully avoided any measures which affected the salaries and prospects for political advancement of the existing Scottish and Welsh MPs in Westminster, and the same goes for the civil service. The already heaving parliamentary payroll - which we pay for ourselves - was added to by another 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament and 60 Members of the Welsh Assembly. That means more salaries, more expenses and more paid assistants... not to mention more paperwork. Yet, even though the Scots and Welsh took over the responsibilities of the Secretaries of State for both Scotland and Wales, both offices were retained in Westminster - as were their places in the Cabinet, and their salaries. Likewise the range of Government portfolios available to Scottish, Welsh and NI MPs was retained in full. A whole new civil service was also created in both Scotland and Wales. How can duplicating this in England cause anything but more harm?
To add to my point on the extra layer of politicians, bureaucracy and cost which an English Parliament would bring us. This is precisely one of the reasons why the people of England’s North East voted against having a regional assembly. No one wants more government, more politicians, and more expense – presumably including the EDP. Yet the previous devolutions ten years or so ago carefully avoided any measures which affected the salaries and prospects for political advancement of the existing Scottish and Welsh MPs in Westminster, and the same goes for the civil service. The already heaving parliamentary payroll - which we pay for ourselves - was added to by another 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament and 60 Members of the Welsh Assembly. That means more salaries, more expenses and more paid assistants... not to mention more paperwork. Yet, even though the Scots and Welsh took over the responsibilities of the Secretaries of State for both Scotland and Wales, both offices were retained in Westminster - as were their places in the Cabinet, and their salaries. Likewise the range of Government portfolios available to Scottish, Welsh and NI MPs was retained in full. A whole new civil service was also created in both Scotland and Wales. How can duplicating this in England cause anything but more harm?
Posted by: Oh dear! on 1:23pm Tue 25 Mar 08
Telling lies eh - Robin Tilbrook would be pleased!
Telling lies eh - Robin Tilbrook would be pleased!
Posted by: Andrew, Shoeburyness on 1:29pm Tue 25 Mar 08
[bold]The people of the North East voted against a regional assembly because they would rather have the same right to self determination granted the Welsh, Northern Irish and the Scots. They want an English Parliament.
Yet, even though that regional assembly was rejected, Westminster has still imposed those regional assemblies without a mandate from the English electorate, hence the East Of England Regional Assembly: unwanted, unelected, unaccountable and faceless. Which exists only to impose EU law and Westminster rulings, regardless of what the people and the elected councils and MPs of that 'region' actually want.
I would rather these regional assemblies were disbanded and replaced with an English Parliament, elected by the people of England, answerable to the people of England and visible to the people of England.[/bold]
[italic]How can duplicating this in England cause anything but more harm?[/italic]
[bold]The only harm it could possibly cause is stemming the flow of taxes raised in England going to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Frankly I do not understand how anyone calling themselves English could think that England being the only country in Europe without its own representative body is a good thing?[/bold]
The people of the North East voted against a regional assembly because they would rather have the same right to self determination granted the Welsh, Northern Irish and the Scots. They want an English Parliament.
Yet, even though that regional assembly was rejected, Westminster has still imposed those regional assemblies without a mandate from the English electorate, hence the East Of England Regional Assembly: unwanted, unelected, unaccountable and faceless. Which exists only to impose EU law and Westminster rulings, regardless of what the people and the elected councils and MPs of that 'region' actually want.
I would rather these regional assemblies were disbanded and replaced with an English Parliament, elected by the people of England, answerable to the people of England and visible to the people of England.
How can duplicating this in England cause anything but more harm?
The only harm it could possibly cause is stemming the flow of taxes raised in England going to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Frankly I do not understand how anyone calling themselves English could think that England being the only country in Europe without its own representative body is a good thing? Posted by: Andrew, Shoeburyness on 1:31pm Tue 25 Mar 08
[bold]The people of the North East voted against a regional assembly because they would rather have the same right to self determination granted the Welsh, Northern Irish and the Scots. They want an English Parliament.
Yet, even though that regional assembly was rejected, Westminster has still imposed those regional assemblies without a mandate from the English electorate, hence the East Of England Regional Assembly: unwanted, unelected, unaccountable and faceless. Which exists only to impose EU law and Westminster rulings, regardless of what the people and the elected councils and MPs of that 'region' actually want.
I would rather these regional assemblies were disbanded and replaced with an English Parliament, elected by the people of England, answerable to the people of England and visible to the people of England.[/bold]
[italic]How can duplicating this in England cause anything but more harm?[/italic]
[bold]The only harm it could possibly cause is stemming the flow of taxes raised in England going to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Frankly I do not understand how anyone calling themselves English could think that England being the only country in Europe without its own representative body is a good thing?[/bold]
The people of the North East voted against a regional assembly because they would rather have the same right to self determination granted the Welsh, Northern Irish and the Scots. They want an English Parliament.
Yet, even though that regional assembly was rejected, Westminster has still imposed those regional assemblies without a mandate from the English electorate, hence the East Of England Regional Assembly: unwanted, unelected, unaccountable and faceless. Which exists only to impose EU law and Westminster rulings, regardless of what the people and the elected councils and MPs of that 'region' actually want.
I would rather these regional assemblies were disbanded and replaced with an English Parliament, elected by the people of England, answerable to the people of England and visible to the people of England.
How can duplicating this in England cause anything but more harm?
The only harm it could possibly cause is stemming the flow of taxes raised in England going to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Frankly I do not understand how anyone calling themselves English could think that England being the only country in Europe without its own representative body is a good thing? Posted by: Mark, Wickford on 1:38pm Tue 25 Mar 08
Speaking for myself I would have to agree with you Andrew on the East Of England Regional Assembly. As I said - we don't need more layers of government, we need less.
[italic]Frankly I do not understand how anyone calling themselves English could think that England being the only country in Europe without its own representative body is a good thing?[/italic]
Sorry - I am trying to explain. I was of the opinion that we had our own representative body - in Westminster. Not to mention Essex County Council. And the local councils. And the parish councils. And of course there is Brussels.
It doesn't look like we're short of representation, does it?!
Speaking for myself I would have to agree with you Andrew on the East Of England Regional Assembly. As I said - we don't need more layers of government, we need less.
Frankly I do not understand how anyone calling themselves English could think that England being the only country in Europe without its own representative body is a good thing?
Sorry - I am trying to explain. I was of the opinion that we had our own representative body - in Westminster. Not to mention Essex County Council. And the local councils. And the parish councils. And of course there is Brussels.
It doesn't look like we're short of representation, does it?!
Posted by: Andrew, Shoeburyness on 1:47pm Tue 25 Mar 08
[bold]http://www.thecep.or
g.uk/wordpress/polic
y-statement/[/bold]
http://www.thecep.or
g.uk/wordpress/polic
y-statement/ Posted by: Mark, Wickford on 2:03pm Tue 25 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Andrew[/bold] wrote:
[bold]http://www.thecep.or g.uk/wordpress/polic y-statement/[/bold] [/quote] Thanks, I've read it - I'd be a fool to comment on this page without having done so!
My point still remains the same; I do not believe that there are any of the advantages claimed in the policy statement that wouldn't also be obtained by two simple measures: disband the regional quangos, and solve the West Lothian Question. And the latter would be simple - English issues should be voted on by MPs for English constituencies.
Even the policy statement itself concedes that "everything of importance will remain with the UK government", thus making the English Parliament basically a lame duck before it's even been set up.
On the issue of cost, the best they can come up with is that England "might" be better off, and thus able to pay for the additional levels of government and civil service. That's just a little too pie-in-the-sky for me. If there are costs - and in this case they will be large - then I want to see where the money comes from, not just some aspiration. That's a recipe for disaster.
All in all I think this is an interesting idea and well worth discussing but it is NOT the only solution, and I believe not even the best solution, to the problems we face with our unique constitutional system. It is not incompatible to be English and proud, and to disagree with the idea of setting up a new parliament - effectively just a collection of regional assemblies under one roof.
Andrew wrote:
http://www.thecep.or g.uk/wordpress/polic y-statement/
Thanks, I've read it - I'd be a fool to comment on this page without having done so!
My point still remains the same; I do not believe that there are any of the advantages claimed in the policy statement that wouldn't also be obtained by two simple measures: disband the regional quangos, and solve the West Lothian Question. And the latter would be simple - English issues should be voted on by MPs for English constituencies.
Even the policy statement itself concedes that "everything of importance will remain with the UK government", thus making the English Parliament basically a lame duck before it's even been set up.
On the issue of cost, the best they can come up with is that England "might" be better off, and thus able to pay for the additional levels of government and civil service. That's just a little too pie-in-the-sky for me. If there are costs - and in this case they will be large - then I want to see where the money comes from, not just some aspiration. That's a recipe for disaster.
All in all I think this is an interesting idea and well worth discussing but it is NOT the only solution, and I believe not even the best solution, to the problems we face with our unique constitutional system. It is not incompatible to be English and proud, and to disagree with the idea of setting up a new parliament - effectively just a collection of regional assemblies under one roof.
Posted by: Andrew, Shoeburyness on 2:04pm Tue 25 Mar 08
[bold]Westminster represents Britain, it does not represent the particular needs of England.[/bold]
Westminster represents Britain, it does not represent the particular needs of England. Posted by: Mark, Wickford on 2:08pm Tue 25 Mar 08
I don't want to monopolise this page Andrew so I'll go quiet for a while if that's OK. Good discussion.
It would have been nice if your candidate had corrected her claims on votes gained though - it doesn't look very good at all for the EDP if their candidates can't be relied upon to be honest. And it detracts from the real debate, which can only harm your cause.
Someone else's turn to speak now!
I don't want to monopolise this page Andrew so I'll go quiet for a while if that's OK. Good discussion.
It would have been nice if your candidate had corrected her claims on votes gained though - it doesn't look very good at all for the EDP if their candidates can't be relied upon to be honest. And it detracts from the real debate, which can only harm your cause.
Someone else's turn to speak now!
Posted by: Margaret Stoll, Rochford on 2:17pm Tue 25 Mar 08
Mark, I did not say I objected to you calling the present gaggle of elected politicians 'liars' although some are probably worse than others in that respect. Nor has 'the world moved on and left me behind'. Many of the present disgraceful situations have arisen since 1997 and since Scottish and Welsh devolution. Other problems have arisen since the extension of the EU and the unlimited immigration that has followed. It's much harder now for an English person to go and live in e.g. Australia - medicals, visas, employment status - whereas we seem to be unable to stop anyone and everyone coming here and calling themselves 'British'.
An English parliament would NOT be 'just a collection of regional assemblies under one roof'. It wouldn't have to dance to the tune of the EU, for a start, which is what the unelected regional assemblies are set up to do.it would comprise a much smaller number of our own elected MPs for English constituencies, deciding on English matters alone.
Mark, I did not say I objected to you calling the present gaggle of elected politicians 'liars' although some are probably worse than others in that respect. Nor has 'the world moved on and left me behind'. Many of the present disgraceful situations have arisen since 1997 and since Scottish and Welsh devolution. Other problems have arisen since the extension of the EU and the unlimited immigration that has followed. It's much harder now for an English person to go and live in e.g. Australia - medicals, visas, employment status - whereas we seem to be unable to stop anyone and everyone coming here and calling themselves 'British'.
An English parliament would NOT be 'just a collection of regional assemblies under one roof'. It wouldn't have to dance to the tune of the EU, for a start, which is what the unelected regional assemblies are set up to do.it would comprise a much smaller number of our own elected MPs for English constituencies, deciding on English matters alone.
Posted by: Andrew, Shoeburyness on 2:50pm Tue 25 Mar 08
[bold]Mark, that's not my candidate. I support the Campaign for an English Parliament, whether or not I support the EDP is another matter[/bold] .
Mark, that's not my candidate. I support the Campaign for an English Parliament, whether or not I support the EDP is another matter .
Posted by: Mark, Wickford on 2:55pm Tue 25 Mar 08
Sorry, I know I said I'd shut up for a while but... a couple of points.
Margaret, sorry - my comment that the world has left "you" behind was meant to refer to the EDP, not you personally!!
As for immigration, this is a separate issue entirely. Personally I would argue that it is NOT unlimited, although it is badly managed - however the net effect (as is widely known) is an increase in GDP, and immigrants pay far more tax than they claim in benefits.
Leaving that aside, before we have a flurry of people denying they are racist, your last paragraph is telling. You appear to be stating that you would withdraw from the EU, as well as the Union. After all you can't create another level of government and not increase bureacracy, unless you disband a level of government at the same time, ie Westminster. So you appear to be espousing our withdrawal from two institutions which have immeasurably increased the English national wealth - the EU and the UK. That way lies isolation, poverty... and madness.
Again, I agree with the ends you want to achieve. But I believe the method to be fatally flawed - and try as I might, I cannot be convinced by the arguments posted here (and linked from here).
Sorry, I know I said I'd shut up for a while but... a couple of points.
Margaret, sorry - my comment that the world has left "you" behind was meant to refer to the EDP, not you personally!!
As for immigration, this is a separate issue entirely. Personally I would argue that it is NOT unlimited, although it is badly managed - however the net effect (as is widely known) is an increase in GDP, and immigrants pay far more tax than they claim in benefits.
Leaving that aside, before we have a flurry of people denying they are racist, your last paragraph is telling. You appear to be stating that you would withdraw from the EU, as well as the Union. After all you can't create another level of government and not increase bureacracy, unless you disband a level of government at the same time, ie Westminster. So you appear to be espousing our withdrawal from two institutions which have immeasurably increased the English national wealth - the EU and the UK. That way lies isolation, poverty... and madness.
Again, I agree with the ends you want to achieve. But I believe the method to be fatally flawed - and try as I might, I cannot be convinced by the arguments posted here (and linked from here).
Posted by: Mark, Wickford on 2:56pm Tue 25 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Andrew[/bold] wrote:
[bold]Mark, that's not my candidate. I support the Campaign for an English Parliament, whether or not I support the EDP is another matter[/bold] .[/quote] Just as well, in the circumstances! Point taken, and apology offered.
Andrew wrote:
Mark, that's not my candidate. I support the Campaign for an English Parliament, whether or not I support the EDP is another matter .
Just as well, in the circumstances! Point taken, and apology offered.
Posted by: Optimist, Essex on 3:00pm Tue 25 Mar 08
The Pen is mightier than the sword.
Lets just wait for the election and see what the results are.
I still cannot understand why Scots people stand for election in england.
(Maybe Scotland doesn't want them, so we are lumbered with them. Mr Brown go home now!)
Why do all the immigrants demand that no more immigrants must be allowed in to our country? They want to keep all their perks without loosing any I bet!
The Pen is mightier than the sword.
Lets just wait for the election and see what the results are.
I still cannot understand why Scots people stand for election in england.
(Maybe Scotland doesn't want them, so we are lumbered with them. Mr Brown go home now!)
Why do all the immigrants demand that no more immigrants must be allowed in to our country? They want to keep all their perks without loosing any I bet!
Posted by: piano hinges on 4:31pm Tue 25 Mar 08
[italic]Why do all the immigrants demand that no more immigrants must be allowed in to our country? They want to keep all their perks without loosing any I bet![/italic]
With as much respect as I can muster in the circumstances, this is the most idiotic comment on this whole page.
Back on topic...
The article above states that the EDP (no matter how many votes they claim to have!) want a "federal system" in England, outside the UK and the EU.
Such a radical departure from our existing constitution would surely require a referendum, and a complete restructuring of the state apparatus, yet no mention is made of this in their publicity, beyond a vague note to move to a federal system.
What would this mean? Not just isolation from Europe, and the massive trading advantages that brings (not to mention collective bargaining strengths) but also removal of the remainder of the UK and an immediate cessation of our centuries-old relationships which have made Britain great. Presumably, the "federations" within the English parliament would be regional, thus proving Mark's point that the English parliament would be effectively the same as having all the regional assemblies in one place at the same time. This would appear to create more problems than it solves, and leave us with a situation where (say) Geordies get free prescriptions, but Scousers don't. We would have the same problems as before, just on a smaller geographical scale.
Surely we should be looking to reunite the nations, not drive them further apart. Full Scottish devolution would be a disaster for all of Britain - including England.
By all means devolve regional issues to regional parliaments (or councils) but break up the Union? That is going too far. I'm with Mark on this one.
Why do all the immigrants demand that no more immigrants must be allowed in to our country? They want to keep all their perks without loosing any I bet!
With as much respect as I can muster in the circumstances, this is the most idiotic comment on this whole page.
Back on topic...
The article above states that the EDP (no matter how many votes they claim to have!) want a "federal system" in England, outside the UK and the EU.
Such a radical departure from our existing constitution would surely require a referendum, and a complete restructuring of the state apparatus, yet no mention is made of this in their publicity, beyond a vague note to move to a federal system.
What would this mean? Not just isolation from Europe, and the massive trading advantages that brings (not to mention collective bargaining strengths) but also removal of the remainder of the UK and an immediate cessation of our centuries-old relationships which have made Britain great. Presumably, the "federations" within the English parliament would be regional, thus proving Mark's point that the English parliament would be effectively the same as having all the regional assemblies in one place at the same time. This would appear to create more problems than it solves, and leave us with a situation where (say) Geordies get free prescriptions, but Scousers don't. We would have the same problems as before, just on a smaller geographical scale.
Surely we should be looking to reunite the nations, not drive them further apart. Full Scottish devolution would be a disaster for all of Britain - including England.
By all means devolve regional issues to regional parliaments (or councils) but break up the Union? That is going too far. I'm with Mark on this one.
Posted by: Andrew, Shoeburyness on 7:08pm Tue 25 Mar 08
[italic]The article above states that the EDP (no matter how many votes they claim to have!) want a "federal system" in England, outside the UK and the EU[/italic]
[bold]No it doesn't, it says,[/bold] [italic]'The party wants devolution for England, creating a federal system within the UK and the withdrawal of the whole country from the European Union.'[/italic]
[bold]Which means putting England on a level playing field with the rest of the UK by creating a devolved English Parliament with the same powers as the devolved Scottish Parliament, the devolved Welsh Assembly and the devolved Northern Irish Assembly.
England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland would then coexist within a federal UK which would be run by the old British government. Much like the countries of Europe exist within the federal EU.
I also don't see disaster resulting from Britain withdrawing from the EU. We don't only trade with Europe, we also trade with the US, with the far East, with Asia, with Africa, Australasia and with the Commonwealth. In fact the very first plus would be almost everything you buy being 17.5% cheaper, or have people forgotten that VAT is the Europe tax?[/bold]
The article above states that the EDP (no matter how many votes they claim to have!) want a "federal system" in England, outside the UK and the EU
No it doesn't, it says, 'The party wants devolution for England, creating a federal system within the UK and the withdrawal of the whole country from the European Union.'
Which means putting England on a level playing field with the rest of the UK by creating a devolved English Parliament with the same powers as the devolved Scottish Parliament, the devolved Welsh Assembly and the devolved Northern Irish Assembly.
England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland would then coexist within a federal UK which would be run by the old British government. Much like the countries of Europe exist within the federal EU.
I also don't see disaster resulting from Britain withdrawing from the EU. We don't only trade with Europe, we also trade with the US, with the far East, with Asia, with Africa, Australasia and with the Commonwealth. In fact the very first plus would be almost everything you buy being 17.5% cheaper, or have people forgotten that VAT is the Europe tax? Posted by: Kim Gandy, Rayleigh on 5:05am Wed 26 Mar 08
I haven't time to read the wittering and carping I know must be on here. But I know there has been some support so I will thank those people now.
To the detractors I say this: when have YOU ever had the guts to stand up in public for what you believe in?
Who are YOU to put down the efforts of other people when you sit there bellyaching and not actually DOING ANYTHING CONSTRUCTIVE.
Most of all, it makes me laugh that most detractors on this site don't have enough courage of their own convictions to actually put a full name to their comments.
On the day that you can achieve any of the abovementioned, go and spout off somewhere else on subjects you know more about - how about AOL's celebrity forums.
Somewhere mindless like that for example.
I haven't time to read the wittering and carping I know must be on here. But I know there has been some support so I will thank those people now.
To the detractors I say this: when have YOU ever had the guts to stand up in public for what you believe in?
Who are YOU to put down the efforts of other people when you sit there bellyaching and not actually DOING ANYTHING CONSTRUCTIVE.
Most of all, it makes me laugh that most detractors on this site don't have enough courage of their own convictions to actually put a full name to their comments.
On the day that you can achieve any of the abovementioned, go and spout off somewhere else on subjects you know more about - how about AOL's celebrity forums.
Somewhere mindless like that for example.
Posted by: lmao, Southend on Sea on 6:58am Wed 26 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Kim Gandy[/bold] wrote:
I haven't time to read the wittering and carping I know must be on here. But I know there has been some support so I will thank those people now. To the detractors I say this: when have YOU ever had the guts to stand up in public for what you believe in? Who are YOU to put down the efforts of other people when you sit there bellyaching and not actually DOING ANYTHING CONSTRUCTIVE. Most of all, it makes me laugh that most detractors on this site don't have enough courage of their own convictions to actually put a full name to their comments. On the day that you can achieve any of the abovementioned, go and spout off somewhere else on subjects you know more about - how about AOL's celebrity forums. Somewhere mindless like that for example.[/quote] Pity you haven't read it all, you could have apologised for mis-leading people with the amount of votes you got at various times!
Kim Gandy wrote:
I haven't time to read the wittering and carping I know must be on here. But I know there has been some support so I will thank those people now. To the detractors I say this: when have YOU ever had the guts to stand up in public for what you believe in? Who are YOU to put down the efforts of other people when you sit there bellyaching and not actually DOING ANYTHING CONSTRUCTIVE. Most of all, it makes me laugh that most detractors on this site don't have enough courage of their own convictions to actually put a full name to their comments. On the day that you can achieve any of the abovementioned, go and spout off somewhere else on subjects you know more about - how about AOL's celebrity forums. Somewhere mindless like that for example.
Pity you haven't read it all, you could have apologised for mis-leading people with the amount of votes you got at various times!
Posted by: Hypocrisy Alert! on 8:05am Wed 26 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Kim Gandy[/bold] wrote:
I haven't time to read the wittering and carping I know must be on here. But I know there has been some support so I will thank those people now. To the detractors I say this: when have YOU ever had the guts to stand up in public for what you believe in? Who are YOU to put down the efforts of other people when you sit there bellyaching and not actually DOING ANYTHING CONSTRUCTIVE. Most of all, it makes me laugh that most detractors on this site don't have enough courage of their own convictions to actually put a full name to their comments. On the day that you can achieve any of the abovementioned, go and spout off somewhere else on subjects you know more about - how about AOL's celebrity forums. Somewhere mindless like that for example.[/quote] Well it's a shame you can't be bothered to read what was - until your return - a reasonable debate of the issues.
I have to say that for someone who is supposed to be involved in this election you don't seem to be taking it very seriously.
Coming on here and throwing around the odd lie about your votes, and then coming back to insult your prospective voters, is just the kind of attitude you tend to show on this site every day. It demonstrates what a mean and bitter person you must be - and why you cannot be trusted in public office.
The English Democrats would do well to have a tighter selection policy in future, to weed out the bad wood, if they want to get ahead.
Why is it that reading your vitriol always leaves such a nasty taste? Is posting nasty rumours and half-truths about travellers, innocent van drivers caught in accidents, and any people who don't agree with you so wholeheartedly that only their toenails are visible out of your capacious behind what you consider to be "constructive" these days?
Hey, why not pull your kids out of school just to prove a point? Why not fail to turn up to council meetings that you were elected to attend, so that six months later you have to be thrown out? Now THAT is doing something constructive - not.
You really should have thought twice before you posted Kim. You've made a **** fool of yourself again I'm afraid. And just before an election too....
Just a hint for next time. When you lie, and you're caught - face up to it and apologise, instead of wittering and carping. People might even have a little bit of respect for you, for once.
Kim Gandy wrote:
I haven't time to read the wittering and carping I know must be on here. But I know there has been some support so I will thank those people now. To the detractors I say this: when have YOU ever had the guts to stand up in public for what you believe in? Who are YOU to put down the efforts of other people when you sit there bellyaching and not actually DOING ANYTHING CONSTRUCTIVE. Most of all, it makes me laugh that most detractors on this site don't have enough courage of their own convictions to actually put a full name to their comments. On the day that you can achieve any of the abovementioned, go and spout off somewhere else on subjects you know more about - how about AOL's celebrity forums. Somewhere mindless like that for example.
Well it's a shame you can't be bothered to read what was - until your return - a reasonable debate of the issues.
I have to say that for someone who is supposed to be involved in this election you don't seem to be taking it very seriously.
Coming on here and throwing around the odd lie about your votes, and then coming back to insult your prospective voters, is just the kind of attitude you tend to show on this site every day. It demonstrates what a mean and bitter person you must be - and why you cannot be trusted in public office.
The English Democrats would do well to have a tighter selection policy in future, to weed out the bad wood, if they want to get ahead.
Why is it that reading your vitriol always leaves such a nasty taste? Is posting nasty rumours and half-truths about travellers, innocent van drivers caught in accidents, and any people who don't agree with you so wholeheartedly that only their toenails are visible out of your capacious behind what you consider to be "constructive" these days?
Hey, why not pull your kids out of school just to prove a point? Why not fail to turn up to council meetings that you were elected to attend, so that six months later you have to be thrown out? Now THAT is doing something constructive - not.
You really should have thought twice before you posted Kim. You've made a **** fool of yourself again I'm afraid. And just before an election too....
Just a hint for next time. When you lie, and you're caught - face up to it and apologise, instead of wittering and carping. People might even have a little bit of respect for you, for once.
Posted by: Liberal on 10:02pm
