UKIP Attempted to Disband the English Democrats Party (Allegedly)
According to Steve Uncles, UKIP offered the English Democrats leader, Robin Tilbrook, the deputy leadership of UKIP.
At the English Democrats National Council, 2010 Elections de-brief on Saturday in Nottingham - it was revealed that desperate UKIP offerred the English Democrats National Chairman Robin Tilbrook, the "Deputy Leadership of UKIP" if Robin, stood down all the English Democrats candidates during the 2010 General Election Campaign, and closed down the English Democrats party.
With English Democrats comfortably beating UKIP in the more established English Democrats areas, like Doncaster, Dartford, and Raleigh, it is not surprising that UKIP are resorting to such desperate measures.
If you compare the TV Performances of Robin Tilbrook and "Screaming" Lord Pearson, it is not surprising that UKIP would want Robin Tilbook as part of their team.
Fortunately, Robin Tilbrook has no intention of changing from an English Nationalist to a British Nationalist.
Had Tilbrook not invested so much of his own money in the English Democrats I imagine that he would have bitten their hand off and attempted to change UKIP policy on The British Question from within.
Trackback URL for this post:
- Login to post comments
Seen on the bdf
The 2010 Election Deal that UKIP threw away
Ever since I have been involved in small party politics, every so often people have said to me, "Your party has got some good ideas, but why don't you get together with the other small parties to give a credible option for the voters in the General Election".
The Alliance for Democracy was an attempt to do exactly this. In 2010 several organisations had the same thought, notably Paul Judge from the Jury Team and the Popular Alliance Party.
Organisation to get an Alliance together, occurred in September 2009, both the Popular Alliance and the English Democrats took the lead in organising the first meeting.
There was a good turn out for the first meeting, with the English Democrats, Christian Party, Jury Team, and Popular Alliance, UK First, Veritas and Alan Wood from UKIP.
Negotiations and discussions took place, and indeed a great deal of agreement was made.
However, after a number of meetings it became clear that the Popular Alliance, Veritas and UK First, neither were willing to invest money in the concept, nor were able to field more then 1 or 2 candidates each.
This therefore left 3 Parties in the Alliance for Democracy - English Democrats, Christian Party and Jury team (With the Independents Federation joining later)
The Christian Party were keen to maintain their own identity so they took Associate status, even though there was core policy agreement between the three parties.
However at the end of March 2010, Lord Pearson announced that UKIP would be working with other serious Euro-Sceptic Parties in the 2010 General Election.
Sir Paul Judge, immediately contacted Lord Pearson, as they already had a relationship, and a breakfast meeting was organised on Wednesday 24 March 2010.
Lord Pearson, James Prior from UKIP, Sir Paul Judge, Robin Tilbrook, George Hargreaves were all present, and at this stage an agreement in principle for UKIP to join the Alliance for Democracy was reached.
The atmosphere was very positive and Lord Pearson explained that he wished to put the Country before his party.
Following the initial meeting to co-operate in principle, a second meeting was arranged the following day, where the detail would be arranged.
However this time the UKIP "heavies" form the Eastern Counties and South West turned up with Lord Pearson and James Prior. These UKIPpers, had got the strategy to simply destroy the deal.
Strangely these heavies explained that they did not want to win any UKIP seats, they simply wanted to gain more popular votes.
However Lord Pearson, had a break out meeting, where he explained that he wanted to make the deal happen, so all parties sat down and worked out on a seat by seat basis where each of the parties could stand.
UKIP - would stand in 412 Seats (England, Scotland & Wales)
English Democrats would stand in 110 Seats (England)
Christian Party would stand in 110 Seats (London, Scotland & Wales)
Sir Paul Judge in order to facilitate the deal made the generous offer to potentially stand down from the General Election.
Giving 632 Seats to Cover England Scotland & Wales.
The details for an historic deal were set; UKIP simply had to put the deal through their NEC to make it happen.
Alas the UKIP NEC rejected the deal - no reason was given to the Alliance for Democracy.
Mysterious UKIP candidates were then parachuted in to where the English Democrats had previously been declared as standing without competition from UKIP - resulting in 97 conflicts with the English Democrats in the 107 seats where English Democrats were standing.
The question is, did UKIP really want to shift their power base from Brussels to Westminster - those UKIP NEC Members depend on the EU for their salaries via their MEP paymasters ?
Steven Uncles
National Operations & Campaign Director
& South East Area Chairman
English Democrats
Alliance for Democracy
Not Right Not Left Just English!
http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/alliance-democracy/76583-2010-election-d...
According to the person that posted this letter on the thread:http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/english-democrats/76886-ukip-offerred-robin-tilbrook-deputy-leadership-ukip.html#post866061
Posted a few weeks before this thread.
So logically, what should we believe? Robin is telling the truth, Uncles is telling the truth, or is it just spin and lies again?
BDF member Jamie McCaffery seems to think its is spin, there has been no proof put up on any of the forums to substantiate this claim. So it begs the question: Is Uncles Lying Again?
Why he does we will never know so many people shoot his lies down in flames, maybe he should just give up the lying and concentrate on making his party better.
Warrior
I didn't think that the
I didn't think that the English Democrats all wanted independence for England from the UK, they merely wanted an English Parliament?
If that's the case, they'd have a much better chance if they took up the deal supposedly offered by UKIP, as UKIP dwarfs the English Democrats, who are often just seen as a political branch of the English Defence League (not saying this is what I believe, just a common misconception I have noticed).
I know some people don't like hearing this, but smaller parties are going to have to work together in order to break the current mould, and UKIP is by far the largest of the smaller parties, so its only natural that they should be calling the shots when it comes to making deals.
I think you're right that
I think you're right that UKIP should be calling the shots, but the English Democrats have been looking to cause division in UKIP for a long while by looking to undermine their British nationalism with English nationalism (and they've tried the same with the BNP too). Although I think that UKIP are ideologically lazy in their unthinking British nationalism, they are probably correct to be wary of the English Democrats.
English Democrats
I would have to agree. It is now around about the anniversary of when I and some fellow bloggers/commenters on the interweb had the misfortune to stumble across the EDP. To be succinct, let me put it like this - we are of different political persuasions, conservatives, liberals, libertarians mostly. In considering the question of the representation of the people of England, we all pretty much agree on the desirability of EVELs now. There would also be general support for an English Parliament if it did not involve significant additional expense and bureaucracy. Most of us would certainly support the CEP; would we join it? Speaking for myself (and I am quite confident that none of the others have done so) - definitely not. As soon as an EDP official can be seen on the contributors list of their website, it becomes unthinkable. The EDP, given their members' implied consent to the actions of their senior officials, are poison to any cause to which they attach themselves. They also bring a vast amount of baggage that has been committed to the public domain that can be used by any adversary to attack anyone with whom the party becomes associated.
I know that others have come to this conclusion before we did. At least the EDP are consistent in something.
The EDP, given their members'
The EDP, given their members' implied consent to the actions of their senior officials, are poison to any cause to which they attach themselves.
I'll go some way to agreeing with you. Certain members of the EDP are a poison to any cause to which they attach themselves. Certain members - and I don't think we need to name names - have left a virtual paper trail of crass stupidity across the internet. Much of it borders on racism, most of it is poorly written, ill-informed or downright misleading, and a large part of it demonstrates a personal outlook that bears little relation to any concept of Englishness that I hold dear.
Campaigning for an English Parliament with them as allies is like trying to roll a giant cheese up Cooper's Hill using only the power of psychokinesis.
However, that's just the leaders of the EDP. A lot of the membership are very decent and straightforward people.
Decent and straightforward people
I have come across some on the internet whom I would happily term as such; I would do so because they oppose the leadership, and I have witnessed them publicly speak out against some of the leadership's actions. These people are very, very few in number.
If you have in mind those who don't much like the leadership, but are willing to stay quiet and remain as members due to some vague notion of aiding a greater cause, then I would disagree. Such people have been quite numerous throughout history, and history always ends up judging them quite harshly; for were it not for them, what would the leadership have to lead?
That's a fair point.
That's a fair point. However, it assumes that most who stay silent are aware of what is being said by the leadership.
In my opinion the EDP leadership ought not post things on obscure forums that they wouldn't happily put on the EDP website. If they used that as a rule of thumb then I imagine that they wouldn't do so much harm. Assuming they did post their effluent on the EDP website, EDP members would quickly become aware of what a bunch of hapless half-wits were leading the party, and then you could use the "but I did not speak out because I was not a..." rule as a blanket rule.
Naughty Toque
Saying that the EDP Facebook page with its 4000 odd (ha ha) followers (around 14,000 on the old one before it was closed by Facebook for reasons one could not possibly state publicly) is an obscure forum! Surely the majority of their own party look at the EDP Facebook page, upon which many NC and NEC members act as admins. Even the Chairman himself visited it but yesterday. Many of the posts, and posters there are quite....fowl?
You are defending the indefensible, a position many get drawn into, and then people assume you are really just like one of them. I know that not to be true, but others don't. That is another reason why this bunch are very, very dangerous to know, although they themselves will never amount to anything to be scared of.
I'm not defending the EDP,
I'm not defending the EDP, just the hypothetical member (or real member) who may not know. There's no way that the majority of people who are signed up to the EDP Facebook page are EDP members, likewise there're probably EDP members who have never come across the BDF (which is what I was referring to) or EDP Facebook page.
I'm always wary of tarring everyone with the same brush (as an English nationalist it's something that happens to me rather a lot).
Hypothetical members
I agree, there's no way that the majority of people who are signed up to the EDP Facebook page (at least the original one) are EDP members - that would be mathematically impossible. Likewise, there are probably EDP members who have never come across the BDF (which I knew you were referring to) or the EDP Facebook page, or the Cross of St George Forum, or any of the blogs (some of which are on your blogroll) upon which various EDP officials have poured forth their drivel. What you are asking us to believe though, is that the majority haven't. As there are only between two to three thousand of them, that is quite an ask - especially when the EDP Facebook page is linked to from the EDP's own site, and quite heavily publicised by the genius behind the party's PR.
To use the old cliché, statistically it probably makes more sense to take an instant dislike to an EDP member as it will save time.
I completely understand your feelings about tarring people with the same brush; that doesn't mean that people won't do it though, does it? You yourself say they do; the EDP are one reason for that, and the EDP's membership maintain the party's existence - that's just a cold, hard fact.
Unfortunately, yes you're
Unfortunately, yes you're correct - those are the cold hard facts. There's no way of knowing what percentage of the EDP membership are aware of the rubbish that their leadership comes out with. But my experience of other membership organisations tells me that the majority of members are 'sleeping members' who agree with the official blurb, pay their fee, receive a newsletter, and don't do much else.
Whether the EDP membership is like that is subject to conjecture, but I would have thought that if they had a high number of active members they would have managed to attract more than the smattering that turned up to their party conference. An active membership would also probably have turfed the leadership out by now. The anecdotal evidence that I've gleaned from the BDF tends to suggest that those who do play an active role fall out with the leadership and leave (and often spend years slagging them off).
Please pay attention
Yes, much is subject to conjecture. I'm not sure how much the leadership of the EDP really want people to attend and vote at the annual conference - there was certainly confusion among some who were members at the time of the last one regarding arrangements or lack of them for proxy/postal voting. It is also unclear what the financial consequences would be for the party in getting rid of its leadership, given that they are also the main funders and creditors of the party.
Probably best to leave things with a request for any EDP members who happen to read this to have a little look at what your leadership and officials have been saying in the places mentioned, and see if you want to keep enabling them to do that through your continued membership. If you do, fine - you will also become fair game, and can play a role in what an ex-EDP now UKIP member termed a couple of days ago as "hunting EDP members for sport".
One can only offer sympathy to those English nationalists who have no time for the EDP but get mistaken for them; but be fair, if you can string a few coherent sentences together, your accusers will soon realise their mistake.