No Cheers for EDs at Eastleigh

eds-flushed-away

 

Some of us might give a cheer for the Beer, Baccy and Crumpet Party who came  6th out of 14 candidates at the Eastleigh By-Election with 235 votes – 0.56% of the poll.

 

7th was Howling Laud Hope – Loony with 136.
8th Peace Party with 128.
9th Elvis Loves Pets Party 72.

10th position went to the English Democratic Party with 70 votes, 0.17%. This was even lower than when the EDP stood in 2010 and gained nearly twice as many votes at 0.3%.

Several messages come from this result.

1. The English Democrats persuaded a number of former  BNP members – including activists – to join them on the grounds that their respectability and a purely civic nationalist approach on immigration would gain more support. It has not done so in Hampshire or elsewhere in the main.

2. Most UK patriots are not in favour of splitting the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland as individual nations.

3. Immigration is the key – more than opposition to the EU – that gains support for Nationalist  movements. This is particularly so where that movement can show that it understands the particular problems  that it causes in working class areas. Problems that are less so in the more genteel Liberal/Tory areas of Hampshire. The English Dems should have known this was one of the factors that enabled them to have their candidate elected as the Major of Doncaster – mark you he has resigned since!

To the English Dems we have a message: “You’ve had your run. Be realistic and join the new Brit Dems”

19 thoughts on “No Cheers for EDs at Eastleigh

  1. It is hard to see how the English Dems can recover from this humiliation coming as it does just weeks after the loss of their jewel in the crown, the mayorship of Doncaster. Will Robin Tilbrook be forced to resign over this lengthening list of disasters, should he resign anyway?

    But surely, the big question is why didn’t the rump BNP stand a candidate? It claims to be Britain’s 4th Party after all. A secondary question being that of how badly such a candidate would have performed. Would he or she outpolled Elvis Loves Pets for instance?

    As to why the rump BNP didn’t stand I can think of three reasons. Firstly, they knew they would be totally trashed by UKIP and about everyone else short of independents. jokers and cranks. Secondly the BNP has little or no structure left south of the midlands to mount a real campaign. Thirdly, if the claims are true, then it is conserving every penny it can to throw into the NW EU constituency next year in a desperate attempt to retain Griffin’s place at the EU trough, even if that means plundering funds from the rest of the country. As far as I can see the rump BNP’s only objective presently isn’t to promote its policies but to keep pressing the donate button to raise the cash needed to keep Griffin and his retinue EU salaried.

    1. You’re right in your analysis, I think, but whatever Gri££in does, he is almost certainly doomed in the N. W. Region. He only just scraped in last time, since when he has lost most of his members and virtually all his activists. The rising tide for UKIP will wash him away, so performing one service at least for the patriotic movement.

  2. Immigration, particularly from stern Europeam countries has has had a big impact on Eastleigh and neighbouring Southampton. No areas of the country remain untouched, and all are now fertile ground for a nationalist party.

  3. There is such a groundswell of disillusion against the Tories and Cameron is so obstinate that it’s just about impossible they’ll win the next election. It really does seem that he intends to destroy his own party externally and internally.

    A big question is then what happens under Labour. Will they use their five years to finally destroy us by weight of immigration numbers or fear that if they go too far it will set off an explosive reaction and set out to retrench secure in the existing demographics?

    It’s clear that the message is finally getting through to the people that we are being turned into a minority. That is now a huge political factor not present even three years ago. It immediately answers any accusations of ‘racism’ against nationalists and should be voiced at every opportunity.

    The wild card is how long government can go on funding a massive unsustainable deficit without something snapping. Everything points to massive political instability before long. The losing Tories will be delighted to pass on the message ‘no money left’ to their successors.

  4. Immigration could be the issue that breaks UKIP’s back. It is now riding a groundswell of popular protest and will have to deliver or risk its new found support leaving in droves. But how can an establishment safety valve party both accumulate the anti-immigration vote whilst, at the same time, frustrate it – something will have to give!

    1. It is the task of this new party to burst UKIP’s bubble. Fundamentally, UKIP is a party of Thatcherite Tories who merely dislike the EU. As far as I can see they have little in the way of a coherent political philosophy (even the Lib Dems have more of one and that is saying something) and I am sure that eventually people will see that as when they start to talk about other issues such they will be facing several political directions at once.

      They are a classic ‘protest party’ rather like the Poujadists were in France in the 1950’s and that party didn’t last long either.

      1. I’m sure I differ from many others in seeing UKIP as advantageous.

        It’s doing a lot of ground work to make voting against the system respectable while being in itself, as Steven says, internally rickety. It lacks a substantial activist base and is enslaved to a need for protecting against its members fears of ‘giving offence’ by keeping within the bounds of what might be called a ‘permitted BBC agenda’. It also operates mainly as vehicle for major elections having little local organic presence.

        I argue that a new party should aim to compliment what UKIP does from a more robust position and with a view to leapfrogging over it at least locally.

        Symbiosis may be an uncomfortable idea to some but it’s also a practical one.

          1. Well The Sun today was pretty robust. It said many immigrants simply are not interested in integrating. Sir Andrew Green said this week that you can hardly integrate a school where no one speaks English as a first language. Pretty robust!

            In UKIP world simply withdrawing from the EU and halting immigration solves all our problems.

          2. It’s a start! And Immigration from within the EU cannot be stopped unless Britain leaves it.

            Maybe you can espouse how you think a “robust” approach, however much one might want it is going to entice the electorate to vote en masse for a nationalist alternative that is firmer than the likes of UKIP/English Democrats.

        1. Dear Lawrence you know exactly what robust means, look in the dictionary, to me UKIP is part of Nationalist pie, priority is escape from europe once people get the taste of an alternative and get used to it then a more collective front can emerge,just as different regiments fighting together make an army so can Nationalist parties.

          1. Lawrence, I’ve often argued in these columns that simply copying UKIP might be a good practical strategy to pursue. Not that popular a line it seems to me.

            But I recognise the limitation in their approach which is evasive of the extent of our national problems. We can be robust at least in our awareness. That’s broadly what I favour but other voices want to be harder line. So I bow to the common view as you have to in a party.

            There is no perfect answer.

        2. I tend to agree with you Mike on this. We all know how long it takes for any ‘third party’ force takes to grow and develop to a point where it becomes a ‘household name’ and achieves sufficient electoral credibility in the minds of the voters. Whilst UKIP came from outside the Establishment, it has received ‘help’ from that quarter in the form of recognition and respectability. EG a disproportionately large number of media appearances – especially on BBC’s Q.T – as compared to the BNP, over the years. This is probably because of UKIP’s useful role as a safety valve, in the eyes of the Establishment. However, it is still none the less a ‘third party force’ outside of LibLabCon and its increasing support in Westminster elections can perform the role of a ‘battering ram’ from our point of view. UKIP are enjoying something of a honeymoon in the wake of several by-elections, culminating in Eastleigh last week. Once they do start actually winning Westminster seats, which is highly likely, their policy on immigration might be examined more closely in the main stream media and a lot of their support will peel away when it is to be found lacking, indeed inadequate, as it surely is. It might be seen a blessing from our point of view that UKIP itself bans former members of Nationalist parties from becoming members, lest they waste their time and activist experience.. Indeed that is the only real reason (the UKIP ban) that the ED’s picked up these people, because the ED’s immigration policy is no more ethnically based than UKIP’s. I think that rather than adopting an antagonistic an overtly hostile stance towards UKIP, we should say a “hurrah” for their EU withdrawal policy and then politely point out the inadequacies – for they are many – of everything else they purport to stand for. Let us try and ‘use’ them to our best advantage in any way we can.

          1. UKIP’s biggest failing by far is their addiction to failed globalist economics which is probably why they still tend to attract Tories in the main. Simply put, this kind of stance precludes them from building a genuinely wide social appeal and one that will be long-lasting. This is one areas of policy where the ED’s have a better, more balance policy.

          2. The ‘correct’ position is that immigration and more diversity is excellent subject to space limitations.

            Knock me down with a feather. The Express today says Britain was better before diversity. That really is robust in today’s Britain. Unthinkable several years ago. Diversity was a sacred totem. You’d be crucified for suggesting that all those enriching folk were anything but a huge benefit.

            Much of the media generally is moving now slightly beyond mere criticism of numbers coming in.

            http://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/leo-mckinstry/382342/Labour-betrayed-the-working-class-over-immigration

    1. I imagine that eng dem leader Robin Tilbrook is under pressure from all sides. He got a lot of flak and no few resignations for allowing prominent ex-bnp people to join. He’s now getting it in the neck for poor to terrible election results. To some extent the eng dems are a sanctuary party for people cheesed off with ukip and the bnp. The brit dems are an obvious sanctuary party for despondent eng dems including those previously in ukip and the bnp.

  5. Ukip are our helpers in that the electorate will see through the fallacy of Farage,and realise he is trying to put together a group of ex party members who dislike each other.
    In Kent you have ex Labour lefties allied with ex Tories a somewhat odd couple,with the chairman of Kent UKIP being a member of the old Swale BNP.
    We must organise ready to take on the establishment,but we must ensure enough candidates as this was our problem with the old BNP,the public had bbeen scared out of standing for us.
    Remember, Churchill said,The next Fascists would be the Anti-Fascists

Leave a Reply