So, regular readers of this web log may be interested to discover that my piece on candidates in the European election has attracted some feedback from one of the parties whose policies I summarised. Sadly it was from Steven Uncles of the `English Democrats' and it took the form of a legal threat:
Please remove the following comment from your web-site
``The appearance of the English Democrats, who appear to be some sort of quasi-fascist mob; they're anti-immigration and believers in victims' justice. I read about two pages of their manifesto before giving up in disgust.''
Well, what can I say? (Other than that `quasi-fascist' is, in fact, only one word.) Since my statement is perfectly fair comment, I don't think that I need live in too much fear of legal action. Not under English law, anyway.
(As an aside, I wonder if this Steven Uncles is the one described on this page as a leading authority on `Managed Equipment Services' and who,
pioneered the concept of `Managed Equipment Services' within first wave UK PFI deals.
Probably not though -- the English Democrats argue that:
The immediate provision of public services should not be gained at the cost of long-term debt. We have no right to defer the cost of services so that they become a burden for future generations.
so it's hardly likely that an ardent PFIcrat would be involved in such a party. Still, it's some coincidence, especially given that the Steven Uncles who emailed me has an address in the domain `unitedhealthcare.co.uk', owned by United Healthcare, which is
a leading authority on all aspects of Managed Equipment Services under the PFI model.
Oh well. What are the chances that a member of a quasi-fascist mob would be a hypocrite too?)
(Update: I've now received more threats in an email from Mr. Uncles titled,
English Democrats are NOT fascists
Absolutely right. Had I thought otherwise, I would have said so. Perhaps Mr. Uncles should more closely read what I actually wrote.)
More updates: Nick Barlow, Anthony Wells and Chris Brooke weigh in. Thanks, guys! There is also an interesting discussion in the comments on Chris Brooke's site on the party, their rhetoric, and their links to the far-right. Chris himself, who is well informed on these matters, remarks: (slightly edited to correct two typos)
There's the reference to the ``young'' party, the claim that the people have been let down by the elites, the flagging of immigration on the front page of the site, the nationalism, and so on. And Chris L. quoted the slogan on the leaflet he's had delivered to him, ``NOT RIGHT, NOT LEFT, JUST ENGLISH!'', which is basically a reworking of the old fascist slogan, ``Neither Left Nor Right But Forwards!''
Comments
Posted by Anthony Wells, Monday, 31 May 2004 16:47 (link):
Chris - while I'm not a lawyer, unless the law has suddenly changed a political party cannot sue, tell him to fuck himself and the horse he rode in on.
Goldsmith vs Bhoyrul and Others (1997) set the precedent that political parties cannot sue for defamation. Mr Justice Buckley ruled that "Defamation actions or threat of them would constitute a fetter on free speech at a time and on a topic when it is clearly in the public interest that there should be none."
Posted by Chris Lightfoot, Monday, 31 May 2004 17:53 (link):
Thank you -- an excellent suggestion both in content and wording.
Posted by Steven Uncles, Tuesday, 1 June 2004 00:18 (link):
Dear Chris
I think that your latest Posting gives a far more 'Balanced' view of the situation, and we will not now be taking any sort of action against you.
How on earth you view our policies as 'Quasi Fascist' then only you know, but you have now balanced this by showing that we 'English Democrats' do not view oursleves as Racist, Fascist, or anything simliar. (thank you for that). The fact that we recommend that England adopts an immigration Policy similar to Canada or Australia, is not in the view of most people fascist or rascist as the situation in England that most people would view currently is of some concern, and Australia and Canada are not normally referred to as fasist states.
As to whether I am a hypocrite then again you are entitled to your own opion, however if you knew anything about Medical Equipment and the way that it is managed in the NHS then I guess I would have to respect your view on this - I would very much doubt you have any knowledge of Medical Equipment or the way that Medical Equipment is Managed within the NHS - therefore I will not take offence at this comment from you, as it would appear to be from a base of ZERO knowledge, similar to your knowledge of fascists. (A fascist according to the Dictionary is 'Anti-Parliamentary' - as our main policy is an 'English Parliament', then your level of intellect is already at a suspiciously low level - as it would demonstrate that you find it difficult to use a dictionary)
As to the comments of you colleage then I prefer to carry out that activity with my Wife - when time permits.
Now that we have got the Racist and Fascist bits finally put to bed, then..............
What are your views on an English Parliament?
What are your views on the Barnett Formula?
What are you views on Europe?
What are your views on splitting up England into 9 Regions ?
www.EnglandUnited.com
Maybe if I knew we could have a meaningful debate, now that we have established that I am not a 'Quasi Facsist', neither are any of my colleagues including a Solicitor, a QC (Queens Council) Barrister, Consultant Aneasthetist, former Police Inspector and many Company Directors.
What an interesting world politics is!
Looks to me like you saw the word 'English' - and came to the wrong conclusion!
I guess you have put up similar posting about the Scottish National Party, the Scottish Conservative Party, the Scottish Liberal Party and numerous other political parties in Scotland that all have 'Scottish' in front of them - I guess they in your mind must all also be Quasi Fascists as they all have the Country name before their Party Name - or does your logic not apply in Scotland ??
Interesting enough the English part of the Liberal Democrats is actually referred to as the 'English Liberal Democrats', - check out their website - I guess they are also heading for being Quasi Fascists in your 'Chris' logic.
Hope you can get your head around all that - maybe your Mum could buy you a dictionary for Christmas.
Regards
Steve
PS - Please, please be my guess in taking the michael if we don't poll between 6%-8% at the Euro Elections announced on 13 June 2004.
Posted by Chris Lightfoot, Tuesday, 1 June 2004 01:03 (link):
I'm not really sure I want to argue with someone whose first reaction to comment on their party's view was baseless legal threats, but I'll humour you for the moment.
The reason I described your policies as `quasi-fascist' was (as I said) because of your policies on immigration and `victims' justice'. To pick another random example, your stuff about English exceptionalism is another candidate for that description. But you're clearly not 100% fascist; you don't claim that you'll make the trains run on time, for instance. The last time I checked -- and since I don't live in Wales or Scotland, I don't follow the affairs of political parties there in any detail -- the SNP and Plaid Cymru did not have the same faults. They, no doubt, have many others of their own; but since they're not soliciting for votes here, I couldn't give a toss, frankly.
I don't want to get into a semantic argument, but if you believe that `anti-Parliamentary' is what `fascist' means you ought to get a better dictionary (and read a biography of Mussolini).
As for hospital equipment, no, I don't claim to know anything about the subject. But do you feel happy working for a company whose business appears to be chiefly in PFI contracts at the same time as standing for election on (inter alia) the principle that ``The immediate provision of public services should not be gained at the cost of long-term debt'', given that the PFI is exactly intended to achieve provision of public services at the cost of long-term debt?
As for your other questions:
The Barnett formula specifically is rather silly; for those who haven't looked at this, this House of Commons research paper explains the game. Basically the idea is that when spending on some public service in England increases by some fraction f, spending on the same service in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is increased by the same fraction. This is silly because it doesn't respect need.
But the English Democrats' complaint appears to be that there are subsidies paid to Scotland from revenue raised in England. For instance, from a leaflet which came through my door the other day, we have
The implication is that we should get rid, not of the Barnett formula, but of substantial subsidies to Scotland (and Northern Ireland and Wales, presumably). I certainly don't agree with that. One of the functions of central government is redistribution of wealth where that is a sensible way to alleviate need. Spending money raised in wealthier regions on poorer regions is one way to do that.
(A separate issue is that some of the policies adopted by the Scottish Parliament look, to a distant observer, bloody stupid. But that's not an argument against the general principle -- though it may be an argument against devolved Parliaments, of course.)
Posted by Roger Sanchez, Wednesday, 16 June 2004 18:20 (link):
You know Chris your thoughts on devolution are pretty much in line with UKIPs. Getting rid of devolution is basically their Policy No2. And anyway seeing as you are all for the EU at least the free trade part but not the other mechanisms such as the parliament. Thats pretty similar with their policy of scrapping everything about the EU except for the free trade area and economic and trade links.
Posted by Chris Lightfoot, Wednesday, 16 June 2004 18:33 (link):
Well, hang on a mo. I certainly don't advocate getting rid of devolution where it exists; whether the Scots have a Parliament or the Welsh an Assembly (or, if they want it, a Parliament) is a matter for them and I'm in no position to tell them what to do. I think it unlikely that I would support current proposals for devolved government in the English regions, basically because I don't think they'd be worth the money. But equally, I'm perfectly happy that this question be decided by local referenda.
Secondly, while it is certainly the case that I advocate the establishment of a European free trade zone and the abolition of EU regulations inimicable to that aim, I do not advocate scrapping the Parliament, at least not unless it is replaced with arrangements which better provide democratic scrutiny of policy-making in the EU. I cannot pretend to be a great fan of the way the EU's policy-making institutions operate, but getting rid of the Parliament would not improve things.
Thirdly, the core UKIP claim on free trade and the EU is that, were we to leave the EU, we would still be able to participate in a free trade zone with the remaining EU states. While this may or may not be true, what is certainly true is that in order to participate in such a zone while not being a member, we would still have to be subject to all of the EU regulations on trade, but we would not be able to influence them. Since in many areas the EU is, in my opinion, over-regulated, leaving the thing while remaining subject to its laws -- as the UKIP implicitly propose -- would be a spectacularly dumb thing to do.
(I should also say that there are many other reasons to oppose the UKIP, most notably their immigration policy, which is morally bankrupt and would be economically disastrous.)
Posted by Neal, Friday, 23 June 2006 16:07 (link):
Regarding your comments below....
"I think that an English Parliament would be a total waste of time and money. Again, I don't claim to have local knowledge, but it seems there's reasonable cause to believe that the same is true of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the GLA, so I can't see why it shouldn't be true here too."
I see that by your own admission, you do not actually have any local knowledge of any countries currently employing the governmental systems you seem so quick to suggest that England should not have. As an Englishman who does have some of the local knowledge you say you are missing (I currently live in Wales), I can assure you that the devolution process has made many positive changes for the Welsh people; primarily on three levels, each an upshot of the other:-
Firstly, it has allowed decisions about many of the issues specific to Wales and it's people to be made within the Welsh domain and not influenced by other nations whose agenda would sometimes be in complete opposition to Welsh interests. In other words it has allowed Wales to have more independent control over it's policies in numerous situations.
Secondly, this freedom to make many of their own decisions, has resulted in a much more enthusiastic attitude amongst every-day welsh folk towards the future of their country. At it's best it has contributed towards an atmosphere that the Welsh people now have much more control over the social environment they live in, and there is often a certain pride in the way they see their relationship with their country. It's common sense; if you feel you own something you take much better care of it than if feel your just 'using' it.
Thirdly, we have all heard the expression about the bottle being 'half empty or half full'. People whose attitudes about their social, political and cultural environment can be changed from the former to the latter begin to enthuse each other (not least of all, their children). Any decent psychologist will tell you that an individuals attitude is to some extent influenced by the attitudes of everyone around them. People are suggestible; the Nazis proved it with horrific results, marketing proves it to great profit, and the same is true in politics and society. Simply take a look around the web and type in searches on Welsh or Scottish culture, then compare it to the same with England. This is not an accident. Although the difference has always existed to some extent, policies are now in place to to encourage it. Grants are made available to Welsh organisations to allow ordinary people to express their Welshness on the web, the Welsh language is now compulsory in Welsh schools which means that the next generation will all be welsh speaking. These are all things that have happened since devolution.
Take the word of someone who does have some of the 'local knowledge' you are lacking.
On a more subjective note, why do you believe that what works well for the people of Wales (and possibly Scotland from what I hear from other people) should be denied the people of England? Why must I allow Scots to influence how my country is run? Perhaps I should let the Germans, French, Italians, Australians, Namibians etc. vote on issues that affect my social environment as well. What's the difference ??
You have stated that it would be a waste of time and money to have an English Parliament, but not why you think this. Even worse you admit that you don't actually have any experience of both alternatives.
I'm not a particular supporter of the English Democrats, but I can't help wondering if it's actually people like yourself who could actually be a far bigger threat to England's future (i.e. those who base there opinions on self-styled perceptions without any first-hand knowledge).
Posted by Chris Lightfoot, Tuesday, 1 June 2004 01:18 (link):
Oh, and I wasn't going to comment on your claims about expected vote share, but I should point readers in the direction of Anthony's thoughts on the subject:
Posted by Backword Dave, Tuesday, 1 June 2004 10:49 (link):
Dictionary.com fascist: often Fascist An advocate or adherent of fascism; A reactionary or dictatorial person. fascism A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism; A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government; Oppressive, dictatorial control.
Many years ago, my mum did buy me a dictionary for Christmas. Chambers (1988): the authoritarian form of government in Italy from 1922-1943.
And I bought the Shorter OED for myself (1993 edition): A member of a body of Italian nationalists, which was organised in 1919 to oppose Communism in Italy and controlled the country from 1922 to 1942; a member of any similar nationalist and authoritarian organization in another country; loosely any person with right-wing authoritarian political views.
I meant to stay out of this one on the grounds that I live in Wales and hadn't seen your campaign literature. But your definition of "fascist" strikes me as wishful thinking. While your website and manifesto are fairly bland and non-commital, I guess that "right-wing" and "authoritarian" are not unjust descriptions. Although I'm not able to vote for you, would you mind answering a few questions?
Posted by Backword Dave, Tuesday, 1 June 2004 11:20 (link):
Of course, I meant Sir Bobby Charlton.
BTW, I hope that you accept that "right wing" is certainly fair? It seems that your vice-chairman Christine Constable has contributed to this month's Right Now!. I was going to mention that the website boasts an endorsement from Spectator columnist Taki, but he appears to be the publisher.
Posted by Chris Lightfoot, Tuesday, 1 June 2004 11:26 (link):
I doubt he will. The leaflet they delivered to me (printed in attractive bright-red ink) claims that they are,
Posted by Alister, Wednesday, 2 June 2004 10:28 (link):
Quote from 'English Democrats': "Blair [is] `selling out' England [by] payinc c. £10 billion extra to Scotland... Scots now have better education, transport and health care with free prescriptions [etc. etc.]... all at the expense of the long suffering English taxpayer. This is the real North/South divide."
False. Scotland does not have free prescriptions. Wales does, but the Scottish Parliament refused to follow suit. So one blatant falsehood in the leaflet of our latter day Roderick Spode.
In fact there is a bill going to the Scottish Parliament from the Scottish Socialists to establish free prescriptions
http://www.scottishsocialistparty.org/scrap/index.html
Labour are likely to oppose it.
Posted by Derek, Wednesday, 9 June 2004 22:26 (link):
Home rule for England.
Posted by Tim Jackson, Friday, 4 June 2004 18:33 (link):
So generous of Mr. Uncles not to take baseless legal action (always the first knee-jerk reaction of those without an argument) against a voter expressing their opinions! Heavens above, these English Democrats are a generous bunch! Go vote for them!
Steven, if being a complete and utter fruitloop (see above about stupid legal threats, and also then pathetically trying to insult - using semantic arguments and mature gems such as "maybe your Mum could buy you a dictionary for Christmas" - someone who is orders of magnitude smarter than you are) isn't enough to ensure you, and the "English Democrats" (just the name makes me cringe), are the laughing stock of this election, I sincerely hope that your hilarious election propaganda leaflets (which almost made me piss myself with laughter and are worth keeping just to have a good laugh at every now and then) are.
If not, maybe just that fact that they have a candidate/campaigner/whatever-you-are that manages to write such verbal garbage as "please be my guess in taking the michael if we don't poll between 6%-8% at the Euro Elections" and randomly capitalises words (are "Medical Equipment", "Racist" or "Balanced" really so important as to deserve Capital Letters all of Their Own?) will be enough to tip the balance.
You are a true comedian. Take a bow. Mind you don't fall off the stage while you do.
(Side note: I wonder if Mr. Uncles is/has been a Lawyer, a Legal Wannabe or at least spends too much Time with Important People like Barristers. In my Experience, they have a Habit of Capitalising random words for no Discernible Reason Whatsoever except perhaps to make Themselves seem More Important in a rather Pretentious Way).
Posted by Derek, Wednesday, 9 June 2004 22:16 (link):
HOME RULE FOR ENGLAND
Posted by Chris Lightfoot, Wednesday, 9 June 2004 22:27 (link):
Oh for god's sake. This is the most feeble attempt at comments spam I've ever seen. Just sod off, will you?
Posted by Steven Uncles, Thursday, 10 June 2004 19:54 (link):
Just a correction - Robin Tilbrook has never been a member of the BNP.
I have seen this reference twice - let me know any more you see and we will get it removed.
Posted by Gareth Young, Monday, 31 January 2005 09:41 (link):
They threatened me with legal action on the grounds of slander, and I'm a director of the Campaign for an English Parliament.
Go figure!!
Post a new comment.
Comments copyright (c) contributors and available under a Creative Commons License. See also the comments policy.