The Warrior has been on Holiday for a few weeks, so I have caught up on recent events over the last few days.
I have noticed that the anti Steve Uncles fan base is raising. Inevitable really as he really does nothing for the prospects of his party nor for the English Nationalist scene, seems he is out for one thing only and that would be himself!

On the BDF:
Mr Uncles has called HSBC a racist bank, this may be true in a sense as they refused someone the right to have the word England in their bank account, but that was just one branch and all his links were old, from 2006.
Weird how the English Democrats use the same racist bank chain for the donations though!!!!!!

Here is the English Democrats facebook donations page.

Excerpt:

BACS – Home Banking

Here are the details

Sort Code
40-35-22

Account
5125 5177

English Democrats
HSBC – 185 High Street
Chipping Ongar
Essex
CM5 9JG

Please e-mail BACS@EngDem.org – when you make a payment – to confirm what whether you are Donating or Paying for Leaflets etc

So it seems that the bank they use is the same chain as he is claiming to be racist against the English.

He then goes on to accuse one of the posters of being predictable:

Jamie you are doing a fine job a putting this thread to the top of the search engines

I knew you would not let me down – your postings are so predictable !!!!!!!

What!!!!!!!! Basic internet savvy will show you that the most current topic will be near the top of the search, what a dick.

Now roll back and this is what he commented to the same person (who BTW seems to run rings round Mr Uncles in the thread):

Fortunately sensible people are on the National Council of the English Democrats, who know what is about to go on in the party, and know how the Internet Works.

Muppets like your self, are destined only to put up pointless posts that do nothing for the English Cause, indeed the majority of your posts are ill informed and negative to the English Cause.

Sometimes, you really do need to engage your brain before putting your foot in your mouth yet again.

So another statement from Uncles portraying himself as something he is not and that is clever.

Mr Rob states after quoting:

Originally Posted by Steve Uncles
Fortunately sensible people are on the National Council of the English Democrats, who know what is about to go on in the party, and know how the Internet Works.

Thanks for that Steve, funniest thing I have read all week

True words it seems.

Now here is Uncles again being his normal self on waleshome.org

Steven Uncles
June 28, 2010 • 11:02 pm

It is noted that every attempt is made to discredit the English Democrats as some sort of “BNP Lite” party.

Even though during the 2010 General Election, there was equal criticism for the English Democrats working with George Hargreaves (the Black leader of the Christian Party) and indeed the English Democrats have fielded Sikh and Muslim Candidates, a fact that commentators above have decided to ignore.

English is in the heart – nothing to do with Skin Colour as far as the English Democrats are concerned.

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

It is interesting to see the Plaid Cymru “links” to the BNP

Here >>>

http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/plaid-cymru/59897-plaid-cymru-councillor-joins-bnp.html

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

To my knowledge no properties owned by Welsh People in England have ever been burnt down ??!?! – because the owners are Welsh.

Finally – Abergavenny – meaning “Gateway to Wales” is geographically half way into Monmouthshire – why if Monmouthshire is 100% Welsh, would the “Gateway” not be at the border with England ??

Oh and yes, any of the areas currently in England, that wish to consider themselves Welsh – should be allowed a referendum.

Surely as Democrats -then everyone would be in favour of this ?????

Still proud of working with the creationist, Christian, homophobic and want to be MP George Hargreaves. Which, incidentally, never come to any thing after the collapse of Uncles Alliance For Democracy so who is the fool kidding except himself.

So hinting towards another Nationalist party and their racism? Uncles when will you learn you need to work with other parties to achieve your goal.

Steven Uncles
June 29, 2010 • 6:30 pm

Bizarre

There appears to be a lack of understanding in these comments above that Legally Monmouthshire was an English County until 1974 – it’s status was changed from English to Welsh under the 1972 Local Govt Act.

The change occurred in grubby event late at night in parliament, as an attempt to reduce the rise in Welsh Nationalism in Wales in the 1970′s.

Do Welsh Natioanlists simply belive that this was a clerical error, or are they so deluded enough to believe that they don’t actually recognise the status of Monmouthshire existed as an English County for a considerable period of time ?

Ordanance Survey Maps, the Encyolpedia Britanica and many other publicaitions clearly showed Monmouthshire as an English County and the English-Welsh Border to the East of Monmouthshire.

You do yourselves no favours by ignoring these FACTS.

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

By the way – as a DEMOCRAT, then I believe that any areas either side of the current Welsh/English border or even the English/Scottish border should be able to decide DEMOCRATICALLY their own National status.

Sorry if democracy offends you !

I thought that Plaid Cymru and the SNP were Democratic Nationalists – maybe they are just as bad as the BNP ?

There you go again calling other parties racist, you twat you need to work with these people.

The first bold lettering alludes to democracy, what the fuck do you know about democracy? Nothing I once read somewhere that people called for referendum on party affairs like the Alliance for Democracy, or on wasting time and precious resource on your plan to gain back Monmouthshire.
Yes they should have a referendum but not by your tactics, it will not happen now as they are not interested and the ED will never be voted in there thanks to some idiot and his mates going on to another forum and slagging the welsh, you twat.

Here he is again blowing his own trumpet thinking he is something he is not and that is important in politics, his only importance it seems is He is there to ridicule:

Steven Uncles
July 3, 2010 • 1:11 am

TO: Philip R Hosking

In response to your post above.

In 2005 I was given the task to speak to as many Engilsh Nationalist paties and other parties as possible to unite them under the English Democrats banner and indeed the English Democrats Moderate Manifesto

This includeded meetings with;-

EPP
New England party
English Independence Party
English Parliamentary Party
English Independent Party
English Progressive Party
English Pan-Nationalist Alliance
Free England Party
England First Party
Engilsh Democratic Party
English National Party
Democratic Party
English (Poetry) Party
Countryside Party
Liberal Party
Jury Team
Popular Alliance
UK First
Veritas
Christian Party
Winston Mckenzie
Senior Citizens Party
UKIP
UK Reform Party
New Party

The fact that opponents of the English Democrats, which to focus on one of these meetings, just shows the depths people will go to to try to discredit our party – it is a meeting taken out of context with what the English Democrats are trying to achieve.

We achieved some success, in converting some people to the moderate English Democrats way of thinking, others I am afraid continue in their chosen direction – but at least we tried.

We also have invited talks with SNP and Plaid Cymru, and invited both PC and SNP to attend our Annual Conference and Conference Dinner as guests.

SNP accepted our offer of talks
PC refused.

The English Democrats is however now established as the largest English Nationalist party, we believe it is worthwhile talking to people and parties, to determine if there is common ground – before making wild assumptions about the party, before a meeting or correspondance has occurred.

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

What I do find strange is why a Plaid Cymru Councillor (Welsh Nationalists) would defect to the British National Party (BNP) which is generally accepted as White Racist British National Party ?

Do you have many members in Plaid Cymru who are actually racists, hiding behind the moderate Plaid Cymru image ?

English Independence Party = Ethnic nationalists

England First Party = Racist, holocaust deniers, and was in partnership in certain areas of England with Uncles and his EDP.

English National Party = defunct and owned by Tilbrook.

Jury Team = Was in the Alliance but pulled out and fielded no candidates

Popular Alliance = Who

UK First = As above

Veritas = As above

Christian Party = Creationist, homophobic and run by a megalomaniac

But the English Democrats have no racist ties, and here is Uncles admitting he initiated these ties and forged the alliances? Uncles you Idiot you just proved the links with racist parties by posting this along side stating we are not racist. Moderate manifesto? That is questionable.

The attacks go on please read for the further mishaps by him and his mates.

Lots of people seem to bear the brunt of his and his friends Ad Hominem attacks, Mr Rob, Sebastian Melmouth, jamiemccaffery, Anglo Staffs, LeChiffre, Steve Shark and many others including lately Northumbrian who is standing down from his place as NE Chairman. Uncles had the cheek to tell him his resignation will not be accepted, it is a voluntary role within the English Democrats!!!!! Twat.

Those of you who think Uncles is good for nationalism and the English Democrats please read all his postings here then make up your mind.

I did and came to my conclusion after reading his postings of racist jokes, mocking people constantly, being obnoxious, mocking Chris Lightfoot’s suicide, that he is an egotist, the power within his party has gone to his head, and he is a nasty piece of work, that is my opinion though.

See what you think.

BTW he will take all this as publicity for him and his party, as he sees any publicity is good for them, think again you idiot.

With the publishing of the Welsh Commission report, it seems that it is being called for proportional funding based on need, well it is a start but this needs to be implemented. The English tax payer has far too long been paying through the teeth to balance the books of all the other parts of the union. This is unfair as the English get per head, less than every other person in the defunct Union.

When will the people of England open their eyes and see the injustice in this practice, better and free university education – not in England, free or cheap prescriptions – not in England and better services – not in England.

From the CEP

A report commissioned by the Welsh government says that Scotland’s subsidy under the Barnett Bribe should be cut by £4bn if funding is allocated based on need rather than population and political expediency as it current is.

The Welsh government has been promised a referendum by the Brits on turning the Welsh Assembly into a Welsh Parliament and a commission has suggested that the Welsh government should have the power to vary income tax by 3p – a power the Scottish government already has. The Brits have also promised the Scottish government more powers over taxation and an independence referendum will be held some time soon north of the border.

And England? The West Lothian Question has been kicked into the long grass with a promise of an unspecified commission at some point in the future with no changes to the unconstitutional and institutionally racist system of imperialist British government of England in the meantime.

From the Scotsman

£4bn budget warning

SCOTLAND’s budget could be cut by £4 billion if the Barnett formula was scrapped and funding calculated on how much the country needed, a report on devolution funding commissioned by the Welsh Assembly claimed.
Authors David Miles and Gerald Holtham said the formula should be abolished as it did not allocate money fairly across the UK because it was based on population and not what was needed to pay for public services in different areas of the UK.

“An assessment consistent with those used to distribute health, local government and education spending around England could eventually result in Scotland getting as much as £4bn less than it currently does,” Mr Miles and Mr Holtham wrote.

The report, “Fairness and Responsibility”, called for a reform of devolution that would see the Welsh Assembly handed powers to vary income tax levels in their country by up to 3p in the pound, a power already held by Holyrood.

From the BBC

Row over draft referendum question on assembly powers

A new dispute has begun over the Welsh assembly powers referendum with a row over the wording of the question.

The Electoral Commission is considering the draft question put forward by Welsh Secretary Cheryl Gillan.

But the assembly government says it is “disappointed” not to agree the words with her, and called it “deficient”.

The commission has 10 weeks to consult on the question ahead of a probable 2011 referendum on further powers for the Welsh assembly.

The exact wording of the question is: “Do you agree that the assembly should now have powers to pass laws on all subjects in the devolved areas without needing the agreement of Parliament first?”

We are disappointed that we could not agree a question with the Wales Office
Welsh Assembly Government

Even before this process started, the assembly government made it clear that it did not agree with Mrs Gillan’s question.

A spokesman for the assembly government said: “We are disappointed that we could not agree a question with the Wales Office.

“We feel the suggestion put forward today by the secretary of state is deficient and does not accurately reflect the issue that voters will be asked to decide.

“We will therefore be submitting an amended, shortened version to the Electoral Commission as an alternative proposal.”

This is the latest row between the UK and Welsh governments surrounding the referendum.

The assembly government had stated that it preferred a referendum in the autumn of 2010, but Mrs Gillan ruled that date out and criticised her predecessor, Labour’s Peter Hain, for not doing enough preparatory work to enable an autumn referendum.

Despite the alternative assembly government submission, the Electoral Commission is only funded to carry out its statutory duty – and that is to consider the question submitted to it by the Welsh secretary.

As a result the proposal from the assembly government will not receive any consideration as part of the formal consultation process.

From Our Kingdom a piece by Gareth Young

The Coalition Government Ducks the English Question

Gareth Young, 7 June 2010

England may have voted Conservative at the general election but it won’t be Conservative policy on the West Lothian Question that England gets. The Conservatives won a majority of seats in both England and England & Wales, yet their promise to the voters of England and Wales that ‘a Conservative government will introduce new rules so that legislation referring specifically to England, or to England and Wales, cannot be enacted without the consent of MPs representing constituencies of those countries’ has been reneged upon in favour of a ‘commission to consider the West Lothian question’.

The Conservatives have been considering the West Lothian Question for the past twelve years. Ken Clarke’s Democracy Task Force had considered it in depth and at length. However, in last week’s written ministerial statement on the Machinery of Government, we discovered that responsibility for considering the West Lothian Question would not lie with Ken Clarke’s Ministry of Justice. Instead it is Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg who has been handed ‘special responsibility’ for ‘considering the West Lothian Question’.

The letter that I recently received from Nick Clegg’s office tends to suggest that Clegg favours mitigating the West Lothian Question rather than answering it.
We recognise that devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland poses difficult questions for the governance of England within the Union. I think it’s important to be honest about the fact that it is difficult to find an immediate solution. The idea of ‘English votes for English laws’ is extremely complicated to implement – particularly because many laws actually extend to England only in some parts, while covering other parts of the UK in other areas. Given the fact that changes in spending on English services which would be devolved in the rest of the UK directly affect the devolved administration’s budgets, it is also often the case that ‘English’ legislation actually will affect devolved issues outside of England. We believe that we can only really deal with this question by looking at it as part of the wider political system. We need to do more, first of all, to give more power to people locally in England – so that they, too, have more control over their own affairs rather than being micromanaged from Whitehall. We want to give local communities real power over their health services and policing, through fairly elected local health boards and police authorities – as well as freeing the hands of local councils, removing power from Westminster and Whitehall. Ultimately, we want to move towards a federal United Kingdom – devolving power within England further and thus resolving this question.

The voters of England will not get what the Conservatives promised them. And to make matters worse we will not get what the Liberal Democrats promised us (the Liberal Democrat manifesto promised to “address the status of England within a federal Britain” through a “constitutional convention”). Oh no. The status of England will not be recognised by English Votes on English Laws or addressed through a constitutional convention, instead England faces more piecemeal constitutional reform that ducks the English Question altogether, denied any recognition of nationhood by a manifesto for government that nobody voted for.

Piece by George Monbiot

Someone Else’s England

You don’t have to be a nationalist, or English, to accept the case for an English parliament.

One of the most striking features of the massive response to my article last week on Hazel Blears and the Labour Party was the number of Labour activists who wrote in to agree. If, as I suspect, their fury and dejection is representative, Labour will be eliminated at the next election. Just three years ago, almost all the pundits agreed that the Tories were finished as an electoral force. Suddenly, Labour looks like the force that might never recover. Has any party in modern politics done more to squander the goodwill that swept it into power?

But I noticed something else as well: something that wasn’t there. Every other issue I mentioned was picked over and debated. One was not. It concerns the most glaring democratic deficit over which this government has presided, yet almost everyone is too polite to mention it.

Three nations in the United Kingdom, as a result of one of this government’s rare progressive policies, now possess a representative assembly. The fourth and largest does not. England, the great colonising nation, has become a colony. It is governed by a Scotsman who uses foreign mercenaries – Scottish, Welsh and Irish MPs – to suppress parliamentary revolts over purely English affairs. There is still no democratic forum in which English interests can be discussed only by English representatives. The unfairness is staggering, the silence stranger still.

One of the peculiarities of UK politics is that issues which hardly anyone supports receive majority assent in parliament. Under the current system, no popular support is required. University top-up fees, for example, were rejected by the Scottish and Welsh assemblies, but Scottish and Welsh MPs were frogmarched through the lobbies to impose them on England (the government won by five votes). Foundation hospitals were voted down in both Wales and Scotland, and foisted on the English by the representatives of those nations. Had Heathrow’s third runway been debated only by English MPs, the proposal would have been resoundingly defeated; it was approved by 19 votes, after 67 MPs from the other nations were induced to support the government. They can support such measures without any electoral risk, as their constituents are not directly affected. Devolution, which has had such beneficial consequences here in Wales and across the other borders, has left the English high and dry.

So why does no one – with the honourable exception of a tiny band of thinkers like Paul Kingsnorth and Gareth Young – who is even vaguely on the left want to discuss it? Perhaps it is because two quite different issues have been muddled up: democracy and nationalism. English nationalism takes many forms, but the image which comes to most minds is of skinheads waving the flag of St George. These are, or should be, separate concerns. You don’t have to be a nationalist, or English, to accept the case for an English parliament.

Last month I was fiercely attacked by the Campaign for an English Parliament (CEP) for writing that “England means nothing to me”. I meant two things. First that I consider myself a global citizen – a member of the species – before I consider myself a national citizen. I believe that everyone has an equal entitlement to the world’s wealth and power. I don’t love England, but nor do I hate it. I am indifferent. Secondly, I do not know what England means. The problem for those who wish to define this nation is that England has universalised itself. English culture, thanks to English imperialism, has seeped into everyone’s culture; the English language has become everyone’s language. The acts of union, forged by a dominant England, have submerged English identity into a British or Unionist identity. British imperialism, in turn, has destroyed the sense of a discrete and self-contained nation. The values, language, governance and business structures, the global integration we imposed on other nations have come back to bite us.

The hero of the film Slumdog Millionaire, for example, works in a call centre in which cold-callers in Mumbai, tutored in British accents, politics, weather and geography, seek to persuade their British customers that they are phoning from just around the corner. I happen to think that the transfer of jobs like this is a good thing, a restitution of employment once forcibly relocated from India to England, but I realise that most people here are appalled by the implications. Whether you approve or not, you have to accept that Finland has no such issues, as no one else was forced to speak Finnish.

Those five words in December, claimed the CEP’s head of media, Michael Knowles, were “as good an illustration anyone can get of the prejudice England experiences from the UK Establishment.” It is because of the “indifference and hostility” of people like me that the English “are so discriminated against”.

Knowles, in other words, confused a good case founded on democracy and human rights with patriotism, giving people of more cosmopolitan views every excuse they need to turn away. To support an English parliament, you don’t have to love England, you have only to love democracy.

Labour politicians use this excuse to sustain the government’s inordinate executive power. Instead of a parliament, England has been given nine regional assemblies. Only one of them (in London) has been elected; hardly anyone even knows that the others exist. They represent the opposite of devolution: a transfer of power away from local authorities towards a higher level of government, over which the people have no direct control. Next year they will be turned into Local Authority Leaders’ Boards, representing the final abandonment of the government’s promise of regional referenda leading to elected assemblies.

On Sunday David Cameron revealed his own plan: a great bog of fudge pudding which makes the parliamentary system even more complex and opaque than it is already. “For English-only legislation, we would have a sort of English grand committee,” he told the Mail on Sunday. In “exceptional circumstances” (and what isn’t?) the committee can be overruled by the rest of the Commons. Today he writes in the Guardian of his plan for a “radical decentralisation, to reach every corner of the country” and turn Britain’s “pyramid of power on its head”. But there’s not a word about an English parliament.

No one is suggesting we disband the government of the United Kingdom (though I propose that it be moved close to the geographical centre of the UK – Liverpool, say, or Rhyl). The Campaign for an English Parliament argues that it should retain control over matters such as the UK’s constitution, foreign and defence policy, employment legislation and social security. The remainder – some taxation, health, education, transport, local government, planning, the environment, police, courts, prisons and the rest – should be devolved to the four nations.

England is no longer my home and not much of my business. But I would be surprised if anyone across the border who has understood the implications is happy with the current deal. The nation which claims to have brought democracy to the world is in dire need of it.

Cameron is being a bit two-faced on this one. What about the rest of the year, you TWAT?

He is one of those people who only support England during a sporting event.

It makes you sick, this so-called leader of the UK, his parliament tries it’s best not to recognise England, until the team goes to South Africa for the world cup.

Cameron and your coalition parliament for once please do not be hypocritical and allow councils, businesses and other proud English folk to fly the flag all year round, and as the parliament buildings are in England the flag should be flown all year round, especially as the rest of the UK and their governing bodies fly their national flag.

DAVID Cameron yesterday announced that he would be flying the flag of St George over Downing Street for the World Cup and called on MPs wherever they come from in the UK to cheer on England.

• The flag of St George flies above fans watching England’s warm-up game in South Africa this week. Picture: Getty Images

With England the only team from the home nations in the World Cup in South Africa, Mr Cameron has made the unprecedented decision to exchange the flag of England for the Union Flag which normally flies over Downing Street.

Mr Cameron’s comments came during Prime Minister’s Questions after an appeal from a new Tory MP to get properly behind the team.

He was urged to show his support for the English team by Tory MP Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon), who said: “I ask you to do a great thing for the people of England and cut through the bureaucracy and nonsense and fly the flag of England over Downing Street for the duration of the World Cup.”

Mr Cameron replied: “There was some question that this was going to have a cost impact but I’ve managed to cut through that and I can say that at no additional cost to the taxpayer the flag of St George will fly above Downing Street during the World Cup.”

Then, pointedly looking up at the SNP members, he added: “For the purposes of this I’m looking at all the benches here and I’m sure that everyone in this House, no matter what part of the United Kingdom they come from, will be cheering ‘come on England’.”

But most SNP and Plaid Cymru MPs were shaking their heads vigorously, including Western Isles MP Angus MacNeil.

But he said the Prime Minister was right to fly the flag of St George over Downing Street.

“It’s nice to see they think they can do something without Scotland,” he added.

However, he insisted: “I don’t want to upset anybody from other nations over who will do well in the World Cup, whether that is England, France, Germany or any other countries involved”.

Ian Davidson, the MP for Glasgow South West who has just become the chairman of the Scottish affairs committee, was also diplomatic, claiming he did not mind who won because he would not be watching many games.

“As I am originally from the Borders I am more interested in rugby,” he said. “But I wish England well”.

The Prime Minister also failed to impress the Tartan Army. Hamish Husband, a spokesman for the Association of Tartan Army Clubs, said: “I think Mr Cameron is quite right to fly the flag of St George. I would hope that Gordon Brown would have done the same for Scotland when he was Prime Minister and I am sure nobody would have minded.

“But as far as supporting England goes, we all hope England have a good time in South Africa and lose every single game”.

Mr Cameron’s appeal to non-English MPs appeared to have failed to persuade politicians from north of the Border who were reluctant last night to support England.

In the House there has been some friendly rivalry about the competition, with shirts bearing the legend ABE (Anybody But England) preferred by MPs from the Celtic nation and a new SNP shirt (Scotland Not Present) worn by some English members.

When will the question get answered?
We have been lied to, once again the English were duped into believing the government would actually do something for the majority of voters in the so-called UK.

‘No early moves’ to replace Barnett formulaIT WOULD be “quite wrong” to replace the controversial formula that allocates funding to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the Westminster government insisted yesterday.
It had been reported that there may be moves to replace the Barnett formula, which calculates the amount of public spending in the devolved areas of the UK.

However, government minister Lord De Mauley ruled out rapid action on the issue
despite pressure from Tory former chancellor Lord Lawson of Blaby and Labour’s Lord Barnett, who produced the formula which bears his name when he was chief secretary to the Treasury in the 1970s.

Lord Barnett told peers: “There is approximately £1,600 per head more spent in public expenditure in Scotland than in England, which has very serious implications for the coming cuts.”

He said a report by a Lords committee “unanimously recommended that is should be changed and based on need”.

Labour former minister Baroness Hollis of Heigham said: “Given that the Barnett formula funds on the basis of population and not need, it is profoundly unfair to overfund Scotland by the extent of £4 billion to £5bn a year while requiring underfunded local authorities in the rest of the country to make further savage cuts as their contribution to reducing the deficit.”

Lord De Mauley said the coalition understood the concerns but added: “In the light of the grave financial situation the country faces it would be quite wrong for a new government to rush to a decision on this complicated matter.

“We are carefully considering the various reports, but there is as yet no consensus on what a needs-based assessment would take account of.”

Well the Audit Commission report came out yesterday and it seems that all the Davies faithful were wrong, he did get some of the blame, not just previous controlling regimes.

To be fair to Davies, he has only been in power a short time, and all the infighting has not helped him, but he hasn’t helped himself.

To be called ‘The Common Sense Mayor’ by some, surely he would have to use some. He could of handled things a bit better than his bullish way he has resorted to to get his own way.

Here is an excerpt from the report:

The Mayor and his Cabinet
The Mayor fails to act in a way which demonstrates an understanding of how an elected Mayor might lead his authority in an inclusive way with a view to building consensus. Some of the behaviours adopted by the Mayor, and some Cabinet members, fail to meet required standards.
82 In a well-governed mayoral authority we would expect the Mayor and Cabinet to:
• adopt leadership styles and behaviours which are open, inclusive, and engender trust from staff, other council partners, and the public;
• discuss priorities with the rest of the Council and be seen to respond to the Council’s feedback;
• work collectively with officers to develop those priorities into clear, costed, plans of action, which are shared and agreed with partners;
• be clear and decisive about their political priorities; and
• act as ambassadors for the Council in the wider area, to work effectively with partners.
Leadership styles and behaviours
83 The Mayor is not the cause of the Council’s problems, which date back to a time before either he or his predecessor were elected. However, the way he has set about his task has tended to make those problems worse. He acknowledges that he is inexperienced and the leadership he and his Cabinet provide has so far lacked the sophistication and skill that would help the Council and its partners to deliver better services for the people of Doncaster.
84 The Mayor was elected in June 2009. By his own admission this was something of a surprise to him. He lacked any background in local government politics, but found himself overnight in a position of considerable power and influence over the people of Doncaster and the services they receive. His expressed views are unsympathetic to many of the normal processes by which decisions are traditionally taken and policies developed in local government.
85 The Mayor’s views on issues of diversity and political correctness are well known, and formed part of the platform on which he was elected. He is, of course, entitled to pursue his political agenda as a democratically elected Mayor, and is doing so.
86 However as Mayor he has also certain responsibilities including, for example, a statutory duty in discharging the functions of the Council to have regard to the need to promote good race relations. Perhaps partly through inexperience, he seems insufficiently aware that the way he expresses his views might compromise his ability to discharge those responsibilities.
Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council 20
The Mayor and his Cabinet
87 The Mayor’s statements about removing translation services, or there being ‘no such thing as child poverty’ have led to confusion. Partners are unclear what they mean for them, and for jointly-agreed objectives within the Borough Strategy and Local Area Agreement, such as helping and supporting vulnerable groups. They have also caused major concerns amongst vulnerable groups within Doncaster. Some staff, residents including some from the black and minority ethnic communities, and representatives of the voluntary and community sector, expressed concern that certain people within Doncaster may see some of the Mayor’s comments as legitimising their racist and homophobic behaviour.
88 In discussion, the Mayor is more balanced, and suggests that he accepts the need to adhere to legal duties around racial equality and the need to address inequality and poverty. He appears to accept the need for translation services to aid in the safeguarding of vulnerable adults from minority backgrounds. However, his public utterances, which he may see as serving a useful political purpose, have served internally to confuse and de-motivate staff; externally to confuse partners; and publicly to worry sections of the community who are already vulnerable.
89 Asked whether they agree or disagree with the statement ‘There is clear and effective leadership within the Council by the Mayor,’ 67 per cent of staff responding to our survey disagreed or strongly disagreed. An additional 16 per cent didn’t know.
Working with the Council
90 The Mayor and Cabinet find it difficult to work constructively with the Council. This is in no small part due to the behaviours of some councillors. However, the Mayor is also not averse to provocative and inflammatory statements and these serve to create division when compromise and conciliation are required.
91 An elected Mayor requires the approval of the full Council for key decisions, such as the budget. The Mayor, coming from a minority party (the English Democrats), has little natural support within the Council and consistently struggles to capture enough votes to secure his policies. His current Cabinet consists of three Conservative and three independent members. Attempts to attract independent members to sit on the Cabinet have caused acrimony and given rise to complaints.
92 It is in the context of this unstable and limited powerbase, that the Mayor’s attitudes towards political leadership within the Council, and how to build consensus amongst competing politicians and groups, becomes problematic. The Mayor has genuinely tried to discuss matters of mutual interest, and has sought to make alliances with groups and individuals in return for support. He has himself identified that at least nine of his ten priorities could easily link to priorities already expressed within the Borough Strategy.
93 However, the Mayor lacks the political skills to build and maintain consensus. His offers for others to ‘get in touch’ are often not followed through, and he fails to understand that simply saying ‘my door is always open’ will not result in dialogue unless his behaviours, attitudes, and opinions also support a more collusive and open approach. The Mayor has not responded positively to offers of help, for example from IDeA. The Mayor has also decided to take the Council out of the Local Government Association and the Local Government Information Unit from 2011.
21 Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council
The Mayor and his Cabinet
94 The Mayor, and the Council, are too insular in their approach, failing sometimes to see the key links between Doncaster and the rest of South Yorkshire and the City Region. This in turn may mean opportunities to improve with the rest of South Yorkshire are missed. In addition, their lack of appreciation of issues relating to diversity risks perpetuating inequality amongst the people who live within Doncaster. For example, Council strategies do not feature children who come from gypsy and traveller families, despite there being over 4,000 gypsies and travellers in the Doncaster area.
Working with officers
95 The Mayor is isolated, and has too often been unwilling to take advice. In his early days he relied heavily on Mr Hart, the then Chief Executive. This had two consequences. It took so much of the Chief Executive’s time that it affected his ability to function as a strategic leader of the staff within the Council. It also created a perception amongst some (already antagonistic) councillors that the Chief Executive was becoming too friendly with the Mayor.
96 The induction process for the Mayor did not lead him to understand how the Council works. In his view, considerable time was spent on key policy issues and service concerns, but only belatedly was he told about the mechanics of how a mayoral authority works: what key decisions are; the necessity to get key decisions through Full Council; and the respective roles and powers of the Mayor, the Cabinet as Executive, the Council, and the Overview and Scrutiny function. Others suggest that these briefings did take place. Whatever the process, the result was that the Mayor only belatedly gained an understanding of the processes that had to be adopted in relation to certain decisions, and this resulted in further delay. It also increased the Mayor’s frustration that as democratically elected Mayor it was proving so difficult to ‘get things done’.
97 Recent events, and the divide between the Mayor and Cabinet and the Interim Chief Executive only served to increase this isolation and underscore the Mayor’s frustration. By the Mayor’s own admission, getting decisions taken was like ‘wading through treacle’. This is further evidence in support of our conclusion that the Council has failed to make proper arrangements to fulfil its duty of continuous improvement.
Clear and decisive
98 The Mayor’s, and some Cabinet members’, bluff approach to dialogue also extends to the way in which they relate to officers. Some officers report considerable pressure being put on them to amend or alter professional advice. If advice is contrary to expectations, then officers sense they fall out of favour. Clearly, this is not conducive to a well-governed organisation or to a situation in which officers feel able to give impartial advice.
99 In part, as a result of the political impasse within the Council, key decisions have been slow to be taken or still remain undecided. Examples include decisions about the Local Development Framework, which is described in Paragraph 63.
Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council 22
The Mayor and his Cabinet
100 A further example of slow decision making, involving partners, relates to the decent homes programme delivered with St Leger Homes – the ALMO. On becoming Chief Executive in May 2009, the Chief Executive of the ALMO defined a series of key decisions on which she needed clarity from the Council to enable her to deliver ALMO and Council priorities. Examples included clarity on whether tower blocks were to be included in Decent Homes Standard refurbishment plans, and if so to what extent – just windows and doors, or full refurbishment to include repairing concrete and improving thermal efficiency. The Chief Executive stated she needed these key decisions by November 2009, thus giving six months for discussions and resolution. In February 2010, three months after the deadline, and ten months after identifying the issues that needed to be decided, there was still a lack of clarity, having discussed and redrafted proposals around these programmes three times. We understand this decision may now have been taken.
Working with partners
101 A further impact of the conflict within the Council is the confusion it creates with partners about what the Council’s long-term priorities are. There are mayoral priorities and there is a Borough Strategy, and partners and staff express confusion about how these are linked. The corporate strategy also fails to link properly with individual service development plans. The recently defined strategic vision for children and young people is not yet set firmly within a clear corporate strategy as this corporate strategy still consists of the priorities inherited from the previous Mayor.
The Cabinet has limited experience. Whilst some portfolio holders are accomplished
others are inexperienced and appear less comfortable with the strategic leadership required. Some have clear views of their own, and in certain cases these have caused confusion and concern with partners. The ALMO, St Leger Homes, is in ongoing discussion with the Cabinet, and portfolio holder, over the length of its management agreement. There are differing views about how long the ALMO agreement should last for, but one consequence of the portfolio holder seeking a shorter term is that ALMO staff have become concerned about their job security. Tenants have also become concerned that their homes, scheduled to be improved in the latter stages of the Decent Homes process, may not get the necessary funding as they believe the ALMO may not exist in the longer term. This is both unhelpful and destabilising. The rejection of the usual working methods with others is also slowing the progress
partners can make. For example, the Mayor’s chairmanship of the Local Strategic Partnership Board – Discover the Sprit (the DTS Board) – is causing some confusion.

So he has to shoulder some of the blame, but not all of it.
It is a shared responsibility that has been thwarted along the way by too many big egos.
Please read the report before making your mind up about the Mayor, and bear in mind his inexperience and that he is possibly a good man.

Now it is that time, where the people of England can choose for their future.
Think carefully at this time and do not conform to what you are indoctrinated to do.

Do not vote out of habit for the same party as you always done based on their lies (promises) on what they offer, or because your family always has voted for them and you are following suit.

My advice is to weigh up what each candidate in your are can offer your area, the place that you live will be effected more than you know by the cuts etc that the parties want to push after the elections.

Weigh up what the local MP and his party will offer you in your area and what their party will offer to make life a little more bearable. If your candidate is an independent see what he is offering to fight for to make your area more bearable to life for your family.

Remember they need your vote more than you need them, make sure any promises they make on the doorstep you get in writing before polling day.

You also may not like the party but your local MP has been seen to do a lot of work to better your community, get his next projects in writing so they can not renege on their promises for your vote.

If you feel strongly about something discuss, get assurances in writing, then decide. Whether or not you vote for that person, if they get in you have it on paper what they promised to do.

Ukip poster campaign says it all, but can they offer an alternative?

The manifestos of the big three, the local parties and independents will be coming out over the next week or so, read them and get to know what they are offering. Then decide on what is best for you and your family not what your parents etc expect.

Summarise what they offer and question the candidates when they come round on specific points that mean something to you. Do not be taken in by the hype they are projecting in the run up to the elections, false promises will be abound.

The Warrior will not be voting Labour, they have destroyed this country, all the money blown through the last few years shoring banks, equates to more than the people of England owe. They should of helped the people not the banks, the strongest would of survived and would have kept the banking economy rising back to former strengths. They decided to abandon the people many have lost jobs, money homes and dignity, but the chancellor and prime monster and their constituencies fared the recession well, where as the rest of us and England did not.

You do not have to take my word for any of this posting, it is my thoughts based on what I see is happening to my beloved england.

The only thing I hope is Labour is ousted, and a new era is heralded for England and her people, but at the end of the day the choice is yours.

Good luck people and may your heart and minds guide you to the right decision on the day of polling.

Although the warrior agrees with some of the English Democrats and what they are standing for, I had trouble warming to someone who had such a strange back ground.

Michael Johnson  Rossendale and Darwen candidate for the English Democrats has had a chequered past after a stint with The English First Party, a far right party from the North of my great land.

Here is a piece about Mr Johnson from the Manchester Evening News.

Election 2010: Michael Johnson (English Democrat)

Michael Johnson is standing as English Democrat candidate for the Rossendale and Darwen constituency. Here, he describes his policies and achievements:

I am a Darwen lad from a Darwen family who has lived and worked most of my life in and around Darwen. I am married to my wife Jacqui and we have two teenage sons aged 18 and 16. I am the current councillor for the Fernhurst ward representing the English Democrats.

I had little interest in politics because I did not think any political party really represented the views of the people.

I felt they were only interested in your vote so their party could be in charge. My interest in politics came because of my concern for my country, England. I became angry with politicians who cared less and less about the rights of the English people they are suppose to represent.

They have been systematically destroying the fabric of England by attacking our heritage, our culture, our identity and our right to stand up and be proud of saying: “I am English.”

I for one say enough is enough.

I will fight for my country, my fellow countrymen and women.

I will fight against the repressive regime of the EEC. I will fight the lunatic political PC brigade and I will fight for the right to have a political voice of our own by creating an English parliament for English MPs.

We are here to give voice to the silent majority.

England has a proud history and a great future. We are not politically correct nor would we ever want to be, England expects us all to do our duty.

It is time to act! Never voted before? Not voted for a long time?

It is time for change, Michael Johnson is the candidate for you and the English Democrats are the party who will make the changes. The time is now! Help us make the changes by voting for Michael Johnson and the English Democrats.

“There is a forgotten, nay almost forbidden word, which means more to me than any other. That word is England.” – Sir Winston Churchill

Are you the same Michael Johnson who was involved with the England First party, the far right fascist party which entertained holocaust deniers and people from combat 18 and national front, Cotterill . Also had liaisons with Rushton the fervent holocaust denier and member of the BPP, who wants to repatriate all non white residents in Britain. If so how come you have never apologised for this involvement and are you bringing your far right views to this party you are representing now?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England_First_Party, So you are standing now for a new party after you fell out with Coterill.

English Warrior, Yes you are correct i was involved with EFP but never a member. If you are so well informed you will also have the ability to post why i fell out wit EFP and left them after 7 months. You should also be aware of my interviews on the Politics today show and the Sunday politics show where a pannel of senior members of the house of commons agreed with what i had to say. i stood for EFP in the 2006 elections on my own principles and won on them, as an English Nationalist. As far as the white power and all the rest of that stuff, it might come as a bit of a shock to you but have a look at my photograph and work out if i am olaf the viking warrior. You have the right to try and smear any candidate or cause questions to be asked but you also have the right to do your homework and relate the truth. In this case i can make it easy for you. Go to the Lancashire Telegraph and look up the reson why i left EFP in 2007 which is nearly 3 years ago!! For any one who is reading this blog. Yes i represented EFP on local matters but fell out with the party because of the views of some of the membership, i have served the English Nationalist cause for many years and my views are on public record. When attacked in the council because i commented on immigration i was given a signed pettition from over 50 members of the Asian community in Darwen including the local Mulla, supporting me and defending me against the comments made against me in council. So English Warrior work it out for your self as i and the thousands of supporters i actually have in Darwen dont need to! they dont take on board smear campaigning especially on well worn matters which are now over 3 years old and many many council meetings later. Please come up with something relevent to the work i have done! or if you can find any comments on work i have not done for my community. Thank you Michael Johnson. Councillor Fernhurst Ward.

Yes you are correct i was elected for EFP but i was never a member. I was elected for my stance on local politics and local government. What you have not mentioned is the fact that i fell out with the party after less that 7 months because of the direction the party was taking by some of the membership. I am aware of your attempt to smear me with this information but unfortunatly it is very old hat and has been kicked about that much i dont care anymore what people like you post. The fact is English Warrior, (a verry Anglo Saxon sounding user name by the way)! all you have to do is look at my photograph and work it out for your self if i am Olaf the great Viking Warrior from over the sea. If you would like to attack me please feel free to do so! on the flip side please come to Darwen and i will introduce you to the local Darwen mulla who is by the way a supporter of mine, we can then take a stroll round the town and you can meet many members of the Asian community who also support me. That must be why they signed a pettition in support of me against comments made by Labour and Liberal councillors at full council. If this is not enough information you can check the LET and look up why i left EFP after 7 months. Just to help you a little more watch the Politics today show and the Sunday Politics Show where you will see a cross party panel of senior members of the house of commons who all agreed with what i was saying. So with respect could you please refrain from giving only part of what you deem to be a story when it is infact nothing more than a very ill and uniformed bit of gutter press designed to do nothing more than smear the candidate using only your interpritation of events that you actually cant even get right. Keep the faith and see you in Asgard. Michael Johnson, Pc and councillor for Fernhurst ward Darwen.

Fair comments, I am happy to see a prospective candidate who is honest, it was not an attempt to smear you just to see what calibre of person you are. It seems you are an English Nationalist, not a Ethnic Nationalist I hope, which is good in my book. Well done for being truthful and showing a honest character.

England First pair quit party

BOTH England First councillors for Blackburn with Darwen are leaving the far-right party.

Coun Michael Johnson, who represents Fernhurst, will tonight quit to join the new party For Darwen, created last week.

And Coun Mark Cotterill, who represents Meadowhead, will stand down as a councillor and leader of party at the local elections on May 3.

It comes less than a year after the England First Party gained the seats on the council.

Coun Johnson said he had told Coun Cotterill three weeks ago of his plan to quit because he did not like the direction the party was taking, and had felt out of the loop.

Coun Cotterill said his own resignation was down to moving to Preston where he had a job outside politics.

His spokesman said the timing of the pair’s resignations were “just a coincidence”.

He denied that Coun Cotterill was leaving because he did not see a future for the party on the council without Coun Johnson.

The pair fell out publicly in December after Coun Cotterill posted a link from the party’s website to a YouTube video that depicted Jesus making an offensive hand gesture and hurtful remarks about Islam.

Coun Johnson said he found the material offensive but Coun Cotterill said the video was amusing.

Coun Johnson said: “I feel that with For Darwen I am going back to my roots.

“Fernhurst might be in Lower Darwen but to say Lower Darwen is in Blackburn is like calling a pheasant a peacock.

“I think we will be able to achieve more than England First could have.”

Both Coun Johnson and Coun Cotterill were elected in May 2006 and the party was immediately labelled racist after details of its manifesto, which had included banning non-white footballers from the England squad, were revealed.

This I knew, I was just seeing how honest the man would be if questions was asked about his past.
He, in the Warriors book, answered honestly and candidly, and that is one of the things we all want from a politician.
The Warrior also thinks, that if he has learnt from his past deserves serious consideration from a character point of perspective, all it boils down to is if you agree with his policies.
So to Michael Johnson if you ever read this, I think you’re of good character to show honesty in your answers. And from one Englishman to another, good luck in your campaign, and keep up the work fighting for England. And always tell the truth or it will crop up at unwanted points in your life.

Ca-moron is going to whack the banks with a levy, so they can pay back some of the money they owe the public. Although this is a good thing, but will it be construed as an electioneering ploy. YOU DAMN RIGHT IT WILL, a case of a pledge that should have been made before the bankers started slapping each other on the back and paying each other big bonuses.
They helped get us in this mess and Gordon The Clown and his idiot government sealed the deal on this economic crisis.
Maybe it will work, maybe it wont, the Con – servatives will probably win this election, hopefully they will do a better job than Brown and his shady party.

There’s a very simple choice at this election: five more years of Gordon Brown, or change with the Conservatives. But if the British people do vote for change, I can tell you now that it won’t come easily. Real change is always hard because there will always be people and organisations with vested interests in preserving the status quo – even if that’s not in the national interest. We need to take these vested interests on, and I gave a speech earlier today setting out how the Conservatives will do just that. Taking on vested interests has been at the heart of so many of the great moments of progress in this country – whether it’s abolishing slavery in the face of commercial interests, or more recently Margaret Thatcher taking on those who controlled council housing and the nationalised industries. So we know that taking on vested interests can bring real, positive change. But that change can only come about if you have the strength to see it through. Sadly, we haven’t seen that strength from Gordon Brown. Just look at what’s going on with the British Airways strike. Thousands of jobs and the future of one of Britain’s greatest companies is at threat, yet we have a Prime Minister who won’t come out in support of those who would cross the picket line because the Unite union is bankrolling the Labour Party. The next Conservative Government will be different. You can see that in how we led the way in dealing with MPs’ expenses. You can see it in our pledge to publish all government spending online. And you could see it this morning in my call for a levy on banks to pay back taxpayers for the support they gave them. Since becoming leader of the Conservative Party I’ve rolled up my sleeves and argued for what is right, not what is convenient. It’s time we had a Prime Minister that did the same.

If you do get in Cameron, please think of the English people and give us a frigging chance.

Well it seems someone else thinks the expenses system is flawed, personally I think they should not get any expenses, are they not paid enough?

Taxi drivers who put up St George stickers in their cabs saying they speak English have been accused of racism and warned they face suspension.

A group of drivers of licensed cabs in Southampton put up the signs because they claimed passengers complained to them that some drivers cannot speak English.
The matter came to a head in a meeting with drivers and the city council last week when some drivers told the council of the alleged problem.

Now the city council has said any cab that has the sign or a St George flag put up will have their licence suspended if they do not take them down within seven days.
This is because they need the permission of the authority to put up any sign.
It is also asking members of the public to report any such signs.
Clive Johnson, chairman of Southampton firm Radio Taxis, defended the stickers as a “protest” over falling standards of English among drivers and a response to customer feedback.
Mr Johnson said: “These signs are not racial.
“They are just saying we need to make sure new drivers have command of the English language because there are guys out there who are just bluffing it.
“It does not matter if they are Polish, Russian, French, Spanish – if they can not communicate to passengers we have to take that as a problem.”
Councillor Royston Smith, deputy leader of Southampton City Council, said: ”Members of the public and the taxi trade have expressed their concerns to us that these stickers are inappropriate so we are asking any taxi drivers in the city who are displaying these to take them down.
”In Southampton we take a really proactive approach in making sure our taxi drivers can communicate well to customers and we are satisfied that all our drivers have good enough communication skills to do just that.
”We are one of the few authorities in the country to require all new taxi drivers to pass a basic written skills test before they can get a licence, and then they need to pass a level 2 BTEC qualification.
”All our taxis have also been fitted with safety cams, so not only are we ensuring top quality customer service, our taxis will also be some of the safest in the country.”

So will the muslim drivers get told to take there flags or icons down?  NO

Will the Jamaicans get told to do the same? NO

Will the Scots get told to take down theirs? NO

Once again the English get trod on by local government, lets hope someone does something about this before it is too late.