English Rights Campaign

to defend the rights and interests of the English nation

Monday, July 10, 2017


‘Protect and Encourage British Industry 
I would like to see a very liberal, low tax, enterprise economy internally, while allowing tariffs and protection externally. Once out of the EU, we would be free to raise tariffs to encourage our own business and put Britain first all the time. We would not tender abroad for government contracts. I would like an end to free-for-all globalisation and have a specific policy of putting everything British first.’
Anne Marie Waters, A Fair & Dynamic Economy (policy document published today)

At last, someone in UKIP is not terrified of tariffs!

What is not stated, is that the willingness to use tariffs makes the Brexit process very easy indeed, as Britain will no longer have to grovel to the EU in pursuit of free trade. We can just leave. However, Anne Marie Waters has not explained how she would approach the Brexit issue, nor has she set bringing Britain’s trade with the EU back into balance as an objective.

Monday, June 26, 2017

Islam, Free Speech, and the Self-Hatred of the "Lunatic Left" - Anne Mar...

Saturday, June 10, 2017


The May Government's failure to even maintain an overall majority in the House of Commons, let alone to increase that majority as they took for granted they would, once again signals the sheer uselessness of the Tory Party. They began the unnecessary general election, that they called, with a 21-point lead over Labour. In a disastrous and complacent campaign, in which little evidence of Conservativism was evident, that 21-point lead was almost completely eliminated.

One year on from the vote Leave in the EU referendum, the May Government has done nothing. The monies still flow out, the immigrants still flow in – including the jihadists – and the EU continues to impose its rule upon us. The best that the Tories have to offer is more talk and Brexit proposals which they have no intention of implementing until many years into the future. The May Government has been consistent with its promises of opt outs, interim periods, exemptions, transitional arrangements etc. Ultimately, all that the May Government has to offer is 'a new deep and special partnership' with the EU after many years of very, very complex negotiations; so complex, we are told, that they cannot be rushed.

The May Government's Brexit Postponed strategy (possibly, Drama Queen Brexit might be a better term) has been fully and enthusiastically endorsed by all wings of UKIP, apart from the odd resolute dissenting voice. UKIP's own election effort was spirited but doomed. The UKIP vote collapsed. They were unable to contest as many seats as in the 2015 general election, and although there were moves to improve their manifesto, that manifesto fell short of what was needed – even regarding Brexit, which UKIP took for granted was already in the bag. It most definitely is not.

The English Rights Campaign has already advocated Turbo Brexit, which apart from establishing the broad direction of policy needed, also emphasized the need for speed. We need to get on with it! Brexit should be history by now. We should, with a competent government, be in a post-Brexit Britain. Instead we face a ponderous, pompous set of drawn-out negotiations. Those negotiations are due to start within days and the EU has already declared that they will refuse to discuss the future relationship with Britain until Britain has agreed to their terms for giving Britain permission to leave. Those terms include a payment of around £80billion (a figure that is being continuously revised upwards), an open border between the Ireland and Ulster, and the EU's conditions as to its authority over those EU citizens presently living in Britain or who might wish to return to Britain (thus making them a Trojan Horse). The May Government is desperate for a free trade agreement with the EU.

The EU negotiators are officials who have been given instructions. They do not have the leeway to compromise. If the EU sticks to its demands, then Britain will very quickly be faced with a hard choice. Either Britain backs down to this blackmail, or else it doubles down and walks away at once, thus delivering what the voters voted for in June 2016: Britain will leave.

There are already those Tories who wish to delay the negotiations, or to downgrade them to preliminary chit chats. The EU is naturally pleased with the Tory incompetence, and have every incentive to take an even tougher line. If the talks proceed then the May Government is highly likely to face a rebellion whichever option it takes. Remainer May is inclined to sell out. That has been her approach from the start.

The chances of a second general election in 2017 are high. Meanwhile, UKIP is about to embark on yet another leadership contest following Paul Nuttall's announcement that he is standing down.

The right wing of British politics is a shambles.

Tuesday, June 06, 2017


In her statement following the latest act of Islamist terrorism in England, Theresa May pointed out that the police had managed to shoot all three of the terrorists dead within eight minutes of the start of the attacks. Even so seven people were killed and another forty-eight were hospitalized due to their wounds, some of which were very serious. The attackers had randomly attacked people with knives and had tried to slit people's throats.

As previously, May paid tribute to the police and emergency services. She praised the courage of those members of the general public who had 'defended themselves and others from the attackers', and that, naturally, 'our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and with their friends, families and loved ones'.

May pointed out that this was the third terrorist attack in Britain in the last three months, and also revealed that the 'intelligence agencies and police had disrupted five credible plots since the Westminster attack in March'. In other words only around 60% of terrorist activities were foiled. The other 40% continued.

May acknowledged that 'terrorism breeds terrorism', with the terrorists copying one another. Therefore, she said, 'Things need to change' in 'four important ways'. First there was a need to defeat the 'evil ideology of Islamist extremism' which is 'a perversion of Islam and a perversion of the truth', and which rejected 'Western values of freedom, democracy and human rights' as being 'incompatible with the religion of Islam'. May said this 'will only be defeated' by 'turning people's minds away from this violence' and convincing them that 'pluralistic, British values are superior to anything offered by the preachers and supporters of hate'.

Second, May said that there was a need 'to work with allied, democratic governments' to 'reach international agreements' to 'regulate cyberspace' to thwart the extremism. There was a need to 'reduce the risks of extremism online' at home. The flaw in this globalist response is obvious; as if the internet is the sole preserve of 'allied, democratic governments'.
Third, the internet 'safe spaces' were also accompanied such places in 'the real world'. May therefore believed that we need more 'military action to destroy ISIS in Iraq and Syria', and also a need to be 'far more robust in identifying and stamping out' extremism in Britain 'across the public sector and across society'. She believed that this would 'require some difficult and often embarrassing conversations', but that the whole country needed to 'come together to take on this extremism', and that 'we need to live our lives not in a series of separated, segregated communities but as one truly United Kingdom'.

Fourth, May said there should be a review of the 'counter-terrorism strategy' to keep pace with the changing nature of the terrorist threat. This might entail more powers for the police and security services, and possible stiffer prison sentences for 'even apparently less serious offences'.

May said that 'enough is enough' and that 'when it comes to taking on extremism and terrorism, things need to change'. She concluded that 'As a country, our response must be as it has always been when we have been confronted by violence. We must come together, we must pull together, and united we will take on and defeat our enemies.'  

The English Rights Campaign is unimpressed. Despite the superficial appearance of a recognition of the need for change, what the four proposals involve is more of the same. The tolerance of Islamist extremism will continue under the May Government.

The first proposal, once again, is an assertion that what is needed is the defeat of a 'perversion of Islam' by somehow convincing those who might be supposedly radicalized that they should prefer British values; that is that they should accept the laws of infidels to the word of Allah. This is a cop out. The historical fact, and the fact of the creed of Islam, is that there is a sizeable minority of Muslims who believe in killing those they regard as infidels. Islam is a supremacist creed. It has been spread historically by war and conquest. The extremists, who interpret the creed of Islam literally, will not be convinced that Western democracy is preferable. We have not been troubled in the past by such people because they were in their own countries and not in the West. But now, the British government, as well as other countries across the West, is positively seeking out new Muslim immigrants to bring in. It is the policy of mass immigration that is responsible for the terrorism and the May Government has absolutely no intention of ending that policy.

The second proposal is a globalist response, coupled with a restatement of a long-standing determination to monitor and control the internet. The concept of people being radicalized on the internet presumes that those people are victims who have been led astray by others, and therefore are not responsible for their own actions. This ignores that the extremist strand of Islam is inherent.

The third proposal is a restatement of a commitment to take military action in the Middle East, as well as an assertion that there are 'separated, segregated communities' which need to be integrated. This supposed call for integration is a deviation from a particular interpretation of muliticulturalism, but as the English Rights Campaign has pointed out repeatedly (for example, The English Rights Campaign item dated the 5th October 2005), this is merely a policy for more anti-English ethnic cleansing in England. This is a perversion itself.

The fourth proposal was a predictable call for more powers for the police and security services and stiffer sentences.

At no stage did May commit to discontinue the Royal Navy's people smuggling activities in the Mediterranean. Nor was there any commitment to repeal the Human Rights Act or to withdraw from the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees, despite the harm caused by these two instruments. There was no commitment to secure Britain's borders against illegal immigrants or jihadists, or end the policy of mass immigration. The immigrants, legal or not, will continue to flood in. Underlying the May response was a total failure to acknowledge that we cannot reform Islam, nor is it our responsibility to do so. The immigrant communities, in particular the Muslim communities, have not assimilated, and those immigrants who are hostile towards our society should be ejected. Those who are violent in any sense should certainly be thrown out at once.

It is not the case that we have to keep politely asking the Islamists to stop their hostility and violence, and that it is only when we have persuaded them to be nice to us that peace will be restored. History shows that it is impossible for radical Islam to coexist peacefully with other cultures.

Thursday, June 01, 2017


The television debate yesterday evening between representatives of the Greens (Caroline Lucas), the Liberal Democrats (Tim Farron), UKIP (Paul Nuttall), Labour (Jeremy Corbyn), Plaid Cymru (Leanne Wood), the Tory Party (Amber Rudd), and the SNP (Angus Robertson, who is the SNP leader in the House of Commons) was an inconclusive encounter memorable for three main reasons. Firstly, Theresa May did not show up despite being the Tory Party leader (leaving the Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, to go instead); secondly, the audience was very Left Wing and vocal; and thirdly, as with the first debate but this time even more so, Paul Nuttall was continuously ambushed by the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the Liberal Democrats, and the Greens – all of whom displayed aggressive political correctness in an attempt to shut down and demonize dissenting views.

Naturally, immigration was an opportunity for the Lefties to parade their moral superiority. Angus Robertson sneered that the immigration debate 'shamed and demeans us all' and that there was a 'demonizing' of immigrants. Tim Farron spouted a Ponzi argument that there was a need to build more houses rather than to blame immigrants. Caroline Lucas said 'our country is enriched' by free movement and immigration. Paul Nuttall's point that the issue was about government policy was drowned out.

Regarding a question about security, once again Paul Nuttall's points about the need to face up to 'Islamist terrorism', including the need to revoke the passports of jihadists, was swamped by politically correct ideology. Caroline Lucas attacked Paul Nuttall claiming that the Manchester attack was not representative of Islam (Paul Nuttall never claimed it was), and Jeremy Corbyn said that he 'utterly deplore[d]' what Paul Nuttall had said and that we live in 'a multifaith, multicultural society'.

A question on climate change produced a similar response. Paul Nuttall's pointed out how India and China were building coal-fired power stations and how we needed to follow President Trump's lead and put Britain first. This was greeted with a loud wail. Leanne Wood said President Trump had shown 'terrible leadership', while Angus Robertson said he was 'appalled' and condemned President Trump as 'a climate change denier'.

Where Paul Nuttall did score well was on how to fund public services, when he set out how UKIP would cancel the HS2 railway project, cut foreign aid and reduce the Barnett formula. Tim Farron's big idea was 'don't leave the Single Market', while Amber Rudd said that we needed a 'strong economy', as if the present credit binge, low wages, high government spending deficit, and vast balance of trade deficit with the EU were all evidence of a sound economy.

The final question was about leadership, which was an opportunity for jibes about Theresa May's absence: 'the first rule of leadership is to show up'; 'good leaders don't run away from debate'; 'the U-turn Queen' (for example). Paul Nuttall said that we needed to get the Brexit we voted for and that there should be no divorce bill. This provoked Leanne Wood, who demanded if Paul Nuttall would 'pay dues' owed in the event of a 'real divorce', before condemning that we all know of 'rogues like you'. This is a truly astonishing rationale (even if funny). It shows which side Leanne Wood is on, and yet she assumes that the flow of money to Wales from England will continue regardless. One might point out that we also know of women like Leanne Wood, who assume that their shopping trips and their entitlement to a meal ticket for life should continue undisturbed by divorce or their ex-husband's financial circumstances.

During the debate, Jeremy Corbyn told Leanne Wood that the elections were to a UK parliament and that what happened in Wales was a different matter. This is a telling point (which Jeremy Corbyn missed), in that the Scots and Welsh nationalists have their own local parliaments and are then trying to impose their views on the English, who have no representation. There is a coalition of entities who are simply helping themselves to English taxpayers' monies unhindered by any semblance of English democracy. The Westminster parliament is a UK parliament and not an English one, and it is not defending English interests. UKIP is the only party that is now committed to addressing this by advocating an English parliament.

A key lesson of the debate is that UKIP is losing the moral argument. The Greens, the SNP, the Liberal Democrats, and Plaid Cymru are combining to shut down the points made by Paul Nuttall. Then there is Labour. Then there is the BBC audience. This puts UKIP at a disadvantage. But an underlying problem is a failure of policy development by UKIP, who are still inclined to sit on the fence. UKIP cannot properly respond to the attacks on them because their policies are a fudge.

The fight between patriotism and political correctness is the fight between good and evil. It is as clear cut as that.

Saturday, May 20, 2017


The televised debate between the leaders of five parties on Thursday evening was an interesting event, not detracted from by the absence of the Labour Party leader or the Tory Party leader. The leaders of the Liberal Democrats (Tim Farron), the Scottish National Party (Nicola Sturgeon), the Welsh nationalist, Plaid Cymru, leader (Leanne Wood), the Green Party leader (Caroline Lucas), and the leader of UKIP, Paul Nuttall, did attend.

The debate on most issues became Paul Nuttall against the rest, and he put up a spirited performance. The dividing line between the political correctness and patriotism was clear cut, although the policy of globalization was not properly challenged due to UKIP's flirtation with it and their commitment to free trade rather than balanced trade. This policy deficiency left Paul Nuttall without a robust response at times.

Regarding Brexit, Tim Farron staked out his position on wanting another referendum on the outcome of the Article 50 negotiations, and that voters should have the option to be allowed to vote to remain in the EU. All, apart from Paul Nuttall, were opposed to what they condemned as the Tory proposed 'Hard Brexit', if not 'Hard Extreme Brexit'.  Tim Farron claimed that the NHS needed immigration to fill its posts, and insisted that membership of the Single Market was necessary. Leanne Wood claimed that Wales would be damaged by 10% tariffs that she said would be imposed were Britain to leave the Single Market. Caroline Lucas was bold in her assertion that she was pro-immigration and wanted free movement. All of these pro-mass immigration arguments ignored the costs of that immigration. Paul Nuttall rightly pointed out that the scale of it was unsustainable. The allegation about supposed harm caused by tariffs ignored the fall in the value of sterling, which has the effect of cancelling out the 10% tariff, ignored the benefits of the tariffs being placed on EU imports, and the benefits of bringing Britain's trade with the EU back into balance.

Regarding the economy, Tim Farron had a simple policy: stay in the Single Market. Nicola Sturgeon agreed: 'don't damage the economy by pulling out of the Single Market'; she further alleged that the value of sterling had 'plummeted because of Brexit'. The idea that Brexit had not yet happened, or that sterling was, sooner or later, bound to fall given the scale of the trade deficit, was beyond the Remainers, as was the notion that the scale of the balance of trade deficit proved that membership of the Single Market had been a disaster for Britain.

Paul Nuttall advocated free trade and said that Britain should leave the Single Market to free itself to make free trade deals with countries across the world such as India and China. He did not see any problems with such a free trade mantra, nor with the need to bring Britain's trade with the EU back into balance (nor the major benefits that doing so would bring).

Interestingly, the issue of the Barnett Formula arose. Paul Nuttall has previously committed to creating an English Parliament. In the debate, Paul Nuttall said that UKIP would end the Barnett Formula (which transfers subsidies from England to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) and pointed out the higher spending that Scotland was getting as a result of it. He believed that around £5billion could be saved (in fact, there is more at stake). Nicola Sturgeon objected to this – despite advocating Scottish independence – and Leanne Wood said that to cut the subsidy that Wales gets would be 'a disaster' (this is despite Wales doing badly out of the Barnett Formula).

The unbalanced constitutional settlement is a key issue. For example, during the debate Nicola Sturgeon was sounding forth about the overseas aid that 'we' give and how 'we' need more immigrants to staff the NHS. In fact, it is England that is funding overseas aid as the other countries of Britain cannot pay their own bills, and it is England that is the recipient of the mass immigration and the consequences of it, such as the desperate housing shortage.

At one point Paul Nuttall said that he would put more money into the NHS and social care by reducing overseas aid to 0.2% of GDP – the same as the USA donated under President Obama. This provoked howls of outrage from the other leaders, who accused that to reduce overseas aid would be taking money from some of the poorest people in the world. They were united in their belief that they English taxpayers' monies should be given away to those foreigners deemed to be worthy recipients. Nicola Sturgeon's largesse with English taxpayers' monies knew no bounds.

It is untrue that aid flows to the poorest people in the world. In 2014, 60% of Britain's £12.6billion overseas aid budget went to agencies such as the World Bank, the UN and the EU. In October 2012, the amount spent on consultants leapt by 45%. The 'poverty barons' in receipt of monies included PriceWaterhouseCoopers, £4million in October 2012, and Adam Smith International, £5.8million, as well as foreign consultants such as ABT Associates which received £2.1million. The Big Six accountancy firms have also been major recipients of foreign aid.

Transparency International has highlighted that Britain sends overseas aid to virtually all those countries with serious corruption. The Commons International Development Committee has complained that in Pakistan corruption is rife and that wealthy Pakistanis pay little tax (less than 1% of Pakistanis pay tax), and yet Pakistan is the largest recipient of British overseas aid.

Overseas aid is not only costly and damaging to Britain, but also to the recipient countries. It constitutes an outflow of monies from Britain, has a corrupting influence, and it does not lift the recipient countries out of poverty. For example, both Afghanistan and Nigeria have each received more aid than the USA spent on reconstructing Europe after WWII under the Marshall Plan. Yet both countries are corrupt and remain poor. Nigeria receives aid despite substantial oil wealth and despite having its own space programme. Since 1960, more than $1trillion has been given to sub-Saharan Africa, while GDP in the region has fallen. Those poor countries getting high levels of aid are no more likely to take off, economically, than those receiving little if any aid.

The issue of overseas aid and the harm done by it is dealt with in The Ponzi Class: Ponzi Economics, Globalization and Class Oppression in the 21st Century by Michael William (available from Amazon, Kindle or direct from CreateSpace), in the Chapter on Ponzi Economics.

Paul Nuttall was correct to say that charity begins at home. Overseas aid is not charity, it is a Ponzi class status symbol, allowing a whole host of worthies to show off their self-appointed righteousness. They are not compassionate; they are snobs. If they want to give money away, then let them give their own money away rather than somebody else's.

Saturday, May 06, 2017


'The rapid succession of monarchs had arisen and fallen in the provinces of Gaul [the Gallic Empire was in rebellion against the Roman Empire which at the time, 272 AD, was teetering on the brink of collapse due to barbarian and Persian invasions]. The rigid virtues of Posthumus served only to hasten his destruction. After suppressing a competitor who had assumed the purple at Mentz, he refused to gratify his troops with the plunder of the rebellious city; and in the seventh year of his reign, became victim of their disappointed avarice. The death of Victorinus, his friend and associate, was occasioned by a less worthy cause. The shining accomplishments of that prince were stained by a licentious passion, which he indulged in acts of violence, with too little regard to the laws of society, or even to those of love. He was slain at Cologne, by a conspiracy of jealous husbands, whose revenge would have appeared more justifiable had they spared the innocence of his son. After the murder of so many valiant princes, it is somewhat remarkable that a female for a long time controlled the fierce legions of Gaul, and still more singular that she was the mother of the unfortunate Victorinus. The arts and treasures of Victoria enabled her successively to place Marius and Tetricus on the throne, and to reign with a manly vigour under the name of those dependent emperors. Money of copper, of silver, and of gold, was coined in her name, she assumed the titles of Augusta and Mother of Camps; her power ended only with her life; but her life was perhaps shortened by the ingratitude of Tetricus.
         When, at the instigation of his ambitious patroness, Tetricus assumed the ensigns of royalty, he was governor of the peaceful province of Aquitaine, an employment suited to his character and education. He reigned four or five years over Gaul, Spain, and Britain, the slave and sovereign of a licentious army, whom he dreaded, and by whom he was despised. The valour and fortune of Aurelian [the Roman Emperor] at length opened the prospect of deliverance. He ventured to disclose his melancholy situation, and conjured the emperor to hasten to the relief of his unhappy rival. Had this secret correspondence reached the ears of the soldiers, it would most probably have cost Tetricus his life; nor could he resign the sceptre of the West without committing an act of treason against himself. He affected the appearances of a civil war, led his forces into the field against Aurelian, posted them in the most disadvantageous manner, betrayed his own counsels to the enemy, and with a few chosen friends deserted in the beginning of the action. The rebel legions, though disordered and dismayed by the unexpected treachery of their chief, defended themselves with desperate valour, till they were cut in pieces almost to a man, in this bloody and memorable battle, which was fought near Châlons in Champagne.'
Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire