For_England

Obviously one wants and independent UK, the other an independent England (the latter of which I personally favour more, despite supporting the BNP). But other than that, is there really alot of disagreement? Both support keeping a traditional country system, traditional English laws etc. I would guess that the EDs (rightly so in my opinion) see globalization (called 'free trade' by UKIPers) as detrimental to our national good. But other than these, are there alot of differences?

Millennium3

Yes - one has a leader who is not prepared to co-operate with other anti EU organisations for the greater good.

For_England

yes. He is a good speaker, but he does seem a little blinkered. I understand a new pan-European pressure group has formed, but UKIP stayed out of it. I used to support UKIP very much ten years ago.
I just took another look at the ED website. Very well designed (the UKIP one is awful, though I hear they are changing that. The BNP one has lots of good info, but needs much better presentation IMO). It's been a while since I looked over the manifesto, and I was surprised by the fact I agreed with virtually all of it. The EDs are far more patriotic, in my opinion, then the UKIPers, who seem to have more of the capitalist disease of knowing the cost of everything, and the social value of nothing. And obviously the EDs do not carry the baggage of a questionable past, as the BNP does. However I do still think that the BNP immigration stronger is more suitable for our needs at the present (to prevent a demographic time bomb). I disagree however that all of the 'people of England' are English, as the manifesto possibly suggests. If not for the immigration issue, I could see myself supporting the EDs.

Millennium3

My main concern with the ED's is that they appear to be hell bent on breaking the Union, but as far as can see, they are an extremely well run party and, if they can straighten out the Union problem, they are the main hope for the anti EU movement.

UKIP I am afraid are dead without a change of leader, even then as you say ‘seem to have more of the capitalist disease of knowing the cost of everything, and the social value of nothing’.

I have not taken sufficient notice of ED's immigration policy to comment.

BNP have a bad name and, how ever much they change, this will always prevent them for obtaining mainstream appeal.

Andrew Constantine

Thanks for that. The patriotic bit is not really surpriisng - a number of our members have services connections. Noticeably Robin Tilbrook is from an army family and was an infantry officer before changing careers.

I have obviously forgotton my own party's immigration policy, but I assure you that if it was soft on continued mass immigration I would be working to change it - fast.

It is true that we have a civic definition of Englishness - and we will not change it. But this policy is not some soft touch. We think that if you are living legally in England, with UK citizenship, then you are to be regarded as English and expected to behave and obay our laws.

There is a strong cultural fit between some parts of UKIP and the English Democrats (it's why quite a number of us are former UKIP). But we do keep banging on about a revived English Parliament and democracy! We also think that English nationalism is an incoming tide and that England's new found confidence will see us out of the EU, So we may be close to UKIP in some ways, but also rather different in others!

Andrew Constantine

Andrew Constantine

I agree with that. While an anti-establishment candidate can be fun and get the protest vote, national elections are too serious a matter for a protest party to win much, if anything.

I do not usually join in the unrelenting polemics against the BNP as so many do. Partly because it is pointless; partly as I grew up politically in the 1970s when the threat to democracy and the UK's national survival came from the left and Communist Soviet Union. I do not see the BNP as some threat to democracy - that in my view of the world comes from the EU, the BBC and our corrupt politcal elites.

There will be many members of the BNP who are ordinary hardworking law-abiding and good fellow citizens concerned about some of the huge changes occurring in the UK. In voting for the BNP, they are registering a protest vote which is not going anywhere. I hope that the BNP leadership accept the truth of these observations and disband their party.

Andrew Constantine

For_England

Andrew, I don't see that many differences between BNP policy and that of the EDs (please correct me if I'm wrong). I think one big difference is that the BNP would expand the existing legislation which allows for financial incentives for voluntary repatriation. If we weren't in the situation we are in, I would be more favourable to the EDs, but I think that the demographic situation is such that even if we closed the doors tomorrow, that the indigenous population would still become a minority by the end of the century, and I think that would spell the end of England and the UK (I'm sure many will disagree with that view). One thing I like about the BNP is that the party is run on democratic lines, and I think that that is making the process of moderation irreversible. I note that there are some intellectuals joining the party, and I hope that that process continues as people become familiar with their policies. However I think anything less than some form of mass repatriation is too little, too late. On other policies it seems that there is much in common between the EDs and BNP.

Populist Lee

Here's a thought . . .
If the EDs get more votes than the BNP in Sedgefield, the BNP will collapse.

Discuss.

Dissident Congress

The Sedgefield by-election is make or break for the BNP considering the lacklustre results from the local elections this year. A poor result will be a severe setback that could take years to recover from, and Griffin's credibility will go down the same plughole as Blair's.

The BNP have one advantage over the ED as operating as a much more powerful protest vote. Sedgefield voters who want to deliver a vicious retaliation towards Labour would naturally choose the BNP over UKIP or ED any day.

For_England

If that were to happen, then yes, it could well spell the end of the BNP. I was thinking already that the mayoral election in London will be a lose-lose situation for the BNP, since it will bring the EDs national coverage if they do well (which I expect they will, since they have a nationally-known candidate). And I suspect even alot of BNP voters in Romford and places will be tempted to vote EDs just to send a message to Labour (I advised my mother who lives in London to vote for Bushel, not BNP, for example). That kind of national coverage will show people that the BNP is not the only protest vote out there, and I think it could really damage them in the future. As far as I am concerned, it is BNP or nothing, since their repatriation policy is the only thing that could stop the indigenous population becoming a minority (perhaps under Islamic rule). Every other party stands for the death of Britain and minority status of the indigenous population- some faster (Labour, Conservative), some slower (UKIP, EDs).
What I like about the EDs is they don't have the image problem; if they could somehow strengthen their immigration policy to include voluntary repatriation programmes, I would probably switch my vote (and membership if I ever get round to joining the BNP).