a swansong 4 europe

Another complete and utter waste of time and energy.

I see on the site the FEP boasts about the "best ever result for English nationalism" in London South West, but they only took 1.5%!! Even with the EDP vote - which would have beaten both UKIP and the Christian Alliance - the FEP would still have only just beaten the practically defunct National Front. Hardly something to shout about.

So I guess the "English" vote will be further screwed up by yet another dilution of support in next years Euro poll. What on earth do these people really think they are going to achieve under our brutal first past the post system?

No wonder we are being shafted as a nation with this number of competing organisations.

Hartlepool

The Nationalist parties are all part of the EU devised LIB-LAB-CON troika,they were all introduced to water down the vote in the UK.

Richard the Lionheart

Interesting comment, but I can confirm we have not been approached by the evil trinity to water down the vote in the UK, and I can also confirm we have not been introduced into the political arena by them either. Not sure what evidence you base your claim on to be honest.

__________________
The Free England Party - England's Premier Nationalist Party
www.freeengland.com .....Serious about England

Richard the Lionheart

What do you suggest then?

__________________
The Free England Party - England's Premier Nationalist Party
www.freeengland.com .....Serious about England

Hartlepool

Those who introduced the Nationalist movement and its ideas are not around today,are they?

I'm talking about modern movement mainly,say over the last 15/20 years,no longer.

Look into how they came about and who the guiding lights were,then,look at how little progress all of those National parties have made.

For example,who started the ball rolling with them all,where did they originate p[olitically,and,exactly where are these people now,and who are they now cavorting with?

a swansong 4 europe

What I suggest is that which I have already suggested on other threads:

i) Parties with roughly similar agendas should agree NOT to stand against each other as that will simply produce a negative and wasted set of results in a FPTP system that punishes minor parties, and which would be better exploited by a single minor party representing a particular general view. The Greens have the luxury of virtually NO opposition to their agenda when they stand (fortunately for them or their results would be even cr*ppier than they are now);

ii) That the increasing number of patriotic parties will simply dilute the limited financial and physical resources that are available within the country which in some cases are fighting almost identical campaigns, ie, EDP and FEP etc;

iii) That there has to be a clear electoral winner in the patriotic/anti EU movement and that ultimately the voters will acknowledge this and gravitate towards the party that appears to be the obvious favourite to do well.

iv) That the patriotic parties should realistically only target seats where a particular set of advantages already exist to justify them standing, and stop fielding candidates to simply "make the numbers up" I say this knowing that there are cases where paper candidates have done actually very well, and areas actually saving their deposit without doing a scrap of leafleting. What always bothers me in those cases is what sort of result COULD have been achieved had the area been properly primed? I am also aware of the need to achieve a minimum candidate number for certain elections but that should not always be the overriding consideration without appropriate planning as detailed below.

I suggest that in the first principles that in local wards there be a minimum of at least two+ members and that in constituencies a minimum of at least 10-12 members before a candidate is even proposed. That to campaign effectively, a ward/constituency/authority association to be the ONLY long term objective to continue to fight a seat with the view to getting members elected. Too often I an aware that many campaigns are practically "one man bands" which is sometimes great for short-term results, but tends to vanish up someones backside when they fall out with others activists/head office and leaves a potential good vote left without any alternate candidates.

Also, to stop the irritating habit that UKIP in particular has, of fielding candidates that have only several weeks or months membership. Too many of these people come and then vanish when they realise the bandwagon has left without them on board. I cannot understand why so many seats get fought with little or no representation (or established membership) of the party that is fighting the seat.

I know that this is not always practical and that often other factors dictate, but there has to be a base from which a long campaign to actually winning the seat is decided rather than the immediate objective of simply putting up a candidate for the sake of expediency. I would find it hard to believe that in those seats where a party has had a long standing elected member that there would be almost no members of that party actually resident in the area.

Nationalist parties in particular, and probably UKIP as well, have the rather annoying habit of standing where there is either little history of public interest or where a 'branch' tends to be a general term for a large area, and that there is, even now in the BNP, no plan to localise party machines into ward or constituency associations with responsibility only for that area. Why is this so hard? If the main parties do it and succeed, then the minor parties will have to follow suit or face extinction at the polls.