:-):-):-):-):-):-):-)

EDP site failled to comment on the result yet.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by blueblood1920:
:-):-):-):-):-):-):-)

EDP site failled to comment on the result yet.

Who would want to be associated with such a nasty, malign, mean spirited, and graceless creature like you! You bring nothing desirable - and certainly nothing necessary - to politics in this country.

A pox on you and a particularly virulent one at that!

Jes' responding in kind! :-)

:-)

-
[Rep]

Although I belong to another party, I would like to add my comments to the discussion.

This is now the second time the EDP have been beaten by the OMRLP, it is the 4th time in as many by-elections they have failed to exceed 1%. These are seats in different parts of the country, and vastly different electorates, yet their basic message is not resonating with the public. People aren't interested in the finer details of the Barnett Formula, or the debate about an English parliament. These are not the real issues. The concerns people have are the economy, food and fuel prices, immigration, housing, law and order, education, health, transport, and the environment.

The sooner they give up campaigning on Barnett and an EP, and focus on the concerns that people have, they might stand a better chance of electoral success. The Tilbrook/Constable dream team simply isn't working and the ordinary EDP member should now seriously consider getting rid of them. They may have put up a huge amount of money, but their electoral record is abysmal. The same, tired old electoral strategy is wheeled out time after time and is failing big time.

The facts should stand for themselves about electoral performances. The by-elections have been poor, and the GLA elections were a disaster. Even the fledgling Free England Party, who have only been established a few months, massively outscored the EDP when they stood against each other in London. No, it is not crowing, it is simply stating facts.

I'm expecting Cassie to gallantly come to their defence, but when you do, please use a constructive argument against the facts :-)
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Richard the Lionheart:
Although I belong to another party, I would like to add my comments to the discussion.

This is now the second time the EDP have been beaten by the OMRLP, it is the 4th time in as many by-elections they have failed to exceed 1%. These are seats in different parts of the country, and vastly different electorates, yet their basic message is not resonating with the public. People aren't interested in the finer details of the Barnett Formula, or the debate about an English parliament. These are not the real issues. The concerns people have are the economy, food and fuel prices, immigration, housing, law and order, education, health, transport, and the environment.

The sooner they give up campaigning on Barnett and an EP, and focus on the concerns that people have, they might stand a better chance of electoral success. The Tilbrook/Constable dream team simply isn't working and the ordinary EDP member should now seriously consider getting rid of them. They may have put up a huge amount of money, but their electoral record is abysmal. The same, tired old electoral strategy is wheeled out time after time and is failing big time.

The facts should stand for themselves about electoral performances. The by-elections have been poor, and the GLA elections were a disaster. Even the fledgling Free England Party, who have only been established a few months, massively outscored the EDP when they stood against each other in London. No, it is not crowing, it is simply stating facts.

I'm expecting Cassie to gallantly come to their defence, but when you do, please use a constructive argument against the facts :-)

No, apart from questioning your somewhat overstated phrase 'massively outscored' and reserving my position in respect of your other opinions, I think you've made a reasonable and reasoned comment! This is the kind of post to be welcomed here! :-)

I hope you'll forgive me when I say that I'm tired of the infantile 'told-you-so', destructive posts which masquerade as political debate. Your response is not remotely akin Richard and you have lifted the level of response to this thread!

I'm sorry that your expectations of me and my reactions are so low. Perhaps I deserve that, but I'm not sure why? :-)

--
[Rep]

You misunderstand Cassie, I have great admiration for you :-)

The point I'm trying to make is that I believe the EDP strategy has to change if they are to be successful. I just don't believe the present leadership has the necessary skills to bring the party success.

On the issue of massively outscoring, Free England polled more than 50% more votes than the EDP candidate. If MPs voted themselves a 50% pay rise, I think the word "massive" might be used? :-)

I just think they should reconsider their strategy. That is entirely up to them, but as you well know, the party has lost some seriously talented people in recent times, and I can't think of a single EDP member that would make a good leader, apart from perhaps Ed Abrams.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Richard the Lionheart:
You misunderstand Cassie, I have great admiration for you :-)

The point I'm trying to make is that I believe the EDP strategy has to change if they are to be successful. I just don't believe the present leadership has the necessary skills to bring the party success.

On the issue of massively outscoring, Free England polled more than 50% more votes than the EDP candidate. If MPs voted themselves a 50% pay rise, I think the word "massive" might be used? :-)

I just think they should reconsider their strategy. That is entirely up to them, but as you well know, the party has lost some seriously talented people in recent times, and I can't think of a single EDP member that would make a good leader, apart from perhaps Ed Abrams.

I can't really comment on the Henley By-election in particular because I simply have no facts other than the final voting figures.

As you know, I am no longer a member . . . of any political party. My position is that, although I would not have advocated that the FEP should have been formed [again as you know], it has been, and I accept that. Consequently, setting aside differences of approach, I wish both parties well. I see it to be in the interests of England and English nationalism for both parties to thrive, for the moment at least.

Pursuant to that approach, I have avoided criticising the FEP . . . as distinct from opposing posts put up by individual FEP members. I am pleased to observe that you, Richard, and other FEP activists have reciprocated in respect of the EDP, and I certainly do not regard your intervention here as being merely and gratuitously critical.

The EDP never expected to win Henley and an important reason for participating was to raise the profile of the Party and to do so quite extensively in relation to the actual costs incurred. Nevertheless, the number of votes attracted is disappointing for the Party. Against this outcome, it would be rather silly of me to disagree that a serious review of strategy should be undertaken.

Despite the EDP's limited objectives, it is disappointing not to be able to discern any tangible progress by that party. However, for very good reasons, the FEP itself has yet to make any significant mark, and it seems rather pointless to make comparisons of the two parties . . . at this stage anyway!

At this distance, I'm not sure that I could prescribe new intiatives for the EDP just now. As far as I am concerned, until an English nationalist party acquires prominence in England's affairs, I see my role as being one of encouragement [which, incidentally includes UKIP as the premier anti-EU party!] and that it is very childish to record glee at the misfortunes of the parties most likely (if at all) to pursue aims with which I agree [ie EDP, FEP and UKIP]!

The EDP [and UKIP] has to lick its wounds, pick itself up and try to move on. Were the stalwarts of the FEP in a similar position, I would object just as much to the juvenile approach of the initiator of this thread! Quite simply, it isn't English!

Thanks once again for raising the level of this otherwise puerile thread. :-)


-
[Rep]

More examples of people being swept to kerbside by failed party leaders unable to grasp the massive implications of trying to outwit other party leaders in the first-past-the-post-system.

THAT is largely what is at fault, a huge failure to understand the heavily weighted obstructions that face a minor party, especially when competing for similarly minded voters in FPTP. Success CAN be had in PR, that has been shown to be self-evident for the Greens, UKIP and now the BNP, but FPTP is a massively different animal and produces massively different results, and party leaders need to realise this before 2009.
[Rep]

BNP's:-) result against the ED's:-) result in Henley proves that being British:-) is politically more popular than being English:-). The little England parties should now pack in and support Unionism instead of wasting their time and splitting patriotic voting.
[Rep]

No - it just shows that immigration is a major issue for people.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Northumbrian:
No - it just shows that immigration is a major issue for people.

The BNP may have also picked up a lot of spontaneous protest votes in light of the recent positive discrimination laws in employment. Just a theory - don't shoot me for it!
[Rep]