Monday, December 22, 2008

English Democrats - since when was intimidation part of legitimate campaign strategy?

I see that my colleague, Duncan Borrowman, has been having a bit of trouble with the English Democrats. I don't intend to involve myself in that, apart from to associate myself with his response to them.

Featured on Liberal Democrat VoiceHowever, I note that the South East Area Chairman of the English Democrats has seen fit to write to representatives of each of the 'British' (his word, not mine) political parties, complaining about the behaviour of a number of named individuals and warning that they retain the right to seek the protection of the Race Relations Act against anyone who suggests that they might be racist and/or fascist.

I haven't had any experience of the English Democrats as a campaigning force, in part because I have spent my adulthood in areas where right-wing nationalism is unlikely to make much headway. Those of my colleagues who have are yet to be convinced that they are anything other than a reactionary party of the fringe right.

However, they do have one thing in common with some of history's less palatable political forces. The Nazi Party, as it rose to power, tended to use an increasingly corrupted legal system to hamstring political opponents, and dictatorships of left and right often used the law to persecute legitimate alternative movements.

Some might describe it as 'getting your retaliation in first'. Others might describe it as a desperate attempt by a bunch of fringe fanatics to gain a modicum of attention that their normal campaigning wouldn't achieve. Me, I think of it as an attempt to suppress potentially legitimate criticism. And you know, even the constitution of the German Democratic Republic, that well known democratic utopia that failed to survive the fall of communism, was constitutionally opposed to such an approach.

The English traditionally believe in a sense of fair play, of tolerance, a degree of give and take. Are the English Democrats therefore opposed to these fine attributes? And if so, might they like to remove the word English from their name?...


MatGB said...

Note the way that Mr Uncles is attacking Duncan while directly quoting something I said?

And can anyone explain to me how or where what I said can be said to be an attack on the English or the use of the term? I specifically stated it's not a racist term. FFS

Duncan Borrowman said...

I do hope their Race Relations questionnaire arrives with me tomorrow. I need something to take away for Christmas for cleaning out the litter tray,

Anonymous said...

You guys need to Study the 1976 Race Relations Act.

If you are so sure you are in the right, then why are you reluctant to give out your Home Addresses, so that the English Democrats can serve a Race Relations Questionaire upon you ?

The Law will determine who is right.

You simply cannot continue to imply that those who belong to a patriotic English Party are racist.

Is this your Campaigning tactic in Scotland and Wales when you are fighting against the SNP and Plaid Cymru ?

Steven Uncles

tally said...

lib/dems are neither liberal or democratic.
over christmas you might like to read 94 pages of letters to the press on the issue of an English parliament.Polls have shown a clear majority of English people want some form of English dimension at Westminster. This led to Frank Field making an early day motion calling for an English parliament. A number of lib/dems supported and signed the motion.
Were these lib/dem MP's right wing fringe dwellers too?

Anonymous said...

What a ridiculous comment mr borrowman you need something to clean your litter tray !so you accuse the English Democrats of being racists because of the word English....Well i say your the racsist with a nasty attitude, who hasnt the guts to stand by his,weasle words ,typical, yellow,trough, career, politician ! if you believe in democracy ! Let The Law decide. if not These accusations will come back to haunt you, Mr Borrowman,we have Election's on the way. Lance

Mark Valladares said...


Welcome to 'Liberal Bureaucracy'! Whilst I hope that the long words aren't too daunting for you, it is always nice to see new readers.

However, your inability to read, whether it be my posting or your Party's own manifesto, as presented on your Party website, does you no credit. At no point have I described the English Democrats as racist or fascist, and I am puzzled that you should raise the issue yourselves - hardly the act of individuals comfortable in their 'political skin'. Anyone would think that you have something to be ashamed of...

Steven's penchant for 'cut and paste' intimidation is hardly the act of a mainstream political party, and the lack of electoral success clearly justifies the 'fringe' tag.

Tally, on the other hand, seems to feel that agreement on one specific policy indicates a shared world view. Sorry, Tally, but immediate withdrawal from the European Union and a bar on immigration (from everywhere, I presume) are perceived to be right-wing stances by most people. Economic illiteracy is not something to be proud of particularly, and Liberal Democrats vigorously oppose such positions. I suspect that the views of the average Liberal Democrat and the average English Democrat would be somewhat divergent. For that I am grateful.

If you believe that intimidation and abuse are a replacement for proper campaigning and robust debate, you have a lot to learn about the English people, and about democracy. To then call yourselves English Democrats is an insult to two words that I am proud to use as part of a description of myself.

Daveb06 said...

Firstly let me state I am NOT a member of the ED,s, but without just cause you claim that they are right-wing, can we have some examples of this? you also use words such as corrupt legal system, nazi party as if in some way the ED,s are corrupt and a nazi party again can we have examples of this claim.

You use words such as tolerance,give and take, yet you expect all the give and take to come from the English (NO THE WORDS ENGLISH AND ENGLAND ARE NOT SWEAR WORDS OR RACIST) you ask the ED's to drop English from their title will you ask the Scottish Nationalists to drop Scottish from their tltle, your own party has Scottish Lib-dems, Welsh Lib-Dems, but oddly no English Lib-Dems why not?, will you ask the Black police Association to drop Black from their title and just be one police association I believe not, so were is your tolerance, give and take.

Mark Valladares said...


My, we are busy this evening, and whilst you have so pointedly demonstrated that the intellectual veneer of the English Democrats is somewhat thin and patchy, you too are welcome.

Whilst I use my commute to respond to your inadequate, poorly punctuated, misspelt effort, you are sitting at a computer, leaving the rest of the world free from your rather wearisome opinions.

Perhaps if you responded to Duncan's posting directly, rather than waste time commenting here, you might be better off. It does seem rather odd that you have no response to my comments...

Anonymous said...

Sirs/Madam, In a world seemingly preoccupied with questions of racism it seems that for many the gratuitous description of the English as racist and fascist is acceptable. Those who are truly British in their sympathies ought theoretically to be proud of the English who constitute so large a part of their number. But the British state will not long continue in being if this vilification of the English and their legitimate interests (in parliamentary representation, health,and education) goes much longer unchecked. A newspaper such as´The Daily Telegraph´ is so concerned to promote Britishness at every opportunity that it seems willing to acquiesce in the denigration of Englishness. But Englishness needs to be promoted as much as Scottishness or Welshness, otherwise it cannot survive. At the moment we see English villages ´voting´ to become ´Welsh´ because of discrimination in the health service. This may seem amusing to some, but it will be disastrous in the long run. The English are entitled to their own parliament just as much as any other nation (e.g. Irish, Scottish, Welsh). New parties such as the English Democrats have every right to campaign for an English Parliament free from slurs of racism and fascism. The British have much to answer for in their imperial denial of rights to subject peoples, among whom I now I include the English just as much as the Chagossians (and formerly the Irish of the 26 counties). Very best wishes, Gerald Morgan, FTCD (1993-2002) (Lydbrook School; English Parliamentary Party)

Mark Valladares said...


Not a member of the English Democrats? Why, wouldn't they have you?

But seriously, read my comments above. And why so touchy about the right-wing description? Conservatives consider themselves to be right-wing, and they're a mainstream political party of government!

If your 'rent a mob' approach is representative of your view of politics, then perhaps you need to get out more and talk to people with a different view of the world.

You imply that my view is 'un-English'. I was born here, and according to the English Democrats, I'm English (unless of course, you wish to deny me that status). If the English Democrat definition of English is to be accepted, everyone born in this country, or who lives here legally, regardless of their background is English. You might be uncomfortable with that. I'm not.

Oh, and by the way, there are English Liberal Democrats, as we are a Federal Party, with three State Parties (we don't organise in Northern Ireland, our sister Party, the Alliance, fly the flag for liberalism there). We have an English Council, various sub-committees thereof, and a place in our Party's constitution. Indeed, we make policy which is applicable in England only (it says so on each policy).

Such laziness merely indicates that your opinion lacks intellectual rigour. Have a nice day, nonetheless.

Mark Valladares said...

Dear Gerald,

Welcome, and thank you for your comments.

As a liberal, I believe in self-determination, and if a majority of the English people were to decide that an English state, independent of Scotland , Wales and Northern Ireland, was the preferred option, I for one would be happy to stand aside and respect a democratically taken decision.

That said, given that Wales and Northern Ireland were conquered, we would probably need to offer them independence first. And, given that one of the implications of the United Kingdom is that an interdependence has been created, this would be less than wholly attractive to the Welsh and Northern Irish.

The Scottish position is somewhat different, with a political party actively seeking independence. There will doubtless be a referendum, and Scots will decide their future.

There are few historic examples of a geographic entity being cut adrift by a country it was formerly part of, and where there was no popular campaign for independence. Therefore, to unpick the United Kingdom would be difficult.

Thus, we need to find a way to 'rub along', which may mean greater and greater autonomy. With that should come greater transparency of funding arrangements, so that we can all understand why funding levels vary and why resourcing needs are different in areas of sparse population. That variation does not just exist between England and Scotland, or between England and Wales, but between Birmingham and Mid-Suffolk, or between Northumberland and Berkshire.

Anonymous said...

Mark V
Whilst i dont sit around waiting to comment,on your petty criticisms,by a elite(career) politician with attitude,i like to bring matters to a head,rather than make sly, sneering, lefty,insults to win a point.Liberals are gutless walking out of Parliament not Supporting the English People to vote on a referendum , No Democracy there,Yes we want out of EU,because we get nothing from EU, than a Massive debt,without Democracy what sane person would want that ! have you managed to read our manifesto before making stupid comments & assumptions Mr Veneer.. English not British certainly not European.. we believe people born here are English why is that so hard for you to believe...Lance

Mark Valladares said...


Spend more time at your computer, and read a bit about what Liberal Democrats actually think, rather than engage your kneejerk biases here on 'Liberal Bureaucracy'.

For the record, I'm not a career politician, I have a real job, and do my politics in my time, with my money. I like to see both sides of the argument, as much so that I can understand the context within which my political opponents operate. And yes, I read the manifesto of the English Democrats. It is relatively harmless, if not to my personal taste. You, on the other hand, appear incapable of reading or understanding what I have written. Therefore, until you can demonstrate that you are actually responding to my words, rather than your bias, you are barred.

Is there anyone in the English Democrats who can make a reasoned case and not stoop to intimidation or abuse?

Anonymous said...

I would like to point out that whilst the EDP may be a small political party, it is hardly a "reactionary party of the fringe right".

I consider myself an English Democrat but my personal politics are distinctly left wing. In fact, I consider myself a socialist - small 's'.

Perhaps you could have the decency to do some research before branding people right wing, since I am sure that there are plenty of people in the party who aren't right wing at all, not that there is anything wrong with being right wing.

And if you are surprised by the vehement response of the English Democrats then perhaps you should consider how you'd feel if the lib dems were compared to the Nazi party.

Merry Christmas.

Anonymous said...

Ok Mark,Fair enough, point taken, if you will allow me to make comment.
What is all this conquered business , re Independence
are you saying the norman conquest of the four nations of these Islands,a thousand years ago are the responsibilty of The English & the English Democrats,or have we democractic right to campaign for a English parliament,& Independence within the UK Hence four nations,four Parliaments beneath the Umbrella of the UK...Lance

Mark Valladares said...

Anonymous @ 2.25,

I don't encourage anonymity, as it implies cowardice and an unwillingness to take part in genuine dialogue. But given that you haven't actually read what I wrote, I feel justified in abusing you as another knee-jerk reactionary.

You describe yourself as an English Democrat but aren't apparently a member. Have you ever voted for an English Democrat? Have you met any? What qualifies you to describe the politics of their membership then? A block on all immigration and withdrawal from the European Union are certainly views most identified with a right-wing stance, although the latter view has its adherents amongst the left too. But repudiation of our agreement to accept legitimate refugees fleeing persecution? That's a right wing stance if ever I saw it. It's in the manifesto of the English Democrats, which I heartily encourage you to read.

Oh, and one last thought. I didn't compare the English Democrats with the Nazi Party, merely noting that the use of legal action to harass political opponents was a tactic used by the Nazi Party. I can recommend a good history book, assuming that you were interested. Although, given that you're too lazy to read a short opinion piece properly, a whole book is probably beyond your scope...

Mark Valladares said...


Both Ireland and Wales were conquered by an English King, and that kind of makes us responsible as Englishmen (and women). The English Democrats were around in the 15th century, so it would be grossly unfair to blame them.

The English Democrats have every right to campaign for an English Parliament. Indeed, I've pondered the question myself in the past, here on this blog. What I fundamentally object to is the use of intimidation to suppress opposition. Steven Uncles' use of the threat of Race Relations Act questionnaires against anyone who even hints that the English Democrats are less than a paragon of virtue. Argue the case, disagree on policy by all means. But Steven makes the English Democrats look like reactionary idiots, especially as you can't serve such a questionnaire on an individual in any case. Just tell him to stop and make a positive case for the English Democrats...

Mark Valladares said...


Both Ireland and Wales were conquered by an English King, and that kind of makes us responsible as Englishmen (and women). The English Democrats were around in the 15th century, so it would be grossly unfair to blame them.

The English Democrats have every right to campaign for an English Parliament. Indeed, I've pondered the question myself in the past, here on this blog. What I fundamentally object to is the use of intimidation to suppress opposition. Steven Uncles' use of the threat of Race Relations Act questionnaires against anyone who even hints that the English Democrats are less than a paragon of virtue. Argue the case, disagree on policy by all means. But Steven makes the English Democrats look like reactionary idiots, especially as you can't serve such a questionnaire on an individual in any case. Just tell him to stop and make a positive case for the English Democrats...

Anonymous said...

my questions were not answered properly....( we are called all sorts of nasty names,with no justification )you say you have thought about my questions, & have some sympathies, i have started to be involved with politics because of the injustices metered out to English people like wise,have worked all our lifes, payed into the pot & had the politicians in the comfort of a seat in parliament ,stick two fingers up to me & my fellow compatriots,when you take The Barnet Formula, postcode lottery health care ,(People are dying thru lack of cancer drugs & treatment) also The Regions fiasco,Underfunding in England,Non Existant third World Representation. There is with out doubt racial persecution within the UK, of the People in England....We are standing up for our people our country no-one else is.... Lance

Mark Valladares said...


There is a real issue surrounding how Government funds are spent. However, whilst the Barnett Formula is increasingly difficult to justify after all these years, and Lord Barnett himself, still active in the House of Lords, describes it as outdated, there will always be imbalances between per capita spending in the four constituent nations.

Outside the cental lowlands, Scotland is thinly populated. Linking remote communities by road is expensive, supplying them with public services is more expensive, education, primary health care, the list goes on. Most of Wales, outside the old southern industrial belt, suffers from similar problems. This probably justifies some additional per capita spending.

My wife co-led a rural county council, Suffolk, as it happens. Outside of Ipswich, there are no large towns, and much of the population live in small towns and villages. Schools in Suffolk are smaller than schools in London because children can only reasonably travel so far for their education. Smaller schools do not benefit from the economies of scale that bigger ones do. Collecting rubbish from 20,000 households in Brent, where my family live, requires fewer dustcarts than the equivalent number of households in mid-Suffolk because they don't have to drive as far, and have less 'unproductive' time.

Creating an English Parliament in itself will not solve many of our problems in terms of healthcare and the postcode lottery. There are differences of priorities between English Primary Care Trusts because they have differing needs. The retirement communities on the South Coast will spend more money on geriatric care, whereas the old mining areas will need to spend more on treating cancers. With a limited budget, healthcare will always be limited by the available funds. That doesn't make it fair, but money isn't limited.

Withdrawal from the European Union won't really help. Our net contributions would represent enough to take about a penny off of the rate of income tax. In terms of the NHS budget, it would help a bit, but inflation in health care tends to be greater than that in the economy as a whole - all of these wonderful new drugs cost money. And who staffs the NHS these days, who cleans the wards, nurses the sick, treats our illnesses? Increasingly, the NHS is propped up by importing migrant labour, because they are the only ones willing to do it. Your Party wouldn't let them in. Yes, locals would probably do the work if the pay was good enough, but it isn't.

Politicians have their faults, but they are, by your definition, English. The people who vote them in are English, they just see the world differently to you.

And if you think that the English are racially persecuted, you really need to take a cold hard look around you. What are you being stopped from doing? Are you being driven from your home, denied the right to vote, to practice your religion, fly the flag of St George, to speak your native tongue? No, you are not. You are not standing up for the English as a whole, either. You are standing up for a group of people who share your view of the world, a world which is increasingly complex and interrelated. That doesn't mean that you're not entitled to hold your views, simply that your claim to be standing up for me is a false one. Many English people would challenge your claim to be the only people standing up for the country too. Most politically active people in this country want the best for this country, we just see a different future to the one the English Democrats appear to have.

Anonymous said...

This ruling British Elite,yes contains many compliant English MPS(A Disgrace to Democracy)
We are run by a govt,which was voted in on only 20% of the population,a minority,so 80% turned there backs on what was on offer,in other words non of the above,if labour get voted out,it will be because people dont want them,they dont particularly want lib Dems or tories,they just want rid of, because Westminister Politicians, out of touch, with the nation England,ordinary working people,How many prominent people are telling you this. saying britain is broken,England is going downhill(Recently Ray Winstone) are you shutting this out of your mind ! When the left bias BBC calls England Britain,yet openly promotes anything Scottish welsh Irish, but not the hard working long suffering English,full of injustices,people are not stupid,they see all this,alot are fleeing the country, alot remain & are beginning to question the injustices you refuse to acknowledge,(55 million in all) When we are campaigning we get alot of positive comments from people who have settled here,They say Englishness our heritage our history,is being surpressed,they are sympathetic,to our cause,Unfortunatly our Politicians fail to see this,they see bank accounts,perks,rather than equality
The EU not only costs money, more importantly it denies Democracy,denies freedoms & England,something else you fail to see,
Re the Barnet Formula i agree there are remote areas,but no way it should run into Billions & it does,a Discrace to Equality
Re One World,nobody wants to be forced to loose there identity & culture,does not mean you do not want to be friends,at peace, with the World,Im sorry you MPs have forgotten the word Democracy freespeech,& a VOTE, bulldose Politics will come back to haunt you,There are a lot of unhappy constituents. A change is coming !

George Potter said...

My previous and only comment was anonymous @ 2.25.

Whilst you have been fairly rude to me, I will not reciprocate. Instead, allow me to respond to each of your points in turn.

Forgive me for using anonymity. I will use my name this time.

As it happens, I am not a member. Primarily because I do not trust internet banking. I still do intend to join in the near future through some other means of paying membership. I have not voted for a party candidate since I was too young at the last elections. My comments on their membership are, admittedly based on the impression I have got from their manifesto and from online discussions.

I would suggest that it is you who have not read the manifesto. Whilst it does advocate a ban on asylum seekers, it does not say we sould turn their back on them completely. Instead it says that we should provide financial assistance to refugees who have fled to neighbouring, non-violent regime countries. Personally I question why genuine asylum seekers need to travel all the way to the UK to seek asylum when other "safe" countries are closer, although admittedly I am hardly an expert on the issue. Personally I disagree with that part of the manifesto - although I agree with the advocacy of a points sytem immigration, which I might add is not a "block on all immigration". I may differ from other EDs in that respect, but if a party's supporters were only those who fully agreed with the manifesto then the number of alligned voters would be very low indeed.

That being said I will concede that the party does have some if not quite a few right wing policies but then again it has some leftish policies as well. In any even I was objecting more to the fringe label than the right wing label since fringe seemed to be implying extreme.

I am sorry if you feel I failed to read your opinion piece properly. As a matter of fact I did, twice. Perhaps I took the wrong impression from it - that is, after all the disadvantage of non-verbal communication, so many nuances can be lost.

I would argue that drawing parallels (sp?) with the Nazi party is the same thing as comparing them with the Nazi party. Whilst it may not be technically, it acts in the same way through association. E.g. mentioning two things simultaneously causes a mental association between them. That may not have been your intention but that is how it comes across.

Finally, despite your apparent and rather offensive opinion that I am not literate, I would be happy for you to recommend a history book. I will probably have already read it since I am something of a history buff, but I welcome any suggestion you might have (despite what you might think, I am fairly well educated and literate - although your assumption otherwise is somewhat typical of the snobbishness that can be encountered in the governmental, so-called middle classes).

I appologise for the verbose and long-winded nature of my comment but I felt it approproiate.

George Potter said...


I sympathise with your viewpoint but it would come across better if you were to use proper spelling and grammar. The English Language is one of our greatest assets. Please don't abuse it.

Anonymous said...

Having worked,i mean worked, all my life in the Construction Industry, had broken toes,& fingers in all weathers,not in a cushy office,i get my message across as best as i can,i can do with out your sneering,otherwise you can climb a scaffold with me when the wind is blowing 200 feet up on a church roof,& have a conversation there if you like ! Lance

Mark Valladares said...


I point you to my stated position on anonymous comments. However, now that you have come forward as a 'real person', I'm perfectly happy to engage.

I tend to use words with extreme care, both professionally, where I spend much of my time debating the impact of legislation with members of the public and their professional representatives, and in my politics, where I have a hard-earned reputation for knowing and accurately applying the Party's constitution.

I compared the behaviour of a senior figure in the English Democrats with that of the Nazi Party in one aspect only. A reading of Richard J Evans's history of the Third Reich, from the early days of right-wing nationalism post-1918 to 1945, will demonstrate how the Nazi Party, as it reached a position of authority used false or misleading accusations to damage opposition political movements. Most of the commentators thus far have seen no need to challenge my assertion on that point, merely suggesting that I have made a blanket comparison between the English Democrats and the Nazi Party. Ironically, there are some similarities in policy in a number of non-controversial areas, on the economy, for example. That does not make them the moral equivalent of one another, and nor have I suggested that it does. On the other hand, a number of their supporters seem quite keen to defend them from a charge that I haven't made, and perhaps this is something that would give people reason for thought before joining. However, that merely reflects my view of the world, and is anything but an instruction.

The UN Convention on Refugees is one of those touchstone international agreements that signals a civilised nation in the eyes of international observers. To withdraw, as the English Democrats propose, would damage our credibility amongst the various international institutions and weaken our ability to make the moral case for change and for a better world. We accept, as a nation, a much smaller percentage of international refugees than is commonly believed. Polls indicate that, when asked, the public believe that we accept 23% of the world's refugees. The truth is that we accept less than 2%. And there is a vital difference between asylum seekers and economic migrants. Genuine asylum seekers make up a small proportion of those arriving on these shores.

Most political parties have come to accept that there should be limits on the number of economic migrants, and so the English Democrats are, in that sense, pushing at an open door.

I used the word 'fringe' quite deliberately. If I had meant 'far' or 'extreme', I would have used it. The English Democrats have achieved almost negligible levels of support thus far, and whilst that might change in the future, their views on immigration and Europe have been crowded out by UKIP and, to a lesser extent, by the Conservatives, both of whom are seen as a more credible vehicle for change at this time, and the English Democrats will need to create a distinctive message and find a space to communicate it.

I didn't accuse you of illiteracy, merely laziness. After a stream of comments designed almost entirely to demonstrate the inability of the authors to look at what I wrote rather than express their biases or read between the lines for non-existent subtext, my patience was less than total. You made a number of assertions about the English Democrats based on fairly limited practical experience and, given your then anonymity and my stated policy towards anonymous comment, I felt wholly justified in attacking you.

I am going to draw this exchange to a close now. Whilst I have learned little that is positive about some of those who support the English Democrats, my views on their right to exist and campaign remain unchanged. In a democracy, the rights of all to speak and campaign in support of their beliefs should be sacrosanct, so long as in doing so they do not call for the withdrawal of those rights from others.

To Lance, thank you for making a case. I don't agree with much of what you say, if only because we have the politics that we deserve. If people are so opposed to this government and are of an agreed view, then all they need to do is to form a political movement, run candidates and win. With the levels of support that you imply, funding wouldn't be a problem, and nor would support. I think that your view is still a minority one, as most English people associate with their city or county rather than England. That isn't to say that they don't think of themselves as English, but there has been little mainstream energy behind creating a sense of English identity. There is no English national anthem, for example. Folk music tends to be regional in nature, rather than English. Would an English Parliament make those of us south of the Cheviots and east of Offa's Dyke more English? I don't think so. The Scottish Parliament and the Northern Irish and Welsh Assemblies have sprung from a desire amongst the population for greater devolution of power from what is seen as an English-dominated Parliament at Westminster. Calls for an English Parliament are still thin on the ground.

Anonymous said...

The English are not generally very "Nationalistic", however the English do believe in "fair play".

The appauling way in which the Scotish Led Labour Government have divided Britain up is responsible for the every increasing English Nationalism.

The Liberal Democrats, would be able to take advantage of this simply by completing their Party Names as

Scottish Liberal Democrats
Welsh Liberal Democrats
English Liberal Democrats

(The name exists but the Liberal Democrats DO NOT use it)

Are the English Liberal Democrats ashamed of their Englishness ?

Mark Valladares said...

Aha, another anonymous commentator!

Actually, we do campaign as Welsh and Scottish Liberal Democrats in Wales and Scotland. We don't campaign as English Liberal Democrats because we're organised on a regional basis, and because there are no English elections to fight.

Change that, and we'd campaign as English Liberal Democrats...