The Labour Party’s Decline Continues

My analysis of the past year or more has now been taken up in all quarters of the mainstream media. Almost all now agree on the essential fact, that Labour is now pretty much an irrelevance in British political life. In Scotland, Labour has only 1 Westminster MP out of 59 and 23 Holyrood MSPs out of 129 (and is currently far below even the Conservatives in percentage support terms, around 18%). In Wales, another former stronghold, Labour has 29 out of 60 AMs in Cardiff; in the London Assembly, its most concentrated convention-place of influence, 12 out of 25 MLAs.

Labour has 230 MPs at Westminster (including 1 vacant seat and 1 suspended member –Simon Danczuk–) out of 650, but early indications are that 2020 will see another low: Labour is now around 25% in polling, which might indicate about 200 seats, possibly far fewer. The redrawing of constituency boundaries and reduction of Commons seats to 600 may well leave Labour with as few as 150 MPs. Some even predict 100.

If Labour is left with 100 or even 200 seats out of 600 after 2020, it has ceased to be an alternative government and has become almost a niche player, or one among several non-governing parties.

Should Labour have 200 seats out of 600 after 2020, then it probably cannot form even a minority government, even with SNP and other minor-party support in some form; should Labour have 150 or fewer seats, then even the long-shot of minority government recedes far out of reach. I have blogged previously about what might happen should Scotland secede from the UK: Labour would then have, arguende, 100-200 seats out of 541, a higher percentage than 100-200 out of 600 or 650, but without the 56 vital potentially-supporting SNP MP votes. Permanent Opposition, at best.

Labour’s old support base in the trade-unionized industrial and urban proletariat has dissolved along with that social demographic. The new urban and suburban “precariat” and/or “chavscum” either do not vote at all or prefer to vote elsewhere as the volatile mood takes them. Recent polling indicates that the one demographic now supporting Labour (and only just, at that) is the non-white population. Indeed, with Jeremy Corbyn’s well-known anti-Israel position highlighted, it can be said that Labour’s typical voter profile is that of a “British” Pakistani Muslim.

The recent Stoke Central by-election proves the above proposition. Stoke Central by-election had a turnout of only 38.2% (21,200), but it can be reliably surmised that the organized Labour Pakistani Muslim turnout was far higher, probably above 50%. There are at least 6,000 Pakistani Muslim voters in Stoke Central; at least 3,000 will have voted and (mostly) voted Labour. The Labour Party candidate won by about 2,500 votes. QED.

It cannot be an accident that, whenever Jeremy Corbyn is seen somewhere, visiting a constituency or whatever, he is surrounded by a small crowd of non-white women. Either Labour is playing to its one remaining strength or those are the only local supporters now willing to turn out to welcome Corbyn.

The 3 main strands that now make up Labour (traditional generational-voting people, “Corbynistas”, “Blairite”/”Brownite” pro-Zionist MPs and others) are unravelling. There is now a move to create a “centrist” (pro-Zionist) party which might include the LibDems and some Conservative Party MPs. The previous thought, that keeping “Labour” as a name or “brand” was the key to success, is fading as Labour becomes almost toxic to voters. It is certainly true that a new party of that sort might start off with many MPs: perhaps 100 from Labour, 9 LibDems and however many Conservatives want to put principle before electoral certainty.–probably not the 80 MPs that Anna Soubry has suggested! Half a dozen, perhaps. Still, even 100 MPs would make any new party a player.

A new social nationalist party might catch on like wildfire in former Labour heartlands, but (regrettably) does not as yet exist.

I see no reason to change my analyses of the past nearly two years. Labour is trying to pull in different directions, appeal to different groups of voters on contradictory bases (eg re EU and Brexit) and has no credibility on mass immigration, arguably the major issue which concerns voters. Corbyn is a problem but not the problem. Labour’s failures in 2010 and 2015 prove that.

The conclusion must be that Labour is not offering the policies or leadership that might attract voters. Even if it changed both its overall policy and its leader, Labour would still not succeed, because its credibility is shot, on immigration, on the economy, on competence generally.

Further Thoughts (16 months later, on 25 July 2018):

My analysis remains correct in essence, in my view. Since March 2017, Labour has done far better than I anticipated, but not by reason of its own merit. The more important fact has been the bursting of the bubble for the Conservative Party. Despite much evidence to the contrary, the voters seem to have decided, in the 2010-2015 period, that the Conservatives were “nasty but competent”. The second of these started to die off during 2015 -2017 and now (2018) the public seem to think that “Labour may be incompetent but the Conservatives have been proven to be so”. That is true on immigration, Brexit, crime/law and order, NHS etc. The Conservatives “talk a good game” but have failed to deliver.

I still doubt that Labour can get a Commons majority, even on the present boundaries, which will not change (reducing MP numbers to 600) until 2022. However, Labour has every chance now of forming at least a minority government before 2022, possibly as early as late 2018. I very much doubt that more than 40% of voters favour Labour or that more than about 35% will actually vote Labour. What matters is where that 35% live. Marginal seats, or Labour strongholds? If the latter, then Labour is still in trouble.

My present feeling is that neither main System party is popular and that the next general election will reflect that, but that Labour is offering more. It may be unable to deliver, but will voters prefer a party which offers much and may be unable to deliver, or one which offers little or nothing at all?

Update, 19 November 2020

The article above was written when it was expected that MP umbers would be reduced to 600. That reform will now no longer take place, certainly not during the present Parliament.

The election of 2019 gave Labour 201 MPs out of 655, leaving the party very weak. Relatively few 2017 Labour voters voted Conservative in 2019. More abstained, unable to support either major (System) party:

Aspects of the New Society

Political and economic organization

The basic template will be taken from the guidance given by the great mind of Rudolf Steiner, in his Threefold Social Order, sometimes called the Threefold Social Organism or simply Social Threefolding:

In other words, the key is finding the right relationship between the functioning of the economy (fundamentally private rather than State-run) and the rights of citizens. That does not mean that a few strategic economic areas or enterprises, or those of direct impact on the population (eg some utility companies, some railways etc) can never be State-owned or at least heavily State-regulated.


An advanced society cannot be built on a backward population. The UK and other European societies of the future can only exist and advance if at least fundamentally European. The mass immigration from outside Europe has been disastrous and has greatly set back (especially Western and Central) Europe and, therefore, the world. However, we are where we are. We cannot say “10% of our population is non-European and so we cannot create a better society”. It has to be admitted that at some level, the non-European population within the general population might be so numerous that society can only decline or collapse. Tipping-points exist. The UK may not be very far from that tipping-point now. Certainly the major cities are close to it. For the purposes of this blog post, though, we must just keep in mind that there is an iron necessity for a (fundamentally) European population.


According to the principles of the Threefold Social Order, education is within the spiritual-cultural sphere. It should be run neither by the State nor for private profit. That is not to say that it should not be regulated or unable to accept private monies via fees etc. It should not be taxed but accepted as having charitable or at least non-profit status.

It might be objected that, in the UK, private education tends to perpetuate social differences. There is some truth in that, but not much. The major drivers of inequality (apart from race and culture) are those of family capital and income. The education of children is rather a red herring in terms of the equality-inequality debate. There is also the point that parents (and children themselves) have the right to choose. The fact that choice may be rationed by available money does not destroy that right, but challenges both the State and society as a whole to make the means available to support educational choice.

The whole concept of the university “degree” should be looked at. This is a mediaeval concept which has probably outlived its usefulness. Bachelor, Master, Doctor, these have more in common with the Europe of Nostradamus than the Europe of 2017. In the UK, the true value of a university degree has been lowered (indeed rendered in some cases valueless) by award inflation and the mere fact that half the population now has some kind of degree.

Methods and conditions of work

The citizen must be protected from exploitation. That is a primary duty of the State. That means that maximum hours must be laid down. There might be flexibility within that, for example by laying down a weekly maximum of hours (say, 40 hours, but it might be 35 or even 30) but permitting the employer/employee to agree how those hours should be fulfilled within the working week: 5 x 8, or 4 x 10, even 3 x 13.33, or a work-week split into different hours on different days.

There is an argument to keep at least one day, traditionally of course Sunday, relatively free from work and commercial activities. There must be a rhythm to the week and a fallow day promotes that. Obviously, there are exceptions which would have to exist.

Basic Income

Robotics, computerization, automation are developments, the advantages of which are going mainly to a few within society. At the same time, they are destroying, for many, work as a way of getting even a basic living (in the UK, this was recognized years ago and led to the introduction of Working Tax Credits etc). The nexus between work and pay is dissolving.

The answer is the introduction of a measure of “basic income” not in any way dependent upon or conditional upon work done, availability for work etc. In that way, most of the expensive bureaucracy around social security or “welfare” can be eliminated: large buildings in every town, huge numbers of low-grade staff doing repetitive work processing applications, snooping  on and monitoring claimants etc. Whether a basic system should have tested aspects added for disability etc is a matter for debate. As to the amount of money given, again a matter for discussion. Perhaps £10,000 or £15,000 per person per year on present values.

In the UK, Basic State Pension is a form of Basic Income which already exists. Child Benefit is another form of Basic Income. Neither are conditional upon the income or capital earned or held by the recipient.

Contrary to what many still believe, basic income has the potential to free “entrepreneurship”, volunteering and ordinary “work more to get more” within the working-age population.


Here we are hostages to technology. It may be that driverless cars will soon exist in large numbers. It may be that lighter-than-air craft will be brought into service on a scale hitherto unknown. We do not know for sure. As matters stand, it seems clear that new initiatives are required in the field of railways (including driverless, light, ultralight and miniature), as well as wide canals for passenger and freight transport. There are trains in tubes being developed in the USA which may travel at 800 mph. All one can do is keep open to the future of transport while suggesting suitable policy for now.

Religion or spiritual belief

Religion should be (and is, in more advanced parts of the world) a question of individual choice. It is not for the State, or a dominant theocracy, to lay down what a citizen should believe or adhere to. However, that does not mean that the State cannot regulate or ban certain practices of religious groups. Thus toleration of religion as such need not import toleration of backward practices such as genital mutilation.


These few paragraphs are not meant to be a comprehensive manifesto but a springboard for ideas.

Manchester Gorton By-Election


Manchester Gorton, one of the most solidly Labour constituencies in the UK, was represented 1955-1967 by Konni Zilliacus, an interesting character who was acquainted with many of the most significant political figures of the 20th Century (his widow, whom I met a few times, carried on in the local Labour Party of Maida Vale, London until her death in 1999).

The recent death of Gerald Kaufman MP (a famously anti-Zionist Jew, MP for the seat since 1983 and for a neighbouring seat from 1970-1983) has triggered a by-election, though the date (probably 4 May 2017) is yet to be confirmed. It follows that there is still time for candidates to be nominated (e.g. the Conservative Party has not yet selected its candidate).

At present, the candidate list includes those of Labour, Green Party, Liberal Democrat and, standing as Independent, George Galloway. UKIP may or may not stand. Previous elections in the seat have attracted a host of minor candidates: Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition [TUSC], Pirate, Christian, Workers’ Revolutionary Party [WRP], Resolutionist Party, Socialist Labour; and going back further, Revolutionary Communist, Red Front, Natural Law, BNP (only in 1983), National Front (only in 1979) etc.

Manchester Gorton is a Labour seat, has always been Labour, right back beyond the creation of the seat in 1918 and further back to when it was called South-East Lancashire, Gorton Division: Labour won in 1906 and in 1910 (twice). This is rock-solid Labour Party territory and considered to rank as the 9th-most-Labour seat in the UK

The Labour vote in Manchester Gorton has only once (since 1918 anyway) fallen below 50% [1967 by-election: just below 46%] and peaked in 1945 at over 69%, though Gerald Kaufman almost equalled that in 2015, with just over 67%.


There is no prospect of Labour losing in Manchester Gorton. It is a question of how many voters turn out and of the margin of Labour’s inevitable win. Turnout, at one time over 70% and even over 80%, has fallen back in recent years [2015: nearly 58%]. The other points of interest will revolve around the votes garnered by UKIP (if standing), the Liberal Democrats and George Galloway.

29% of the voters of Manchester Gorton are ethnic Pakistanis. The most recent ICM polling has made clear that the Conservative Party is preferred to Labour by every standard demographic except non-whites. The Labour shortlist contained 5 candidates, all Pakistani Muslims.

The Conservative Party always came second in Manchester Gorton until 1997, since which year it has always come third and always third to the Liberal Democrats, until 2015, when the general LibDem slaughter led to their 2010 vote share of 33% collapsing to 4%, which put the LibDems only fifth (after UKIP). Since 1997, the Conservative Party vote has always been around 10%, compared to 20%+ in the 1980s and 30%+ in 1970s. In the 1967 by-election, the Conservative candidate was Winston Churchill, grandson of the former Prime Minister. Winston junior nearly won that by-election, getting 44.51% as against Labour’s 45.89%.

Interestingly enough, the 2015 Liberal Democrat rout did not help the Conservative candidate: third place and 9.7% as against 11% in 2010. Second place went to the Green Party , which got 9.8%, its previous best having been 3.1% (in 2001).

The 2015 UKIP vote was 8.2% (2010, 2.7%). Likely 2017 vote would be around 5%.

George Galloway has attacked the all-Asian Labour shortlist. This may indicate that he is hoping to attract to his banner English (i.e. white) former Labour voters who were willing to vote for Kaufman but will not vote for a Pakistani Muslim as their MP. A proposition which may be flawed. Abstention is more likely, in my opinion.


There is nothing much to disturb the inevitable Labour victory here.

  • The Pakistani Muslim demographic will turn out in large numbers for the Labour candidate and that alone will ensure a Labour win.
  • The Conservatives may see a small increase, no more, in vote share.
  • The same is true of the Liberal Democrats. This is an area hard hit by the spending cuts of the Con Coalition, which was propped up by 2010-2015 LibDem MPs’ votes. On the other hand, there is the “dustbin” or “catch-all” factor.
  • George Galloway will probably only get a few per cent of the vote (hard to see who would vote for him either from white or non-white communities, despite his new role as TV face on RT).
  • The Greens will have achieved a victory if they save their deposit.
  • If UKIP stand, they will be lucky to save their deposit.

In the end, turnout may be very low. The white former Labour voters may well vote with their feet and stay home and Labour will probably see both its vote numbers and vote percentage fall to some extent, but Labour has in its favour the fact that almost a third of the voters are Pakistani Muslims and that there are other non-white groups in the constituency.

Likely result:


2.Liberal Democrats;



5.UKIP (if standing).

Postscript, written in early 2018

In the event, a General Election was called and the by-election was cancelled. Almost all candidates standing in the constituency at the General Election were the same as had been candidates in the cancelled by-election.

If Scotland Becomes “Independent”, Will England Be A One-Party State?


There now seems at least a possibility (again) that Scotland might withdraw from the United Kingdom. Leaving aside what “Independence” means for Scotland in this context, let us examine what it means in practical political terms for England and the rest of the British Isles.

The present House of Commons has 650 Members (to be reduced to 600, possibly by 2020). 330 are Conservatives, 230 Labour (229+1 vacant seat last held by Labour), SNP 54, Liberal Democrats 9, Democratic Unionist 8, Sinn Fein 4 (in abstention; do not vote), Plaid Cymru 3, SDLP 3, Ulster Unionists 2, UKIP 1, Green 1, “Independent” 4 (being MPs such as Simon Danczuk who have had the whip withdrawn), Speaker 1.

It will be seen that while the present Conservative majority is notionally 11 (leaving aside the Speaker, who votes only when there is a tie), Sinn Fein do not attend or vote, so the real majority is 15.

If Scotland leaves the Union, the 650 MPs in the House of Commons will have their number reduced by 59, of which 54 are SNP, 2 SNP  MPS but who are suspended (and under police investigation) and 3 LibLabCon (1 each). It can be seen that, on the pure mathematical basis, that would mean that the Conservatives would have, on present figures, 329, with all other MPs (except Sinn Fein and the Speaker) numbering 257: Conservative majority 72.

Most of the Westminster seats presently occupied by SNP MPs were, until 2015, Labour seats, so it can be seen what a mountain Labour would have to climb to replicate its Commons strength or anything like it were Scotland to break away from England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

That, however, is not the end of Labour’s catastrophe. The reduction of Commons seats from 650 to 600 is expected to reduce Labour numbers by as much as 30 in any case and to almost wipe out the Liberal Democrats. If that were to be so and if the 59 Scottish MPs were not there, then the Commons would be 541 and might be about 310 Conservative, 200 Labour, 26 others (plus Sinn Fein -4- and the Speaker). Effective Conservative majority of 74.

Labour is at present polling at about 25%. There is no obvious reason why Labour should do markedly better any time soon and certainly none to expect a vote percentage much above 30%. That would, on the new boundaries, probably give Labour about 150 seats, possibly far fewer. It is not impossible that Labour could end up with as few as 100 seats out of 541. However, even if Labour were to have 150 seats out of 541 (effectively, out of 536), that would make Labour little more than a niche party, albeit with the title “the Opposition”.

The existence of the SNP in the House of Commons gives declining Labour the hope that the next general election might provide at least the possibility for a Labour minority government of some kind, with tacit SNP support, assuming that Labour could at least somewhat improve its position electorally. Without SNP MPs in the Commons, that slim hope is dashed and Labour broken with it.

Speculation and Hope

If, sometime around 2020, the Conservative Party has maybe 350 MPs in a 541-MP post-boundary changes, post-Scottish Independence, post-Brexit House of Commons, England (plus Wales etc) becomes a one-party state in all but name. Elected dictatorship. The only hope then for positive change will be the emergence of a new movement based on social nationalism, the only ideology which can unite England as a country and as a people, meaning at least the 85+% who are white Northern Europeans, together with those willing to accept European culture.

Update: Further Thoughts (drafted 23 July 2018)

Scotland fairly narrowly voted not to leave the UK, of course. The SNP still dominates though its cadre of Westminster MPs now numbers, after the 2017 General Election, 35 (strikingly down from 56 in 2015; the 2010 figure was 6). The opinion polls have for some time been both against a second Independence referendum and against breaking away from the UK.

Meanwhile, Labour has regrouped under Jeremy Corbyn and has at least managed to halt what I saw a couple of years ago as its possibly terminal decline. The incompetence of Theresa May and her Cabinet has weakened the Conservatives, though both large System parties are quite close in the polling as I write.

The House of Commons still has 650 MPs. The Boundary Commission report indicates that the number will be reduced to 600 by 2022, of which number 499 will be in England. While the changes favour Conservative over Labour, they will not come into effect until 2022, whereas the next General Election will probably be earlier, possibly even in 2018, though most commentators think 2019.

The SNP are still likely to be potential kingmakers after the next General Election, but that is not as likely as it looked a year or two ago. At present, the Conservatives cling on by grace of the DUP’s 10 MPs. The SNP can only snipe from the sidelines. It now seems not impossible that, in a close general election result in 2018 or 2019, Labour might emerge as the largest party in the Commons, under the present boundaries. It would then need SNP MPs’ votes in order to govern at all.

Update, 20 June 2020

Well, water under bridge etc…

The Scottish public’s view on “Independence” is now volatile, but the most recent opinion poll (June 2020) has the pro-“Independence” vote as 48% and the antis at 45% (Undecided = 7%). Without the Undecided, the result would be 52%-48%, the same margin as the UK Brexit Referendum.

As for the reduction of MP numbers, the Boris Johnson government elected in 2019 has decided to ditch the change. There will be 650 MPs in the House of Commons for the present.

The result of the 2019 General Election in Scotland:

If Scotland chooses to leave the UK, the number of MPs left at Westminster will be 591. At present there are only 6 Scottish Conservatives, 4 Scottish LibDems, and a sole Scottish Labour MP, but also 48 SNP MPs.

The Conservative Party would have 359 MPs, Labour 201, LibDems 7. The Conservatives would be one seat worse off than they now are, so the effect on their Commons majority would be minimal were it not for the absence of the (at present) 48 SNP MPs. Overall, the Conservatives would be, therefore, 47 MPs higher in terms of majority. That would, on present seats, give the Conservatives an unassailable Commons majority of 127.

The Way Forward for Social Nationalism in the UK

The talent of the strategist is to identify the decisive point and to concentrate everything on it, removing forces from secondary fronts and ignoring lesser objectives.”

Those words of Clausewitz are often taken to encapsulate the essence of strategy. How are they applied to the socio-political question in the UK (England, primarily) from the social-national point of view?

“The Decisive Point”

The “decisive point” or objective, ultimately, is the formation of a British ethnostate as an autonomous part of a Eurasian ethnostate based on the Northern European and Russian peoples. However, within the UK itself and before that, the objective must first be drawn less widely, as political power within the UK’s own borders.

The Gaining of Political Power in the UK

The sine qua non of gaining the sort of political power required is the existence of a political party. More than that, a party which is uncompromizing in its wish to entirely reform both State and society.

History is replete with examples of states which have seemed not even just powerful but actually eternal, yet which have collapsed. Ancient Rome, though perhaps not a “state” in our modern sense, is perhaps the one most embedded in the Western consciousness. More recently, the Soviet Union and its satellite states. In between those two examples (but among many others) we might cite the pre-1914 European “settlement” based on the empires and kingdoms which collapsed during and after the First World War: Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia, the Ottoman Empire.

The main point to understand is that, in situations of crisis on the large scale, it is not the political party with the most money, erudition, developed policy or even membership that comes out on top, but the party with the most will or determination. That means the most disciplined party under the leadership of the most determined leader.

It is better to have a party consisting of only 1,000 which is tightly-disciplined and self-disciplined than one of 100,000 which is a floundering mass of contradictions. When a national crisis occurs, such as 1917-1921 in Russia or 1929-1933 in Germany (to take two obvious examples), the people instinctively turn to the party perceived to be strongest, not strongest in numbers, money, intellectuality or number of members, but strongest in the will, the will to power.

The Party

A party requires leadership, members, ideology, policy and money. Everything comes from the leadership and the membership, in symbiosis. In practical terms, this means that policy is open to free discussion, up to the point where a decision is made as to what is party policy as such. Also, it has to be understood that a party requires money as a tank or armoured car requires fuel. To have endless fundraising drives, hunts for wealthy donors etc demeans and dispirits the membership. Having a “tithing” system renders such other methods unnecessary. The members sacrifice an agreed amount of their post-tax income, such as 10%. The party organizes itself and its message to the general population using that money.

As a rule of thumb in contemporary Britain, it might be said that, on average, each member will provide something like £2,000 per year to the party. A party of even 1,000 members will therefore have an annual income of £2 million, enough to buy not only propaganda and administration but real property as a base. By way of comparison, the Conservative Party in 2017 has an income of about £3.5 million.


It must be understood that elections are only one way to power, but they are indispensable in England, for historical-cultural reasons. A party which cannot win elections loses credibility rapidly once that party is large. In the initial phase, no-one expects the party to win Westminster or even local council seats, but after that, it has to win and so grow, or deflate as the BNP did and as UKIP is doing now. The problem small parties have under the English electoral system is that a Westminster seat can be won only with, at a minimum, about 30% (and usually 40% or more) of votes. The insurgent party is in danger of spreading itself too thinly, in every way. UKIP’s history illustrates the point: in 2015, about 12% of votes cast (nearly 4 million), but only the one MP with which they, in effect, started. The answer is to concentrate the vote. That is done by concentrating the members and supporters of the party geographically.

Safe Zones

I have blogged previously about the creation of safe zones and especially one primary safe zone (possibly in the South West of England). If the members and supporters of the party gradually relocate into that zone or zones, many things become easier, from protection of buildings, meetings, exhibitions etc to the election of councillors and MPs. I have also blogged about the magnetic attraction such a safe zone might exercise over people in the UK as a whole.

The Decisive Time

The “decisive time” cannot be predicted. In Russia, Lenin (at the time in foreign exile) thought that the 1905 uprising was “the revolution”. He was wrong. He also thought that the first (February, old-style) 1917 uprising was not “the” revolution. He was wrong again. It was.

Lenin had to hurry back to Russia (arriving belatedly in April 1917, old-style) not only to try to take control (he failed in that and had to foment his own coup d’etat in October 1917) but to avoid being sidelined and so becoming an almost irrelevant footnote to history.

In Germany after 1929, Hitler likewise was not in control of events. In the end, economic near-collapse and political turmoil gave him the chance to win enough votes (33% in 1932) to form a coalition government which led on to full power in 1933, after the NSDAP achieved a higher –though still minority– popular vote (44%).

In other words, both Lenin and Hitler were the pawns of Fate while striving to be the masters of events. They had something in common though: highly-disciplined and ideologically-motivated parties behind them.

Practical Matters

At the age of 60, the last thing which is convenient for me is to form a political party. I have no need of such an activity as a hobby or absorbing interest. I am coming to the idea out of duty, out of a realization that something has to be done and out of an understanding that something can be done, if Fate concurs. I am not willing to compromize on overall ideology or on the way things are organized within such a party. I shall only establish a political party (which may become a movement) if it can be done on a serious basis. However, there is a need for a party to speak for the British people and there is a widening political vacuum in which such a party can thrive and grow.

Update 15 April 2019

In the two years since I wrote the above blog post, my view has not changed, that is

  • a political party and movement is needed;
  • there is at present no such party;
  • such a party can only be established if done on a serious basis;
  • I myself still do not have the means with which to found such a party; but
  • a political party and movement is —still— needed…

Update, 8 March 2023

All factors mentioned in the previous update remain the same.

Formation of a Social National Party in the UK


For a number of years, I have watched the socio-political scene in the UK with increasing feelings of concern. The System parties have done terrible things (and omitted to do the right things) without any regard for the national interest, without compassion, without even logic:

  • disastrous foreign wars and other interventions, backing the United States and NATO and (in reality) Israeli interests and the plans for a “New World Order” [NWO];
  • financial madness caused by globalist economics and neoliberalism, not least the inability to tax effectively huge transnational enterprises;
  • gradual takeover by Zionists of strategic areas of society;
  • quite fast increase in the Muslim and other non-European populations of the UK;
  • inflicting appalling hardship and persecution upon the poorer section of the UK population (eg unemployed, disabled) via spending cuts, cruel bureaucratic systems, outsourcing;
  • allowing the NHS to decline steadily in all areas;
  • importation of many millions of immigrants even since 1997, with subsequent births to those immigrants, resulting overall in strain on NHS, roads, trains, housing; schools, prisons, social security, pensions;
  • policies on farming and landowning which do not prioritize wildlife and the environment  in general;
  • crises in care of the elderly;
  • decline in real educational levels covered up by meaningless “degrees” and award inflation;
  • inability to adequately and aesthetically house the population.

The above is not even a complete list of how the System parties have let down the British people.

System Parties


The Conservative Party has inflicted terrible damage on the UK via, inter alia, spending cuts and a coarsening of political converse generally. It might have suffered a huge defeat in 2015, but in the event was saved by the vagaries of the First Past the Post electoral system etc. It has now been saved, for the time being, by the implosion of the Labour Party.


The Labour Party becomes increasingly less relevant. Even mainstream commentators have woken up to it now. Labour introduced the hateful, dishonest and incompetent ATOS company to persecute the disabled. Labour was the party that decided to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. Labour is infiltrated, indeed pervaded, by the Jewish-Zionist lobby and its agents. True, so is the Conservative Party, but Labour claims to speak for what were once known as “the workers”. That, of course, is Labour’s problem: the bedrock of the “proletariat” has been replaced by the shifting sands of the (increasingly raceless and cultureless) “precariat”. So Labour seems to speak on behalf of metro-liberal “snowflakes”, “antifa” rentamob idiots, employees of the collapsing public sector; above all, perhaps, the “black and brown” ethnic minorities.

Example: in Stoke on Trent, Labour recently won the Stoke Central by-election by 2,500 votes. 62% of the electorate did not vote; of those that did, about 7,500 voted for Labour, 5,000 for both UKIP and Conservative. The constituency has 12% non-English voters (half of them Muslim). Virtually all voted Labour. In other words, the “ethnic” vote swung it for Labour. Educated guess: of the 7,500 Labour votes, virtually all were from ethnic minority (mainly Muslim) voters.

The SNP supremacy in Scotland has taken away about 50 MPs from Labour.

The redrawing of boundaries for 2020 will mean a House of Commons with 600 MPs. Labour is now polling at 25%, concentrated in a relatively few seats. Labour will have 100-200 MPs out of 600. It will be unable to form even a minority government.

Labour is gradually deflating to nothing.

Liberal Democrats

The 2015 debacle has killed the LibDems. The party may be getting “dustbin” or “protest” votes from disaffected Labour/Conservative voters, but its upsurge in 2010 will never be repeated. The Con Coalition mortally wounded the Liberal Democrats and they were lucky not be wiped out in 2015.

Non-System Parties


UKIP was founded in 1993 and in the nearly 24 years since then has done well to get MEPs elected but has never come even very close to getting a Westminster MP, except for free-market crazy Douglas Carswell, who after all was already a Conservative MP and may well revert to being one.

UKIP failed badly at Stoke Central and Copeland and those failures reflected its lacklustre performance in local and Westminster by-elections since its peak in or around 2014.

Brexit has shot UKIP’s fox, both on the EU and on EU immigration. UKIP seems unwilling to engage on non-EU immigration and, in general, on race and culture; it seems afraid of being called “racist”. UKIP might have forged ahead had it gone social-nationalist in 2014, but it failed to do that and is now just a (sort of) Conservative joke party again.

UKIP has come to the end of the line except as a dustbin for some white English votes.

Other non-System Parties

There are none, really. Yes, there is “the solitary Green” at Westminster, who will be gone by 2020. The Greens are polling nationwide at 3% or below. As for the BNP, after its rise in 2008-2009, it has all but vanished. Its vote at Stoke Central was 124.

Political Vacuum

It is clear that there is a political vacuum in England. The Conservatives are riding high but only by default, Labour is imploding, UKIP is effectively dead as a party with actual MPs; LibDems may well have no MPs by 2020.

At the same time, real incomes are stagnating or declining in value, immigration continues at about half a million (perhaps 250,000 “net”), housing is inadequate and expensive, young people cannot have a decent life or future, the elderly are neglected, the unemployed and disabled persecuted.

There will never be a better or more auspicious time for social nationalism. However, only if there is a physical instrument, a political movement. I have blogged about the need for safe zones for social nationalism. However, there must also be a movement, part of which must be a political party.


Party Funding

New parties always face financial difficulties. Dependence on donors is not easy yet hard to avoid. A basis of firm finance is essential. It may be that the only way for a small party to grow will be for its members to sacrifice a percentage of their income to the party. On that basis, a party of even 1,000 people can have an annual income of over £2 million (based on average net income of a very modest £20,000 and on a “tithe” of 10% of that).

Party Democracy

In an ideal world, a party should be (arguably) “democratic”, but experience shows that the enemy, particularly the Zionist enemy, is skilled at exploiting cracks and fissures to create factions which eventually destroy the party. It happened to the National Front in the 1970s, it happened (it seems) to the BNP in more recent times. It is happening to UKIP too, despite its doormatting where Israel is concerned, despite its wayward errors in respect of race and culture.

In view of the above, the party leader must have the final say.


The way to go is for the new party to target first and foremost seats within the “safe zones” which will attract more and more people from across the UK. Thus the first thing is to create those safe zones.

Further Thoughts and Update (26 July 2018)

The only aspect of the above which requires rethinking is the role –and prospects– of the Labour Party. The bubble of the Conservative Party burst in the final weeks of the General Election 2017 campaign. Labour benefited. That I did not anticipate until the last week or two of the campaign. I see no great revival of Labour fortunes; rather a further deflation of Conservative fortunes. The likely result (in any general election in 2018 or 2019)? Hung Parliament and weak minority government, probably Labour.

As for the rest of my blog post, safe zones etc, all that still applies.