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:
Ian Robert Millard 
It really depends on whether Corbyn is true to his word. Since it is now becoming clear that we are retaining EU law no matter what happens and that the UK military is joining the EU military (see UKColumn News for confirmation of this), we shall not actually leave the EU per se.
Brexit is just a propaganda facade to hide the truth that we will not actually leave the EU, but rather become more integrated.
The Brexit vote was engineered by the Establishment to counter the rising successes of Nationalism as they saw it. Farage is a little rich banker type with offshore accounts to avoid tax just the same as Cameron’s family.
If UKIP was the real deal it would have been excluded from BBC debate just like the BNP was, but UKIP never was the real deal and Brexit was a put up job by the Establishment to fool the public.
Ostensibly we are leaving the EU, but if you look at the facts rather than the fantasy, May and Carney are engineering closer union with the EU for the benefit and money laundering skills of the two private owners of the Bank of England.
If Corbyn addresses this discrepancy and fights the 2020 election in opposition to the government’s broken promises on Brexit, which will be apparent for all to see, he will collect a cool 17 million votes (if the highly suspect Brexit figures are correct), and sweep to power with 500 seats.
We might then get some form of real Brexit and possibly a Zionist free government. And considering Corbyn’s highly critical view of usuary we might even get some version of the Bradbury Pound, together with the dissolution of the privately owned Bank of England!
LikeLike
I agree with your view as to UKIP’s acceptability on Zionist-contaminated mass media as compared with, most recently, BNP’s unacceptability. However, it will take more than Brexit/non-Brexit irritation to win anything for Corbyn. Immigration is key and Corbyn and his cohorts (the ones that matter) are all pro-immigration. I see Labour in 2020 with 100 seats, maybe 200, not 500. A European war would throw everything into the hazard. A new party could emerge and rise swiftly.
LikeLike
Immigration is a red herring designed to empower (((their))) lobby by the likes of Britain First, the EDL and spin offs funded by the likes of Pam Geller and Frank Gaffney together with Soros.
Immigration is not the key component. Even Zionism is unimportant (though interesting that Herzl’s vision was that Palestinians and Jews would live together as equals sharing everything including government of the State as he presented it to Emperor Wilhelmina of Germany when they met both in Constantinople and later in Jerusalem). Modern Israel is NOT Zionist and if Herzl was alive today he would publically disown it for the sham it really is.
The real problem is the Bank of International Settlement and the very small (((cabal))) of (((chosen people))) who run it all together with usury, currency speculation and share dealing which together can remove a nation’s assets at the whim of private individuals without any accountability for their evil actions.
Most immigrants are here to better themselves and a few are here to escape oppression. You can’t blame them for that. If they were presented with National Socialism for all nations of the earth, most would go along with it because they would see greater prosperity for themselves and their families and go along with repatriation or return to ancestral lands.
The remainder could stay as long as they accepted castration as a condition of living here…eg no breeding. The major problem are the half casts of which there are now many. Quite specifically they have no real home!
Returning to Labour and your cast-in-iron views on them, I do feel you are letting your dislike of the horrendous non indigenous senior politicians get in the way. Disregarding Guardian readers many of them are quite decent people and a lot will have voted for Brexit.
Unlike the imbecilic and infantile alien non indigenous Labour politicos, (and many of the traitorous British ones), Corbyn is not stupid. He needs leverage to succeed. It is clear that the Labour Party as it is today is not fit for purpose, thus at some point he will ditch the lot of them.
The common thread amongst Labour (and most Nationalists) is hatred of the Establishment and in particular the Tories. Since May, Johnson, Rudd, Carney, the Rothschilds and the House of Windsor are actively deceiving the people over Brexit and are in actual fact engineering closer links with the EU while at the same time kowtowing to (((those people))) at every possible opportunity I feel that it would be worth Corbyn’s while to reject Zionism (because it is not what Herzl envisioned…you can make a sound argument on this), and fight the Tories on the broken promise of Brexit.
What has Corbyn or the nation got to lose? The only losers would be the State and the corrupt drug dealing money laundering criminal elites that enable it.
Of course I am extrapolating beyond all possible reason by today’s standards, but we are talking about three years hence when the government’s treason over Brexit will be undeniable and the economic disaster of being poor will be at its extreme. We are in a Weimar Republic scenario in the UK today. Filthy rich and abject poverty induced by our economic (((masters))). The State has eliminated Natuonalists from the equation by draconian censorship, prohibiting free political expression and imposing obscene values upon the nation, specifically to prevent the rise of a true Nationslist as in 1920s Germany and 1930s Romania.
Thus JFK’s dictum now stands: If the people are prevented a say in how they are governed then their only option is revolution.
The Establishment and its State know a revolution is coming at some point because this is what has always happened historically when fascists take control as they have today in the UK.
Thus the revolution is as likely to originate within the Establishment as without, and the only obvious possibility as things stand in April 2017 is the Labour Party led by Corbyn (and most probably Livingstone [despite his Jewish blood] and Galloway).
Hey…I realise that my extrapolation probably gives you nightmares, but as things stand, there is absolutely no other alternative. Happy Easter if that is your thing or a jolly Samhain should that be your preference!
LikeLike
Interesting. I take issue with a few points that you make. Corbyn, you say, “is not stupid”. Well, “stupid” may be too harsh, but I have heard little from him since he became an MP which could be described as beyond the mediocre, at best. Mechanistic thinking.
As for Labour, my remarks are aimed at the Party and its MPs, not so much the rank and file, some of whom need only racial awareness to become social-nationalist.
I take your point that the political situation in 3-5 years may well be such that the people may be ready to think the unthinkable. However, the British people have already decided that Labour must go (the msm aided that for its own purposes, so be it). One cannot put new wine in old bottles. For me, only a new party could succeed. To succeed, it has to exist first! At present, it does not exist.
LikeLike
…
You must recognise the fact that Corbyn is essentially a strong man with misguided beliefs. As you note, the rank and file are essentially good people. The thing I like about Corbyn is his liking for a tin of cold baked beans for a late night snack.
More seriously he also knows that bending the knee to Zionism will only result in a knife in the back for the man and woman on the street. He is against usury and is the only man with any say in Parliament who holds this view.
Whether the media has decided it is curtains for Labour or not is irrelevant. They decided that for the BNP and NF but they both still exist and as such present a latent threat to the State.
If Corbyn can see that both Zionism and banking practice is flawed resulting in the demise of his electorate, even his immigrant electorate for that matter, then there is still hope. As things stand he is the only person who could effect a revolution within the system.
What you term the ‘unthinkable’ is actually a British tradition if you read your history books. We have had a number of armed revolutions over the years: the peasants revolt; the Barons resulting in Magna Carta; Robin Hood; the Wars of the Roses; Monmouth rebellion; the Cromwell regicide civil war; and our cousins in Wales, Scotland and Ireland have repeatedly revolted against the Establishment eg Bonny Prince Charlie and the successful Irish rebellion that resulted in the establishment of the Republic of Ireland.
No, you are misguided, we, our people have a long history of revolt against unjust dictatorial authority and our present dictators not only know this but visibly fear it as well. They would not install anti vehicular street furniture across London or arm the police with sub machine guns if they were not so afraid of it that they are no longer able to speak the truth for fear of revealing their total weakness and lack of moral justification for their oppressive undemocratic actions.
The State and its shills…all the Common Purpose Bilderburg lot can smell it on the wind! While you and I might not consider it, the subject will have been well discussed within younger groups of Nationalists both known and hidden.
Since the latest illegal political ban executed by a panicked Home Office via Rudd, and most probably at the direction of May and those she shills for, Nationalism has gone underground to operate below the radar.
I firmly believe that the panic shown by Rudd’s totally undemocratic, illegal and amoral banning of a non violent Nationalist group, and in the way that it was done, is indicative of the Establishment’s weakness and vulnerability in their own eyes. They know the game is up.
LikeLike
I cannot agree that either the NF or BNP are even “latent” threats to the State. Tiny groups whose day in the sun was brief. Election results may not be everything, but they are something. Both NF and BNP are now somewhere around the Monster Raving Loony level of electoral support.
Is Corbyn a “strong man” or just stubborn? I fancy that the latter is more accurate. He does kowtow to the Zionist narrative to some extent, decrying the “holocaust” and attacking social nationalism. What is the point opposing Jewish Zionism in Israel while letting it run riot in the “British” mass media, law, finance etc? Labour as a party has lost its meaning, its role.
LikeLike
British government has lost its meaning and its role. My analysis is about possibilities, not probabilities. Wishful thinking re Corbyn and Labour. Reality is that the State and the Establishment is irreparably broken.
Do you know what the real legal status of the City of London is? I always thought that it was a private fiefdom of the Crown, exempt from British law, let in perpetuity by the Queen to Rothschild.
Is this correct? If it is then technically the nation has no capital and thus without a capital city we are legally not a nation state. A capital city must belong to the Nation for us to be a legal entity in the world community.
LikeLike
The City of London as an entity and as a financial centre long predated the Rothschilds. Your Q as to the “real” legal status of the CIty of London begs the question: what does “real” mean? This is always the problem with bringing “law” into Realpolitik. A cynic might say that political power is what makes the law legal…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London_Corporation#History
LikeLike
I think it is too early to write-off the Labour Party. There is still significant support for Labour among white Britons. This is primarily due to the fact that the Labour Party is, and always has been, exceptionally perspicacious when it comes to addressing (or appearing to address) the real issues that affect people – education, healthcare and so on.
That said, I agree with your premise that Labour’s situation is less than auspicious. This is chiefly because of what I call the None of the Above Party (‘NOTAP’).
NOTAP is Britain’s biggest political force, with a mass membership across all the social strata, but especially among the backbone of the country, the national working class of England. If only that support could be harnessed somehow. The problem is the lack of a credible nationalist alternative, with the result that the mainstream parties are regularly elected by default on a relatively small minority of the vote.
I’m afraid the answer to the problem is the traditional one: you have to get down with the pigs and roll around in the mud. We have to play at politics. That means doing what Labour do: addressing the real issues. The ‘real’ issues are the issues that bother voters, not the issues that bother us. We communicate our core beliefs through those ‘real’ issues – that, in essence, is what metapolitics is.
When you try and engage nationalists on the matter of forming some kind of embryonic campaigning group (which might evolve into a political party), they are mostly not interested. They are frightened rabbits who want to stay online, wear masks or congregate in echo chambers. They want to post online under exotic pseudonyms and discuss Jews and esoteric subjects. They also want to wallow in victimhood and argue about the past. Nothing can come of this. Even if electoral politics is presently futile (a point I would hotly dispute), it still behoves us to make use of all avenues available, if only to ensure that we keep ripe the practical knowledge and expertise that will be needed later, when such avenues do become fruitful, and also to ensure that we build the necessary links in communities.
Your premise on this blog that electoral success must be predicated on geographic concentration is entirely accepted and eminently sensible, but the reality is that nationalists will not relocate to social-nationalist communities (whether actual or figurative). You are whistling in the wind on that point. However that does not defeat your core idea. The first logical step would be to do this the other way round, and start by forming a national group (initially virtual) of maybe half-a-dozen people (the less the better at first) who would identify 2 or 3 target wards, perhaps in the same geographic region (in the spirit of your ideas), and work out a plan for mobilising nationalists to those areas for the purpose of promoting an electoral campaign and supporting other activities. If successful, these arrangements could then evolve into actual re-location strategies or maybe develop in other ways as nationalists elsewhere in the country copy the tactics used. Personally I would think it more likely that as workable and effective tactics are identified, most nationalists will seek to emulate these in their own areas, rather than re-locating to another part of the country.
Abandoning electoral activity was foolish. It is in any case only futile if the wrong approach is pursued. It is a matter of identifying what is effective.
I do not believe there will be a social collapse. There will be another economic crisis and depression – we are due one about now – but that is built into capitalism, which is cyclical and essentially a system of boom and bust. Social collapse will not happen because the system is homeostatic and will adjust to every new crisis; indeed, each new crisis strengthens it.
Ordinary (average) people are not idealists. They do not consciously think racially or ideologically. Even if their lives become difficult, so long as their needs are being met – which they will be, in the form of sex, drugs and cheap entertainment – and so long as there are no powerful or influential forces promoting revolution as a notional concept, no revolutionary movement can gain traction. The system politicians are three steps ahead and can anticipate social fissures and mollify potential dissent. They have had centuries to study us and are now practised in the art.
We must also consider the point that the demographic situation is dynamic and demographic changes will determine the strategies available to us in the future. If what we are being told about the official picture is correct, it will not be long before non-whites are in such numbers that the initiative for nationalist revolution will be absent in even the direst circumstances.
LikeLike
My previous comment did not appear here, so I will repost it in shortened form.
I think it is too early to write-off the Labour Party. There is still significant support for Labour among white Britons, even in England. This is primarily due to the fact that the Labour Party is, and always has been, exceptionally perspicacious when it comes to addressing (or appearing to address) the real issues that affect people – education, healthcare and so on.
That said, I agree with your premise that Labour’s situation is less than auspicious. This is chiefly because of what I call the None of the Above Party (‘NOTAP’).
NOTAP is Britain’s biggest political force, with a mass membership across all the social strata, but especially among the backbone of the country, the national working class of England. If only that support could be harnessed somehow. The problem is the lack of a credible nationalist alternative, with the result that the mainstream parties are regularly elected by default on a relatively small minority of the vote.
I’m afraid the answer to the problem is the traditional one: you have to get down with the pigs and roll around in the mud. We have to play at politics. That means doing what Labour do: addressing the real issues. The ‘real’ issues are the issues that bother voters, not the issues that bother us. We communicate our core beliefs through those ‘real’ issues – that, in essence, is what metapolitics is.
LikeLike
I agree with addressing “the real issues”. Not sure that Labour does do that. When has Labour addressed the issue of the mass immigration for which it has in fact been largely responsible? As to education, health etc, Labour is stronger there, but its “addressing” is mainly confined to educational dogmatism (no grammar schools, no longer charitable status for independent schools, “diversity” as a good etc) and “isn’t our NHS wonderful?” applauding.
I agree that the None of the Above Party beats any existing real party. When you see that, eg, at Stoke Central by-election, turnout was 38.2% (and many predicted lower) it is clear that most voters did not see any solutions for their own problems in any of the System parties or any of the upstarts (UKIP, Greens etc). In fact, the turnout among white voters was even lower than 38%.
I agree that policy is key.
LikeLike
Yes, however while you and I may disagree with, say, comprehensive schools, the ordinary public might not see things the same way. When grammar schools were abolished, I imagine the endeavour had broad public support. Parents can vote, and who wants their child to fail his or her Eleven Plus, and quote/unquote “be consigned to a lifetime of failure”, etc., etc.? Of course, this is complete nonsense, but nonsense sells. Where were the riots or even strenuous public protests over the abolition of the Tripartite System? There were none, to my knowledge.
One point that is sometimes forgotten about mass immigration is that the latest wave of it began not under Labour, but under the Conservatives. It started in about the summer of 1996, under John Major. I remember it distinctly. No doubt you do too. All of a sudden, immigrants were pouring into the country and if you lived in a metropolitan area, you couldn’t move for them.
During 1996/97, the issue became a matter of public controversy. Labour, in its 1997 election manifesto, adopted a traditionalist position on the matter, pandering to the reactionary English voter, with Jack Straw promising to get tough on all these immigrants and asylum seekers. We know what happened next.
The general observation that can be made is that our enemies and opponents concern themselves with winning and keeping power and pursuing their ideological agenda through reforms. They don’t lie, as such/. They just make sure to be selective in what they say. They hold their noses and pander to whomever they need to pander to – be it the blue chip corporate lobby, anti-racists, Zionists, White Van Man, or the local Imam. Labour promises fairness, equality, etc., much like I imagine the Croslands and Williams and Wilsons of the 60s did when they abolished selective education, because this is what plays well to the people whose support is needed. Labour abandoned its commitment to trade union privileges and wages boards and instead adopted the statutory minimum wage and Employment Tribunals – thus (in Labour’s eyes) achieving largely the same objective.
In my opinion, we need to be learning from the Labour Party.
Notwithstanding that they may be finished for other reasons, they clearly understand how to bring into effect left-wing social democratic reforms better than we understand how to turn Britain into a social-nationalist society.
LikeLike
During the time that you mention (from 1996) I was mainly overseas: a year in Almaty, Kazakhstan (1996-1997), then Egypt (early part of 1998), as well as other places: North Cyprus, Minorca, Czech Rep., Florida, Cayman Isles and other parts of the Caribbean (1998-99) but I do not recall more foreigners in the UK than before, perhaps because I was, during UK visits, either in areas such as West End of London already essentially non-Brit, or in the country where there were few foreigners anyway (mainly Hamble, Hampshire).
I hear what you say, but I see no instinct for survival at play now in the Labour Party. They seem to have alienated almost everyone: Jews, white Northern European (British) people (with exceptions such as NHS staff maybe), business owners, self-employed, employed, the old, the middle-aged, even the young (18-24s) and the unemployed and disabled, if polling is believable. In fact the only demographic now supporting Labour (and even then not powerfully) is the non-white voter bloc, especially the Muslims. That’s all Labour has left. It is why Labour won at Stoke Central, where most white voters stayed in to watch TV or whatever. Otherwise, Labour is washed-up.
LikeLike