The UK Local Elections 2017 as a Guide to the General Election and Beyond

Writing before all results have been reported and collated, it is nonetheless simple to discern the main outlines: the Conservatives have done well, Labour has done badly, the LibDems have done fairly badly (though well here and there) and UKIP has been effectively extinguished. As the experts have been at pains to explain, the local election results do not translate exactly into General Election results, but they do provide clear indications.


The Conservative Party and government under Theresa May is not, in fact, “popular”, but that makes no difference electorally, because it is not judged on its merits (or those of the quite similar 2010-2015 government) but as against failing Labour. The Conservatives are winning by default, not by reason of their own (non-existent) merit.

Anecdotal evidence is always suspect, but in the South of England it is clear that relatively few will vote Labour on 8 June. Labour will win no seats and may lose the few still held, even in parts of London (the Labour bastion in the South).

As for the rest of the country, the SNP and Conservatives will sweep the board, very likely, in Scotland; in Wales also, the Conservatives are likely to do well (in places), now that UKIP is no more.

The only part of England where the Conservatives will struggle will be the North East and even there they may do better than at any time since the franchise was expanded in the early 20th Century.

The Conservatives have an almost unassailable advantage in that they need only avoid doing something which terrifies the voters in some way. Labour provides all the reasons voters need to vote Conservative: support for more mass immigration and open borders for “refugees” (migrant-invaders); its leaders’ one-time support for the IRA etc; uncertain policy on EU Brexit; most of all, Labour’s perceived ineptitude (one need only use two words– Diane Abbott!

The UKIP collapse alone will give the Conservatives votes enough to take many Labour seats. It seems that about half the 2015 UKIP voters will not only not vote UKIP but will vote Conservative. UKIP came second in no less than 120 constituencies in 2015. That speaks for itself. Many of those seats were Labour, 44 in fact:

2015 UKIP voters switching to Conservative has a twofold effect: firstly, Cons taking Labour seats; secondly, preventing Labour or the LibDems being able to take many, possibly any, Conservative seats.

Likely number of seats: from 400 to 425


I have been tweeting and blogging that UKIP is washed-up for about 18 months now. Finally the msm has caught up with me. UKIP had two main policies which were popular: getting the UK out of the EU; reducing immigration. The Conservatives have taken over the first and pay lip service to the second. This leaves UKIP with nowhere to go. Add to that the clownish behaviour of its “leaders” (MEPs, mostly) and it is not hard to see why UKIP will struggle to avoid annihilation, even in Eastern England. Its Stoke Central by-election fail (see my earlier blog posts) was a warning: the disenchanted voters were not willing to get out of bed or leave their TVs long enough to vote UKIP.

UKIP’s weakness has always been its even distribution across England. Even on nearly a quarter of the vote in some seats and a national vote of 12%, nothing was won in 2015, whereas the Green Party, with a national vote of  less than 4%, could capture one seat because it had enough votes in one place to win narrowly in a 4-way split. UKIP’s support is expected to decline to as little as 4% nationally soon.

Under a proportional system, UKIP would have obtained 80 MPs in 2015.

That leaves open the question: if half of UKIP voters are defecting to the Conservatives, what about the other half? Probably staying home, not voting, most of them.

Likely number of seats: 0

Liberal Democrats

The LibDems call themselves “cockroaches” for their ability to survive. Many think them the least principled party in British politics. In 2010, the LibDems obtained roughly a quarter of the vote, but (like UKIP in 2015) were cheated by the FPTP voting system and ended up with 57 seats, when their vote share would under proportional voting have entitled them to 160 or so. As it was, the LibDems sold out on PR and other matters and suffered accordingly by being reduced to 8 MPs.

It is possible that the LibDems will be able to take seats from both Con and Lab, but their best chances will be in the South of England. Having said that, they may well also lose a few.

Likely number of seats: about 12


Labour is at last in that “existential crisis” which many (including me) have forecast for the past 18 months. The Jewish-Zionist plots against anti-Israel Corbyn have blown wide open Labour’s lack of relevance now that the proletariat has been replaced by the precariat. The Zionists have done such a good job of demonizing Corbyn (and so Labour) that many of Corbyn’s fiercest MP critics are likely to lose their seats!

Labour was struggling to present itself to the electorate as competent even before Diane Abbott started to come apart at the seams. The earlier mass resignations of more competent people left Corbyn surrounded by bad-joke Shadow Ministers: Diane Abbott as notional Home Secretary (to call that a joke is an understatement), Dawn Butler (both of the foregoing not only deadheads but expenses cheats!), Angela Rayner etc etc. Only the most unthinkingly loyal Labourites will be voting Labour under these conditions.

Labour’s leaders have consistently supported mass immigration (both past and future) and see nothing wrong in that. At the same time, the “Blairite” (Zionist) MPs have often also supported or not opposed Conservative cuts to social security (including the cruel and dishonest “assessment” of the disabled and sick, which Labour in fact introduced!); these policies and statements have alienated, perhaps forever, many traditional Labour voters.

Above all, perhaps, Labour is (surely correctly) seen as hopelessly divided, hopelessly inept, generally hopeless. It has no prospect of winning any seats at all and every prospect of taking a serious hit on 8 June.

Beyond the General Election, it is likely that Labour will decline into being a niche party for ethnic minorities and unionized public sector workers.

Likely number of seats: about 150

Other matters

I do not deal with other parties here, but it is likely that the SNP will end up with 40-50 seats; the Northern Irish parties have seats; Plaid Cymru will probably have a couple, perhaps a few.


Conservative landslide by default, barring something very unusual happening in the next month. People voting against Labour, not for Conservative, but the immediate result being the same.

The 8 June election will mean “Conservative” government for probably 5 years, to 2022 That is the 33-year-cycle successor year to 1989, which saw the end of socialism across the world. 2022 will see another huge change, in Europe and beyond its shores. A social national party, even if it only starts operations in 2017 or 2018, might be able to seize the initiative in the UK and then seize power.

Further Thoughts (written 22 July 2018)

Looking back now, after nearly 15 months, it is clear that I got a few things wrong. In fact, that is more apparent than real. The analysis was written 5 weeks before the 2017 General Election. In the final week or two before the election itself, I understood that an uncertain mood had gripped the country; in particular, while the brittle Theresa May Conservative bubble burst as the voters quite suddenly lost confidence in her, Labour was not in a position to capitalize on that loss of confidence. That led to the equally uncertain result on Election Day.

My view of UKIP as in the analysis has been proven correct; the same is true of my 2017 opinion about the LibDems.

I still see Labour as not enthusing more than about a quarter of the voters (if that), but one must always bear in mind that, in the UK, people tend to vote against rather than for. The unfair FPTP voting system reinforces that tendency.

The Conservatives now (July 2018) look tired, divided, incompetent. Labour, having been behind in the polls for months, is now ahead, despite arguably being as divided etc. That is because people are anti-Conservative Party, not because they are pro-Labour Party. I see the result of any 2018 election as being a hung Parliament, with Labour as, probably, the largest party, but only by a small margin.

Events remind us of the truth of Harold Wilson’s dictum that “a week is a long time in British politics”.

18 thoughts on “The UK Local Elections 2017 as a Guide to the General Election and Beyond”

  1. The Conservative vote will collapse when news of the amalgamation of UK armed forces with the EU becomes known.

    The nuclear deterrent (submarines) are already under the control of the French navy.

    Army units are operating under both the EUFOR and EUCOM organisations. Joint training of British and French forces is now standard.

    The Royal Marines have been downsized and reassigned from a no longer needed naval infantry regiment, (because the Royal Navy is being disbanded), in to a glorified relief agency operating UK ‘soft power’ in third world countries.

    If the new aircraft carriers do enter service there is no longer enough trained technical staff to man them through RN manpower cuts, resignations and personnel shortages. And should the clapped out F35 planes for them ever arrive the UK no longer has the ability to service them. Servicing is planned to be done in Turkey!

    Full military unification is already underway with the EU.

    When this becomes known, as only the UKCloumn News is reporting it, then the game will be up for the Tories.

    Something that might interest you: the Law Society has just issued a paper recommending adoption of all EU (Roman) law while discarding English common law completely. Don’t think will affect Tory voters though.

    We now live in a fascist dictatorship where there is one law for them (Nicola Sturgeon who owes £2500 in Council tax walks free), while there is another law for us…some famous boxer arrested for questioning whether Council Tax is legal…more down your street as a barrister.

    The traitorous acts of PM May will be the Conservative’s downfall when we fail to leave the EU by 2022, and will set the tone of that election, if the fascist State we live in has not called a permanent state of emergency obviating the need for all future elections.

    See you on the barricades!


    1. “See you on the barricades”….????????

      Can I be the one to bring you back down to Planet Earth?

      There will be no barricades. The people ruling us are clever, whereas we aren’t very clever. That’s why they are ruling us.

      If we were clever, we would not have allowed our rulers to back us into a corner like this, where most Nationalists only feel able to express themselves online under the cover of juvenile pseudonyms. I’m touching 40 now. I’m a bit past the stage of ranting about Jews and The Kalergi Plan as ‘The Great Goliath’ or ‘The White Knight’, or holding signs that say ‘Merkel Is Mad’, or singing Holocaust songs. In truth, I grew out of that sort of behaviour 25 years ago. It’s the sort of thing you associate with children, no serious people who are trying to save their country.

      There will be disturbances and riots. There will be murders and assassinations. There will be small signs of discontent, as we saw in Sunderland recently, But none of that is new. Almost exactly a hundred years ago – during the First World War – the British government imported black immigrants to work in the docks. That’s when mass immigration really started into this country. There were white working class protests against it then, including rioting – and the rioters were much more numerous and successful than the pitiful numbers achieved now. And probably back then, there were people like you around who said: “See you on the barricades”. But it didn’t happen. It was fantasy – a schizophrenic dream world.

      In fact, that’s an apt description for the mental world of most Nationalists, who seem to be burdened with a kind of brain damage and appear to struggle with a schizophrenic perspective on the world.
      The realities of life cannot be faced and a creeping fantasy takes over instead, in which a sad, insignificant person becomes a hero, “on the barricades”.

      There will be no barricades. There will be no revolution. It will just be a slow decline into oblivion and irrelevance (if that has not happened already). And if I’m wrong, then I will be among the first to step up and fight and I will do what I have to do, not as ‘The Great Goliath’ or ‘Pirouette’ or ‘Big Dick Charly’, or ‘The White Knight of Gideon’, or whatever, but as myself, Tom Rogers. But that is very much a case of ‘if and when’ – with the accent on ‘if’.


  2. Interesting theories about the results. I think we are looking at more than merely five years for this government to continue to be in office. Due to the archaic fraud of FPTP which means Britain is NOT a modern democracy as we should be we will effectively become an elected Tory dictatorship for the next ten years or more.

    If only Nick Clegg hadn’t been such a total moron in 2010 and didn’t agree with that fake AV referendum farce. The Tories had been itching to destroy the Lib Dems for at least the previous twenty odd years if not since they first became a problem for the Tories in 1974’s elections. Now, too many people think we’ve already had a PR referendum and we’re very, very unlikely to get one out of the Tories with such a huge unearned majority.

    The political situation is very depressing. Having the Tories in government means too many people think immigration is being dealt with properly so nationalist parties will struggle to make any impact.


    1. I agree that Nick Clegg and his cohorts were stupid not to squeeze more out of Gordon Brown, at least to the extent of implementing AV by legislation with a later referendum on some kind of full proportional voting, even if with a threshold of 5% or more (Germany has a 5% threshold).

      I also agree that there is no incentive for the Conservative Party to abandon FPTP now, though Labour is reported to be interested now that it is clear that Labour cannot form even a minority government now or (probably) ever.

      There will, I think, be large-scale changes in Europe as a whole over the next 5-7 years or so. There is the opportunity (if an organization exists) for seizure of power.


      1. I see no special reason why the Labour Party should collapse. Even if Labour declines to 150 votes, that would not be dissimilar to the Tories’ position in 1997 and 2001. I think you underestimate the resilience of the system. A further lengthy term under the Tories will probably serve to galvanise Labour.

        We are still left at square one, with all the practical questions that need answering still unanswered. The point remains that if there is no party in existence, then the battlefield is open to our enemies and opponents to take those votes instead – and they will. The type of people who vote far-Right can just as easily vote far-Left. That’s the basic problem with this waiting for Godot approach. While Nationalist are sat around waiting for Godot and wallowing in their own misery, the public are getting on with their lives and will accept a mixed-race society in lieu of any credible alternative. It will just happen by default.

        I have to be honest, I have little faith in most of the Nationalists I see around on the internet. It really cannot be emphasised enough that if a new party is formed, it must be user-friendly and not designed to put-off the public, but how many Nationalists understand this? The usual response to this sort of common-sense is emotional and hysterical nonsense. We have to start being a bit more pragmatic and realistic, but I really don’t see any comprehension of this.

        For that reason, it might be best if Nationalists stay out of it now. I know you will disagree with me about this, but I think British Nationalism is counter-productive and may even have been deliberately set-up that way from the start in order to destroy a genuine nativist movement in this country that would address the wishes of ordinary people. Remember that the German National Socialist Program was focused on bread-and-butter issues. We have no equivalent. There is no thinking going on about policy or any of the practical ‘how to’ issues involved in civic and political engagement. I know it’s boring, but the boring stuff – everything from lampposts to housing policy – has to be covered and a persuasive case made. That’s real metapolitics. What we are doing at the moment is, as far as I can see, just something out of Disneyland. It’s a utopian fantasy to think that we can have a white country unless we demonstrate political competence and work through the system. And if I’m wrong, OK, but that will become apparent later on. For now, doing nothing – waiting for Godot indeed – doesn’t move us further.


      2. The Labour Party is like a knight mortally wounded but kept almost upright by the structure of his armour. It will either split or, equally likely, not split but be reduced to two or three cabals with a wraparound party facade. A niche party for the ethnic minorities, public sector unionized staff and others. I see it as having, after the 2017 General Election, about 150 MPs and then, by 2022 and after boundary changes and events, about 100.

        I agree that we cannot sit on Mount Olympus or in Valhalla and ignore concrete concerns and policy, but the NSDAP, Bolsheviks and other revolutionary political movements tended to sketch broad brush strokes, not detailed manifestos. That also is what the Conservative Party is doing now. Yes, there are the pro forma “costed policies” and detailed manifestos that few read or even know about, but the main thrust is the slogan “strong and stable government”. Trite and silly, yes, but it plays to the emotional level where the decisions are really made.

        I agree that flagwaving British Nationalism is limited as a political offer: the Empire and the Flag must be background not foreground. However, it would be a mistake to descend to a LibDem approach focussed on local rubbish collection or the provision of public conveniences. People only turn to “extremist” parties when the superficially “moderate” System parties have failed and lost all credibility.

        I agree that people cannot support or vote for a party that does not even exist. There must be a party and a movement. I am not (yet) in a position to establish a party which might become a movement and I refuse to start something on a flawed or silly basis.

        I disagree that Labour will revive. Its time has gone. The Conservative Party is living on borrowed time, though. It too will not be very significant forever. It has however bought some time. When the 2017-2022 government fails, then everything will be cast into the hazard. The Labour Party will be unable to capitalize on events. New wine cannot be put into old bottles.


    2. Spot on. Totally agree. It is all a reprise of Margaret Thatcher who made promises on immigration to break the Nationalist vote and then renaged on her promises.
      Personally I think your ten year forecast for a Conservative (read Edtablishment to be more accurate) fascist dictatorship is unrealistic. I think they will be in power for decades, maybe until the end of time!
      Whatever…democracy was always a charade…


  3. What do you think of the British Democrats party? They were set-up in 2013 but they appear to be virtually still born and must have very few members and have contested very few elections. They don’t seem to have much of an organisational ability either since even after their website redesign you can’t join them or donate directly online like with virtually every other party I can think of in this country. That is a big mistake in my view since people will more readily join them if they make it easier to do so. Even people as interested in politics as we are tend to be impatient with such slow methods as completing application forms and sending them away in envelopes and this way of doing things gets in the way of the real growth of their party in my view.

    I once had a bit of an argument with them on their website because one of their most senior members still thinks that taking a very hardline ‘Right-wing’ stance against gays (calling for the return of the section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 even! ) is politically acceptable in the Britain of the 2010’s and will get them somewhere. Refusing to moderate the stance on this subject even to the level of Marine Le Pen’s FN in France like Mr Griffin of the BNP failed to do doesn’t inspire much confidence in their political acumen. Perhaps, this policy may be subject to change but if it is set in stone then I think they will fail before they even properly get off the ground simply because people are unlikely to listen to them on other policy grounds. Instead of taking a policy line on it one way or the other it would probably be better to say it is a matter of personal conscience for their members and so the party doesn’t take an absolute line on the LGB issue.

    I believe what is needed is a party that is seen as modern, competent and has some libertarian views, is social and national, anti-EU but pro-European, has a hardline view on law and order. In short, a modern nationalist party that can truely compete electorally like the Front National and quite a few others in Europe. A better name for it might be useful too. British Democrats sounds pretty bland and insipid to me. I would suggest Britain First but unfortunately that rather juvenile group of the same name has sullied those two words to a pretty big extent.


    1. I have heard of the English Democrats. I have heard and seen their leader on BBC Daily Politics once or twice. I did hear of one person slightly known to me was a supporter a few years ago. My impression is that they are harmless “true Conservatives”, the kind of 70+ years old Conservative Party people from the provinces unable to stomach David Cameron-Levita-Schlumberger’s nonsense. Harmless. Pointless.

      As for your other points, I am not very interested from a political or ideological point of view about what people get up to in bed. Only if it impacts society as a whole.


      1. I have heard of the English Democrats as well: https:/ Your assesment of them is pretty much spot-on. The main policy was devolution of power to an English Parliament modelled on that of Scotland but now it has changed to one of an aspiration for independence. They are anti-EU and seem to have a little bit more of a hardline stance on immigraton and ‘refugees’ than UKIP does but nowhere near what is needed. Basically, it is a UKIP for England only.

        No, the party I was referring to is called the British Democrats: I believe that quite a few of its figures are nationalists of long-standing which means that the press will have some dirt on them unfortunately.

        I am not either. However, the problem is many nationalists have a total obsession on the subject (ie the ones on Strormfront) and rant on and on about it without even considering the merits or otherwise of the case for the recent law reforms going back to 1967. This is just stuck in the mud kind of thinking and is indicative of their disdain for LGB people. I think the issue should be looked at with a cool head taking account of the scientific evidence rather than have a pre-set position just because that is the way nationalists have always approached it. Too many especially on Stromfront though quite a few of them could well be left-wing extremists posing as nationalists think they must keep to an ultra hardline ‘Right-wing’ position on the subject in order to prove how ‘pure’ nationalists they are. To be frank, I see the issue as of little relevance to nationalism anyway.

        I also think that the issue should only be assessed in terms of its impact for good or ill on society at large not what people do in private.


      2. Ah, British not English Democrats. No, I had not heard of them.
        In the end, those LGBT issues do not interest me much. For me, side issues.


  4. The trick under our system is to get rid of BOTH major parties AT THE SAME TIME but FPTP makes that impossible when people fairly readily switch between Tory and Labour when they should abstain from voting for either. FPTP props each other up. Tory and Labour don’t hate each other enough to not wish to see the other party still be viable.

    I think Labour will still be viable even at 150 odd seats but if it goes down to 120 and certainly under 100 real questions will then be posed. The Tories recovered pretty well from 1997 and 2001 to 2005 when they were back in contention.


    1. There is a difference between being a viable niche party (as the SNP is at Westminster or as the LibDems were at their peak under Charles Kennedy when they had 59 or 60 seats) and being seen as a viable alternative government.

      As you and others have pointed out, the Conservatives were on the floor from 1997 onward (167 seats at one time). That is true, but there are distinctions: the Conservatives, even with the split mind over the EU, were still more united than Labour now is. Second, UK politics was still more of a 2-player (or 2.5 player, with LibDems) than in more recent years. As you say, the System or “deep state” likes the false choice between 2 main parties.


      1. I can see what you are saying. Do you think Labour still has some white working class support? If they are, at the moment, virtually totally reliant upon ethnics to vote for them then it is scary how much support Labour still has.

        I think the Labour Party still has the ‘my old dad, my grandad voted for Labour and its a family tradition’ support. The Tories have this as well. Will we ever be rid of these idiots with their unthinking support for their ‘team’ as football followers are devoted to the Red of Liverpool FC and the Blue of Chelsea.


      2. Yes, there is still “traditional” support for Labour, especially in the North of England. “My grandfather voted Labour, we all around here vote Labour” etc. That is going now, partly because Labour is often now not identifiable as “working class”, or as “middle class socialists who want to advance society”, or even as English or British. The typical Labour MP now might be black, Pakistani Muslim, Jew, or a never-worked middle-class or other careerist in the (pick almost any name really) Liz Kendall or John Woodcock mould.

        There always were people like that in Labour (except the blacks and browns) but not so many. The middle class type of Labour MP was usually seriously posh in the 1940s to 1960s (Stafford Cripps, Clement Attlee, Tony Crosland etc).

        ICM polling recently showed that the only main demographic still supporting Labour above Conservative is the black/brown electorate. You can add to that public sector workers generally and maybe students. This is why Labour is sliding to disaster.

        Politics is opening up. Policy is key for me, but for the increasingly volatile electorate, emotions matter more.


      3. I think we may be in the hands of somebody like Aaron Banks – i.e. somebody that has the resources to fund a new party with a professional image. Probably the next big thing will be a new patriotic version of UKIP.

        I think Farage must have seen the UKIP collapse coming and bailed out early, leaving others to hold the parcel, so to speak. He will probably re-emerge as leader of a new party funded by Aaron Banks. I’m assuming there won’t be any European elections in the UK in 2019, so they can bide their time, plan, and get it right.

        However it all hinges on a Labour AND Tory collapse – both need to go.


      4. I agree that all System parties must go. There is no immediate prospect of eliminating the Conservative Party, puffed up as it is by the implosion at the same time of both UKIP and Labour (and LibDems are very weak after their 2010-2015 disaster). So the strategy is forced upon us: go with the flow, kick down what is left of UKIP and Labour and leave the Conservatives until a later year.

        As for Arron Banks (btw, he is “Arron” not Aaron”), he was clever enough to see that UKIP was about to go over a cliff (and has avoided making a fool of himself at Clacton), but he is a businessman , not a political leader or visionary.

        I do not think that any party of the UKIP type will now have much success. Only social nationalism can succeed and then only if that party has the right broad approach, right leader, above all the right time.


  5. Good to see that you realise that Social Nationalism was a purely spiritual movement. Abandoned in the Night of the Long Knives and reformulated as National Socialism for the SS and the masses.
    The SS never were part of the original elements of Social Nationalism.
    It was only through spiritual rebirth that the nation could prosper. And prosper it did.
    Fortunately most of Social Nationalism’s detractors have failed to see this and have instead got hooked on their greed-quotient…hence the holocaust baloney!!!
    Evil fighting amongst themselves…just like the Israeli supported IS terrorists fighting amongst themselves in Syria.
    This will happen in both the US and Israel…pure evil is always its own worst enemy.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s