The Rift in the Labour Party Deepens

I recently blogged here about why I hope that the Labour Party splits into at least two main parties (it has already split into factions):

My conclusion in that piece was that, should Labour split, then so to speak “official” Labour will triumph, because it has

  • the name-recognition;
  • the “validity” of being “official” Labour; as well as
  • the funding from trade unions and –equally important now that Labour is again a mass party with 500,000+ individual members and supporters– the rank and file; and also
  • most of the party organization.

“Official” Labour also has Jeremy Corbyn. True, his academic background was very poor, his post-academic work background very sketchy,  his achievements as MP few; and yet he is quite popular among not only Labour members and supporters but also with at least 25% or so of the voting public.

Labour is still sitting between 37% and 40% in the opinion polls polling “voting intention”, about the same as the Conservative Party, so it seems that, for voters who prefer Labour as a label for which to vote, Corbyn is at least not a very offputting factor.

Contrast that with the proposed “Centrist” or “Provisional Labour” party: would-be “leaders” such as thick chancer/careerist Liz Kendall (Zionist and probably part-Jew), or shallow (and half-Nigerian) Chuka Umunna (who burst into tears when he realized that even standing for election as leader was not as easy as he thought).

Such a “Provisional” Labour Party of the supposed “Centre” (meaning pro-Zionist and not really socialist) would have no substantial financial or property assets, no organization in place, few members and supporters (no more than perhaps 20,000 at best), no real name-recognition, and only those MPs willing to jump ship from “official” Labour.

Most present Labour MPs know perfectly well that to leave Labour means forfeiting their seats at the next General Election. The few who have left already were no-hopers anyway: Zionist mouthpiece John Woodcock MP, a depressive, who has turned a once substantial Labour majority into a wafer-thin one and who was facing sex-pest allegations before he jumped ship; Frank Field MP, 76 years old and whose basically pro-Conservative views would have led to his deselection anyway; a few other doormats-for-Zionists who knew that their political careers were going nowhere (eg Michael Dugher).

It will be “interesting” to see how Woodcock and (if he stands) Field do at the next General Election. Either they will be soundly defeated by “official” Labour, or if running Labour close (which I doubt) will let in a third candidate, probably Conservative. If they have to stand as individuals and not even as candidates for “Provisional” Labour, their results will probably be laughable and they will be defeated easily by “official” Labour, as happened to sex-pest freeloader Simon Danczuk.

I imagine that there might be an attempt to form a “Centrist” party, but that only a few dozen present Labour MPs will defect to it. Corbyn, if he keeps his nerve, is unassailable in his position, and will be until or if he loses (badly) a general election.

Any Labour split will be good for social nationalism, though only if a movement and party can emerge to speak for and fight for the British people. In fact, the Jewish-Zionist hysteria around Corbyn’s supposed “anti-Semitism”, and the associated Jewish-controlled and/or influenced mass media campaign against Corbyn and Labour has done much to awaken people to the Zionist menace which permeates Western societies. People are starting to notice just how many editors, journalists, heads of PR and communications companies, ad agencies etc in the UK are Zionist Jews…

I feel happy at the turn of events. Excited too.

6 thoughts on “The Rift in the Labour Party Deepens”

  1. Tories need to be brought down first. Needs to be a ‘populist’ challenge from the Right. Where is it? UKIP? That’s controlled.


    1. Well, leaving aside “Right” and “Left” (not labels I usually use), my view is that the “Conservative” Party is no stronger than Labour and that that will be proven at the next general election. UKIP is not only effectively controlled but now a complete dead duck. It failed to go toward social nationalism and embraced the pseudo-“libertarian” folly of Douglas Carswell etc. As you imply, there must be a new party which does not at present exist.


      1. As an aside, I wrote a little about the Left-Right dichotomy here:

        I think there is a fundamental difference and much of what we see in politics is a playing out of these. If this struggle for the white British is won and the globalists are defeated, the next major battle will be between statists (Left) and traditional liberals (Right) over the exact role of the state. I have gradually moved to the latter position, but the point is that these continuous struggles are iterations of a more long-standing division in society between different types of people.

        Your assessment of the Labour Party is correct: the Jews are doing our job for us, and once it’s split (in whatever way that happens), the way will be open for social-nationalism (the Left faction of Nationalism). But that doesn’t assure success. The concern of course is that the Left go instead down the road of some sort of Orwellian patriotism, as opposed to nationalism proper. Years ago, I had an exchange online with Billy Bragg – quite a pleasant chap, actually – who told me exactly that: the way forward for the Left (or labour movement, or whatever you want to call it) was ‘patriotism’, which I took to mean in the sense that somebody like Orwell or maybe Peter Hitchens (a modern-day Orwell) would define it, essentially deracinated, anti-fascist (in the traditional sense), social-democratic.

        My basic view is that the two major parties (and by extension, the other major formations: Lib Dems, SNP, Greens and UKIP as well) are propping each other up. The way to bring them down is to start with the Tories. The question, as I see it, is: Are UKIP up to snuff? I’ve been in UKIP and I don’t believe they are. I think there is a need for those of us on the ‘Right’ of Nationalism to think up some sort of political initiative that spoils the Tory vote, punishes the Tories, and – painful though it will be – hands victory to Corbyn’s Labour Party. At that point, I would rest on your rationale for assisting the Corbynite Left.


  2. Around the time of the financial debacle and near-failure of one or more clearing banks in 2008 and the fallout that occupied media pundits for the next three-plus years there emerged the divertissement of the MPs’ expenses scandal.

    Given their ‘form’ I’m wondering if the Labour anti-Semitism circus was actually promoted by the banksters to get rid of the loose cannon who signed Early Day Motion 748 on the “Bradbury”:
    – and not to address the supposed ‘anti-Semitism’ in the Labour Party….? (Incidentally, is there a published dossier of “anti-Semitic” incidents, practices, secret thoughts, etc etc substantiating the anti-Semitic slur on this occasion?) The onward development of the EDM (if such it was) emerged on 20 Nov 2014 as the HoC Debate on Money Creation and Society, attended by a handful of MPs and leading precisely nowhere past a resolution that they had debated the subject (sic).

    Hansard 5 March1997, vol. 578, no 68, column 1869-1871, Earl of Caithness
    “We all want our businesses to succeed, but under the existing system the irony is that the better our banks, building societies and lending institutions do, the more debt is created. … The next government must grasp the nettle, accept their responsibility for controlling the money supply and change from our debt-based monetary system. My Lords, will they? If they do not, our monetary system will break us and the sorry legacy we are already leaving our children will be a disaster. ”

    O.T. but evergreen:

    “The Earl of Gosford: ‘…The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, as did several other noble Lords, mentioned world government. Her Majesty’s Government are fully in agreement with world government. We agree that this must be the goal, and that every step that is humanly possible must be taken to reach that goal. I can assure the noble Lord on this point. Surely, the Declaration of Common Purpose is a step in that direction. …'”


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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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