UK System Parties Struggle For Relevance


The next UK general election must be held by mid-2022 at latest. Pundits have suggested every time between Autumn 2018 and that date. I myself incline to the view that the next general election will be in late 2018 or Spring 2019, but I have no great faith either way.

What interest me are the prospects for social nationalism and I assess them, at present, as close to zero, assuming a general election in 2018 or 2019. Why? Primarily because there is not only no credible social national party, but in effect no social national party at all.


What is left of UKIP is being pushed as a fake “alternative” by those who have no interest in actually having a social national government in the UK: conservative “nationalists”; “alt-right” “social media” weirdos (who never criticize Israel or the Jewish Zionist lobby, or put forward any policies for a better society) such as “Prison Planet” Watson and “Sargon of Akkad” Benjamin; as well as various others who actually wish to prevent a social national movement developing.

Does UKIP have any chance of resurgence if, for instance, Brexit turns out to be a fraud (as seems likely)? If what is meant by “resurgence” is an increase, perhaps even a doubling or tripling, of its vote percentage, yes; if what is meant is a breakthrough and the election of a bloc of UKIP MPs, no.

At present, after 25 years of activity, UKIP has no Westminster MPs (out of 650), 2 members of the London Assembly (out of 25), and 4 members of the Welsh Assembly (out of 60), as well as 17 MEPs (out of 73 in the British contingent). The last will of course disappear next year even on a nominal Brexit. In 2015, UKIP managed a Westminster vote of 12.6%, which fell back to 1.8% in 2017. In order to get back to the 2015 position, UKIP would have to increase its vote 7-fold (and even then probably be unable to get even one single MP elected).

UKIP has been a winner for the System: it took votes and attention away from the BNP prior to 2010 and has taken the wind out of the sails of social nationalism by, to mix metaphors, diverting the waters of popular discontent angry at mass immigration, the EU, globalism etc. All that popular discontent was diverted into a “safe” channel– not “anti-Semitic” and, in fact, not really even anti-immigration. UKIP after 2010 fielded numbers of ethnic minority candidates. At one point, the favoured candidate to take over the party leadership was one Steven Woolfe MEP, of both Jewish and “African-American” descent. Woolfe had become an MEP in 2014 (UKIP’s peak year) after having come third (with only 13% of the vote) in the North West, which result points to the essentially shallow support that UKIP had even at its peak.

As to the small parties trying to swim in nationalist waters, none has any weight or credibility.

For Britain

“For Britain”, the narcissism vehicle of Irish lesbian ex-secretary Anne Marie Waters, is an anti-Islam one-trick-pony and one, er, woman band, pretty much. Not only has it few members (at an educated guess a hundred or so), but its popular support is effectively non-existent: leader Ms. Waters managed a derisory 1.2% (266 votes) at the Lewisham by-election of 2018, coming 7th in the poll. “For Britain” actually expelled a local election candidate because of alleged links to both National Action and Generation Identity. To make matters worse, that information had come from the partly-Zionist-funded “Hope Not Hate” “antifa” snoop-group. The conclusion is obvious: from every point of view, “For Britain” is a waste of space.

Britain First

Britain First is the most important broadly supposedly nationalist party and is said to have perhaps 1,000 members. It is not, to my mind, credibly social-national, being pro-Israel and expressing support for Jews in the UK. Its leaders are not known for intelligence or cultural depth. Its actions, such as invasion of mosques, throwing bacon at mosques etc are little removed from a Monty Python level of tactics and activity. It has done abysmally in all elections contested to date and in fact has (since 2017) been deregistered as a political party. Another waste of space from an electoral point of view.


All other “nationalist” parties and groups (English Democrats, the rumps of the British National Party and National Front etc) are tiny and not worthy of consideration. One possible exception is Generation Identity, but that is not a political party. Other small but non-nationalist parties and groups are of no importance.

System Parties

It is clear that the next general election will be fought among the long-established System parties. Even UKIP will play only a walk-on role: its likely vote of 1% or 2% is unlikely to make an electoral impression in any but the few most marginal seats.

Conservative Party

The Conservative Party can now be characterized as “donkeys led by donkeys”, with not a lion in sight, unless is included the moth-eaten toy lion called Boris Johnson. The Conservative Party’s best electoral argument is that it is not the Labour Party.

Britain teeters on the brink of social breakdown. The “Conservative” governments since 2010 have slashed spending on police, the legal and justice systems, social security, housing etc. In the past, “law and order” was the Conservative Party’s trump card. Now all that is left is a barrage of empty words.

Who now votes Conservative as a natural thing? The few percent of very wealthy individuals? The –maybe– 25% of the population who are relatively affluent? Buy-to-let parasites? I get a sense that formerly loyal groups —pensioners, ex-military, Brexit supporters, anti-immigration small-c conservatives, suburban homeowners— are deserting the Conservative Party in droves. They may not vote Labour or even LibDem, but are not going to make much effort to vote Conservative. If the Conservatives are only going to get their core 25%-30% vote out, they are in trouble.


Labour is damaged by being seen (and all the more under Corbyn) as the party of mass immigration, though that is not entirely fair: the Conservatives first triggered the post-1945 immigration trickle that became a flood much later; the Conservatives have presided over enormous volumes of immigration, most obviously since 2010 (despite  –again– empty words against the invasion). In fact, the Labour Party that deliberately imported millions of non-white immigrants was that of Tony Blair, not that of Jeremy Corbyn.

Labour’s strength is that its present policies, such as rail nationalization, utilities regulation, building social housing etc, resonate with a population that has seen living standards fall for a decade.

Labour may lose 30 seats in the 2022 boundary changes, but 2022 seems a long way off at present…

Liberal Democrats

The LibDems were mortally wounded by joining with the Conservatives in the 2010-2015 Con Coalition. At present, their only strength is that some voters in the South of England will vote LibDem rather than Conservative, when they would not vote Labour.

The LibDems presently have 12 MPs, but the boundary changes set for 2022 will cost them as many as 8 seats. The LibDems have been there before, but not for many decades and that was in a political milieu where the typical election in a constituency would be a three-way split; now five or six parties, plus minor and joke candidates, contend. If the LibDems lose 8 seats, that will be close to the end. It was noticeable that their recent Conference was attended almost exclusively by the over-60s and indeed over-70s.


If a general election is held in 2018 or 2019, the likely result is a hung Parliament, probably with Labour as the largest party. If a social national party can be founded within the next two years, it has every chance of attaining power within a decade.


11 thoughts on “UK System Parties Struggle For Relevance”

    1. UKIP is saying some interesting things re the Islamist menace and measures to contain it, but (as before) is ignoring the Zionist menace (and Zionist Jews and their doormats have a great deal more power in the UK than do Muslims, let alone Islamist Muslims).

      That short piece from the “Economics Spokeswoman” (a former City trader…) seems slightly muddled, though I can agree with parts of it.

      In the end, UKIP is (as my blog post says) effectively finished as an electoral force; a busted flush. Depending on the outcome of the Brexit mess in 2018-2019, UKIP may be able to recover to a 5% or even 10% vote at the next general election (assuming that that is in 2019 or later), but do not forget that UKIP garnered 12.6% in 2015, to no effect whatever. Its support is too widely spread, too shallow.

      The LibDem vote in 2015 was 7.9% and resulted in 8 MPs, declined in 2017 to 7.4%, yet 2017 resulted in the LibDems getting an extra 4 MPs, bringing the total to 12! The LibDem vote is more concentrated in certain —albeit a handful only— of constituencies. In military terms, a “Schwerpunkt”. I imagine that the next General Election will result in UKIP still having no MPs, the LibDems maybe half a dozen, unless the boundary changes have kicked in (2022), in which case the LibDems may finally be wiped out.


  1. Well it seems the new spokeswoman got “stood down” rather rapidly after being elevated! At this link there’s an interview with her posted at youtube which may indicate why:

    No recognition of the possibility of doing the country a service – and socking it to Labour – by pointing out Corbyn signed Early Day Motion 748 then sufferd total amnesia:

    That in a nutshell tells you all you need to know about UKIP.


    1. Well, this Catherine Blaiklock lady tells James Delingpole in that podcast that her husband is Nepalese, then 5 minutes later says that he is Jamaican…Apparently, the latter is the case, as far as her present husband is concerned. Did she “mis-speak”? I’m just listening as she says that she *did* marry a Nepalese “who earned a dollar a day”, so presumably not the Jamaican. So two non-white husbands. Her background is more varied than as first appears (eg on the potted bio). For me, UKIP has been washed-up since 2014 anyway. UKIP’s problems all resolve into the fact that that party never really got anywhere in 25 years (after all, even the Greens had and have MEPs).

      This is a news story about Catherine Blaiklock:

      I think one has to ask “who would live in a [political] house like this?” ie who would vote for UKIP? Not people who take race and nation seriously. Really, UKIP voters are anti-EU conservatives who are perhaps traditional, maybe therefore slightly “racist”, but not social-national and not truly for a UK/Europe future that is positively for an “Aryan”/post-Aryan civilization.

      UKIP will probably get a vote in the next General Election of between 2% and 6%, so will either more or less disappear or continue to bump along the bottom. It’s a waste of space, and a distraction, which has no specific constituency seat which it might feasibly win.


    2. Further to earlier reply to you re. Catherine Blaiklock and UKIP: I do think that in one area she was worth listening to on that James Delingpole podcast, which area is that of the politico-social results of an economic meltdown. Her “conservative” bias however prevents her from seeing that, in principle, a social national party would arise, not a regenerated UKIP. (If a social national party exists by then, meaning 2022).


    3. Further reply: I am now coming to the end of that 1-hour podcast. The Catherine Blaiklock lady makes a few good points, but overall comes over as a basically “conservative woman” (the very name of her own website, btw…) who thinks that the problems of the UK and the EU can be solved by low taxes, small government and less regulation. Politically, she is idiotic in most respects and she has no chance of political success.


    4. Oh, God! I sent my last reply to you without having heard Catherine Blaiklock’s last 10 mins. Big mistake! She says that people should “get out of Europe” and get into Asia! Maybe she does not speak demographically but in the sense “Europe” meaning EU and “Asia” meaning Asian job market/economy. She is right about the weakness of the West and indeed of UK institutions, though. I think that she is also right about a quite-soon civil war across Europe, though (she did not actually use the term). I see it as being ideological as well as racial-cultural. There may be more than 2 sides to it, as well.


  2. She’s an exponent of Coudenhove-Kalergi Tan Everyman syndrome it seems, deracinated and therefore lionised by UKIP in an attempt to thwart SJW erroneous claims it’s a raycis’ party. Seen it before there, they think money trumps genetics.

    I listened to the interview with it speeded up and had the impression the Nepalese was the first husband and the Jamaican the second. Till reviewing your link to the Independent above I’d assumed the Jamaican might be a type of “White”, like Jewish Chris Blackwell of Island Records.

    A propos none of the foregoing really, Kritzler’s ‘Jewish Pirates of the Caribbean’ is an illuminating read, though perhaps less so for connoisseurs of the subject.

    PS: How did she get to look so OLD?!


    1. I do not know how old the lady is. I assumed from the photographs (and maybe wrongly) about 55-60. If she is younger, there could be any number of reasons why she has aged beyond her years.

      There is a dearth of information about her. No Wikipedia entry. I cannot think that she will make much if any political impact.


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