I was moved to write today because of a TV programme which I did not in fact see but which has been widely reported. On BBC1 Question Time, a “Conservative” MP, one Ross Thomson [Con, Aberdeen South], was put in his place by Kezia Dugdale, the former leader of Scottish Labour. Thomson had been claiming that the simplistic Universal Credit idea thought up by (incredibly thick) Iain Dunce Duncan Smith MP would “get people off benefits and into work”. Kezia Dugdale had to point out that, so far, 37% of people receiving Universal Credit are in fact employed (but underpaid). Thomson just ignored the facts and ploughed on, a characteristic of, especially, “Conservative” MPs of recent years (Priti Patel is another egregious example).
Reading the above, I was impelled to look up this Ross Thomson. I found that the little twerp (now 31) only ever worked outside politics for 2-3 years, which he spent working for Debenhams stores and in a call centre. Once he stepped onto the “politics” gravytrain in 2012 and at age 25 (as Aberdeen local councillor, then MSP, then MP), he gave up trying to (pretending to) make a living in the more usual way.
His Question Time humiliator, Kezia Dugdale, was herself only employed on the political fringe (as a campaign manager etc) for a while before becoming a full-time politico (finishing as disastrous leader of Scottish Labour: the System looks after its own— she is now a columnist for the Scottish Daily Record newspaper). It goes beyond the scope of this blog post to muse overlong as to why so many women in frontline UK politics are lesbians.
The above thoughts led on to my wondering, not for the first time, why mediocrity rules in UK politics. Indeed, to be merely mediocre at Westminster is to be winning! Most MPs and “peers” do not even achieve mediocrity but are disastrously poor in every way.
The main problem stems from the First Past The Post voting system, which was fine in the 19th Century —simple policies and issues, uneducated voters, clear party divisions— but is simply out of date and not fit for purpose today. In 21st Century Britain, someone can be pro-animal welfare, anti-mass immigration, for private enterprise but pro-State control or regulation of utilities and transport. For which party does that voter vote? Conservative? Labour? Green? UKIP? LibDem? The one-size-fits-all politics is not our reality any more.
Furthermore, the FPTP voting system means that, once the MP is in a seat, it is almost impossible to dislodge that person.
Then there is the selection procedure, which varies from party to party, but which (even in a supposedly non-System party such as the now-finished UKIP) excludes anyone thought “racist”, “anti-Semitic” etc. Also, it is to be noted that some of the worst MPs have come out of restricted shortlists such as the Conservative Party “A” List. Even so, the sheer lack of quality of Westminster candidates now is staggering. Take some fairly random examples that have caught my attention over the past few years:
- Justin Tomlinson [Con, North Swindon]: a comprehensive school, followed by Oxford Brookes University (the old Oxford Poly), where he obtained a bog-standard “business” degree. After that, he managed a small nightclub in Swindon, Wiltshire, bearing the name “Eros”(!) as well as (according to his own CV…) operating “a small marketing business” and serving on the local council; elected MP 2010.
- Louise Mensch [Con, Corby 2010-2012], a scribbler (in the past) of braindead “chick-lit” “novels”, who was placed on the Con “A” List by David Cameron-Levita. The people of Corby, her new seat, were sold a pup. She was a poor constituency MP and was accused, while on the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, of being in the pocket of Rupert Murdoch (who later employed her as a columnist). She had to admit, belatedly, to have been an abuser of hard drugs which “had messed with her head”, one possible reason why she was and is known as someone who frequently gets even basic historical and political facts wrong. Resigned as MP in 2012 after about 18 months in the position and moved to New York (domicile of her Jewish American second husband), where she failed in various internet activities and was employed for a while as “columnist” for the UK Sun “newspaper” before eventually being dismissed or at any rate not retained.
- Liz Kendall MP [Lab, Leicester West]. On paper well-qualified to be an MP, the reality is that this woman is as thick as two short planks, as her appearances on BBC This Week have made painfully obvious. Pro-Israel to the hilt (possibly part-Jewish), her 4.5% vote in the Labour leadership contest made her a laughing stock.
- Iain Duncan Smith MP [Con, Chingford]: this part-Japanese serial liar and obvious sociopath has managed to parlay a sub-par secondary education (at “secondary modern” and Merchant Navy schools) and six years as a (surely mis-gazetted?) Guards officer (where he stuck at Lieutenant) into becoming an MP and, in time, Cabinet Minister! His faked CV (claiming degrees from the University of Perugia and the so-called “Dunchurch School of Management”) became notorious only after he had become politically prominent. His cretinous attempts to “reform” the “welfare” system have led to administrative chaos, dishonesty (flowing from the top…) and misery for millions. A stupid, greedy and evil man.
- Diane Abbott [Lab, Hackney North and Stoke Newington]: Jamaican; somehow got into Cambridge University, where she scraped a degree in History. Less than two years as fast-track trainee at the Home Office (obviously unable to hack it), then a “race relations officer” for the then NCCL; then she did some researcher and press jobs for a few years. A ghastly woman: pro-abortion, a moneygrubber, expenses blodger and freeloader, openly anti-white. Now quite possibly Home Secretary of a Corbyn-Labour government!
I could list dozens, possibly hundreds, of other examples. The fact is that 90% of the House of Commons could be removed with no negative effect on anyone but those purged. The contrary, in fact.
Addendum 20 October 2018
…and look at this one, a near (?) mental case
Update, 7 December 2018
More about the aforesaid little twerp (Ross Thomson MP)
Update, 23 December 2020
Ross Thomson is no longer an MP. The reasons are elucidated here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Thomson#Sexual_misconduct_allegations
A Labour MP, Paul Sweeney (who lost his seat in the 2019 General Election) claimed in November 2019 (rather suspiciously, a full year after the alleged event) that in 2018 he had been sexually assaulted by Thomson in a bar within the Palace of Westminster.
Thomson denied the charge and was later cleared by the Commons Standards Committee, but in the meantime his local Conservative Party chairman refused to sign Thomson’s nomination papers. This meant that he could not stand as a Conservative candidate.
In the event, the short-notice Conservative Party candidate was beaten soundly by the SNP candidate at the 2019 General Election.
Thomson has since returned to what seems to be complete obscurity.
11 thoughts on “System MPs In The UK Parliament–Mediocrity (At Best)”
I prefer the First Past The Post System. I like the territorial connection and I also like that it produces certainty. I don’t put much stall in ‘fairness’. UKIP succeeded by achieving the referendum; that they didn’t manage any significant Westminster representation would seem to matter little when set against that singular achievement. Anyway, we elect the MP, not the party – and that’s how it should be, in my view.
I want to know that there is a specific individual in Parliament who unequivocally represents my locality. Not some made-up region. Not a party list. He should represent my local area and speak for its peculiarities. That’s a good thing! I think a PR-type system would be terrible. We would lose that essential connection.
I believe the First Past The Post System is ‘hackable’ – if anything, much more so than a PR system. The great downside of a PR system from a fringe point-of-view is that political hackers need to form a party or formation, which makes idiosyncracy and eccentricity a practical near-impossibility. Do the Germans, the Dutch or the Danes have their Monster Raving Loony Party or even something equivalent to the spoiler party that I have proposed? If they don’t, then that is an important flaw in PR systems.
The root of the problem, in my view, is the expansion of the state and mass democracy, which focuses everything on the lowest common denominator and privileges people who want to interfere and stick their stupid noses in other people’s business.
We ask Parliament to do too much. In my ideal system, which would be minarchist, Parliament should be a mix of hereditary aristocrats and strong men, and should meet maybe four or five times a year to discuss nothing in particular [I assume on the agenda would be a toast to the Great Leader, namely yourself]. I would similarly eradicate most of local government. Services can now be provided perfectly well by private enterprise, and gaps can be filled voluntary community groups, charities and individual initiative. ‘Government’ isn’t the big deal it once was.
If nothing else, state minimisation would deter immigration, probably drive a lot of the interlopers abroad in search of another welfare state, and force the MPs you refer to above to find work in the commercial world.
Britain needs to be reinvented.
Your comment about “the Great Leader” amused…
Maybe we need a PR system to get rid of them though? That’s the other side of it. PR is, I think, a horrible system, but maybe you’re right and it’s the only way.
If you are going to have a “democratic” voting system, then, in my view, PR is better than FPTP, though perhaps better with some national “threshold” such as 5% or even 10%. A 10% threshold in the UK General Election of 2015 would have resulted in c.70 UKIP MPs, but excluded Green Party and others. Even a 5% threshold would have done that. At present, the LibDems, UKIP and Greens are *all* polling (in opinion polls) below 10% and so, on that basis might be excluded.
What a clown you are! Hereditary Aristocrat’s, Private enterprise, your support of “first past the post, not to mention your sarcastic attack on Ian I accused you of being “fake” a while back – seems I was right!
This is the second time that an unprovoked personal attack on me by “Bob Matthews” have been allowed through. I draw from that the conclusion that my comments are not wanted on this site, so (assuming this comment passes moderation), this will be my last comment. That is not a criticism, merely a conclusion from what I consider to be the obvious. I will not discuss the point further. I am busy.
That being said, here’s my response to “Bob Matthews”:
(i). To be clear, I have not at any point criticised or attacked Ian Millard – that’s a plain lie. I have commented critically on his ideas, which is not the same thing. Unfortunately, sometimes small-minded people and troublemakers conflate the two. And my little joke above wasn’t sarcasm. It was just good-natured humour.
(ii). Second I am not a ‘fake’. I comment here under my real name. I suspect “Bob Matthews” is NOT a real name, but if it is, I ask Mr Matthews to contact me direct at firstname.lastname@example.org. I will resolve this issue direct with him – and I expect him to identify himself. If he does not do so, I will interpret that to mean that he is in fact the fake and that his purpose here is to cause trouble.
(iii). A hereditary aristocracy is a fundamental tenet of the Right. It is essential to a society run by its best. If you do not believe in it, then you are not properly of the Right. I do believe that an aristocracy can and should also accommodate meritocratic elements, but what should be understood is that aristocracy is a duty, not some sort of perk. The British aristocracy are meant to be the nation’s custodians: that’s where the hereditary part comes in. The society I envisage would be relatively free. Bob Matthews may not be of the Right (and for all I know, neither is the owner of this blog), or he may just be poorly-educated, but I am of the Right and I’ll say so.
(iv). First Past The Post is a good system, for the reasons I have outlined, but I have already conceded that opposing it may be tactically necessary – something that “Bob Matthews” chooses not to mention.
(v). Private enterprise, or private initiative, is fundamental to a society in which the state is minimised, which in turn I believe is necessary for the nationalist goals. I believe it is the expansion of the British state and statism that are partly responsible for the problems we now face.
I would also like to address what, if I recall correctly, was a previous attack by “Bob Matthews”. I had commented that I do not accept the tenor of the far-Right’s position on Rotherham, which is that young women are simply the victims of rape. Some of them are, but most of them are not. Most of them engaged voluntarily with the Pakistani Asian men. To me, the basis of a white society is individual responsibility and a social ecology based on patriarchies. What happened in Rotherham and other places is the result of a society in which Pakistani men are privileged above white men in the eyes of many young white women. This results in them being sexually-attracted to the Pakistani men. Like it or not, that is fact and it is being glossed-over by people who can’t accept facts.
The courts may agree with your fictitious understanding of things, but my observations, experience and common-sense don’t. The Women Problem has to be addressed – even if it is just an acknowledgement of it while accepting that practical action is not viable and that, for reasons of politic, we must accept the present dispensation.
People like “Bob Matthews” are illogical and counter-factual virtue-signallers and pseudo-feminists. They react to events based on steamed up rhetoric. The result is that we end up going round in circles like dogs chasing our own tails.
A better understanding is shown by people like Joe Owens who look at problems like Rotherham more strategically (and, I would say, more intelligently) and realise that, on the whole, the electorate we need to reach are concerned with more mundane priorities.
Anyway, thank you for allowing me to comment on this blog. I have enjoyed it and your ideas are interesting.
I await hearing from “Bob Matthews”.
I allow comments based on free speech, not because I agree with them
Though I did say I would not comment further, I must add a response to that because I do now think that you are being a little disingenuous. For the first time, I will now criticise you.
This is a private blog. There is no free speech here. Otherwise, why would you bother moderating the comments? You allow a comment through from a fake screen handle ironically calling me fake, and personally attacking me. That does imply that you at least approve of such things. That doesn’t reflect well on your character, in my view. I would not do the same thing, even if I disliked the person that the comment is aimed at.
I want nothing further to do with you. I take such things seriously. I own my comments here. I don’t hide behind a made-up identity.
I know what you’ll say next. You’ll say that you moderate the comments to ensure nothing illegal gets through, but nobody would hold you responsible for illegal material that you delete. You’re a lawyer yourself, you know that. Furthermore, you have allowed something through that is potentially defamatory. Not that I would do anything about it as it’s trivial, but in such trivial things we often see a person’s true nature. I don’t like what I see here.
I moderate comments partly because, as you say, I would not allow anything contra the *criminal* law to be posted, simply because I myself am constantly monitored online by the Jew-Zionist element and sometimes by their doormats in State service (mainly police from occupied areas such as Barnet and South Essex) and do not wish to play into their hands.
The other reason that I moderate comments is because I would not permit directly anti-British or anti-social nationalist comments to be posted here. The whole of the msm is available for trash of that sort.
I disagree that anything written about you by another commenter was defamatory (though perhaps insulting); still less that anything written was or is actionable. One of the absurdities of the age is that all sorts of people talk blithely about defamation and suing people. I blame the Jewish Zionist influence (even worse in the USA, of course). I myself rarely defame people, though in fact I can do so with complete impunity: one of the few advantages of being broke is that no-one can sue me, or, more accurately, I can only be sued by people who are happy to waste tens and probably, ultimately, hundreds of thousands of pounds which they could never recover (even at a 1% level) even were they to achieve a complete victory at law over me.
Further, I myself have no reason to attack you. I have no idea who you are beyond the name used; no idea where you live, nor anything about you.
If you wish to comment further on here, you remain welcome; if not, then adieu.
Tom Rogers: I use a non de guerre as a safeguard against the antifa and police harassment – having had run-uns with the Police for alleged race crimes previously! I am sure you wouldn’t know what it feels like to have the CTU/Special Branch turn their attention to you regarding alleged hate crimes? As for Aristocracy, I despise the landed gentry for their corruption and inbreeding, although I can see the need for a “new” kind of nobility! Regarding “Rotherham” I do sympathize with those girls – as I believe most are victims of “Broken” Britain and have been conditioned via heavy propaganda and racial alienation. As for libellous – are you for real? You mention free speech, then complain when i use it – odd! Are you a racialist, social nationalist, or something similar, or perhaps none of those mentioned, because you never mention ZOG or NWO etc or racial issues? Where do you stand on “Usury” or “Fractional Reserve Banking” or “Eugenics” etc? Anyhow, I know I am genuine and it matters not what you think of me. For Race and Nation!