Labour did not do well at the EU elections: 3rd-placed with 2,347,255 votes, a 13.7% vote share, and 10 MEPs (down from 20). Labour only got two-thirds as many votes as the LibDems, and far less than half as many votes as Brexit Party attracted.
Remain whiners are saying that that happened because Labour did not proclaim itself as anti-Brexit and/or pro a second EU referendum. That is a doubtful proposition, in that it seems that more Labour voters voted Leave than Remain in 2016. What probably is correct is in saying that Labour’s message was mixed, or that Labour and Corbyn were “fence-sitting” re. Brexit (true, but what else can he do?). Parties that had a clear Brexit message (Brexit Party, LibDems, Greens) did better than those with mixed messages (Conservative and Labour). In the Russian proverb, “if you chase two hares, you won’t catch one”.
True, Change UK and UKIP had clear messages either way on Brexit and both failed miserably, but in the case of UKIP, Brexit Party simply took its votes and was seen as the bandwagon on which to jump; Change UK was just seen as a joke (there was something of that in UKIP too, it having joined with the “alt-Right” wastes of space “Sargon of Akkad” Carl Benjamin, “Prison Planet” Paul Watson and “Count Dankula” Mark Meechan).
Labour did not come in 1st place in any of the EU constituencies and, in the 5 constituencies where it came 2nd, was far behind Brexit Party (and typically with less than half of the votes of Brexit Party), with the sole exception of London, where Labour came 2nd to the LibDems (23.9% vote, LibDems on 27.2%).
Labour’s campaign was weak, and the Jewish-Zionist element was, as always, still there, sniping from cover at Corbyn and his (as far as I can see) very limited if even existent “anti-Semitism”.
Labour’s best argument in respect of Westminster elections has been, for the past 9 years, that it is not the Conservative Party. That trend has continued and strengthened under Corbyn. Is that enough?
True, Labour has policies designed to appeal to the middle-of-the-road voter (public ownership of some utilities, rail lines etc, a fairer deal for tenants, promises of more money for NHS etc).
On the other hand, if a voter wants to really give the Conservatives a kick, particularly in usually-Conservative-voting areas or in marginal Con-LibDem (Westminster) constituencies, that angry former Labour voter or floating voter might well do better to vote Brexit Party rather than Labour, because in strongly Conservative areas, Labour has no chance anyway in most years, whereas the LibDems are often the second party in such areas. Such a voter could (obviously) just vote LibDem straight off. Many voters, though, if there is a 3-way Con-LibDem-Brexit Party split (realistically), may want to vote Brexit Party rather than LibDem in the hope that a BP candidate can come through the middle to win, or because the LibDems enabled the 2010-2015 “coalition” government.
As to the impact of Brexit Party on Labour seats in the North and Midlands, I should assess it as potentially very damaging, but difficult to quantify. It is not just that Corbyn is said to be unpopular. It is also a question of Labour’s failure to stand up for (real) British people, for white neighbourhoods and communities. Labour failed to stem mass immigration and in fact encouraged it (of course, we now know from a whistleblower that Labour Jews such as Barbara Roche, and Phil Woolas, deliberately imported millions of non-European immigrants in order to destroy our race and culture).
There is also the connected fact that Labour never even admitted the nature and extent of the sexual exploitation of young girls by Pakistani gangs across the country, and particularly Northern England. In fact, Labour covered up the crimes, assisted by Common Purpose organization members in the police and in local councils.
The Labour voters who voted Green in the EU elections (held under proportional voting) will mostly return in a Westminster election (held under FPTP voting) because in the Westminster election, a Green vote is a wasted vote, without doubt.
If Brexit Party can take away 10% or more of what would otherwise be the Conservative vote, the Conservative Party is badly damaged (as when UKIP got 12% in 2015). If Brexit Party can get an overall 20%, the Conservative Party is toast except in a few very safe seats. Labour voters should therefore (whatever they think of Farage and his party) vote Brexit Party and not Labour, unless Labour is in a very strong position to win in any particular seat.
Labour has a good chance of forming a minority government or even a (small?) majority one if a general election is held soon, meaning in 2019, maybe 2020. The Conservatives are despised, divided, and weakened both internally and by the upstart Brexit Party. I blogged recently about how the Conservatives might try to limp on to 2022, when the reduction in MP numbers to 600 and accompanying boundary changes will cost Labour as many as 30 MPs. Much depends also on whether Brexit Party is a flash in the pan or a growing menace to the Conservatives.
I wrote the following after the Stoke-on-Trent by-election of 2017:
“Labour has been declining for years. Corbyn is both symptom and cause. The disappearance of the industrial proletariat has swept away the bedrock underneath Labour, replacing it by the sand of the “precariat”. Labour imported millions of immigrants, who are now breeding. The social landscape becomes volatile. The political landscape too.”
The tweet below, from the Peterborough by-election, illustrates my often-posted belief that the Labour core vote is now largely composed of the “blacks and browns”:
Brilliant canvassing sessions in Peterborough for our fantastic @UKLabour candidate @LisaForbes_ with colleagues from Peterborough and our extended #LabourFamily
In other words, Labour is now the party of the blacks and browns.
Yes, l too heard that admission by a reporter that the Labour Party R pinning their hopes on the mu*lim vote to win the Peterborough by-election! As suspected, it appears that the Labour Party now only represent the metropolitan elites & the mu*lim vote, no longer working class!
…from the Independent, “reporting” on beach patrols at Dover; all too typical of the sort of persons now prominent in “Labour” and what is left of the trade unions:
“Riccardo La Torre, firefighter and Eastern Region Secretary of the Fire Brigade Union, branded the coast patrol “despicable” and said: “These have-a-go, racist vigilantes have no place in any kind of enforcement or emergency activities and will only serve to make conditions and tensions worse.”
So “Riccardo La Torre” (que?), a regional secretary of the Fire Brigade Union, thinks that migrant invaders from Africa and the Middle East are “working class people”, who are “trying to get to safety”?!
Safety from, er, France? There you have in a nutshell, the craziness that is much of “Labour” now. Alien migrant-invaders are “working class people”, who should be allowed to occupy the UK at will (and be subsidized too)! Note the fag-end “Marxism”, trying to shoehorn the facts into some 1980s polytechnic back-of-postcard Marxism-Leninism.
The Liberal Democrats had a good election. Everyone says so. From having 1 MEP to now having 16 MEPs. 3,367,284 votes. A vote-share of 19.58% (second only to Brexit Party, which scored 30.22%).
In London the LibDems came 1st, with a 27.2% share. London was the only EU constituency of England and Wales where Brexit Party did not top the poll (it came 3rd, behind the LibDems and Labour).
The only constituencies where the LibDems failed to get at least one MEP were Wales and North East England.
It seems clear that the LibDem surge and vote was, more than the vote for any other party in these elections, purely an outcome of the Remain/Leave binary. The LibDems are the party of Remain, Remain at all costs, Remain no matter what.
Not that the LibDem vote in these elections was solely a Remain vote, a Remain vote and nothing else, but 90% probably was. The two major System parties were both ambiguous in terms of statements, policies and, especially, their MPs. Brexit Party and UKIP were of course both unambiguously Leave. The Greens and the new joke party, Change UK, were also Remain. The LibDems got about 70% more votes than the Greens, who came 4th overall.
At an educated guess, the Remain votes that went Green rather than LibDem were from people who remember the way in which the LibDems (arguably the least honest party in the UK) enabled the dreadful and cruel policies of the Conservatives, of David Cameron-Levita-Schlumberger and his 2010-2015 “Con Coalition”, while still spouting the language of “social justice”. Nick Clegg, Danny Alexander etc. Remember them?
The above being so, the support that the LibDems received in the EU elections will almost certainly not follow them into the Westminster arena. A good test will be the result of the Peterborough by-election scheduled for 6 June 2019. In 2010, the LibDem vote in Peterborough peaked at just under 20% (3rd place), which was a few points up on previous general elections. The LibDem vote fell back to 3.8% in 2015, then fell back again to only 3.3% in 2017 (as it did in most constituencies, though the LibDem MP cadre actually increased from 8 to 12 thanks to the UK’s mad electoral system).
Now, in Peterborough, the LibDems, with the same candidate they stood in 2017, look like losing, possibly badly, at the by-election. Their odds re. winning are at time of writing 25/1, joint 3rd place with the Conservatives (Labour 4/1, Brexit Party 1/5 odds-on favourite).
Brexit is not the only issue in a Westminster election. Yes, the LibDems are still the go-to “dustbin” vote out of the System parties, and there may be many (especially in the Southern parts of the UK) who will vote LibDem as a tactical measure in the next general election, but in the most heavily Conservative-voting areas that will not much dent massive Con majorities, whereas in more marginal areas it will (with Brexit Party) help to sink the Conservatives, but only in a few areas will the ultimate beneficiaries be the LibDems themselves.
In any case, by 2022, boundary changes and the reduction of MP numbers to 600 will have culled almost all LibDem MPs.
I have considered the LibDems to be effectively dead since the days of the Con Coalition. The EU elections will have cheered them, but their fires will soon be but glowing embers.
First time ever since polling started in 1943 that a voting intention poll for Britain has had neither Labour nor the Conservatives in the top two. https://t.co/zqSSsXitSV
If that poll were to be given effect in a general election, the result would be about (depending on various factors): Brexit Party 188 MPs (and largest party in Commons), Labour 186 MPs, LibDems 114 MPs, Conservatives 83. Hung Parliament (Brexit Party 138 short of majority). Popular vote does not exactly equal number of MPs.
Also, if that general election were held in or after 2022, remove about 10 from LibDems and about 30 from Labour; and maybe 5-10 from Conservatives.
I still cannot see that the LibDems will be able to replicate 2010 Cleggmania even if it seems that many are able to forgive and forget the “Con Coalition” of 2010-2015 (I cannot. I will not). I still see the LibDem vote next time as amounting to no more than about 10% and the LibDems as coming away with fewer than 20 MPs. I concede that I may be wrong on this if hard-core Remain voters continue to flock to LibDems and away from Conservatives (as they did in the EU Elections 2019). Everything is uncertain in that no-one knows who will be Conservative leader, how long he (or she) will last as PM (not long, I think) and whether he or she will be basically Remain or Leave.
Update, 1 June 2019
The betting on the Peterborough by-election, scheduled for 6 June, five days from now, continues to shift. At present, the LibDems, who were at 70/1 and in 4th place just a week ago, are now, as of 1 June, on 12/1 and in firm 3rd place (Conservatives 25/1 and in 4th place, and already looking well-beaten). Brexit Party 1/5, Labour 4/1. It still seems unlikely that the LibDems can win:
but it is just possible if and only if pro-Remain and/or anti-Brexit Party voters abandon both the Conservative candidate and Labour, and go LibDem. Tactical voting to block the Brexit Party candidate.
If the LibDems can pull off the coup of getting their candidate elected at Peterborough (in the 2017 General Election, her vote share was only 3.3%), it will rank, arguably, above the other LibDem and Liberal Party revivals in the post-1945 era, such as the 2010 “Cleggmania” and the 1961 Orpington by-election
In that event, the Brexit Party juggernaut would be halted in its tracks, quite possibly.
Update, 1 March 2022
In fact, at that Peterborough by-election of 2019, Labour managed to pull off an unexpected victory, scoring 30.91% as against Brexit Party’s 28.89%. The LibDems came in 4th, with 12.26%: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Peterborough_by-election.
Since then, much water under the bridge. There was a General Election only 6 months later. At that election, the Labour MP, Lisa Forbes, lost her seat, being replaced by a Conservative Party MP who had not been the by-election candidate. Brexit Party nationwide was betrayed by its own leader, Farage; Mike Green stood again for Brexit Party but received a poor vote-share of 4.4%. As for the LibDems, a mere 4.9% (same candidate).
So now I move to consider the Green Party for England and Wales, which did well in the EU Elections. 2,023,380 votes and a vote share of 11.76%, resulting in 7 MEPs (up from 3).
Green Party, which came 4th in the UK, beat the Conservative Party easily and ran the Labour Party pretty close for 3rd place. In three of the constituencies (East of England, South East and South West) the Greens came in 3rd-placed.
The Green Party, despite its pitiful disorganization, had a fairly clear message: pro-EU, pro-mass immigration (in effect), and of course known for its championing of animal welfare and environmentalism. One should not assume that all Green Party voters are voting primarily for the EU and/or mass immigration. The core Green Party support is for animal welfare and/pr animal rights, and for environmental protection. In my opinion, in these recent elections the Green Party tripled and possibly quadrupled its core vote as noted in Westminster elections.
I have blogged previously about how there has always been a link between Green issues and social nationalism:
The surge in Green Party support in the recent EU elections can be put down mainly to former Labour voters who are also Remain partisans voting Green partly because of dissatisfaction with Labour’s Brexit stance (trying to ride two horses at once) and partly as a tactical vote in places where Labour has little chance anyway, as in much of the South of England. The increase may also in part have been due to increased public concern over “climate change”, species depletion and pollution of the oceans.
Most of the support for Green Party displayed in the EU elections will disappear in the next general election, but there may be a tactical or other carryover. In 2017, the Green Party received votes amounting to 1.6% of the national vote, though that underestimates Green Party support because Green Party does not contest all seats; also, there is a separate Green Party for Scotland. Having said that, the Greens did better in 2015, with a vote share of 3.6%.
The Green Party has one MP, Caroline Lucas, who may or may not retain her seat in future general elections. It also has 1 House of Lords member, 2 London Assembly members (out of 25) and 363 local councillors (out of 19,023 in England and Wales). Its membership is said to top 43,000.
There is no evidence that Green Party is about to become a major player.
UKIP was finished off finally by the 2019 EU elections.
UKIP received a national vote of 3.6%. It lost all of its MEPs.
I was never very taken by UKIP, with its unwillingness to take on the Jewish Zionist element, with its obvious “conservative nationalist” orientation, with its unwillingness to go fully social-national (or even to the extent of Marine le Pen’s Front National), with its multi-ethnic candidate list and Conservative-lite socio-economic policies. However, UKIP was a stepping-stone to a future, and was at least non-System, though aspiring to join the other System parties (rather than defeat them and then annihilate them).
I have blogged since well before 2017, and tweeted (until barred/expelled from Twitter), that UKIP peaked in 2014 and, after having been cheated by FPTP voting at the 2015 General Election, was sliding to irrelevance and oblivion.
My analysis has turned out to be correct. After Nigel Farage left UKIP, it was led, poorly, by others (Diane James, Paul Nuttall, Henry Bolton) before being taken over by Gerard Batten.
Batten is, in my view, UKIP’s best leader since Farage, but has made the mistake of tying UKIP’s precarious fortunes to “Tommy Robinson”, and also to “alt-Right” wastes of space such as “Sargon of Akkad” (Carl Benjamin), “Prison Planet” (Paul Watson) etc. This was a massive strategic error.
First of all, from my point of view, both Tommy Robinson and the “alt-Right” bad jokes are pro-Jewish, or at least pro-Zionist, pro-Israel. Leaving even that aside and focussing on electoral fundamentals, the UKIP vote relied on nationally-oriented “normal” people, mostly middle-class or working-class (to use somewhat outdated terms). Suddenly, UKIP is associated with Tommy Robinson and thus, by implication, with the tattooed beer-bottle-throwers of the (now defunct) “English Defence League” [EDL]; also with those rather unhealthy-seeming souls of the “alt-Right” vlogging scene, with their extreme “libertarian” views. They always seem to be people who live in darkened rooms with their computer screens, eating fast food and probably drinking carbonated beverages… Once Joe Public associated the likes of those basement-dwellers, and also the EDL-style bottle-throwers and brawlers, with UKIP, UKIP was dead in the water electorally.
True, the NSDAP had the SA, but they were a (more or less) disciplined force, with a command structure, under orders, and guided by both their superiors and political principles.
Tommy Robinson stood for the EU Parliament not as UKIP candidate but as himself, and received c.39,000 votes, though that was a vote-share of only 2.2% [but see Notes, below]. UKIP also contested the North West England election, receiving 3.6% of the votes. The UKIP list for the South West England constituency (which list included “Sargon of Akkad” Carl Benjamin) received a vote of 3.2%.
There is now nowhere for UKIP to go. Its present order of battle includes 29,000 party members (2018 statistic), 1 member of the House of Lords (out of 780), 2 members of the Welsh Assembly (out of 60), and 62 local councillors (out of 20,249).
UKIP cannot even go social-national now, because it has tried to set itself up as non-“racist” etc. Its “conservative nationalism” has been taken over by Farage and Brexit Party. It carries 26 years of baggage. As a party, it is defunct.
I should urge UKIP members who want a real way forward to read my blogs about, for example, creating a social-national base area in England.
UKIP sacked its last leader, Gerald Batten, and is now “led” by someone called Richard Braine [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Braine_(politician)], who has decided not to bother to attend his own party conference because only 450 tickets were sold instead of the expected 900!
What a total deadhead! Apart from anything else, Adolf Hitler’s first public speech was heard by only a handful, and the next, more organized one, attracted an audience of only 70! This Braine fellow (I had not heard of him until today) has no respect for his own loyal members.
UKIP has been washed up for at least 4 years. What surprises me more than anything is that even 450 people were willing to pay out for conference tickets, travel, and maybe hotels, to attend a conference for UKIP, which now stands for precisely nothing and is polling at under 1%.
I am going to blog about all of the significant parties which took part in these recent EU elections, even those that carry little political weight. I start with Change UK [CHUKUP].
Change UK is significant despite carrying little weight, in that its MPs (all ex-Con and Lab defectors, of course) and voters seem to be coming from a “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” direction and thus will be taking votes from other parties, notably Conservatives, as well as Labour and LibDems.
I have blogged previously about Change UK. I wrote in April that it seemed to be washed up almost as soon as it emerged into existence:
I see no reason to alter that view! However, the continued existence of CHUKUP does not mean that its relatively few votes will not have any effect. After all, a vote for CHUKUP is the absence of a vote for LibDems, Conservatives, or even Labour.
As to the EU Elections, Change UK ran a campaign that was a joke even by small-party standards. “Rallies” with audiences of 40, 20, 6, and even, in one place, 2 people! Pitiful. At the same time, Nigel Farage of Brexit Party was pulling in crowds of up to 3,000 people, sometimes twice a day! They were even paying for the privilege of hearing him!
Change UK, in terms of MPs, has been a kind of dustbin for a few MPs (I believe 11) most of whom were unwanted by their own local parties. Several were at one time barristers or solicitors. Others have other professional backgrounds. Few if any are poor or from impoverished backgrounds. That seems to be the case with CHUKUP’s supporters and candidates too. There also seems to be a very strong Jewish element. Twitter is the natural habitat for Change UK’s people.
I have previously blogged about the Hampstead/Highgate/Blackheath (etc) milieux in which the Change UK people seem to swim. Some wag tweeted weeks ago about how Change UK candidates all seemed to have come from the cafe at Waitrose.
In fact the above characteristics were all neatly displayed when a fruit-seller by Hampstead Heath overground station was rude to Jessica Simor QC, Change UK candidate for London:
Democracy only functions if everyone feels they have a right to participate – well done for standing up and being counted @JMPSimorhttps://t.co/10WKTeUI4E
Some tweets commenting on the above incident were more interested in the exotic plenitude of the fruit on offer from that shop! In fact, there’s no mystery about that: apart from being in an affluent neighbourhood and opposite one entrance to Hampstead Heath itself (where people might eat fruit while strolling), the Royal Free Hospital, Hampstead, is nearby. Do people still take fruit to patients? I assume so.
Well, in the event, Change UK only got 2.8% of the vote nationwide. It was at the bottom of the poll almost everywhere. In fact, it polled only 4.7% even in Broxtowe, the area where Anna Soubry is the MP (boundaries not perfectly aligned). Next Broxtowe election…goodnight Vienna.
Elsewhere, the Change UK candidates were trashed even more. For example, Kate Godfrey, the Zionist tweeter who once tried to blog and blag her way to a comfortable Labour MP career, became a Change UK candidate for the East Midlands, but has crashed and burned. I suppose that we shall see her try the LibDems next.
The day before the elections, the Interim Leader of Change UK, Heidi Allen MP, said that Change UK should “merge” with the LibDems. I doubt that that made a huge difference to the relative vote shares, but it certainly vindicates my view of last month that Change UK is doomed and, in fact, pointless.
Some LibDem/Remain partisans have made the point that the votes that went to Change UK deprived the LibDems of local wins and even MEPs.
Horrible to see so many ignorant xénophobes as our neighbours BUT interesting that LibDems came within a ChangeUK of beating them.
— Agent revokateur #bollockstoBrexit 🇭🇰🇪🇺 🔶 (@MsAlliance) May 26, 2019
In Wales, the LibDems would have gained another MEP had it not been for the votes going to Change UK.
As for the Twitter reaction, I have had much amusement reading the tweets of Remain whiners, all trying to prove that Brexit Party did not really win these elections at all, because if you add up the votes going to LibDems, Change UK and Greens (etc?), that total beats the Brexit Party vote. Some go further to aver that that means that the British people do not want to leave the EU and that the whole Brexit process should be halted…
Really hacked off with @bbc for #EUelectionresults reporting. The Brexit Party are NOT the winners. Libdems and Greens have equal votes to BP. Labour have more votes than Tories. The winner tonight is #Remain.#Brexit is the loser. Britain is demanding a #PeoplesVote
— Bakehouse Cottage #FBPE #PeoplesVote (@Bakehouse2016) May 27, 2019
and this well-known Jewish scribbler (see below) is experiencing severe angst as he pretends that the vote was about Leave v. Remain only (and that –guess what?–Remain won!). Ha ha!
Brexit has LOST the election. MEP seats now projected: 33 Brexit plus Tories versus 37 anti-Tory Brexit. Vote share looks like 54-45 in favour of Remain. Ignore BBC propaganda about Brexit Party landslide. Remain unequivocally won this election!!
So what now for Change UK? As I blogged previously, Change UK is doomed partly because it is just a dustbin for MPs unwanted elsewhere and for votes by well-meaning but very silly people with no political sense at all. I have seen this before, in the 1980s, when the SDP (which at least was a genuine party) failed very quickly.
Strategically, Change UK will get (has got) nowhere because
politics is moving away from vague “centrism”;
anyone wanting to stay in the EU and support a “non-extreme” party can vote LibDem.
Change UK may be able to merge with its more successful LibDem rival, but only if it acts quickly, while the CHUKUP MPs still hold their seats. After the next general election, there will be no Change UK MPs. Most of Change UK’s support, such as it is (about 600,000 votes, nationwide), will just go to the LibDems or to Remain-voting Conservatives anyway, and fairly soon.
Ha ha! Jessica Simor QC making herself look very silly (again)…
Harry hasn’t worked there for years. He’s one of the best reporters in Westminster. Not everything happens because of a plot. You’re a QC, stop behaving like a conspiracy loon
On paper, Change UK seemed perfect. A Parliamentary caucus, a fair wind from the press. Well-known faces like Anna Soubry and Gavin Esler. The only problem is the electorate hate them.
and here [below] is a CHUKUP candidate, Emma Jane Manley, “celebrating” (with horrible Zionist careerist Kate Godfrey) the fact that the two of them, with three others, came seventh (!) in the election for the East Midlands area. 41,000 votes? Brexit Party got over 452,000! The LibDems got 204,000. Even UKIP, in sixth place, received 58,000. Brexit Party vote share was over 38%; even UKIP got nearly 5%; CHUKUP? 3.47%. Game over.
Celebrating 🥂🌟🥂 – Our party is 3 months old and with 4 weeks notice we campaigned incredibly hard and won 41,000 votes in the East Midlands. We didn’t gain a seat at Brussels but we broke up traditional Tory & Labour areas with a new message. And this is only the beginning! 🙌 pic.twitter.com/vPuZsKU2TL
I find myself unable to resist adding this tweet by Kate Godfrey, mainly because it really does show up the incredibly poor level of education today in the UK, as well as the kneejerk anti-“racism” of the brainwashed “millennial” airheads featured…As for Kate Godfrey, CHUKUP candidate, and Change UK, the desperation is palpable. Next time, she should try press-gangs to try to recruit voters. Anna Soubry would like that. Actually, though, there never will be a next time: Change UK will not survive the next general election, and I should not be surprised to see Kate Godfrey attach herself to some other vehicle, perhaps the LibDems, before that.
Breaking down the EU elections for some awesome young women, voting for the 1st time. ‘The EU elections’ ‘Sorry?’ ‘Keeping Farage out’ ‘Who’s he?’ ‘Racism good or bad?’ ‘Bad’ ‘Yeah, you’re with us’
Three more votes! Plus the two guys who leaned over for leaflets 🤗
Note the tone: somewhere between patronizing and self-deluding: “awesome” young women who are so bloody ignorant that they do not even know that EU elections are taking place! Let alone who Nigel Farage is! Oh, but “racism”…oh yes, they oppose that (whatever it is), because they have had their empty little heads stuffed —at school and in the msm— with the “anti-racist” drivel, for years. As for the idea that those bimbos are really, actually, going to vote, ha ha!
Meanwhile, in the real world, “Change UK” is running at 1% in the opinion polls for the next general election.
Update, 4 June 2019
Well, Change UK has now split in half, 6 of its MPs have left and will apparently be “Independents” again (having been elected as Labour or Conservative). I expect that they will join the LibDems in the end.
Anna Soubry, now the “leader” of the “party”, appeared on TV to talk about the split etc. She looked drunk (again). Sigh. Maybe she was just “tired and emotional”…
The only aspect that surprises me is that CHUKUP has 100,000 registered supporters, if the Independent report is correct.
Here we see Leave UK laughing at Anna Soubry and Change UK:
You've got to feel sorry for poor old @Anna_Soubry – she's just as good as Sadiq Khan at being a stone cold loser, but gets no recognition for it because she's too irrelevant for Trump to know who she is!
— Sky News Politics (@SkyNewsPolitics) June 4, 2019
My advice to Anna Soubry is that she should just open another bottle and forget this idea that she is some kind of political leader and influencer, when she is little more than a political bad joke.
Douglas Carswell enjoys rubbernecking the car crash:
Few things have cheered me up more than the failure of Change UK. The concept of a “radical centre” is a fraudulent concept that must be seen as the bogus mush that it is.
— Douglas Carswell (@DouglasCarswell) June 4, 2019
What a bunch of clowns and rejects. Not one of the cowards with the guts to put themselves up for re-election to let their voters pass judgement on them!
Some typically obtuse Remain whiners and metro-liberal idiots in the msm still have not learned any lessons, though:
As I said earlier, I’m sorry to see Change UK split, especially because the reason/problem why ex-Labour MPs left has not been solved – if anything, it’s got worse. There’s still a need for a progressive centre left party in British politics.
Jane Merrick needs it presented A-B-C style: British-politics-has-less-and-less-space-for-vague-“centrism”…
As for the tweet below, I seriously thought it a parody, but it seems not!
It's no longer the party they joined. They're not leaving Change UK The Independent Group, Change UK The Independent Group has left them. An emotional moment—quitting the party they love. At least they're bloody _doing_ something & standing up for their values. Politics is broken https://t.co/dHx8UPl2Id
— Edmund Griffiths (@EdmundGriffiths) June 4, 2019
Here’s another one. These silly silly people really think that Twitter is incredibly important! This one thinks that a bit of “rebranding” and some intensive tweeting and Change UK will somehow be resurrected! Ha ha!
If they resurrect – get the branding sorted first and foremost, get social media working properly, change their name (again) to Remain Alliance and they might have more success.
Below, a more erudite analysis (from February) than the tweets of the Remain whiners, but one which, unlike my own blog posting, did not predict the early end of Change UK with certainty.
Why did The Brexit Party succeed and ChUK fail? There's much more to it than strategy. I think this from February has held up pretty well:https://t.co/PLM9VbuBsk
Usually, the Daily Express “newspaper” can be ignored, but the story linked below is not without interest. Drunken idiot MP Anna Soubry expresses her disillusionment with Fathead Chuka and says that she thinks that he “is the future of our country”! Whatever she is drinking today, I think that I need some too! In what parallel universe is that mixed-race, smug, dim nonentity and publicity hound going to be “the future” for any country? He has a meltdown trying to decide which louche nightclub to visit! Fathead Chuka is a dead loss, but even now it seems that Anna Soubry cannot fully see that.
In any event, Change UK, now a total dead parrot, with a new name which I have forgotten —not that it matters– is yesterday’s news. Not really worth updating, but the report amused me.
There are now only half a dozen Change UK MPs left, the rest having either decided to leave politics or join the LibDems.
Update, 14 November 2020
Late update. In the General Election of December 2019, CHUKUP, rebranded as Independent Group for Change, put up 3 candidates, each one losing badly (average vote-share 6%).
Five days later, Anna Soubry announced that the party was disbanding. She then went for a swim in another vat of booze.
Well, that’s Theresa May gone. Or not. She may have given up the nominal leadership of the misnamed Conservative Party, but it seems that she will not be leaving the office of Prime Minister until July. Presumably, the hunt for her successor will start immediately.
What have I liked about her time as Prime Minister? Nothing much. In fact nothing.
Theresa May was (if possible) even more in the pocket of the Jewish-Zionist lobby than was David Cameron-Levita. She was the same when Home Secretary. Under her, malicious Zionist organizations gained even more influence in the UK. In fact, she could not even make her resignation speech without telling some cheesy anecdote about herself and Nicholas “Winton” (Wertheim), who imported about 700 Jewish children into the UK in 1939.
As for the rest of the content of the Theresa May resignation speech, it seemed to be about some other country, not about the UK at all. In that other country, the economy is apparently buoyant, the people happy and united, the “austerity” “necessary” in the recent past has been banished and everything is wonderful.
I am sure that the millions of British people who are homeless and/or literally (in many cases) starving, who cannot pay inflated rents, let alone think of buying a house (even with a mortgage), who are paid peanuts when working, who are subject to a Kafka-esque regime of callousness and cruelty if unemployed or disabled, would love to live in that other country Theresa May lauded to the skies.
In Theresa May’s speech, no mention was made of the country where the racial stock has been deliberately contaminated, where millions of unwanted immigrants continue to flood in, where nothing now seems to work properly (from road and rail to the NHS, the police, the educational system) and so on.
No mention was made of the country where, under her, as both Home Secretary and Prime Minister, freedom of expression has been restricted even more than it was under David Cameron-Levita, Gordon Brown and Tony Blair.
This hateful woman has now gone or is about to go, presumably hoping that her political spawn, such as Amber Rudd, will follow in her footsteps.
Well, I have some news for her. She has as good as destroyed the Conservative Party and may well prove to be its last elected Prime Minister. Ah… I knew that, in the end, I would find something good to say about her…
[above, Theresa May with the Israeli Ambassador and his wife. Theresa May, like 80% of Con Party MPs, is a member of Conservative Friends of Israel, and is herself suspected of being part-Jewish by origin]
No hope of change with a new PM either UN poverty expert hits back over UK ministers' 'denial of facts'https://t.co/Q4TQMUP1kr
Theresa May is likely to resign as Prime Minister tomorrow, 24 July 2019. Her successor is likely to be Boris Johnson, incredibly…
Update, 27 December 2022
Well, three and a half years on, we see that “Boris” Johnson did indeed succeed Theresa May; in turn, Johnson was succeeded briefly by Liz Truss, and now by Rishi Sunak, both the first non-white Prime Minister and the richest (£750M, apparently). Theresa May remains on the backbenches, a critical presence, rather like Edward Heath during the Thatcher era of the 1980s.
3,000 people paid £2.50 to hear Nigel Farage speak. How many System politicians can get 3,000 to hear them speak? In fact, few would even get an audience of 300. Maybe 30, but only if entry were gratis. In fact, many of those listening to Farage had also paid a voluntary £25 donation to Brexit Party (read the report).
The size of the rally was not quite as impressive as those of Mosley in the 1930s, but you can’t have everything!
On 16 July 1939, Mosley addressed 30,000 at Earl’s Court in West London.
Returning to our contemporary political reality, here are the latest opinion poll readings:
Note the variation between the YouGov and ComRes polls. There is usually variation, but not such wide variation. The YouGov poll is the more recent, relying on polling done in the past 3 days (19-21 May). It shows Brexit Party at 37%. The Conservatives have slumped to a miserable 5th place, on merely 7%! This is incredible! As for Labour, it has been overtaken by the LibDems.
Obviously, EU elections are not the same as Westminster ones, but I think that we are seeing more here than the sort of EU election surge that we have seen before with both UKIP and to a lesser extent and long ago (in 1989) the Green Party.
Anecdotal evidence is always suspect, but then so are “statistics”. I concede that I meet few people these days, but everyone that I do meet, or encounter, or hear, is voting Brexit Party in the EU election.
I am inclined to believe that, with only a day to go, Brexit Party is still, even now when it is polling around 37%, being underestimated. I should not be surprised were Brexit Party to top 40% on Thursday.
It is clear that the most fixated Remainers are gravitating to the LibDems, with most of the rest voting Labour. The new party, Change UK, has sunk like a stone and I shall be surprised if it gets a vote of 5% (as polling indicates). Its “rallies” have all been tiny meetings, with audience numbers often in single figures. Even its main London meeting audience (disregarding journalists) only numbered about 40.
MSM scribblers and the Twitterati wastes of space are now discussing as to whether the EU elections constitute a kind of referendum on UK EU membership. How can it be, when the Labour, Conservative and even Green parties are internally split?
It is clear to me that the EU election in the UK will be dominated by Brexit Party candidates. What is really significant is that Brexit Party doing really well will give it a launching pad for Westminster.
The important poll will be the Peterborough by-election on 6 June. If Brexit Party can win that, it will be on its way.
People are angry about what has happened in and to this country over decades, since 1989 particularly. Finally they have realized that the guilty parties are literally that, the political parties (and their own apathy, but let’s not look in the mirror…). The Conservatives, having destroyed so much over the past decade, are the primary target for the wrath of the people, including that of many who until recently were themselves voting Conservative.
Brexit and its betrayal has finally crystallized the feelings of disappointment and treachery.
The Conservatives are facing a perfect storm in the EU elections:
the pathetic Prime Minister, Theresa May;
the mediocre or poor level of most other leading Conservative MPs;
Brexit, fake Brexit, and betrayal of the popular decision in the 2016 Referendum;
the rise of Brexit Party to near 40% in vote-share and perhaps, on the day, beyond;
the defection of Conservative pro-EU/Remain voters to the LibDems
The real crisis for the Conservative Party will come after the EU elections. The Peterborough by-election was noted above. The Conservative Party is rated by the bookmakers as no better than a 20/1 shot for that by-election. Incredible when one considers that from 2005-2017, Peterborough had a Conservative MP who was beaten in 2017 by only 607 votes (1.3%). Even when Peterborough had Labour MPs in the 1990s, 1980s etc, the Conservatives were always closely second-placed.
Then there is the Conservative Party membership, officially 124,000 but most of those are people in the sixties, seventies, eighties or even nineties. The active membership may be no more than a few thousand. This is important for several reasons: lack of canvassers etc, lack of subscriptions, but also the fact that, once Theresa May goes, if MPs cannot elect a new Conservative leader outright, the top 2 in the MPs ballots will go for general membership vote. Who will the aged Conservative membership pick? Will their chosen leader be in any way acceptable to the British public as a whole? That seems doubtful.
What an odd system, when a Prime Minister can resign and then be replaced by some new leader, chosen by about 150 Conservative MPs or —at most— by maybe 60,000 aged Conservative Party members, and who then becomes Prime Minister automatically, with no obligation to call a general election until 2022!
People in the UK are outgrowing both the present political/electoral system and the existing System parties.
Using Electoral Calculus [ https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/userpoll.html ], that Panelbase poll indicates that a general election held now would produce the following result: Brexit Party bloc of 19 seats. Labour majority of 44 seats. Conservative loss of 132 seats, including those of Amber Rudd, Nicky Morgan, Justine Greening, Stephen Crabb, Boris Johnson, Grant Shapps etc. Happy time! (except for the Labour majority, but the Cons have to be stamped on now; should have happened long ago)
Update, 23 May 2019
Election day, 1800 hrs. I happened to see an interesting Twitter thread analysis from a journalist. From a couple of days ago. Read the whole thread.
THREAD: On the rise of the Brexit Party and what it means for Brexit and British politics.
That’s it, there are no more Brexit Party rallies planned before polling day. I’ve been to half a dozen of them across the country, from the very first week to the end.
It will be be seen above that the videos of Mosley’s massive 1939 rally in London are now “not available” because YouTube (aka, for many, “JewTube”) has closed the account. This is part of a huge censorship campaign now spreading across the Internet. (((They))) are behind it. It is a covert censorship, banning and barring operation to close down free speech in the UK and across the Western world. It affects, inter alia, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Amazon; many others too.
In view of the duty to fight the evil noted, I have posted, below, other links.
At first blush, it may seem strange that I am focussing today on Andrea Jenkyns MP [Con, Morley and Outwood], in that she wants to leave the EU, is an animal-lover and a vegetarian. I support, in essence, all three positions. Also, she has chronic medical conditions, and I always feel sorry for people suffering in that way. However, “there is no religion higher than Truth” and so on, so I am writing about her, though —after thought– I have decided not to include her in my blog category “Deadhead MPs: An Occasional Series”. That decision may reflect mercy more than justice, but so far she falls just the right side of the line.
“Jenkyns was born in Beverley, Humberside. After leaving school at 16, Jenkyns secured employment at Greggs bakery as her first job.[4] When 18, Jenkyns’ father sent her photo off to a beauty pageant and she got into the final for Miss UK.[5] Over the subsequent years Jenkyns changed employment a number of times, performing a number of different roles at different businesses. Her employment history has included being a secondary school music teacher and an executive with a management training company.” [Wikipedia]
What does that show? Not necessarily that she is unacademic or unintelligent. There are reasons, or were, why people drop out of school early (I believe that it is now more or less mandatory for them to stay until 18). In her thirties she did study for a degree (for what it may be worth these days): International Relations and Politics. Her Wikipedia entry does not say that she was awarded the degree or finished the course at the University of Lincoln. It seems that she may have finished the degree over time at the Open University. She was also awarded a diploma in Economics from the Open University, but only when in her forties (she will be 45 in June 2019).
Andrea Jenkyns is a singer and songwriter, who even had a musical hit in South Central Asia at one time.
I started this study thinking that I would find Andrea Jenkyns rather mediocre and even one of my “deadhead MPs”, but find that I slightly warm to her. She is evidently genuinely interested in animal welfare, and got into politics, it seems, from a recognition that the NHS needed to improve its standards, particularly hygiene standards in hospitals, her own father having perished from having developed MRSA.
Sadly, like so many MPs, Andrea Jenkyns seems to think that proper preparation is unnecessary. Not so. Lack of preparation can make you look rather silly.
"I don't fear the WTO!" insists Andrea Jenkyns, mere seconds after being exposed to the apparent kryptonite of simple questions and demonstrating that her pitiful knowledge of the subject barely goes beyond the acronym itself.
Her husband, Giacomo “Jack” Lopresti MP, a former Army reservist, would be able to tell her about the military acronym “the 5 Ps” (PPPPP) (“Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance”); the less polite version has 6 Ps.
Nearly three years of Brexit and ERG ‘star’ Andrea Jenkyns still hasn’t done her basic homework. The arrogance of these people is staggering https://t.co/rYlN4yoffm
Andrea Jenkyns is absurd. Nothing going on there at all. Nothing. I think we should all start demanding *a lot* more from our MPs. https://t.co/SeYPeUSv6Y
As mentioned above, I myself strongly favour Leave/Brexit, but the performance of dunce-like Conservative Leave MPs (some of them) makes me fume: Iain Dunce Duncan Smith is another such.
On the even more negative side, it seems that Andrea Jenkyns is a member (like 80% of Con Party MPs) of Conservative Friends of Israel. Her husband, Jack Lopresti, is another one.
As to her future, her constituency is a Con-Lab marginal created in 2010 and held until 2015 by Labour big-hitter and Bilderberger, Ed Balls. Morley and Outwood has had Con and Lab (Labour and Cooperative) within a couple of points of each other in 2010 and 2015, but in 2017 Andrea Jenkyns won with a bigger margin (50.7% as against 46.7% voting Labour). The third-placed (and only other in 2017), the LibDems, scored worse in 2017 than they had in 2015 (2.6% from 3%). This is a trend seen across the country.
UKIP scored 16.5% in 2015, but did not stand in 2017. There is every prospect that, if Brexit Party stands any time soon, that it could outdo UKIP’s 2015 result. It is doubtful that Brexit Party could win, but a vote amounting even to 10%, let alone 16.5% or more, would be enough to destroy the Conservative majority.
There is every reason to think that, unless Brexit Party lets her off the hook by not standing a candidate at the next general election, Andrea Jenkyns will have to add “MP” to her other and previous short-lived employments.
Reading the above again, and again watching Andrea Jenkyns squirm in that Daily Politics clip, I think that I probably was too kind in not including her as a “deadhead MP”. Still, there it is.
Andrea Jenkyns has been given an unexpected gift from the Gods inasmuch as Brexit Party is now not standing against her in the 2019 General Election. That may help her to hang on.
Update, 21 December 2019
The gods again smiled on Andrea Jenkyns: Brexit Party did not field a candidate, Labour’s vote collapsed from 46% of the total to 35%, and so Andrea Jenkyns was re-elected with a increased majority and no less than 56.4% of the total vote.
I am impelled to write a few words about Peter Hitchens after having just seen an interview with Owen Jones [see below], which interview dates from 2017.
I have already written a blog post about Owen Jones:
To examine the views and influence of Hitchens in detail would necessitate a blog article of inordinate length, but Wikipedia has a considerable amount of information about him:
I should like to focus mainly on a few matters raised in that interview.
As to Hitchens himself, he is an odd fellow, apparently fairly well-educated. His family background had elements of tragedy (his mother bolted with an unfrocked priest, and the couple later died via a suicide pact in an Athens hotel). Not mentioned in the interview is that Hitchens (like Owen Jones) has part-Jewish roots, his maternal grandmother having been half-Jewish, in that her mother was Jewish. It was on that basis that Hitchens’ even more eccentric brother, Christopher, declared himself in latter years to be “Jewish” (taking the traditional Jewish course of deciding via the matrilineal side alone).
The interview mentions his having attended a naval school, but that must have been in early years, he then having attended The Leys School, Cambridge, an institution which has schooled a number of well-known people: at least one Rothschild, a few kings (albeit from Bahrain and Tonga), a number of MPs and journalists (in some cases both, as with Martin Bell).
Hitchens then went on to the City of Oxford College (a college of further education) and finally to Alcuin College, part of the University of York.
It may be that the university education and milieu that Hitchens found in Alcuin College permanently influenced his attitude. Wikipedia says of Alcuin College that,
“From early days of the college an uproar for secession of the college from the remainder of the university has been present.[3] It is a self-styled Separatist Movement and at times presented as a running gag at the University of York about Alcuinites….For many years Alcuin College was very much the outcast on the university campus, the only college physically separate from the others except for a bridge from the library…“
The photograph of Alcuin College in winter shows an almost Soviet bleakness and isolation.
Hitchens, though characterizing himself in the Owen Jones interview as having been a “joiner” in his youth, has also been an outsider, defector and maverick. I wonder whether he applied to the University of York because Oxford and/or Cambridge (in both of which cities he had attended school) refused his application, or perhaps he made no application to Oxbridge because (I speculate) his developing extreme socialist views made him reject such “bourgeois” places of learning. A better interviewer than Owen Jones, such as the late and great Brian Walden, might have explored all that.
Hitchens was from 1968 (aged 17) to 1975, a member of the Trotskyist “tendency” called the International Socialists [IS], the forerunner of the Socialist Workers’ Party [SWP]. He joined two years before he went to York. Later, in his forties, he became a card-carrying member of the Conservative Party, but only for the six years 1997-2003, and —typically— at the very nadir of Conservative fortunes, which is interesting, psychologically. Does he court unpopularity? Does he deliberately express unpopular or contrary views?
Hitchens is known as what might fairly be called a “reactionary”, someone who thinks that Britain was a better place in the 1950s, no ifs no buts. In fact, I believe that I watched him say that or something like that on TV once. My own view is different, that some aspects of life in the UK are better now, though many are certainly worse. This blog post is about Peter Hitchens, not Ian Millard, but in my view, things that are better now than in the 1950s (which I scarcely remember, having been born in 1956) or the early 1960s (which I certainly do remember) would include
central heating as the norm;
wider selection of fruits and vegetables (and in general a healthier or at least more varied diet);
less antiquated snobbism;
more understanding of animal welfare;
far easier access to information (via Internet);
Whereas, on the other side, the aspects of British life now that mean that UK life is worse (than in the early 1960s, anyway) are (and Hitchens has a point, because it is a longer list by far)
the general pressure of life now (of course, I was a child in, say, 1963, so my perception is affected to that extent but I think the judgment is still valid);
pervasive lack of freedom of expression;
pervasive “political correctness” etc;
the cost of living, though that is a complex question; it includes
the cost of real property both for sale and rent, and the impossibility for most people to buy a property without family money;
British people swamped by mass immigration;
real pay and social benefits etc generally reducing;
hugely less choice of employment for most people;
many people in full-time work unable to live on the poor pay offered;
unwanted millions of immigrants and their offspring;
congested roads and railways (and refer to the above line);
a huge new mixed-race population;
a huge amount of crime;
public and private housing shortages (refer to immigration, above);
huge numbers of drug-contaminated persons;
workers exploited in terms of having ever-shorter lunch breaks etc, “on call” after hours etc;
public services near to collapse in some respects;
intensive farming, with consequent harm to wildlife;
standards in all areas (NHS, schools, social security, Westminster MPs, police etc) falling like a stone
We often hear (eg from very young Remain whiners) that, eg, “foreign travel is easier now”, whereas that is mostly illusion. True, there were some silly aspects “back then”, such as being restricted as to foreign currency taken on holiday (you even had to have the amount, bought from somewhere like Thomas Cook, written in your passport!), and that silliness (a kind of postwar sacred cow) lasted until Mrs Thatcher stopped it in 1979 or 1980! Yes, true, but that was about it.
If you listen to Remain whiners (esp. the under-30s), you read or hear that Brexit will mean either no visa-free travel to the EU states, or no travel allowed at all! They really believe that, pre-1972, British people were almost imprisoned, as if Cuban, Chinese or Soviet citizens!
Until blacks and browns abused it in the 1980s to import relatives illegally, you used to be able to get a “British Visitor’s Passport” from post offices for a small amount; the passport was valid for short visits to almost all Western European states (not many people went to Eastern Europe as tourists until the 1990s). I had one in 1978 or 1979, in between possession of two ordinary passports, when I wanted to travel to France at short notice. I think that it cost about £5 and took about 5 minutes to be issued at Lanark Road Post Office, Little Venice.
Transport to the European mainland: true, there were no budget airlines as such in the 1950s, 1960s, but there were routes and ways not now in existence: in the 1950s and 1960s, people could take their cars by air to France! The main route was Lydd (Kent) to Amiens. This was not only for the rich: 5,000 cars (20,000 passengers) as early as 1950, and over 50,000 cars (250,000 passengers) by 1955 (incredible when you recall that rationing lasted until 1955!):
The idea that some Remain whiners have that young people will be unable to travel if the UK leaves “Europe” (meaning the EU) is laughable to those who know. As a child I travelled with parents; and then (from 1971) as a teenager, I travelled alone to Paris, Amsterdam etc. No visa required, UK not in EEC (the then EU).
I might add that it actually takes longer to fly to Paris in 2019 than it did in 1970 or even 1960!
One cannot say that Hitchens approves of that aspect of 1950s lifestyle, though, and (if I understand him aright), he thinks that the British war against Germany could have been avoided, but I may be mistaken here. He certainly thinks that of the First World War, which he says, surely rightly, destroyed British naval supremacy and economy.
Where Hitchens is certainly mistaken is in saying (in the interview) that Churchill’s refusal to countenance the German peace proposals of 1940 was “unquestionably the right and moral thing to do”. Oh really? Right and moral, to continue a war only started because triggered by a treaty obligation that could never have been fulfilled (the Anglo-French worthless “guarantee” to Poland) and when an honourable peace via armistice was on the table?
Such a peace might have been bought at the price of German victory in the East, but would that have been so bad? The destruction of the Stalin/Bolshevik regime? The saving of most of Eastern Europe from both wartime destruction and post-1945 Stalinism? The prevention of the enormous damage, loss of life and hurt across Western and Southern Europe and North Africa? Hitchens says, however, that he is “sceptical” about Churchill overall.
Hitchens is on surer ground when he says that British history has gone, in that no-one knows British history. He cites David Cameron-Levita being unable to translate the two words “Magna Carta” from Latin! After 6 years at Eton! That was when “Scameron” was a guest on the Letterman Show. Shaming for the whole country. Not just the Magna Carta bit. Cameron came over more like a part-Jew public entertainer (and not a good one) than a British statesman. Oh…wait…
[the bit about Magna Carta starts around 8 minutes in]
Scameron was also proven, though I think on another occasion, not to have heard of the Bill of Rights! Hitchens cites an apparently intelligent 6th-former whom he met, and who had passed exams in English History, and yet who did not know which side Oliver Cromwell was on during the English Civil War!
I have had similar encounters. Few people under 40 now know even the most basic facts about British history, and less about European history generally. An indictment of the British educational system. One should, though, be wary of thinking that this kind of ignorance developed overnight. I recall having a brief conversation with a South London couple I met by a swimming pool in Sousse, Tunisia, in 1986, and who, it transpired, had no idea at all that what is now Tunisia had been (part of) a Roman imperial province. Not knowing who was Nelson or Drake, though, is arguably of a different order.
Hitchens says, again correctly, that “we” “have no idea now what it means to be English or British”, but does not go on to examine the racial implications. Come to think of it, that may be one reason why so many people in the UK want to denounce others to Twitter, Facebook, the police, employers etc for holding the “wrong” views, i.e. because the denouncers have no idea of the English historical struggle for free speech (John Hampden etc…) and no respect for it.
Owen Jones talks about how open-minded (he says…) Corbyn is, and implies that he, Jones, is the same. Oh yes? Take a look at my blog post about him…
Hitchens himself is really little different. He once had a short and at first reasonable discussion with me on Twitter about the early Zionists, in 2017 or 2016, but then a Jew tweeted to him about how I was apparently an evil “neo-Nazi”, after which, just like Owen Jones, inter alia, Hitchens blocked me. I was unaware then that Hitchens is part-Jew, though not to the extent that would have rendered him liable to sanctions under the 1936 Nuremberg law(s), his maternal grandmother having been only part-Jew (Mischling) and his maternal grandfather not a Jew. In fact, under those laws he would even have been able to work as a journalist.
Hitchens says that Enoch Powell’s so-called “Rivers of Blood” speech “was a disgrace”. Why? He dislikes its tone, it seems. What about its truth, though? He also says that “the intermarriage [resulting from immigration] is great”. I begin to wonder what major part of modern British society he does dislike, when push comes to shove! To be fair to Hitchens, he does disapprove of the ghetto communities established by Pakistanis and others in, mainly, the Midlands and North of England. He is certainly not “white nationalist”, let alone social-national. If he were, he would be sacked at once. Long live freedom!…
An area in which I do find myself largely in agreement with Hitchens is in intervention by the “West” (in my terms, “NWO/ZOG”) in the affairs of the Middle East. Iraq, Syria, Libya. He opposes it. That’s something.
As to Russia, Hitchens seems to take an objective view (informed by better historical knowledge than most msm scribblers), eg:
I apprehend that Hitchens likes the social conservatism of most Russians.
So what is my overall view of Peter Hitchens? I should say that he is someone of considerable intellect, though nowhere near as intelligent as he himself imagines. Someone of considerable education, but who imagines that he knows more and better than almost anyone else, and believes that it is his role in life to pronounce on the truth of any given social, political, historical or ethical topic. Someone who harks back to a supposed golden age prior to, perhaps, 1959, or 1989 (at very latest). Someone who sees what is wrong in the present society but appears to have no programme or (Heaven forbid!) ideology to move from here to there (to a better society).
Hitchens takes a reasonable view such as “the family is a good thing” and tests it to destruction. Likewise, in his critique of both socialism and the contemporary Conservative Party, he goes to an extreme, saying that the Conservative Party is “extreme Left-wing”, by which he means “socially liberal”. He defends traditional marriage and his arguments here have force.
Hitchens thinks that the Conservative Party is dying (understandable, looking at its MPs and ministers) but, yet again, goes to an extreme, wishing that it could have lost the 2010 General Election so that it might have died, and so made room for a new and socially-conservative party. I wish that it had lost too, but for other reasons!
Hitchens reminds me of two other scribblers of note, Peter Oborne and (now rather forgotten) Paul Johnson.
All three are often intuitively correct on some issues, risibly mistaken on others. They are alike in other ways, too. As the Russians say, they are all “Maximalisti”.
Hitchens (like Owen Jones) blocked me on Twitter for ideological reasons. Hitchens (like Owen Jones) makes a very comfortable living from the System msm. Hitchens (like Owen Jones) poses no danger to the existing state of affairs, despite making much noise. Hitchens (like Owen Jones) is a mass media pussycat pretending to be a tiger.
I like to read Hitchens’ words occasionally. He is often right, not always. However, his words are commentary, not inspiration. He says in the interview that Britain is finished and that the only serious history of contemporary Britain will one day be written in Chinese! Maybe, but God moves in mysterious though sometimes sanguinary ways. As a Christian and a student of history, Hitchens should know that.
Hitchens’ recent book (which I have not yet read, but which promises to be at least as myth-shattering as those of the unjustly neglected historian Correlli Barnett)
Update, 18 September 2020
Since the above was written, Peter Hitchens has been almost a lone voice struggling against the “Coronavirus” panic and the allied government-proclaimed fear propaganda.
Update, 24 April 2022
Hitchens is now in the small minority of public figures unwilling to go along with the msm noise against Russia, and for Ukraine (meaning the Kiev regime of the Jew-Zionist Zelensky).
On the face of it, a clear case, with no doubt about the immediately-relevant facts. The defendant admitted to the crime and was sentenced to a year in prison. There are some nuances, however.
Obviously, criminal damage cannot be tolerated, and it is certainly not very nice and certainly not very polite to daub words on the door of a neighbouring dwelling; but to my mind the sentence was harsh.
The defendant was sentenced to a year in prison and will therefore be released in 6 months’ time, possibly earlier. The chances are that he will lose his local authority home. I have no idea what possessions or companion animals he may have, but unless he has friends or family somewhere to look after them, they too will be lost. He will come out of prison with nowhere to go, and may not be rehoused if some local penpusher decrees that he made himself homeless by his own actions.
That is part of the background. Then we have the point that the defendant had no previous convictions save for a silly one, 27 years previously, involving a “sick-note”.
In view of the fact that the local authority would probably take the crime to be a breach of lease terms or conditions, and so would take away the defendant’s home anyway, would it not have been more just simply to have given this defendant a suspended sentence?
This looks like kicking a man when he is down. At the same time, we see the courts daily giving thugs, thieves etc non-sentences. Of course, this was a “racial” crime…the courts have obviously been told to treat any offence having a “racial” element more seriously (harshly), in an attempt to keep the doomed multikulti society from falling to pieces.
I noticed, also, that the victims were from the Congo. Again, I do not know the full facts, but it is odds-on that what we have here are either “refugees” or economic migrants who have left Africa in order to settle in the UK. Odds-on, again, that the British people (including the defendant) are paying for the victims to live here and breed.
The case above reminds me of one about 25 years ago in Hammersmith, in which a man was driven half-mad by the incessant noise of blacks and their “music”, parties etc in the flat above his dwelling; so much so that he burned them out, killing several. He got a sentence, I think, of about 10 years for manslaughter and arson. Again, the act can scarcely be “justified”, perhaps, but it can be understood. Legally, provocation does not exist and provides no defence in such a case. In real-life terms, though, I think that many will feel a little sorry for such a defendant.
There is a further point: the defendant in the immediate case in question felt the need to say that he is not “racist” (perhaps after consultation with solicitors or Counsel). So even he himself felt the need to “virtue-signal”! If he or his advisers thought that a display of “contrition” and “I’m not racist” protesting would mitigate the sentence, they seem to have been mistaken.
There is also the point that, as hundreds of thousands of blacks and browns etc flood into the UK every year, and as politicians bleat about the “need” to destroy what is left of the countryside in order to build little boxes for migrants on agricultural land and forested land, very many fully-entitled British people are homeless (after today’s sentence, add another one, 6 months down the line).
I am at present also preparing a blog post about Peter Hitchens, who thinks that the UK is doomed in terms of its present society. I suppose that most of us hope that he is wrong. I also suppose that he is probably right.
Ian Robert Millard 