The Day The Labour Party Committed Suicide

Introduction and background

Today, the Labour Party committed suicide. It decided both that it is going to back a “second Referendum” or “people’s vote”, and that it will be supporting Remain in that vote. In other words, the 2016 EU Referendum result will be dishonoured and quite possibly overturned if Labour has its way.

I have been predicting this System move for a long time; in fact, my first opinion published after the EU Referendum itself was that the Remain side, which is basically the System’s preferred side, would try every method to overturn the Referendum result. After all, the EU has “form” in this regard, making numerous countries re-take referenda which came up with the “wrong” result, even refusing to deal with governments which contained the “wrong” type of elected politician (in Portugal and Austria etc in the past).

The idea (held by most Remain whiners) that the EU is some kind of “democratic” and “liberal” entity is completely naive. The EU was set up by or under the influence of the sinister Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi

and it forms part of the world conspiracy-domination matrix that also includes the USA-centred “New World Order” or NWO.


Part of that is the so-called “Great Replacement”, effectively the replacement of the white Northern European peoples by those of other race (blacks and browns etc) and those, in the future, of mixed-race, the outcome of mass immigration into Europe.

My view, published numerous times in these blog pages, has been that the System in the UK and EU would delay Brexit, try to keep Britain in the EU by means of various strategems, or if necessary, to give the UK a “deal” which would effectively be “Brexit In Name Only” (BRINO). Ideally, remaining or BRINO would then be falsely validated by a “second Referendum” under such name as “People’s Vote” or “confirmatory” referendum. So it seems to be happening. I did wonder how long Corbyn himself could sit on the fence.

The possibly deliberate mishandling of the post-2016 Brexit process by the Conservative Party government has now led to the position in which the pro-Remain majority in the House of Commons is determined that the UK will not leave the EU on a “no-deal” (WTO) basis.

I despise Boris Johnson as a politician: he is a charlatan and mountebank, to use old terms, and I have very little faith that he will honour his “pledge” to take the UK out of the EU on 31 October 2019 “if necessary”. However, it is possible that, to save his own skin, if he cannot persuade the Commons to accept a “deal” similar to that the EU offered Theresa May, that Boris Johnson will either cave in to the demand for a second referendum or will appeal over the heads of the parties to the electorate, and hold a general election in an effort to strengthen his hand. A gambler’s gamble.

Alternatively, Johnson may be sidelined quite soon by a no-confidence vote, which will either mean a general election or even his replacement without general election by someone else, presumably Jeremy Hunt. The British Constitution is so vague, relying as it does on a few sentences in Bagehot etc, that that would not, stricto sensu, be unconstitutional.

Labour in a general election

Labour received nearly 13 million votes at the 2017 General Election, 40% of the votes cast. In terms of percentage, that was Labour’s best since Tony Blair in both 2001 and 1997, and before that, Harold Wilson in 1970 (Labour scored over 40% in every general election from 1945 to 1970).

When it comes to House of Commons seats, however, it is a different story. In 2017, Corbyn-Labour won 262 seats with its 40% vote, not much better than the 258 seats won by Gordon Brown’s Labour in 2010, when the Labour vote-share was only 29.1%. In 2001, Tony Blair-Labour won 413 seats on a vote-share of 40.7%.

I think that something more is going on here than just the “glorious uncertainty” and illogicality of the UK First Past The Post and eccentric boundaries electoral system. It is clear that the Labour vote is becoming ever-more concentrated in fewer and fewer constituencies.

Harold Wilson in 1974 (twice), James Callaghan in 1979, and Neil Kinnock in 1987 and 1992, all scored well below 40% in general elections, yet ended up with more seats, considerably more, than Labour won in 2017.

As stated above, it is believed that, out of Labour’s nearly 13M voters in 2017, perhaps 3.5M, though perhaps as high as 4M, had voted Leave in 2016. In other words, about or around 70% of Labour voters voted Remain.

However, about 61% of Labour constituencies voted Leave.

The inference is plain: not only are most Labour voters generally clustered in a relatively small number of constituencies, but the number of 2017 majority Labour-voting constituencies that also had a majority for Remain is even smaller, somewhere around 100.

Labour as a party has been growing distant from its roots, from its core vote, for decades. The industrial proletariat is virtually non-existent, replaced by the “precariat”, economically insecure, politically both apathetic and volatile. The trade unions, though often still linked to Labour, are likewise almost without importance now, all but powerless to help employed persons much, and focussed on “diversity”, “equality”, anti-racism” etc and on ever-more convoluted codes of conduct, politically-correct nonsense, and on support for mass immigration.

As I have commented previously, the Labour “core vote” is now not really the English and Welsh (or Scottish) “working classes”, but the post-1945 immigrants and their offspring and, after them, the public service workers generally, as well as most of the unemployed and/or disabled persons reliant on State benefits.

There are many many seats in the North of England particularly which were rock-solid Labour but which are now less-solid Labour, or are marginal. These are areas which voted Leave, where the English majority (in some cases now, minority) are sick of mass immigration, of cultural decay, of crime and lawlessness, of the patronizing callousness of the self-regarding and self-described “elite” in the msm and Westminster and in the City of London.

A recent opinion poll put Labour on only 18%. Critics said that that was an “outlier” and (perfectly true) that another poll the same week put Labour on 25%. My feeling and view is that Labour will struggle to get even 30% in any general election, i.e. where Labour was in 2017. The big question is where that 30% will be.

Labour’s new unambiguous Remain stance will alienate anyone who regards Brexit (not just Brexit, but the bundle of issues around Brexit) as important. That could be a third of 2015/2017 Labour voters, and particularly in the more marginal seats.

Fortunately for Labour, it looks as though Brexit Party will cripple the Conservative vote nationally. However, Labour too is on thin ice. There is every chance that the new Remain policy will rob Labour of the formerly solid seats in the North.

The Conservatives will fight the next general election against three enemies, but Labour will also be fighting against at least two (Brexit Party being one) in formerly safe seats.

Labour may gain votes in its new core areas, among the blacks, browns, public service people and millennials of London and elsewhere, but at the cost of traditional Labour areas of the North etc. They will not vote Conservative, but might vote Brexit Party out of pure anger. Beware.

If Labour’s new voters are fickle or volatile (as I think that many are), Labour will have lost formerly solid support in exchange for what could be fair-weather votes, leaving Labour, somewhere down the line, with next to nothing.

At present, I still think that Labour might be the largest party after a general election, if held this year or next (the Conservatives are all but on their knees) but I have the feeling that, looking at the medium term (from 2022), Labour has just committed suicide.

Update, 21 September 2019

…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.”

“These groups claim to be the voice of the working class, but now they want to act as an arm of the authorities by patrolling beaches to apprehend struggling working-class people desperately trying to get to safety.

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.


11 thoughts on “The Day The Labour Party Committed Suicide”

  1. Interesting post! Perhaps you should be the new Sir John Curtice who is, of course, an absolute legend in the world of psephology! Yes, Labour has been piling-up useless votes in already safe and ultra-safe seats like Jeremy Corbyn’s own constituency of Islington North where he was re-elected in 2017 with a totally absurd vote share of 70% plus and with more than 33,000 votes to spare:

    All those 33,215 votes of his majority bar one of them were wasted under the ludicrous FPTP system since he only needed to win his seat by one vote over his Tory opponent.

    How much better for Labour to spread their vote share more efficiently like the SNP who hold the most marginal seat in the country ie North East Fife which they won by a grand margin of just TWO votes over the Liberal Democrats.

    Further to your piece here, Labour now has a real problem in Scotland where the SNP look to be pretty firmly entrenched in their seats many of which they won from Labour and that is a further obstacle to winning an overall majority for Labour.

    The Tories have also been piling-up wasteful majorities in their safe seats and this is why they got a similar nationwide vote share in 2017 to Mrs Thatcher in her landslide victory of 1983 of around 42-43% yet lost 13 constituencies and their overall majority. My own seat of Brentwood and Ongar illustrates this in that our former MP, Sir Eric Pickles, left a 21,000 majority in 2015 and this grew to 24,002 in 2017. Meanwhile, even at the height of Thatcherism in 1987, the Tories in Brentwood and Ongar had to make do with a relatively paltry majority of ‘only’ 18,921!


    1. Thank you. I had forgotten that Professor Curtice had been knighted. Knighthoods, if kept at all, *should* be for such eminent academics, and for diplomats etc, not the latest tennis player, cricketer or gladiator (or comedian).

      Both System parties are becoming anachronistic. Labour still harks back in some ways to 1966,1945 or even 1936 and Jarrow March etc (not to mention the Jew contribution, the “battle” of Cable Street, also in 1936); the Conservatives still think that it is either 1940 and Churchill’s speeches, or 1979 and Mrs Thatcher. These System parties are like armies still advancing, ever further from their base areas, with ever-longer supply lines. Both Con and Lab are now very vulnerable.

      The funny thing is that, rather like an illustration of Einsteinian relativity, both main System parties are declining, so both are in fact keeping pace with each other! The rise of Brexit Party was an incredible lifeline for Labour, holding out a hope for Lab that the Conservativ e-oriented vote would be cut in half, thus giving both Lab and LibDems more seats (and the Cons fewer), but parallel to that phenomenon, it is clear that Lab can only appeal now to discrete groups: the ethnic minorities (except Jews), the public service people such as NHS (in particular), the young people renting overpriced flats etc.

      The Peterborough by-election was significant: Labour only just won (by about 700 votes), and by reason of the almost entirely Labour-voting Pakistanis and other non-English, who are about 10,000 (maybe more) in the constituency. Lab won, but on a vote-share of only 30.9%.

      Brexit Party got 28.9% and Cons 25.5% (LibDems 8.9%). Obviously, had a small fraction of either Cons or BP voted for the other, one of them would have won easily over Labour. The trouble Labour has is that if its Northern heartlands start to fall away, it really only has the strongholds of the immigrants and their offspring, and the votes of the under-35s. We could be looking at a Commons with 150 Lab MPs, 150 Con, and 150 Brexit Party as main parties, with 50 LibDems and 50 SNP. Something like that, anyway. It is still an open question, though.


      1. Thank you. Yes, interesting. I had to laugh at the idea that there might be a poll surge if/when Boris-Idiot becomes Con leader (Boris will certainly put the con into Conservatism…). I doubt that this clueless idiot will do anything but drive his party (the party on which his ambition is parasitic) into the ground. Cecil King (once a big figure in the UK political world) said that one must never underestimate the stupidity of the mass of the British people, but Boris is surely too obvious to carry off his con-trickery for long (?)


  2. Apparently, according to the pollsters Coco The Clown will only provide a small poll boost to The Clown Party should he (for once) actually fulfill his promise of getting us out of the EU. If they elect him to be their leader and our PM they are running a big risk because Boris is a Marmite politician ie people either love or hate him and whilst his ability to make some people laugh attracts them in others it repels them along with some other unfavourable characteristics he has. The Tory Party might well cease to be regarded as in anyway a serious party under him and that can and will make some previous Tory voters either abstain or vote Lib Dem.


    1. I agree. The people (of a certain age, mostly) who always vote Conservative, always have always will, whose grandparents were the same, they are dying in large numbers now. Only 4% of under 25s intend to vote Conservative, and only 16% of under 35s. Conservative voters now, mostly, are basically the retired and not too poor. That is a limited pool and possibly being depleted and not replaced. Most of those voters are strongly Leave, but many thought little of David Cameron-Levita, not much of Theresa May, and less of Boris-Idiot. Conservative actual *members* may be pro-Boris rather than anti, but, as discussed before, Con members are only about 1 in 400 of the adult population. Possible/sometime Con voters have different attitudes to the small Con membership.


  3. It isn’t unexpected that Boris Johnson threw our ambassador to the US under a bus. It just goes to show his huge character flaws, how unsuitable he is to be PM and that underneath that Bertie Wooster persona he is indeed a nasty piece of work.

    His kowtowing to Yankland is also a big mark against him but then is that a surprise? Alexander Boris De Pfeffel Johnson was born in New York City and only renounced his American citizenship as recently as 2016!

    If he becomes PM (god forbid) we can expect him to do this constantly. If such a horror show as his becoming PM happens, he will be only the second British premier to be born outside the British Isles and at least Bonar Law was born in what is now a Commonwealth country ie Canada and was of wholly British descent unlike Coco!

    Time for Britain to copy the US and have a law requiring British PMs to be born within the United Kingdom!


    1. I agree re. place of birth, though I do not think that is the main thing. Ethnic background is more important. Boris-Idiot would be ruled out either way.

      For me, Boris Johnson’s behaviour re. Ambassador to Washington was appalling, even to a cynic like me. Loyalty means nothing to him. More than that, it confirms what I have written in my blog posts, i.e. that Boris-Idiot is not a strong leader but weak, weak in character, weak in principle (he has none), weak in ideology (he has none beyond an Etonian fetish for the finance speculators), weak politically (if/when he becomes PM, he will not have the numbers in the Commons to do anything much and, when a general election comes, the Conservative Party will be just slaughtered. He will be one of the first to be thrown out by the electorate).

      I expect that you saw that his girlfriend was sacked by the Con Party a while ago because she was not only incompetent and unable to do her job (Director of Communications at CCHQ) but was in effect embezzling money (in a not very clever way, as well).


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