Diary Blog, 19 December 2019

First, some music:

The General Election continues to supply interesting facts.

The “experts” are still working on General Election 2019 statistics. One that I saw today was that, because Brexit Party was standing in Labour-held seats, the Conservative Party was deprived of another 20 seats.

I have already blogged about how Labour got (in rough figures) about 37% of the vote in Hartlepool (its lowest-ever share), while Brexit Party got about 25% and the Cons 28%. Had Brexit Party not stood, the Cons would have won Hartlepool! The same is true the other way round too, of course. In fact, I wonder whether Brexit Party might not have won Hartlepool anyway had Farage not stood down his candidates in Conservative-held seats. His action in doing that destroyed Brexit Party’s credibility and totally exposed it as a fake and as basically a shield for the Con Party.

The other piece of election-related news I saw was that, if the proposed boundary changes go ahead, as well as the reduction of MP numbers to 600, the Conservative Party would have a majority of 104 on the GE 2019 voting figures. The Cons would have fewer seats, 352, than the 365 they now have, but Labour would have only 179 compared to the present 208. SNP would have almost the same number as at present (47), maybe minus one or two. The LibDems would have 7 MPs instead of 11.

I do not know how the absence of Brexit Party (which must surely just fold soon) would affect those figures. If it meant that the Cons would get 20 or even 10 seats more, then that would give the Cons an unassailable advantage, about 360 or 370 seats out of 600. With Labour on maybe 169 or even 159 out of 600, the changes would reduce Labour to near irrelevance and the LibDems to near-zero.

It occurred to me that, in the (admittedly very unlikely) contingency that Scotland became “independent” (of the UK, though not from the EU, IMF, NATO etc…that’s another story), its (presently) 59 (or reduced figure) MPs would be removed, leaving the Westminster Parliament with about 540. That would, notionally, entrench Conservative rule in England and Wales even more. Without the SNP, Labour would be a small niche party with no possibility even of minority government.

but…

We have seen (noted in previous blogs) that relatively few young people voted Conservative at GE 2019:

  • 18-24s only 23% (Labour 56%)
  • 25-29s 23% (Labour 54%)
  • 30-39s 30% (Labour 46%).
  • Only the over-40s gave Conservative a plurality of votes (41%, with Labour on 35%)
  • and only the over-60s and over-70s gave the Cons a majority (57% and 67% as against Labour’s 22% and 14%).
  • LibDem support was consistent at all ages at 11%-12% (with a slight increase among 30-y-o people: 14%).

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election

If you were to take out the over-70s and introduce a notional new 18-24 wave, that would change the overall picture entirely. The Conservative majority might well disappear, perhaps to be replaced by a Labour majority.

If only life were that simple!

The bias of Radio 4 Today Programme

I rarely listen to the Today Programme for more than a few minutes these days. It was never much to my taste, but now it is basically a Jewish-lobby-oriented multikulti-favouring, finance-capitalist-favouring propaganda outlet.

When Justin Webb (one of the presenters) finished his time in the USA and joined the Today Programme, he was asked about the difference between the UK and USA. His answer? (and remember this was after eight years in the US)…He told the old old apocryphal story about how, in each country, a poor man sees a rich man driving a Rolls-Royce or Cadillac. In the UK, the poor man says “I have nothing; he has too much” but in the USA, the poor man says “I have nothing, but one day I too shall have such a car“…

Is that the sort of  “insight” we get when drones such as Justin Webb get paid £200,000-£300,000 a year out of the BBC’s “licence fees” (a tax imposed on the viewing public, on pain of imprisonment if unpaid)? Sadly, yes, that is exactly the sort of “insight” that those on the Today Programme provide…

Another aspect of the Today Programme is the religio-philosophical platitude-slot, sub nom “Thought For The Day“. About one day out of five, a Jew (usually some “rabbi”) does it. It seems to be about 1 out of 5 (20%), it may be (but no, I think not) as infrequently as 1 out of 10 (10%). Yet Jews in the UK number 250,000-300,000, so perhaps about 1 out of 280 (perhaps fewer), which is a fraction of one percent; in rough figures about 0.25%. Look at the disproportion. 1 out of about 280 of the whole population, but 1 out of 5 or so on Thought For The Day!

Here’s a “Thought For The Day”

There must be a curb (i.e. a tax) on the huge concentrations of economic power (capital wealth) in the hands of so very few. That applies to the USA, the UK, Russia and elsewhere.

NHS

Boris-idiot’s days are already numbered

Stray read

Saw this. Worth a look.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/19/i-didnt-buy-any-food-for-a-year-and-im-healthier-than-ive-ever-been

Probably a great deal easier in the Floridian climate than it would be in Northern Europe, though.

A few more thoughts about Labour

I read this:

and this:

As I have been saying for several years in blogs and (before the Jews had me expelled from Twitter) in tweets, Labour declined parallel to the decline of the society and conditions and people that created and sustained it.

Lisa Nandy

Just read her recent tweets. The odd spelling mistake. As to content, not an airhead, neither in the obvious Jess Phillips way, nor in the less obvious Caroline Flint way.

I of course disagree with quite a lot of what Lisa Nandy says, eg re. “refugees” and other migrant-invaders, but she seems politically-effective. Obviously a System politician but of a higher calibre than the average MP (including most of Corbyn’s Shadow Cabinet).

Stray thought

Mao said that the guerrilla was like a fish, swimming in the water (the people). Looking at tweets from the most fervent Corbyn supporters, there is plenty of water but (so far) no fish.

Labour’s problem

Labour’s problem is that the more “socialist” leaders of recent decades (Corbyn, Miliband, Kinnock) failed to “win” elections under the existing electoral system and so some Labour people say “return to good old Tony” because Blair won three successive elections. However, what really happened was that Blair-Labour won in 1997 against a tired fag-end of a Conservative government, after 18 years of Con government, but then struggled to win in 2001 and 2005.

The figures:

  • 1997: 43.2%, 419 seats; Blair
  • 2001: 40.7%, 413 seats; Blair
  • 2005: 35.3%, 356 seats; Blair
  • 2010: 29.1%, 258 seats; Brown
  • 2015: 30.5%, 232 seats; Miliband
  • 2017: 40.0%, 262 seats; Corbyn
  • 2019: 32.2%, 202 seats; Corbyn

The anomalies caused by Britain’s crazy FPTP voting system and the carefully-“managed” boundaries account for some inconsistencies; also, the total number of MPs in Parliament has varied from 646 to 659 even in the past 25 years.

You can see from the above timeline that, in the sense of national vote-percentage, Corbyn in 2017 did about as well as Blair did in 2001, nearly as well as Blair did in 1997 (!) and far better than Blair and Labour did in 2005. Corbyn also, both in 2017 and 2019, did as well as or better than both Brown and Miliband did in 2010 and 2015.

In 2019, Corbyn-Labour slumped, but still got 32.2% of the national vote, which was as good in rough figures as Miliband in 2015, and better than Brown in 2010. In fact, it was only 3 points off Blair’s 2005 performance.

The national vote percentage of Labour declined steadily from 1997 right through to Corbyn’s leadership! The 2010 and 2015 results were similar in terms of percentage. Corbyn did better than his two most recent predecessors and almost as well as Blair!

I say the above not to praise Corbyn, but to bury Labour. It can be seen that both the Tony Blair 43.2% in 1997 and the Corbyn 40% in 2015 were anomalous in a picture otherwise of decline, or at best stagnation, that started around 1970.

My main point in practical terms is that returning to some mythical “Centrism” will not help Labour. “Centrism” seems to be somewhere between “Con-lite” and social democracy; pro Israel; anti-socialist; anti-national; globalist. Finance capitalism but with some crumbs thrown to the pigeons. You have seen what has happened to the LibDems who espouse similar ideas. Smashed. 11 MPs, which will, after boundary changes and another election, probably be 3 or 4. Or none.

Of course, Labour’s poor recent performance was to a large extent the result of truly relentless Jew-Zionist propaganda since 2015 and especially since the 2017 result (which showed that Labour might actually be able to win a majority or at least become the largest party in the Commons). Labour, especially Corbyn, has been trashed daily in the msm as well as on social media. That was not the only factor, but it was very significant.

The idea that Labour will suddenly become “electable” if it bows the knee to the Jews and abandons any “socialist” ideas is ridiculous. In fact, Corbyn and McDonnell should have stopped parrotting the Zionist “holocaust” nonsense (and stopped recounting 1930s Communist/Jewish propaganda around “Cable Street” etc as well); they should have fought back. Idiots.

Corbyn supporters write

“Cosmic Landmine” used to follow my Twitter account (before the Jews had me expelled). Good to see that he is still trucking.

Below, a despairing Labour supporter tweets…

Perhaps that tweet should read “Why is Jess Phillips, who always doormats for the Jew-Zionists, is a member of Labour Friends of Israel, parrots “holocaust” propaganda, and who trashed her own party and leader during the recent General Election campaign, getting so much airtime?“…

Look at this Daily Mirror article by a former Labour adviser. Not a word about suffering British people: unemployed, poor, disabled, sick, young people without hope of their own homes or even decently-paid work, just two or three paragraphs about Jews Jews Jews. Typical. System-Labour:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/i-ran-jeremy-corbyns-leadership-21103136

It’s rubbish. That’s machine-“Labour”, Mirror “Labour”, Kevin Maguire tribal “Labour”. Failed Labour.

…and here is Matthew d’Ancona, another System mouthpiece and Conservative Party partisan, pushing bad joke MP Jess Phillips for Labour leader:

https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/talented-strong-and-relatable-jess-phillips-is-labour-s-best-asset-a4316766.html

Mary Creagh

Seems that Mary Creagh cannot quite bring herself to accept that her well-paid position, with its decent salary, very generous expenses and plenty of opportunity for both “donations” from here and there and also outside income possibilities such as “consultancies”, has been taken away by the voters of Wakefield. She still calls herself “MP” on Twitter. As rather sarcastic people tend to say on Twitter, “bless”.

Mary Creagh is a member of Labour Friends of Israel, and a frequent and fervent critic of “anti-Semitism”. All the same, the Jewish lobby could not save her and she will not be an MP again. I expect that “they” —you know, (((they)))— will find her “a nice little earner”, but her eviction from Westminster must give those “Friends of Israel” still in Parliament pause, nicht wahr?

Note the final sentence at the foot of that Independent profile of Wakefield, Yorkshire, a few weeks before the General Election: “Personally,” he says, “I think a lot of people here just won’t vote. I think they’ve had enough of it all.

Was that not the truth of the GE 2019 result? Conservative vote up just 1.2% nationally, but Labour vote down, and by 8%. Labour may have lost, but this was not a Conservative victory, as such. People were not voting Labour, maybe not voting at all, or were in a few cases voting Con to spite Lab. They were not voting Con for “positive” reasons.

Blink and you would miss it

Ah, nearly missed it: a small news story about the winding-down or winding-up of the “Independent Group for Change”, briefly known as “Change UK”, the party whose meetings tended to attract a crowd of about 5 (literally), once or twice actually getting into double figures, and where the audience was always outnumbered by the Press and sometimes by the few on stage.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/independent-group-for-change-uk-election-results-mps-anna-soubry-chuka-umunna-a9254166.html

Anna Soubry is now off to swim in a vat of gin.

Trump impeachment

Americans like a bit of drama. When I lived in the central/shore area of New Jersey, local TV (based in New York City) would sometimes report on an expected storm, sending a reporter out onto the New Jersey beaches dressed in raincoat and scarf. Often enough, the waves were disappointingly languid, resulting in a non-event.

That is how I see the “Trump impeachment”— lots of noise, but no result that means anything. Trump is sent for trial by the Democrat-controlled lower house, sent for trial to a Senate where the Republican majority will secure his acquittal. Over there, they regard that sort of waste of time and effort as “democracy”. I just call it “farce”.

Meanwhile, in another fake democracy…

Something more to think about

Final words

5 thoughts on “Diary Blog, 19 December 2019”

  1. The Labour Party needs to stop acting like an ostrich with its head in the sand and embrace electoral reform. That would help to unite the centre-left to Left-wing vote against the Tories and prevent them ‘winning’ on minority vote shares. The Labour Party is stupidly tribalist. They would rather be ideological purists on the sidelines with no power at all to change things than leading a coalition government.

    Besides which, if you are a real democrat, you wouldn’t wish to govern the country on a minority vote share and believe parties should compete with each other on an electoral level playing field.

    https://www.makevotesmatter.org.uk

    https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk

    They are very lucky the Welsh don’t show any great enthusiasm for Plaid Cymru otherwise they would be in even more dire straits.

    Like

    1. PR is the only thing that makes sense, but the Labour leadership can now point to younger ppl supporting Lab (at present) and can say
      “we don’t need PR because if we hang on in there for 5 years, we can get a huge Labour majority…”

      Like

  2. It doesn’t matter if young people support Labour if they don’t actually vote for them! This entire Brexit mess was caused by generally-speaking pro-EU young people not voting in the referendum! If they had done so the result is likely to have been different.

    I suspect many youngsters still didn’t vote on December 12th and because they failed to do that they allowed senile old Tory supporters to begin the Untied Kingdom’s break-up which will now begin in earnest under that incompetent clown Boris.

    Like

  3. It has been barely a week after the calamitous CON Party ‘victory’ and Boris is already demonstrating that his partly Turkish and god knows what else genes have given him a tendency to be dictatorial and that trait of his is rising to the surface.🤬😡☹️😞

    So, he wants to make it harder for poor people to vote! Why not go further and make all of them wear Yellow Stars to mark them out as the ‘untermenschen’?

    Isn’t the inherently rigged First Past The Post electoral system with its very unlevel playing field which treats many votes cast as being of lesser worth than others enough for the Tories? It should be but they want to rig it still more with gerrymandering constituency borders and reducing the number of MPs so that the boundaries of constituencies can be more effectively redrawn to their advantage.

    Getting rid of 50 MPs may sound good to a lot of people even those who are political but it isn’t since it will mean more MPs are on the government’s payroll thus reducing the numbers of MPs properly scrutinising the executive and holding them to account.

    It is a recipe for worse government not better government.

    Like

    1. The one thing that may kill off Boris AND the Conservative Party politically is that demographic shift. The fact that those not only under 25 but under 40 are more likely to vote Lab than Con must terrify the Cons. They cannot assume that those now under 40 will vote Con as they age. Most probably will not.

      Even if Labour (or another new party?) does not capture the votes of most older people next time, even a shift of a few points would or could change everything. Look at the figures for those 70+:
      67% voted Con, 14% Lab. If that changed to that of the decade below, ie to 57% Con and 22% Lab, that alone would probably prevent a Con victory if that new 70-100 wave voted as assiduously as the present age group 70-100 does.

      “Age is still the biggest dividing line in British politics
      In the EU referendum and again in 2017 age was a new dividing line in British politics. The data indicates that little has changed on this front over the past two years, with Labour still winning a majority of younger voters and the Conservatives miles ahead among older Britons.”

      https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s