Labour’s Prospects 2020-2024

Latest opinion polling re. Labour Party

The “has support of the unions” aspect shows how very out of touch is even the rank and file Labour membership. In 2019, membership of trade unions was only 3.69M out of a UK population somewhere between 65M and 70M and an official UK workforce population of over 32.5M. Trade unions now are almost powerless, a result of both “Thatcherite” policy since the 1980s and the relentless migration-invasion.

On Trident etc:

Not that I would disagree with that middle position, but what is important is not what I think but what the voters think. Most or at least half want to retain Trident. Yes, perhaps influenced by the popular Press, so be it…

Voting intention (all voters):

As the recent poll by another polling organization showed, Labour has continued to slide since the recent General Election. Why?

Corbyn has said that he will be resigning once the process of electing a new leader and also Deputy (Tom Watson having imploded and gone down in a ball of fire) is finished. So Corbyn can scarcely be blamed for the continuing slide in voter confidence.

My view is that, though Corbyn was scarcely popular with most voters, the present five candidates wanting to replace him are even less popular. There is, in my view, a perception (which I share) that Labour is a mess, seems not to stand for much except a return to the 1970s (which most voters, however wrongly, look upon with disfavour) and has five people, none of whom is in any way “electable” as potential Prime Minister, vying for the leadership.

There was a huge Jewish (mainly Jewish, or if you like, Zionist; certainly Jewish-led and influenced) campaign against Corbyn and Labour, which started as soon as Corbyn became leader. That certainly had an effect, particularly as it intensified during the election campaign itself. It was not, however, the only factor. It tended to reinforce a view of Corbyn —and so, Labour— that many had anyway. Cartoons such as that below were damaging, but simply played on existing foundations.


Diane Abbott as Home Secretary. That. Alone. I blogged about it before the election. Long before. About how Diane Abbott was worth a million votes to the Conservatives. Not purely because she is a West Indian or, generically, a black. The “Conservative” Party has plenty of black, brown and even Chinese MPs now. It was that and her obvious disdain for real British or English people, and her plain unfitness to be a Cabinet minister. I mean, Diane Abbott was let go from the Home Office when she was a graduate trainee, so how would she be any good at running the whole show?

Not that Diane Abbott is the only deadhead near the top in Labour. Here’s another one, Dawn Butler:

When you look at the above, you see (if not blinded by political correctness) how it is that African and West Indian societies are so chaotic and poorly-run. British voters did not want that; nor the corruption and freeloading (and hypocrisy) that go along with that:

A couple of my blog posts about other Labour MPs:

The bigger picture

As previously blogged about, Labour emerged from the struggles of the (mainly) Northern English, Scottish and Welsh industrial proletariat. That colouration, socially, economically, even geographically carried on even unto the years of Blair and Brown. After those years, certainly after 2010, Labour’s nature changed. From being a mainly Northern/Scottish/Welsh trade-union orientated, community-orientated semi-socialist or Social Democratic party, it became a party strongest in a few urban centres such as London and Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool. It became increasingly a party of public sector employees and/or managers, and/or of Pakistani, black and other non-white persons and “communities”.

We have seen that Labour simply abandoned its original British (real British) voters. The scandal of non-whites (mainly Pakistanis) abusing young wayward or “mal gardees” white girls, with Labour and its closely-connected Common Purpose quasi-freemasonry covering it all up. The way in which, even before the 2010 General Election, “Labour” MPs were trailing the same kind of cruel or callous policies as were Iain Dunce Duncan Smith and Esther McVey.

I saw, among others, John Woodcock, Caroline Flint, Gloria de Piero, Tristram Hunt and others talking on TV as if “welfare” (social security) cuts were both necessary and unavoidable. More than that; talking about cutting off money to those who mostly desperately need it. The element of cruel humour was noticeable, even in, say, Gloria de Piero, whose own family, when she was at school, was entirely dependent on State benefits! All of those MPs were Labour Friends of Israel members, too. What a co-incidence…

Well, guess what? None of those named in the above paragraph is still in Parliament. Guess what? If you abandon the voters, they will abandon you. It might not happen overnight, but it will happen. Mass immigration has been encouraged, colluded at, ignored otherwise by all three System parties, for 70 years, but Labour most obviously. That was not the doing of Corbyn; most of it, that happened under Labour, happened under Blair and Brown. The Jewess Barbara Roche (she lost her own seat because of it and has been unable to find another one) was behind much of it, quite deliberately importing as many and as “diverse” a mob of migrant-invaders as possible, with the express aim of destroying Britain’s racial, national and cultural foundations.

For a long time, inertia held Labour together, both as a party and as a party for which people would vote. Finally, again not overnight, but very clearly, the voters just gave up on Labour. Not all (yet), but enough to gift the unmeritorious Conservatives the biggest (and least deserved) electoral victory in a generation. The Labour voters did not move, the majority of them, to the Conservatives, or anywhere else. Many, very many, voted with their feet and stayed at home. Look:


I have already blogged about these details:

Basically, about 600,000 former Labour voters defected to the Conservative Party, a similar number to the LibDems, about 300,000 to Brexit Party, but about 1,200,000 former Labour voters did not vote at all.

The Conservative vote only increased by about 1 point over that of 2017, but the Labour vote sank by 8 points.

Labour’s problem is not really one of policy, not even one of leadership, certainly not one of “institutional “antisemitism” (and after all, I should know!), but one of overall relevance. The people, though unconsciously, want some kind of social nationalism, but Labour is offering —near enough— open borders, more migration-invasion, no clarity in industrial strategy, no clarity on matters such as Basic Income, State benefits, pay, overall socio-economic goals etc.

What about “free speech”? So far, all five new Labour leadership candidates have signed up to the Jews’ demands to curb it even further. We have seen how Labour has failed to speak up for those suffering repression, or who are prisoners of conscience, e.g. persecuted satirical singer-songwriter Alison Chabloz. Her own MP until the recent General Election, Ruth George, ignored Alison’s plight, while also backing down after at first speaking up about Israeli/Jew interference in the Labour party:

The wages of political sin is political death! Ruth George lost her seat in 2019, and by only 590 seats:

Labour’s near future

Labour is trying to reconcile two or even three blocs of voters at once:

  • traditional English and Welsh “working class” voters (the Scottish ones have mostly gone forever);
  • the “blacks and browns” etc;
  • the public service workers and bureaucrats.

I do not think that Labour can reconcile, let alone unite, those groups. The rhetoric about “our communities” and “uniting the people” rings hollow. The “communities” are often mutually-antagonistic, for example. As for “uniting” “the people”, one has to ask “what people?” Britain is split into many groupings now. There is no one people or nation. Prince Harry and the Royal Mulatta have surely highlighted that. He’s off to North America with the mulatta, her dogs, and as much loot as they can carry and hang on to, at least until she kicks him out or he “offs” himself. Symptomatic…

A great charismatic leader in the Adolf Hitler mould might be able to reconcile all the elements of modern Britain, at least sufficiently to get the power to expel or restrain those inimical to the evolving real British, but Labour certainly has no-one who can even pretend to go beyond mediocrity.

Labour’s one hope is that, as older (almost-all Conservative-voting) voters die off, and as young voters come on-stream, the demographics will favour Labour. Had only 18-24 y o voters voted at the recent General Election, there would be no Conservative MPs at all, and about 500 or more Labour ones.

However, no-one knows what events may change politics between now and 2024 or even (a significant year) 2022. In 1928, the NSDAP and Hitler got only 2.6% in Germany, nationally. By 1932, that had grown to 33% and by the following year to 44%.

At present, the voters only have a System “three main parties” choice. Tony Blair had advisers who told him that he could go semi-Conservative, import millions of immigrants, because “where will they [Labour voters] go?” Well, now we know: away from Labour, even if that means sitting at home and watching trash TV instead of voting. The “leader” (snake oil promoter) of the “Brexit Party” betrayed his own party, its candidates, members and voters. What if another leader, of another party just formed, did not sell out, but crusaded for and perhaps to victory? It might be that discontented former Labour and other voters, non-voters too (a third of those eligible did not vote either in 2017 or 2019), might sweep such a leader to supreme power. Never say never.

7 thoughts on “Labour’s Prospects 2020-2024”

  1. I disagree with one of your points. I think Keir Starmer is electable as PM unlike the rest. The problem is the party itself in that it is too internationalist/globalist, too enamoured of political correctness ie how many of their MPs owe their position in parliament to the fact they have ovaries and were therefore put onto all-women shortlists thus automatically excluding more capable male candidates?

    The new leader should be open to new ideas that Labour has dismissed too readily in the past ie some of Clive Lewis’s proposals.

    The one good point about Corbyn is that he was more resistant to the Jew Zionist extremist/Israel First Lobby though he should have pushed back at these vicious zealots far harder and stuck-up for himself and his party. Now, all the remaining candidates, want to bow to the wholly unreasonable demands of the Zionist extremist/Israel First Board of Deputies of ‘British’ (when we can be arsed to be and when it is in OUR interests) Jews.


  2. Indeed. To my mind, he is the only plausible PM out of the lot. The rest are women who are obviously over-promoted beyond their real abilities except for Emily Thornberry and she should be unacceptable for other reasons ie she is a dinosaur as far as electoral reform is concerned in that she is opposed to PR and for the very worst reason imaginable: she says FPTP is a good system because it is simple for people whose first language isn’t English! That surely shows in one neat way where Labour has been going wrong for so many years.

    Even blatantly undemocratic Tory scum don’t use that ‘reasoning’ to defend the indefensible.🙄🙄🙄

    Lisa Nandy and Jess Phillips should go out of the contest next followed by Emily leaving Keir Starmer and Rebecca Long-Bailey to slug it out between them.

    Keir should win probably but he isn’t ideal and Labour should have had more capable candidates to choose from.


    1. You forgot to add that UK voters are not going to vote for a party leader, esp. a Labour one, who (despite an exceptionally high family income from salaries etc) owns 8 buy to let properties. I refer of course to Emily Thornberry aka Lady Nugee.


  3. I agree with you about Diana Abbot. She is a personable woman who used to be quite entertaining with Tory Michael Portillo on Andrew Neil’s late night political programme but not really a prospective Home Secretary not least for the fact she sees ‘racism’ in everything as her recent tweets about Prince Harry and Meghan Markle show. Meghan is disliked mainly because of her character, she is American, and her lack of class not because she is a half-caste. If Harry had married a quite classy non-white woman ie Gina Miller who would have fitted into the Royal Family better then people would have accepted that.

    British people don’t want the Royal Family which is a long-standing NATIONAL INSTiTUTION turned into a’ brand’ for a lower-class Yank to make money from and be a Hollywood ‘celebrity’ off the back of. Even Thomas Markle seems to ‘get it’ if his recent comments are worth anything.

    It isn’t either specifically to do with the fact than Meghan is an American as there ARE a few Yanks who could be the expected to conform in their behaviour and ‘fit in’. She is just the wrong type.


    1. M’Lord of Essex, you are up late! So am I, of course but, naturally, “Smersh never sleeps”…
      I see that you mention Gina Miller again…

      The Royal Mulatta’s father got it right: “Walmart with a royal crown on top”


  4. Indeed, or is it to British eyes, more like like a case of Aldi or Lidl with a Royal Crown on top rather than Waitrose or Marks and Spencer with a Royal Crown on top!🙄🙄🙄

    To be honest, the argument over Meghan has far more to do with that favourite topic and obsession of British people ie CLASS rather than race. Meghan’s British critics aren’t too bothered she is a half-caste it is more to do with her lack of a decent character ie her scheming, manipulative ways and her obvious attempt to use the Royal Family as a kind of Hollywood ‘brand’, boost to her ‘celebrity’ status thus demeaning a long-established British national institution. Many critics of her dislike her because they think Harry has married beneath himself so there is a disappointment in that.

    Yankee ‘Walmart’ trailer park trash isn’t welcome in the Royal Family but a classy Yank woman (there ARE some) from somewhere like Beverly Hills, Bel Air, The Hamptons, or New York’s Upper East Side would be.


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