Presumably, “anti-Semitism” counts as “extremism” in the minds of YouGov (God knows why; to me it just seems to be a commonsense attitude of self-defence!). “Extremism”…only 3% thought that that was a reason not to vote Labour.
What does “leadership” mean in this context? Corbyn only (demonized by the msm for over 4 years)? Diane Abbott?
Half or just over half the voters have heard of the names of three of the Labour leadership contenders, the remaining six contenders (more may enter the lists later) being unknown to the majority of voters. Even uncultured loudmouth Jess Phillips is only known by name to 42% of the electorate. She will be mortified.
% voters have heard of:
Y. Cooper: 60% E. Thornberry: 55% K. Starmer: 50% J. Phillips: 42% A. Rayner: 42% R. Long Bailey: 39% L. Nandy: 28% C. Lewis: 23% R. Burgon: 22%
The trend is towards greater volatility. The new Conservative Party MPs from the North and Midlands may disappear if either radical Labour or a new party can capture the voters’ newly-fickle allegiance.
Many of the new Conservative seats are held with small majorities. Not all. The main point anyway is not the size of the majority or the swing, but the volatility. Labour had held some of those seats since they were established, in some cases a century ago.
What has happened is that the deep-seated loyalty of many former industrial areas to Labour has been eroding for a number of years (for 30 years, arguably). That allegiance has not been replaced by a similar loyalty to the Conservative Party. It has been replaced by an angry volatility.
The allegiance of the long-held Conservative areas in the South of England and elsewhere (East Anglia etc) is of a different nature, based largely around self-interest, though habit also plays a part. Low taxes (income taxes, inheritance tax, taxes on capital gains, council tax etc), and a lazy reluctance to spend much (or any) time on ideology.
In the Northern and some other formerly industrial areas, it was different. Heavy industry, socialism or at least social-democracy, areas with a high level of community on the basis of class solidarity. That whole ambience has been eroding for decades and that erosion has now affected the political sphere in a noticeable way.
That Labour ambience has not been replaced by a Conservative equivalent, just as the heavy industry of the past has not been replaced by anything solid or secure. There is, in short, a vacuum. The Conservatives rushed into that vacuum because they were, indeed are, the only game in town beyond Labour. The other two possibilities, Liberal Democrat and Brexit Party were perceived as small (and so possible wasted votes), but also as adjuncts of the Conservatives.
The LibDems were mortally wounded by having not only concluded alliance with the Conservatives in 2010, but also by the way in which the LibDems behaved during the years 2010-2015, the years of the Con Coalition. There was a certain “f***-you” arrogance about the LibDem ministers of those years, horrible little blots such as Danny Alexander and, of course, Nick Clegg himself. At times, they seemed to be worse than even the Conservatives.
Jo Swinson voted for all of the terrible measures the Conservative Party brought in, from bedroom tax to the hounding of the sick and disabled. Well, the bitch has learned now that the voters were not asleep after all. And all Swinson’s weaselling about that, and all her doormatting for the Jews, could not save her (she lost her own seat) or her party. In fact, Boris-idiot’s then elevation of Jo Swinson to instant “baroness” may just have finally attached to the LibDems the chains that will sink them and send that party to the bottom. The voters are disgusted by Jo Swinson.
As for Brexit Party, its standing down of candidates in seats held by the Conservatives showed to voters in Labour-held seats that Brexit Party was/is a pro-Conservative fake party controlled by a devious con-man.
The result? Not a Conservative triumph so much as a Labour rout, but the result is similar.
A new party could capture a huge number of votes in the right circumstances, now that vast areas of the country are politically-volatile. Not only those voters who voted, but also the third of voters so disengaged that they did not vote, despite being registered to vote.
I have for some years made the point that Boris-idiot has managed to fool many people (including many who should have known better) that he is some kind of great brain, based on his ability to speak a few lines of rote-learned Latin or Greek, together with a few long and never-seen words trawled from the Oxford English Dictionary.
Those “talents” do not in themselves show great intelligence. I myself can still recall and speak a few chunks of A Month in the Country [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Month_in_the_Country_(play)] in the original Russian, learned in the early 1980s along with The Cherry Orchard and other works from the (mostly) 19thC Russian canon. In fact, I would put myself up against Boris-idiot in any activity or sphere (except rugby and degeneracy) with the full expectation of defeating him.
Always been puzzled as why reciting something from memory is seen as a sign of intelligence rather than a sign of a good memory. If he read out the Argos catalogue from memory it would be just the same feat.
Merry Christmas to my blog readers (and to the pagans among you, “Merry Wolfmoon”! I hope that I got that right…)
Farage: did he stab his own candidates in the back for a knighthood?
It doesnât remotely matter what we think. Nige and Boris did a deal- right after Boris said he wouldnât do a deal with Nige đ ITâS HAPPENING https://t.co/FLQYudZOR6
My reading of Farage is that he would prefer a million or two stashed in BVI or Panamanian accounts to an official honour of that sort, but who knows (either way…)?
Aimez-vous Brahms?
Interesting article on falling life expectancy in the UK
“Austerity in the UK was a political choice made in the summer of 2010. Its effects have been devastating.”
“The UK has reduced public spending to 36% of GDP by the end of 2019 from a peak of 41% in 2006. Today, rates of public spending in the UK as a whole are only a fraction above those of the US. Almost every other country in the EU spends more on its public services than the UK does; almost every other country in Europe now has a lower infant mortality than the UK.” [The Correspondent]
“A man has been accused of attacking 16 cats, nine of which were killed over the space of eight months in Brighton.
Sussex police charged Steven Bouquet, 52, a security guard, with 16 counts of criminal damage relating to the wounding or killing of 16 cats between between 2 October 2018 and 1 June 2019.
The charges are part of Operation Diverge, the forceâs investigation into a number of cat deaths in the city of Brighton and Hove.
Bouquet, who was also charged with possessing a knife in a public place, is due to appear at Brighton magistrates court on 23 January.
The South East district crown prosecutor, Sally Lakin, said: âFollowing a spate of attacks on cats in the Brighton area, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has authorised Sussex police to charge Steven Bouquet with 16 charges of criminal damage, relating to attacks on 16 cats, nine of which were killed and seven were seriously injured.
âThe allegations relate to incidents which took place between 2 October 2018 and 1 June 2019. This is a complex case and this decision was made following a careful review of all of the evidence presented to us.â
The CPS said it had carefully considered which charges would be most appropriate in the case and concluded the defendant should be charged with criminal damage.
âThis does not in any way detract from the seriousness of the offence or the great distress these incidents will have caused the owners of the cats,â the CPS said. âHowever, under current legislation, cats and other animals are deemed as property.â
The charge of animal cruelty was thought inappropriate as the defendant was not the owner of the cats. It would also attract a lesser sentence than criminal damage.” [Guardian]
Not a very Christmas-y story, but one which deserves to be reported more widely (and no comment from me, the trial process not having even started, let alone concluded).
Corbyn is still trying to say to the Jews, “hey, man! Respectttt!”. What an idiot. “They” will hate you whatever you say. Anyway, why wish them “Happy Hanukah”?
Many misguided Christians think that the Jewish religious festival of “Hanukah” is somehow analogous to Christmas, the profound Christian religious festival of birth and peace. Wrong. “Hanukah” is, like most other Jewish religious festivals, an ethno-nationalist celebration of resistance and victory (of Jewish triumphalism if you like), in this case the rebellion of the Jews against their Greco-Syrian overlords in the 2nd Century B.C. (or “B.C.E.”):
What was the Jewish response to Corbyn’s olive branch? “Jeremy Corbyn‘s annual ‘happy Hannukkah’ message to Jews in Britain and around the world has prompted a furious reaction from, amongst others, the editor of a Jewish newspaper, who told the Labour leader: ‘go f*** yourself!’“… [Daily Mail]
Need one say more? Corbyn has seen and experienced the way in which the Jewish lobby has conspired against him and the Labour Party for over four years. Why give them the satisfaction of throwing a peaceful greeting back in your face? Just cold-shoulder them.
As with the Diane Abbott situation, Corbyn seems incapable of learning from experience…
Meanwhile, Labour leadership contender Rebecca Long-Bailey is attacked by the Daily Mail (which seems to be afraid of her…):
“Labour frontrunner Rebecca Long-Bailey has said her political outlook was shaped by watching her father worry about losing his job at Salford Docks
But the Shadow Business Secretary, born in September 1979, would only have been two when the docks closed in 1982.” [Daily Mail]
Well, if Jews can be terribly upset about the death or disappearance of remote relatives that they never even met, and indeed who died or disappeared long before they, the descendants, were even born, why should Rebecca Long-Bailey not…? (well, you get the idea…).
Priti Patel “to be given power over sentencing” [Daily Mail].
Looks like there is something rotten in the state of Boris…
Blyth Valley
I am reading “mainstream” analyses saying, as my blog did in the days since the General Election, that the Conservatives only have those Northern and Midland seats “on loan”, though I do not use that term. I said that the Cons have “shallow roots” there.
The msm are still trying to say that huge numbers of voters turned to the Conservatives; but we know that the Conservative vote increased by a mere 1.2% nationally over 2017. The real story was and is the collapse of trust in Labour and support for Labour. It is probably true that the Con vote increased in those Northern and Midland areas by more than the national average, and did not increase, or it fell, in some other areas.
In the most striking result, perhaps, Blyth Valley went Con after 69 years (the seat was established in 1950 and won by Lab, by Alfred Robens who later, as Lord Robens, was chief of the National Coal Board).
The 2019 Con vote, however, only increased by 5.8% over 2017. The real story is earlier: the Con vote increased from 13.3% in 1997 to 15.9% in 2001, was 13.9% in 2005, and 16.6% in 2010; not much difference. However, the 21.7% the Cons got in 2015 jumped to 36.9% in 2017, then 42.7% in 2019.
What happened? What happened was that national sentiment increased and “proletarian” old-style “socialist” sentiment took second place to that.
Only once in the 69 years did the Conservatives come 2nd where there was a third candidate at Blyth Valley, and that was in 1960 when an Independent stood. The Conservative Party has otherwise always come 3rd or 4th.
In 2010, there was an identifiable “national” vote at Blyth Valley: BNP 4.4%, UKIP 4.3%, English Democrats 0.8%. So 9.5% in toto (Conservatives 13.3%, LibDems 27.2%, Lab 44.5%).
In 2015, only UKIP represented a kind of “national” vote, and received 22.3%, beating the Conservatives (21.7%). Lab won with 46.3%. You can see that Labour only beat the combined UKIP/Con vote by a couple of points.
In 2017, no UKIP or other “national” party, and Labour’s vote surged to 55.9%, easily beating the Conservatives’ 36.9%, but in 2019, Brexit Party stood, getting 8.3%, and the Labour vote collapsed to 40.9%, allowing the Conservatives to win on 42.7%.
For me, the dynamics are clear. The Brexit vote only went partly to Brexit Party (which also was probably perceived as not fully “national”. The Conservatives benefited, though —as said above— by only 5-6 points over 2017. Turnout was 3 points down from 2017. The Brexit Party votes were probably from former Labour voters. Labour only lost to the Cons at Blyth Valley by 1.8 points. Those 8.3% Brexit Party votes were crucial. Had Brexit Party not been there, the vote would have been closer by far; Lab might have won.
The old “proletarian” certainties have disappeared at Blyth Valley, along with the coal mines. Only traces remain. That has cut the ties binding the voters to Labour.
Leaving the Brexit issue aside, as presumably will be the case next time, it can be seen that Blyth Valley will either revert to Labour or may go to a new party, so long as it is both “national” and “social”…
That may be the case in most of the new “Conservative” seats.
NHS
What was that that Boris-idiot was saying about “no plans to sell off NHS”?
Dan Hodges, faux-proletarian, who lives in his mother’s house in Blackheath (she being the once-famous actress, Glenda Jackson), describes Corbyn supporters as “parasites”…So speaks the scribbler who scribbles for the Mail on Sunday (formerly for the Sunday Telegraph) and of whom Wikipedia says: “Hodges is the son of the actress and former Labour MP Glenda Jackson and her then husband Roy Hodges.[4] He worked as a parliamentary researcher for his mother between 1992 and 1997, describing it as ‘straight-forward nepotism’.” “His former colleague Mehdi Hasan described his…role with The Daily Telegraph as one where he “now performs the role of the right’s useful idiot”. “In 2014, Hodges co-founded the Migration Matters Trust, a pro-immigration pressure group chaired by Barbara Roche, Lord Dholakia and Nadhim Zahawi and run by Atul Hatwal.”
We're used to the insults @RichardBurgon I've been alive nearly 61 years & I've been insulted more times, in more ways (boot-girl, deluded, cult-member, racist, idiot, moron, parasite….) in the past 3 yrs than in the previous 58 put together.
For myself, though I had little time for Mark Field in general, I found the film of his encounter with the protesting lady rather funny. Her smug, entitled, “I’m going to do this; no-one can stop me and my companions” became (after brief resistance) “oh…” as she was collared and frogmarched out. Hilarious. For those who have not seen the footage:
Iain Dunce Duncan Smith and the Jew “lord” Freud, David Gauke, Esther McVey etc are guilty, morally (and in fact actually) of causing the deaths of thousands of victims, including 600+ suicides. They have to be brought to account one way or another.
Alison Chabloz
A take-off of the early 1970s TV series, The Persuaders, by persecuted singer-songwriter Alison Chabloz, starring imprisoned German dissident Ursula Haverbeck and the late Professor Faurisson:
I wonder how many people remember The Persuaders? The over-50s mainly, I suppose. People often say how good British TV used to be, but that is rather a rose-tinted view. There was plenty of rubbish too (such as, indeed, The Persuaders). Redeemed a little by the music of John Barry (and by that lady in the purple bikini!).
I wrote a piece quite a while ago, in fact a whole year ago, about how TV ads and the so-called “soaps” are the chief outlets of mass propaganda. Of course they are! They are the most popular mass entertainment. Therefore, the most packed with System propaganda. So much so that some of the “soaps” actually have a message at the end telling viewers that if they have any problem similar to the “issues” raised, to call an official helpline!
The propaganda effort has been stepped up this Christmas. The propagandists embedded in ad companies, TV companies etc have created a hybrid televisual “Christmas”, incorporating most of the traditional themes (though Christianity itself takes an ever-less prominent place), but mixing the traditional with key elements of the Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan. So we now see all the LGBT (etc) stuff very prominent, the celebrating families on TV ads are almost without exception mixed-race, or you see a blonde mother with what Boris Johnson, I suppose, would call a “piccaninny” child.
In fact, even ads not specifically “Christmas” now have the above elements. Renault (if I recall aright) has recently had an ad showing two little girls who are friends; later, as young adults, they start a lesbian relationship (strongly implied; in fact it is pretty express). Are people so naive that they do not discern the aims and forces behind this sort of thing? Sadly, that may indeed be the case in the UK.
The ultimate aim is to destroy the racial and cultural basis of society, both in the UK and also in other basically white Northern European states and areas.
“79% of British think that the UK is going in the wrong direction” [ipsos poll]
“Commenting on the findings, [ipsos] said: âLevels of pessimism about Britainâs national direction continue to be extremely high when compared to other countries.
âIn fact, since the series started in May 2011, levels of pessimism have never been higher in Britain than they are now. The current political turmoil and Brexit impasse are likely to be significant contributing factors to the negative mood but our data shows that other factors are at play too.
âIssues around crime, healthcare and poverty continue to worry Britons but it is also noticeable that concern about Climate Change is at record levels.â
“Hostile press coverage aimed at the Labour Party at the 2019 election was more than double the intensity found during 2017âs poll, according to a study of the two campaigns” [The Independent]
“Researchers at Loughborough University, who have been tracking political news coverage, also found that British newspapers were half as critical of the Conservative Party in this monthâs election as they were in the one two years ago” [The Independent]
“Tracking newspaper coverage over five weeks of the 2019 election, the academics found that the intensity of hostile coverage of opposition parties peaked in the final days of the campaign. By contrast, coverage weighted by circulation was mostly positive about the Conservative Party, with coverage of Boris Johnsonâs party improving in the final week.”
…and that’s before we even examine the role of the (((BBC))), (((Sky News))), (((ITV News))) etc in this rigged and unfair General Election of 2019.
“Because the largest newspapers were more friendly to the Conservatives, when weighted by circulation, the final week of the 2019 election gave the Tories a positive score of 30.17 while Labourâs was minus 96.66 â a vast gulf in treatment.”
“All opposition parties were portrayed negatively, with only the ruling Tories portrayed in a positive light.” [The Independent]
Britain 2019 (and now, 2020 as well…)
“A man waiting for triple bypass heart surgery has been declared fit to work by the Department of Work and Pensions – surviving on just ÂŁ80 a week.
Konrad Zastawny, 55, from Sheffield, has coronary artery disease which leaves him short of breath on some days and unable to move on others.
Doctors have told him he is unfit to work until he has had the six hour operation – scheduled for next month – which will see surgeons move blood vessels from elsewhere in his body to his five blocked arteries.
However, the job centre said he does not qualify for disability support.” [Daily Mirror]
“The two things that won the election for the Conservatives will be gone within months â Jeremy Corbyn and Brexit“ [John Rentoul, in The Independent]
Rentoul left out the most important “winning factor” that the Conservative Party had in the recent contest, meaning voters aged over 70, almost all of whom voted, and voted Conservative. Many will not be there next time, while many new voters will be eligible and may vote. As I have blogged previously, only a quite small minority of voters under 40 vote Con and the Conservative Party cannot hope that the upcoming voters of 70+ years old will be another 90%-Conservative bloc.
Let's hope that #BorisJohnson takes note. As Foreign Secretary he was a noisy advocate for bombing #Syria over this #DoumaHoax. Why trust any other elite war propaganda about homicidal gas attacks? https://t.co/RxLYU6D1lp
I suppose that the headline for me would be that Boris-idiot has already shown signs of weaselling on some of his empty promises, though covering up that with lots of noisy hullabaloo. The part-Jew public entertainer again, this time in his most challenging comedy-drama role, as Prime Minister of the UK. His mistakes as Mayor of London were on a correspondingly smaller scale.
He has to call upon more serious noise to disguise his deficiencies this time, not just a cable-car over the Thames or a garden bridge over the river, promoted by a charming actress who, however, really should steer clear of government policy.
Joanna Lumley’s previous policy disaster was when she “shamed” the then Labour government into allowing not only retired Gurkha soldiers into the UK but their entire extended families. The result? Aldershot is now a Nepalese town (the inhabitants mostly living off State benefits). It is not now an Army town as it once was.
Ironically, the Gurkha retirees (whose pensions were previously upgraded to the British Army norm) would have been far better off living in Nepal, a very poor country where such pension monies go a long way.
Boris-idiot was not responsible for the Gurkha mistake, but he was responsible for the cable-car and the Garden Bridge, which —like “Boris Island” Airport— were not necessary and were unworkable as planned. I have nothing against either cable-cars or garden bridges in principle though. Also, what is the Boris obsession with the Thames?
Boris-idiot, we are told, “does not do detail”. Meaning that his mind is on the lofty outlines of grand strategy. I suppose some poor saps believe that nonsense. The greatest leaders of the 20thC were interested, at least up to a point, in detail. That lack of interest was what sank all three projects noted above.
The cable-car was built partly at public expense but carries only a few regular passengers per day (it was planned for commuter use but in fact is now just a tourist attraction). “There has also been criticism of the project’s ÂŁ24 million-plus cost to taxpayers, caused by a budget overrun. Boris Johnson, the former Mayor of London, had said the cost of the scheme would not be underwritten by taxpayers.”[Wikipedia]
As for the Garden Bridge, it was a lovely idea but was poorly-planned (the Boris leitmotiv). Wrong place, arguably, for one thing.
“On 14 August 2017 after months of uncertainty the Garden Bridge Trust entirely abandoned the project. The BBC London transport correspondent Tom Edwards described the situation as a shambles which was “an embarrassing mess for the capital … already descend[ing] into finger pointing and a blame game over who is culpable for wasting ÂŁ46.4m of public money”.[75] In February 2019 it was revealed that the total public cost had been ÂŁ43m.”
We can add to the above the water-cannon “Boris” ordered after his panicky (lack of) performance during the 2011 black riots in London. Scrapped and sold for peanuts. Another Boris disaster, though on a smaller scale; this time “only” ÂŁ300,000 was lost. Still, the water-cannon did their job: not dealing with rioters, but getting Boris-idiot publicity as the man who wants to “get things done” (a completely mistaken view, of course).
You get the picture: Boris cannot plan anything, his ideas are rubbish, just schoolboy nonsense, he has no executive ability to get anything done properly, and he leaves the public with a headache and a bill.
A musical interlude:
and now to the Labour leadership contest
I shall blog separately about this once all the runners and riders have been listed.
System drone Stephen Kinnock. An atheist. Shooed into a safe Welsh Labour seat, his wife a former Prime Minister of Denmark, he himself given, inter alia, a nice little sinecure at the British Council in St. Petersburg (via his father, ex-Labour leader and EU Commissioner Neil “We’re All Right!” Kinnock). Completely System, completely NWO/ZOG. A nasty little freeloader.
Clive Lewis is standing for the position of Labour leader. I saw this tweet by the Novara Media person Aaron Bastani:
This from @labourlewis is excellent. The Corbyn leadership excelled in some regards (shifting policy debate, gaining huge membership) and failed in others – like democratising the party.
Exclusive: Clive Lewis to stand for Labour leader with a pledge to go further than Jeremy Corbyn in giving members a say on policy and a more decisive break with Blair/Brown era https://t.co/P8cSoyYGcL
Well, I have just read that piece. I cannot see anything of substance in what Clive Lewis says. Soundbite stuff about “democratizing the party” and about how “climate change” and “technological change” will define the next UK general election.
Underwhelming, like Lewis himself. His record is not inspiring. A “half-caste”, he read Economics at Bradford, but has never worked in that field. He spent time as a security guard before getting work as a local and regional journalist. He also held (2006-2009) commissioned rank in the Territorial Army, presumably as 2nd Lieutenant (unconfirmed; his eventual rank may have been higher). He was in Afghanistan for three months in 2009, but returned to the UK suffering from depression.
Lewis is MP for the relatively safe Labour seat of South Norwich.
There have been accusations of Lewis shouting inappropriate sexual jokes when drunk, and also of him groping at least one woman. He has also made other inappropriate remarks, usually of a sexual nature (e.g. one involving Ed Miliband and a goat).
My provisional view: underwhelming. Clive Lewis is not fully British for a start. Apart from that, his character seems weak to me. A loose cannon, not very trustworthy. On the face of it, could not hack Afghanistan for long and had a kind of breakdown. Whether that means that he could not fulfil a Labour leadership or, potentially, prime ministerial role, I do not know, but I doubt it and think that others might have similar doubts. Ideologically shallow. Unsuitable.
Having said the above, Clive Lewis’s pitch to the Labour rank and file (who will elect the leader in the end) is clever. It offers those rank and file members more —and more direct— power. That might be persuasive. Revolution in the revolution?
Another musical interlude…
Labour again…
I can see why many people are just laughing at the Labour leadership contest, after the recent election fiasco. However, the fact is that more than three-quarters of the 2017 Labour vote stayed with Labour: 32.2% as against 40%. Also, the demographics favour Labour in the medium term. As mentioned in previous blogs, had only under-25s voted, there would not be a single Conservative Party MP now. In fact, had only under-40s voted, most seats would be Labour, and even if only under-60s had voted, there might now be a Labour government.
Whoever wins the Labour leadership contest now may well head a Labour government in 2024, 2023 or even 2022.
Stray thoughts
Driving around the semi-flooded coastal part of Southern England in the dark this evening, it was incredible to experience how bad the roads are. Huge potholes, a feeling of disrepair. My car is fairly large, with large tyres, but these days it becomes necessary to drive something like a Range Rover just to smooth the ride! Thank God that I do not have false teeth!
Now it seems that this miserable new regime will press ahead with the HS2 white elephant, when the North of England needs regional railways and the South needs repair of the roads, which are degenerating into a 17thC condition. An exaggeration, but not a complete one.
The more I think about the state of the UK, the more I think that it will be fortunate to avoid either a repressive dystopia (following on perhaps from a chaotic one) or (and/or) some kind of civil war somewhere down the line.
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%).
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
Here is an example of how BBC word choice highlights bias. Govt target of 5000 extra GPs has been "missed", says @BBCr4today. What do you think from that? Govt missed it by 500? 1000? 2000? No. They failed to add a SINGLE GP. There are now FEWER GPs than when the target was set.
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 ÂŁ200,000-ÂŁ300,000 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”
Jeff Bezos alone has $110 billion.
Thatâs 110 thousand million dollars.
If Warrenâs wealth tax had been in effect since 1982, Bezos would today be worth $86.8 billion.
Heâd still be doing quite well, thank you for asking.
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
Nurses in Northern Ireland found it heartbreaking to strike. But things are desperate | Donna Kinnair https://t.co/PPLzbNg5vI
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…
Jess Philips. Caroline Flint. Tom Watson. Stephen Kinnock. Lucretia Berger, Margaret Hodge, John Mann, Ruth Smeeth, Kate Hoey, Wes Streeting, Letâs make a list of the duplicitous bastards who delivered 5 + years of toxic Johnson government. We will not forgive or forget.
The BBC news describes Jess Philips as charismatic!!!! What the actual fuck? Jesus Christ had charisma from where the term comes. Phillips is to charisma what a stinking turd is to our green & pleasant land. Phillips seeks to make a virtue of her ignorance. She needs to fuck-off.
This is the real Jess Philips. She's been waiting to pounce ever since Corbyn was elected. BTW she left Labour Friends of Palestine to join Labour Friends of Israel. https://t.co/F1DdEZxrHS
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:
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,â he says, âI think a lot of people here just wonât vote. I think theyâve 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.
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…
Boris Johnson to 'stop tens of thousands voting' by making photo ID mandatory by law at polling stations, Queen's Speech reveals https://t.co/AVIPSISQSn
Welcome to my diary blog, which will probably be published on a near-daily basis from today. It will contain political and social comment, mainly, but may also include music, art etc.
Anything requiring more length or structure will be put into a separate blog article.
I saw a tweet (see below), which shows how many of those on Twitter are in a relatively small echo-chamber. The tweet contains an “exit poll” taken on the recent Polling Day, and asks for which party the voter voted. The result (of over 68,000 responses): 64% Labour, 20% Conservative, LibDem 7%, 10% Other. So Labour was overvalued at about twice its real national vote-share, Conservative Party undervalued at less than half what it actually received on that day, the LibDems also undervalued at 7% instead of the real figure of 11.6%. As to “Other, 10%”, well Brexit Party got 2% in the actual election, Greens got about 3%, then there were SNP, Plaid, the various Irish parties; so “Other” may have been accurate overall, something which evidently cannot be said of the main Twitter poll.
The lady further below the tweet understands what an “echo-chamber” Twitter is:
Rebecca Long-Bailey [Lab, Salford and Eccles] has been put forward as a candidate for Labour leader. She is in the Corbyn camp.
I do not know much about her at present, but what I do like is that the Jews on Twitter etc all seem to hate her. A good sign! Also, I like the fact that she is not one of the many “silver spoon” MPs (both Labour and Conservative): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Long-Bailey#Early_life_and_career
I shall do a separate blog on the Labour leadership contest once all candidates are known.
Musical interlude
Metamorphosen, by Richard Strauss, one of the great composers of the 20th Century and for two years in the 1930s the head of the Reichsmusikkammer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamorphosen
Labour leadership (again)
Just took a look at Oddschecker and it appears that Rebecca Long-Bailey is favourite in the betting market. All the Jew-Zionist claque on Twitter is attacking her. Looking good…(from my perspective). I of course am not a Labour supporter, but their rank and file are at least generally better than the selfish, moneygrubbing “Conservative” ones, with their parasitic buy-to-let investments, inbuilt family life-advantages etc.
So the Jews are attacking Rebecca Long-Bailey, the usual msm drones are attacking her, the System talking-heads too. She must be one of the best candidates…
Of course, these msm talking heads (let alone the Jew element) are scarcely objective. “They” want to retake control of Labour, so that it can be “controlled opposition” again, and if it comes to it, a (((controlled))) government as well.
In fact, all this talk about “would Labour be electable under a socialist Labour leader?” (as distinct from a more “social-democratic”, or even “Con-lite”, one) tends to neglect the fact that:
The Labour vote collapsed from 40% to just over 32% at the General Election, true, but that was only a partial collapse. Three-quarters and more of the Labour vote held, despite the years of System and especially Jew-Zionist vilification of Labour and especially Corbyn, which campaign became almost hysterical near Polling Day. Jews, we were told, were sitting on their suitcases, waiting either to make a last despairing bid to get to Tel Aviv or awaiting the knock at the door and the train to the East. Yeah, right… Contrast that with the mostly very soft msm treatment given to Boris-idiot over 20 years. (and I should have thought that, were any of the “Jews are scared of Corbyn” stuff true, it would have encouraged more people to vote Labour!).
Statistical work done since the General Election shows that, had only 18-24 year old voters voted, the Conservative Party would not have a single MP anywhere in the UK. That does not necessarily mean that they will vote Labour next time, or that the next wave of 18-24s will, but it does make me think that the coming mainstream of voters will want a more radical agenda than the System preferees such as Keir Starmer or Lisa Nandy are willing to offer.
The next general election will not only have all those present 18-24s or most of them voting Labour (probably) but also the next wave of 18-24s (and they might be more inclined to use their vote if Labour has a radical leader).
The next general election will have far fewer Conservative voters, as older voters (and most Conservative voters are old) fall victim to “old age, sickness and death” (Buddha’s description of the Primal Karma of humanity).
The recent General Election win for the Conservatives is unlikely to be repeated for the above reasons. This may be partly why they are tightening up on voter registration etc. The boundaries of constituencies are being changed too.
Looking at the above, the smart move for Labour, counter-intuitively, might indeed be to have a (younger and) very radical leader. Corbynism without Corbyn. After all, someone such as Rebecca Long-Bailey has no baggage from the 1970s, 1980s and generally; and the Jews can hardly play the “we are all so scared” card again and with a woman aged only 40-something (she is 40 at present).
By the way, Salford and Eccles was previously represented by disgraced expenses cheat fraudster, Blair-Brown acolyte and Labour Friends of Israel drone, Hazel Blears:
I do not know whether Yvette Cooper will try to become Labour leader. She would be disastrous: pro-Jew, pro-Israel, with a history of formulating and getting passed poorly-drafted legislation, often very repressive legislation too.
Yvette Cooper is a virtue-signalling “refugees welcome” hypocrite and idiot who, with her equally bad-news husband, Ed Balls, pretended that they would be offering their home(s) to migrant invaders, while urging others to do the same (which they never did, of course; cf. Lily Allen). Perhaps she did not understand that most British people do not have several houses. She and Ed Balls made mucho money out of the British taxpayers when they were both MPs. They now have several properties, none occupied by “refugees”.
“The family, which includes their three kids, live in a ÂŁ650,000 terrace house in Hackney, East London. They also own a ÂŁ900,000 North London house and a property worth ÂŁ230,000 in Castleford, West Yorkshire. (The Sun & Daily Mail)” https://www.spearswms.com/ed-balls-net-worth/
To cap it all, Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper may have been lucky to avoid prosecution for fraud:
Surely this simply paves the way for yet more neo-liberal policies – as is already the case with e.g. UK Pension Fund legislation? – By the way, Macron's planned UK/US-style pension reform is the reason for current protests and civil unrest in France… https://t.co/bRw2yLOnMQ
In his book, #RogerGaraudy, the French philosopher, expressed doubts about the number of #Holocaust victims. The French govt not only banned his book, but also brought Garaudy to trial. These are the claimants of advocating #FreedomOfSpeech. pic.twitter.com/ErqmrrnC9V
Large-scale wars do not start without warning. There are always rumblings from the telluric depths first, sometimes for years.
It would be madness for the UK to fight Russia. Russia may not be the old Soviet Union, but it can still put up to 4 million men (and women) in the field, if need be. That’s including reserve forces. 900,000+ are active; many of those are front-line forces.
Britain’s forces total just over 200,000, of which only a small fraction (perhaps 40,000) are both active (non-reserve) and front-line.
Similar proportions in respect of naval, air, strategic rocket forces etc.
The fact is that, if the UK gets involved in a war with Russia, the UK will be devastated. Glasgow (which is near the Faslane base), London, the major ports etc. There would not be much left. That may be true of some Russian target areas too, but the old Soviet Union was 92x the (geographic) size of the UK, and even the present Russian Federation is about 70x the size.
Vladimir Putinâs top commander Valery Gerasimov has said he believes the West are preparing for a âlarge-scale military conflictâ amid a renewed NATO buildup in Europehttps://t.co/qGbtizDR2P
Just when you thought that Diane Abbott could not do more to destroy Labour with most present UK voters, the stupid monkey comes up with this!
On #InternationalMigrantsDay I want to thank migrants for their positive contributions to our society.
From those of the Windrush generation who helped rebuild this country to the many EU citizens currently working in our public services, migrants deserve our thanks.
I am convinced that the mere existence of Diane Abbott, at least as Shadow Home Secretary, lost the Labour Party a million votes at the recent General Election.
Ian Robert Millard 