Category Archives: immigration

Alt-Right, animal welfare, Boris Johnson, Brexit, by-elections, Conservative Friends of Israel, elections, immigration, Jewish lobby in UK, Labour Friends of Israel, MPs, Party Politics, Uncategorized

After Brecon and Radnorshire, What Now For Brexit Party and the Conservatives?

1 Comment

My original blog post (with updates to 2 August 2019) about the Brecon and Radnorshire by-election

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/06/21/brecon-and-radnorshire-by-election-2019/

The result of the Brecon and Radnorshire by-election of 1 August 2019

  • LibDems 13,826 votes (43.5%)
  • Conservatives 12,401 (39%)
  • Brexit Party 3,331 (10.5%)
  • Labour Party 1,680 (5.3%)
  • Monster Raving Loony 334 (1%)
  • UKIP 242 (0.8%)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brecon_and_Radnorshire_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s

The LibDems won fairly decisively, but with a smaller majority than the betting might have been suggesting. I have posted several informative links below.

Why did the LibDems win, why did the Conservative Party not win?

For me, the most important aspect beyond the headline result is the fact that the Conservative ex-MP, Christopher Davies, would have won, perhaps even handsomely, were it not for the candidature of Brexit Party, which received 3,331 votes.

The LibDem majority over the Conservatives was only 1,425. In other words, had Brexit Party not been standing, the Conservatives would almost certainly have won, and probably by nearly 2,000 votes. The Brexit Party received a vote-share of only 10.5% (LibDems 43.5%, Conservatives 39%), but that was more than enough to sink the Conservative candidate.

The Labour vote has suffered a general decline in the constituency over the years (all-time high was 57.69% in 1964), but this was its lowest-ever vote-share (5.3%). I attribute that partly and perhaps mainly to tactical voting: Labour supporters voting against the Conservatives (mainly) in a situation where Labour had no real chance anyway (the Labour vote here has not exceeded 20% since 2001 (21.4%). However, the 5.3%, barely enough to retain the deposit, does tend to support my view that Labour is now the party of the blacks and browns, the public service workers and those mainly dependent on State benefits.

The Sky News Political Correspondent tweeted something interesting about the Labour vote in Brecon and Radnorshire, which had been in the 10%-18% range since 2005 and until this by-election’s collapse to 5.3%:

Brecon and Radnorshire is almost entirely white British in demographic terms (Powys, the county in which is situated the constituency, is said to be 99.3% white British). In white British areas, Labour increasingly has no chance. Labour scarcely speaks to or for white British people now. This has implications that go far beyond Brecon and Radnorshire.

The Conservatives and Brexit Party down the line

Brexit Party is one of two parties that emerged in 2019 despite having no real policies (the other being the pro-EU, pro-Remain, pro-Jewish lobby party, Change UK, which sputtered to a halt almost immediately and now scarcely exists).

There is no doubt that the early promise of Brexit Party has somewhat blunted since its great 2019 EU elections success. The recent Peterborough by-election was nearly won, but not quite, Brexit Party losing to Labour by a mere 683 votes. Now we have another, though less unexpected, disappointment. Nigel Farage and his large meetings held before both the EU elections and the Peterborough by-election built up a head of steam and a head of expectation, but so far that pressure has just tooted into the void, at least as far as Westminster is concerned.

The political landscape has just suffered an earthquake. Boris Johnson (aka, to me, “Boris-idiot”) is now, incredibly, Prime Minister (or Fool posing as “King for a Day”), having been put there by about 92,000 Conservative Party members (out of about 50 MILLION voters, in other words by about 1 out of every 500 or so eligible voters). He has “pledged” (for what little his pledges are worth) to leave the EU “deal or no deal” by 31 October 2019. If that seems about to happen, I am assuming that the anti-“no deal”/WTO MPs will block it and/or vote for a no-confidence motion. That might in turn cause Boris Johnson to trigger a general election.

Alternatively, the EU might offer Johnson a form of words that he can present to the Commons as a workable “deal” (in the now familiar vulgar terminology). The UK can then pretend to leave the EU but in reality stay in, or kick the can down the road by means of an extension, which Johnson himself seemed to find acceptable recently. The Commons might block the former, but probably not the latter.

An extension (as mooted) might last until 2021 or even 2022. In 2022, new electoral boundaries will be in place in the UK. MP numbers are set to be reduced from 650 to 600. Those changes will hit both Labour and the LibDems hard.

If the Conservatives can hang on until 2022, their chances of survival (as individual MPs and as a party of government) look better. In the meantime, Boris-idiot can go on posing as Prime Minister, and his Cabinet of Conservative Friends of Israel, enemies of the people, can (with the help of their Labour Friends of Israel accomplices) pass more repressive laws to destroy (real) “democracy” and (real) civil rights in the UK…

CZpdYWeW0AQXGc_

Bso85QHCEAA1yun

scan25

That, at least, could have been the scenario had the Conservatives a majority or at least a working majority (reduced by Brecon and Radnorshire to 1 MP vote) and so able to continue as a government. As it is, whatever happens on 31 October, it cannot be long now before Labour moves a no-confidence motion. If not in November, then surely in December or early next year.

Brexit Party has not yet proven that it can win Westminster seats, but it has proven that it can prevent the Conservative Party winning. In Peterborough, the successful Labour Party candidate got 10,484 votes (30.9%). The Brexit Party got 9,801 votes (28.9%). The Conservative got 7,243 votes (21.4%). While it may be that not all of those who voted Brexit Party would, in lieu of that, have voted Conservative, most would have done; hardly any would have voted Labour, in my opinion anyway. It is clear that, without Brexit Party, the Conservatives would have won Peterborough. The same is true in Brecon and Radnorshire.

Boris Johnson may have shot Brexit Party’s fox by going all-out (supposedly) for a “no deal”/WTO Brexit if the EU does not play ball, but he has not killed that fox, just wounded it. If the UK leaves on a “no deal”/WTO basis, then Brexit Party probably will deflate to nothing, though it may reinvent itself even then. However, it seems unlikely that the majority of MPs of all parties will not block such a departure. If that happens, then Boris Johnson, however much he tries to play the Leave “tribune of the people”, will be seen by Leavers as a waste of space, “all hat and no cattle”. In that scenario, the anger of the Leave-preferring voters will devolve upon both Remain MPs and Boris-idiot. Brexit Party will then, like Antaeus treading on his native earth, be revived and take on new strength.

What Boris Johnson and the Conservatives would like is for Brexit Party to just disappear, thus leaving the Conservatives to trample all over the hopelessly-split Labour Party and the LibDems. What is more likely is that the UK will not leave the EU on any real basis by the beginning of November. Brexit Party will thus put up 650 MPs and the Conservative Party will be slaughtered. Most hard-core Leavers will vote Brexit Party, most hard-core Remainers (especially in the South) will switch to the LibDems. For Boris Johnson and the Conservatives, a two-front war. Apart from Brexit issues, anyone who believes in the Welfare State, in decent public services, in animal welfare, will not vote Conservative. Anyone hostile to Jewish Zionism, likewise.

The Brexit Party may only get 10%-20%, so say 15%, nationwide, but that alone all but destroys any hope for a majority Conservative government. My own efforts at working it out using Electoral Calculus [see Notes, below] indicate Conservative Party as largest party in Commons, but without a majority and quite possibly worse off than now.

Much depends on the LibDem vote. At present, the opinion polls show intended LibDem vote somewhere in the 15%-25% range, with latest educated guess (via Ipsos/MORI) at 20%.

That might give a Conservative majority of as much as 74. However, even if that poll is accurate, it is unlikely that the Conservatives will actually maintain a lead of 10 points over Labour. If Labour were able to achieve 30% instead of 24%, which is well within the parameters of reasonable possibility, then the Conservative Party would be 20 MPs short of a majority, i.e. worse off than now.

There again, even if Labour were still on 24%, but if Brexit Party could reach to 15% at the expense of the Conservatives on 29%, the Conservatives would be no less than 57 MPs short of a majority.

On the other hand, If Brexit Party can get 20%, LibDems 20%, Labour 25% and Conservatives 30%, the Conservatives would be about 35 MPs short of a majority.

It is a game one can play for hours.

Conclusions

The LibDems are back in the game, if only by default. They have much of the Remain vote, they have a (notionally) fresh and energetic leader, they have the votes of those disliking the other two main System parties as well as those of persons wishing to vote tactically. They have at least the possibility of a 50-seat bloc (again) in the Commons.

Brexit Party is not looking good as a potential party of government but it is looking effective as a way of blocking Conservative Party ambitions. A general election resulting in 30% Con, 30% Lab, 20% LibDem, 15% Brexit Party and 5% Green comes out with Labour as largest party, but 46 MPs short of majority, the Conservatives not far behind and the LibDems with perhaps about 50 MPs. On that basis, the LibDems could, as in 2010, be once again the kingmakers. Plus ca change…

Notes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brecon_and_Radnorshire_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powys

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-49200636

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/voters-head-to-the-polls-for-brecon-and-radnorshire-byelection-live-a4202956.html

https://news.sky.com/story/liberal-democrats-win-brecon-and-radnorshire-by-election-as-johnson-suffers-first-defeat-as-pm-11775356

https://www.greekmythology.com/Myths/Gigantes/Antaeus/antaeus.html

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/userpoll.html

Update, 4 August 2019

Worth reading:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/04/boris-johnson-armageddon-clock-what-is-it-counting-down-to

Andrew Rawnsley predicting the demise, quite soon, of both Boris-idiot and the Conservative government (and party):

“As he [Boris-idiot] points the country at the cliff edge and depresses the accelerator, does prime minister Johnson have any idea where this will end? It is a mistake to think that he does. No one knows what he is really up to, including himself. In one breath, he tells us that this is “do or die”; in another, he sets the odds on a no-deal Brexit at “a million to one”;

“He [Boris-idiot] has to know that there is a strong possibility that it will mean an autumn general election. The least credible message from Number 10 is that it is not contemplating this outcome”;

“Tory strategy for winning an election makes some very big and risky assumptions. One is that the gains harvested by the Conservatives at the expense of Labour among Leave-supporting voters will outweigh Tory losses in Remain-supporting constituencies. Nearly every top Lib Dem target is a Conservative seat, while Scottish Nationalists are hoping to scalp Tory MPs north of the border. The other perilous assumption is that Nigel Farage’s party will fade away or fold up. The leader of the Brexit party is enjoying being the object of renewed attention and displays no signs of wanting to retire again. He declares that he does not trust the prime minister and he has a bitter history of mutual loathing with Number 10’s chief strategist, Dominic Cummings.”

“One lesson from the Brecon & Radnorshire by-election is that the Brexit party doesn’t have to do all that well – it polled barely a double-digit share on Thursday – to hurt the Tories. If the Conservatives could have added the Brexit party vote and that of Ukip to their tally, they would have held the seat with just over half the vote, rather than narrowly lose it to the Lib Dems. They’d hope to put a harder squeeze on the Brexit party in a general election, but couldn’t be absolutely confident. All the hazards of this strategy will be multiplied many times over if an election takes place after 31 October. In one scenario, we would still be in the EU, breaking the Tory leader’s “absolute commitment” to his party that Britain will be out “under any circumstances” and hugely boosting the Faragists.”

“In the alternative scenario, Britain has tumbled out of the EU without an agreement. That is no longer a threat or a promise. The countdown has reached zero and no deal is a reality. Even in the less chilling versions of a crash-out Brexit – the ones that don’t involve supermarket shelves being stripped bare by panic-buying and children dying for lack of life-critical medicines – I wouldn’t want to be a prime minister trying to make a case for his re-election when the country has just suffered a big economic shock and the currency is collapsing.”

“My suspicion is that the Armageddon Clock isn’t really there to count down the seconds to Brexit day. It is there to remind Boris Johnson how long he has left before it becomes too late to avoid his own doomsday.“

Of course, I myself have made, in the above and previous blog posts, similar points to those now made by Andrew Rawnsley. He, however, has the inside contacts (and public profile) which I do not have. I, perforce, have to use simply my own knowledge and powers of reason (also, I am doing this unpaid, pro bono publico!)

I should say that there is little incentive for the Brexit Party to form a pact with the Conservatives unless the Conservatives in effect gift Brexit Party at least 50 winnable seats in return for Brexit Party standing down in the other 600. Such a pact might backfire for the Conservatives in that it would

  1. deprive the Conservatives of a number of seats which, even with Brexit Party standing, the Conservatives themselves might win; and
  2. create a bloc of up to 50 “fourth party” Westminster MPs for the first time, so
  3. making Brexit Party far more electorally credible in subsequent elections.

Meanwhile…

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mps-beg-brexit-party-candidates-not-to-stand-in-their-constituencies-amid-fears-of-split-vote-a4205031.html

If Brexit Party candidates give up their candidature in seats where the Conservative candidates might lose if there is a Brexit Party candidate, then not only has the Brexit Party given up what might be good chances of winning in those seats, but it has restricted itself to standing only in seats where it has, arguably, little chance of winning.

In other words, a one-way electoral pact with the Conservatives almost wipes out Brexit Party’s reason for existing. It might confirm as MPs a few Conservative Eurosceptics, but no political earthquake is going to happen just because of that. The better strategy is to fight all 650 seats and see what happens. If it should be that 200+ Conservative MPs lose their seats, then good.

Update, 23 June 2020

My analysis was not too bad (as good that of Andrew Rawnsley, anyway), but nexpected events happened, as they often do: as we now know, duing the General Election campaign of December 2019, Nigel Farage, for whatever reason, decided to stand down all his Brexit Party candidates standing in Conservative-held seats. That killed Brexit Party stone dead and ensured a Conservative Party victory by default. 2017 Labour voters did not, most of them, vote Conservative, but some did, in some seats. A relative few defected to the LibDems or what was left of Brexit Party, but almost as many as all of those simply decided not to vote.

Result: a Conservative Party majority of about 80.

Boris Johnson, Brexit, by-elections, Campaign Against AntiSemitism, Deadhead MPs, Defence, elections, immigration, Jewish lobby in UK, Labour Friends of Israel, MPs, Party Politics, society, The Great Replacement, Uncategorized, white flight

Can Labour Win A 2019 General Election?

11 Comments

Introduction

Two days ago, I wrote a blog piece entitled “Can The Conservatives Win A General Election (or are they doomed)?”

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/07/28/can-the-conservatives-win-a-general-election-or-are-they-doomed/

My conclusion was that the Conservatives are unlikely to “win” a general election in the sense of achieving a House of Commons majority, but that it is not unlikely that the Conservative Party might, after a general election in late 2019 or early 2020, still be the largest party, i.e. the party with the largest number of MPs.

Until recently, I thought that Labour would probably be the largest party in the Commons after a 2019/2020 general election; now I am unsure. I still think that Labour might beat the Conservatives in terms of numbers of MPs, but the chances must now be close to 50-50.

I now want to lay out my thoughts about Labour’s chances

Just as the Conservative Party has been running out of rank and file members and also (good) ideas for several decades, the Labour Party, though in recent years, under Corbyn, increasing its membership and activist support base, has at the same time been —-what would be the correct term?–laagering or hunkering-down or being concentrated in ever-fewer loyal constituencies. The membership of the Conservatives is still getting older on average (the majority now being over 51, and almost 50% being 65+ years old), whereas the Labour membership is more evenly-aged and far greater in numbers. The Conservatives can muster, at least on paper, about 160,000, whereas Labour has over 500,000 members or registered supporters. All the same, Labour now has 247 MPs, while the Conservative Party has 311.

It is a truth universally acknowledged…that it is better to win 2 constituencies barely than it is to win 1 constituency by a huge majority. That in a nutshell is the problem faced by both major System parties but particularly Labour:

“Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour party now has the 10 of safest seats [sic] in the UK, according to a new House of Commons analysis of marginal constituencies…The briefing adds that the number of very safe seats – those won by a margin of over 50 per cent – increased by 21 in 2015 to 37 in June’s election. Labour have all of the top 28.” [The Independent]

Piling up votes in safe seats does nothing, or very little, for a political party under the British “First Past The Post” [FPTP] electoral system. Labour is piling up empty votes. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that Labour is now, to a large extent “the party of the blacks and browns” and other ethnic minorities (except Jews). The tendency of the ethnic minorities to huddle in concentrations, whether for historical, economic, cultural or other reasons, has resulted in concentrations of the Labour vote in areas already historically Labour-voting.

Another aspect to the above is the flight of white English people out of areas becoming “diverse” (in reality, changing from white non-diverse to non-white non-diverse), thus concentrating in those “ghetto” constituencies (or particular wards within constituencies) the “ethnic” vote.

Coming to Brexit, Corbyn has managed to sit on the fence so far. More Labour voters voted Remain than voted Leave, but more Labour constituencies voted Leave than voted Remain, another proof of the concentration of the Labour vote.

In one sense, Corbyn’s fence-sitting means that Labour can in theory appeal to both Leave and Remain voters; in practice, it may make Corbyn and so Labour seem undecided and indeed the victim of events, rather than the setter of the agenda.

Beyond all that, though, Labour has a policy message which might appeal to many, if it can be heard: nationalization or more regulation of public utilities and rail transport, curtailment of the excesses in the private-rental housing sector, an end to the demonization, bullying and even quiet killing by neglect of the disabled, sick, unemployed etc.

Even if Labour is the party of “blacks and browns”, that voter bloc, when combined with the votes of public service workers and those dependent on State benefits, must in theory add up to a vote of something like 30%.

Many commentators have said that, after a period of fragmentation, voters are returning to the main two parties. They say that because, in 2017, the main two parties got 89.1% of the popular vote (Conservative Party 48.8%, Labour Party 40.3%). This consolidation, however, was the result of specific factors which no longer apply.

In 2017, the LibDem popular vote slumped further from its post-Con Coalition collapse in 2015: from 7.9% in 2015 to 7.4% in 2017. Likewise, UKIP, having attained 12.6% in 2015, fell back to 1.8% (UKIP contested only 378 seats). In other words, Con and Lab were really the only two games in town in 2017.

The situation today is very different. The LibDems can appeal on several fronts: to Remainers, because the Liberal Democrat Party is the only unalloyed Remain party of any importance; to those who dislike both main System parties; to the “socially liberal” in London and the South of England (mainly). The LibDems are therefore in theory able to draw from the dissatisfied of both Labour and Conservative. It is important to understand that this is not a “LibDem surge”, more a negative vote against the two main System parties and Brexit Party, though also a vote for a clearly pro-EU party, the only one left [in England].

Then we have Brexit Party. Its mere existence, even on 10% or 15% of the nationwide popular vote, means that the Conservative Party can almost certainly not get a Commons majority. If Brexit Party stands (as promised) in 650 seats and gets an average 20%, then Conservative MPs will die like flies as their seats are taken by the LibDems, by Labour and, in a few cases, by Brexit Party itself.

Labour is fighting against the Jewish-Zionist contrived “antisemitism” protest or faked “storm”. That is not too interesting to the general public, but may support a wider narrative about “Corbyn the extremist”, someone supposedly not patriotic, a supporter of radical and in some cases very unpopular causes in the past. There again, there is the public scepticism about whether Corbyn can do the job of Prime Minister. However, it might be said in response that if Boris-idiot can do it, why can Corbyn not do it? That does rather beg the question, though…

Looking at the electoral picture in the round, I think that Labour will be able to mobilize its core vote of maybe 25%, maybe beyond that to 30%. The Conservative vote is tied to Brexit Party. If BP stands in 650 seats and if BP can get 15%, then I cannot see the Conservative Party getting more than about 30%. The LibDems will siphon off quite a few Remainer votes from both Lab and Con; overall that LibDem vote might amount to 15% or even 20%. “Socially-liberal” Jo Swinson is very pro-capitalist and her party might be an option for pro-EU former Conservative voters as well as some pro-EU and anti-Corbyn Labour ones.

The upshot seems to be that any 2019 or early 2020 general election might produce a Commons with Labour as largest party but as many as 60 MPs short of a majority; alternatively, a Conservative bloc far larger than that of Labour but still about 10 short of a majority. In other words, about where things are now.

My conclusion is that Labour might “win” in the sense of becoming the largest party in the Commons, but cannot at present get a majority.

Notes

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-safe-seat-marginal-constituencies-house-of-commons-jeremy-corbyn-theresa-may-a7886571.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Commons_of_the_United_Kingdom

Update, 21 September 2019

This, below, is all too typical of the sort of person 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.” [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/far-right-britain-first-beach-patrols-calais-dover-anti-migrant-a9113471.html]

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, trying to get to 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.

Update, 23 September 2019

This creature might well be Home Secretary under a Labour government…

https://twitter.com/PaulWal96323461/status/1175921860481036289?s=20

Alt-Right, Boris Johnson, Brexit, by-elections, Campaign Against AntiSemitism, Conservative Friends of Israel, Deadhead MPs, Defence, elections, free speech, Ian Millard, immigration, Jewish lobby in UK, MPs, Party Politics, society, The Great Replacement, Uncategorized

The Boris Johnson Cabinet

49 Comments

I start this examination of the new Boris Johnson government by posting part of an interview with Nicholas Soames MP [Con, Mid Sussex] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Soames

I have, of course, blogged about Boris Johnson before:

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/07/19/after-a-2019-general-election-what/

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/07/06/the-conservatives-boris-johnson-upcoming-political-events-and-the-currents-in-society/

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/06/12/boris-a-story-for-our-times/

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/06/09/the-conservative-party-leadership-contenders-in-outline/

Any brief perusal of my above blogs about Boris Johnson will show that I am unremittingly hostile to him, despite the fact that I have always favoured Brexit (which he also now does, though only or mainly because it suits his narcissistic ambitions). What I want to do in this blog article is to examine those he has chosen to be in and around his Cabinet. I cannot examine every one for reasons of space and length, so I have chosen to focus on a few key players, as well as on the overall thrust of this new Cabinet.

Priti Patel

Thick as two short planks, Priti Patel is now a “British” Cabinet minister, having been saved from spending her life serving customers behind the counter of a Kampala grocery shop by her parents having immigrated to the UK, “several years” before Idi Amin became Ugandan leader in 1971.

Priti Patel is a member of Conservative Friends of Israel, and was exposed as being effectively an agent of Israel only 2 years ago. This daughter of Indian immigrants, this Israeli agent, this expenses-freeloader (she “employed” her husband part-time, on expenses, from 2014-2017) and supporter of harsh and cruel policies is now going to rule over British people as Home Secretary.

https://twitter.com/Citadelen/status/1154135023408336897

https://twitter.com/SFoP_Palestine/status/1154128443363086337

https://twitter.com/SFoP_Palestine/status/1154127392383705088

Hard to believe that an MP, let alone a Cabinet minister, could be as plainly thick as Priti Patel really is, but the fact that she is has been proven time and again. Example:

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/24778/priti_patel/witham

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priti_Patel

Esther McVey

A few facts about Esther McVey in government:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/esther-mcvey-housing-minister-record-11831140

Now Minister of State for Housing, not normally a Cabinet post, but it seems that she is either being treated as a member of the Cabinet or is at least attending. It will be recalled that she was partly responsible for implementation of the ghastly “bedroom tax” created by [Conservative Friends of Israel] Iain Dunce Duncan Smith and jew “lord” Freud.

McVey is someone who was willing to accept and promote the attacks on the poor, disabled and unemployed (and the elderly) during her previous time in government. She is also a member of Conservative Friends of Israel. She is yet another one who is as thick as two short planks, her cartoon view of the world being expressed in a Liverpudlian accent almost impossible to understand.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esther_McVey

Dominic Raab

Half-Jew, though supposedly not brought up culturally Jewish. Hard-faced careerist. As far as I know, another member of Conservative Friends of Israel. Has visited and worked in Israel/Palestine.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/who-dominic-raab-foreign-secretary-12882420

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominic_Raab

Sajid Javid

A Pakistani, though born in the UK. A very weird individual, who is obsessed by the Jewess known as “the philosopher of selfishness”, Ayn Rand:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand#Political_influence

Sajid Javid, a member of Conservative Friends of Israel, is so pro-Israel that he even spent his honeymoon there, despite he and his wife both being non-Jewish. As Home Secretary (2018-2019), he made the astonishing assertion that he supports the violent “antifa” thugs [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States)

and he has been seen at Scotland Yard events alongside Jewish Zionist “activists” such as Stephen Silverman of the malicious “Campaign Against Antisemitism” or “CAA” cabal (Silverman being someone who has been exposed in open court as a serial troll and harasser, and who used pseudonyms to disguise his identity while doing that). Silverman and the CAA attempt to influence government and police policy in favour of Zionism and Israel, working with groups such as “UK Lawyers for Israel” etc, the memberships of which often overlap.

Javid, unsurprisingly in view of his background, thinks that mass immigration has benefited the UK!

Javid became a director of Deutsche Bank in 2000, leaving in 2009, by which time that bank had become one of the main “drivers” (causes) of the worldwide banking crisis:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Bank#Financial_crisis_years_(2007%E2%80%932012)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sajid_Javid#Banking_career

This person, Sajid Javid, is now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Cabinet minister in charge of government finances, tax, overall financial strategy etc. Very worrying…

CYHP3gvWYAArn3_

 

Grant Shapps

Jew and member of Conservative Friends of Israel. Exposed in 2012 as having used two pseudonyms in order to basically cheat members of the public by selling them dodgy business and self-improvement courses! He even got into the Palace of Westminster using those false IDs! In fact the Jew has a history of dodgy business dealings, tax dodging and cheating the public.

Now Shapps has been appointed to the Cabinet as Transport Secretary! You really could not make it up. Speaking of transport, when will my train arrive?

Hitlers-train-Amerika

This “government” is, in the immortal words of Johnny Mercer MP (applied to Theresa May’s tenure) a “shitshow”. In fact, if the Theresa May government was a “shitshow”, Boris-idiot’s one is going to be a total shitshow!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grant_Shapps

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grant_Shapps#Denials_of_pseudonym_and_second_job

Mark Spencer

Not a Cabinet minister, but the new Government Chief Whip, who attends Cabinet and is a key figure, especially in a government with no majority and even with Democratic Unionist Party [DUP] support only a majority of 3 or 4, which will probably soon be 1 or 2, depending on the result of the Brecon and Radnorshire by-election and whether Charlie Elphicke MP [Con, Dover] is allowed to remain on bail (and so vote in the Commons), having been charged with three sexual assaults against two women:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jul/22/tory-mp-charlie-elphicke-charged-with-sexual-assault

The Guardian journalist and Chief Political Correspondent, Jessica Elgot (a Jewish Zionist who, if memory serves, blocked me on Twitter before I was expelled), has penned this cheerful piece about Spencer:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/23/relative-unknown-mark-spencer-becomes-chief-whip

Jessica Elgot’s Guardian piece somehow neglects to mention that “Spencer attracted criticism in early 2015 after suggesting that a man with learning difficulties who had been left without food or power after being sanctioned for arriving four minutes late at the benefit office should “learn the discipline of timekeeping“” [Wikipedia]; or that

“In January 2016, Spencer was one of 72 MPs who voted down an amendment in Parliament on rental homes being “fit for human habitation” who were themselves landlords who derived an income from a property.” [Wikipedia]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Spencer_(British_politician)#Controversies

In other words, Mark Spencer is a hard-faced bully type, as well as being a parasite landlord. What a horrible bastard.

I wonder whether new Chief Whip, Mark Spencer MP, is also a member of Conservative Friends of Israel? IMO, odds-on…

The immediate reaction about the new government from John Rentoul

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/boris-johnson-reshuffle-cabinet-patel-raab-general-election-a9019661.html

My View

This is a disaster of a Cabinet, a disaster of a government, led by a part-Jew public entertainer who probably should never have been even a backbench MP, certainly never have become even a junior minister, let alone a Cabinet minister. That such a person is now Prime Minister of the UK, and leader of one of the two main System parties, is an indictment of that same political system. The political and electoral systems are broken. The House of Commons is full of trash.

What else? Well, as we have seen, all those examined (including Boris-idiot) are Conservative Friends of Israel, with at least one (I think maybe three) being in effect Israeli agent(s) of influence (if not more). The same will be true of the rest of the Cabinet.

This is not only the most pro-Jewish Lobby, pro-Israel Cabinet ever, but the least truly British (in any real sense; yes, they have British passports; actually, some have or had others, like Boris-idiot, who actually was a US citizen with a US passport until quite recently!); Sajid Javid— Pakistani; Dominic Raab— part-Jew, Priti Patel— Indian.

Even The Times of Israel impliedly agrees!

https://www.timesofisrael.com/priti-patel-previously-ousted-over-israel-meetings-named-uk-home-secretary/

and the Jewish Chronicle!

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/board-of-deputies-praises-firm-friends-on-boris-johnson-s-new-cabinet-1.486833

*and look at this:

“Johnson’s maternal great-grandfather was a Russian Jewish immigrant named Elias Avery Lowe.” [Breaking Israel News]

““I feel Jewish when I feel the Jewish people are threatened or under attack, that’s when it sort of comes out. When I suddenly get a whiff of antisemitism, it’s then that you feel angry and protective.” [Boris Johnson]

“In addition to his Jewish ancestry, Johnson has even stronger ties to Israel through his Jewish stepmother, Jennifer Kidd Johnson, who married his father Stanley in 1981. 

In 1984, Johnson, age 20, and his sister Rachel spent six weeks in Israel, volunteering on Kibbutz Kfar Hanasi, approximately 22 miles north of the Sea of Galilee in northern Israel. 

The visit was coordinated by Michael Comay, a career Israeli diplomat and close family friend of Johnson’s stepmother. Comay and his wife Joan connected the Johnson siblings with the overseas volunteer program at Kibbutz Kfar Hanassi.” [Breaking Israel News]

https://www.breakingisraelnews.com/134041/new-uk-prime-minister-descended-from-rabbi-feels-jewish/

Several of those appointed to Cabinet, including Raab, Priti Patel and Liz Truss, were co-authors of the notorious booklet Britannia Unchained, their credo being unrestrained finance capitalism and the British people as slaves to usurers and employers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britannia_Unchained

Highlights?

  • “Britain needs to adopt a far-reaching form of free market economics, with fewer employment laws”;
  • “The British are among the worst idlers in the world. We work among the lowest hours, we retire early and our productivity is poor. Whereas Indian children aspire to be doctors or businessmen, the British are more interested in football and pop music.” [Wikipedia]

Well, I agree about the football and pop music etc, but the rest postulates as an ideal a dystopian economic slave-society (is that surprising, when you see that the booklet was written mostly by those from non-British, non-European backgrounds, societies where slavery and serfdom are still ubiquitous: India, Pakistan etc?)

What now?

So unfree is the UK already, that if I were to print what I really believe should be done to remove this government of evil, I should probably have the police at my door.

In terms of what might happen politically or electorally to remove this unelected System dictatorship led by Boris-idiot, it is a grace from God that its Commons majority is almost non-existent even with its bought (by Theresa May) DUP support. Soon it will have no majority in the Commons even with those bought DUP votes.

The Brexit dilemma is the first matter. It is suggested that Boris-idiot will try to leave the EU either without agreement with the EU, or with an agreement not much different than that Theresa May agreed, but which was rejected by the Commons. The probability must be that the same will happen again. If so, Johnson will before long face a no-confidence vote, which probably but not necessarily will lead to a general election. Johnson thinks that he can win such an election. Not if Brexit Party stands 650 candidates as promised. Brexit Party may sink the Conservative Party even if it itself fails to win a single seat.

On the other hand, if Boris Johnson makes an electoral pact with Nigel Farage, eg guaranteeing Brexit Party a free run in say 50 seats in return for the reverse in the remaining 600, that is a gamble which threatens to destroy the Conservative party as a main national party contesting all seats. It also risks creating a far more powerful because far more credible Brexit Party.

What if Johnson in effect caves in, accepting a poor “deal” with the EU (assuming that the Commons approve it)? That would be the end of Johnson as Prime Minister even if he were able to cling on for a while. At the next general election, he would probably lose his own seat, as would 100 or even 200 of his MPs.

What about other matters unconnected directly with Brexit? The Conservative majority is now effectively gone already, with quite a few anti-Boris MPs likely to abstain on critical votes. This “government” scarcely has the strength to be called “lame duck”.

It is worth noting that the Conservative Party has not managed to win a really substantial majority at a general election since the 1980s, though in 1992 and 2015 it had enough MPs to rule (leaving aside Brexit) without serious interruption (which is why Mrs May’s decision to hold a snap election in 2017 was such a great error).

In the end, Britain needs social nationalism. This weak and stupid government of aliens is the opposite, a would-be tyranny of non-Brits, non-Europeans, and pro-Israel dystopians. It is evil and must go.

and still the show goes on…

C7_6DhaW4AA5xQV

[above, Boris-idiot with some (full) Jews, including notorious paedophile, now deceased, Greville Janner]

Ctdcka4WAAApkQ6

[above, Boris-idiot, one of whose great-grandfathers was an Orthodox Jew rabbi in Lithuania, puts on his “ancestral” skull-cap at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem. Looks now as if Jehovah granted his wish! Still, be careful what you wish for…]

Notes and updates

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7287171/The-gilded-life-Boris-Johnsons-new-team.html

Update, 27 July 2019

I was musing on exactly why Boris-idiot has appointed so many of what Ronnie Reagan might have described as “misfits, looney tunes and squalid criminals” to his Cabinet. Yes, they are mostly Leave supporters; yes, they are mostly those who supported Johnson in the Conservative Party leadership contest; but I think that there is another reason.

In my view, Boris-idiot was limited in his choice because so many potential ministers and Cabinet ministers simply would not and will not serve under Johnson. In fact many who served under Theresa May did not wait to see whether they might be reappointed or given other jobs. They ruled themselves out.

There are two or three aspects to this:

  • Many MPs and most former ministers despise Boris-idiot and simply cannot see him as a real Prime Minister of this country. They know that he was out of his depth as Foreign Secretary and that he is even more out of his depth as Prime Minister;
  • MPs mostly know very well that this government of crazies cannot last long, firstly because of its crazy and/or plain thick Cabinet ministers. When it falls, they do not want to be contaminated by association with it;
  • also, this government cannot last long because the Parliamentary arithmetic scarcely adds up even now. Once the Brecon and Radnorshire seat is lost (1 August 2019, this coming Thursday) and if Charlie Elphicke is convicted, later this year or early next year, of the sexual assault of two different women, the Government will have no majority at all, even with the DUP support bought by Theresa May. There is every chance that this government will be gone by Christmas. When that happens, the Conservative Party will probably either lose to Labour (i.e. get fewer seats), or at any rate get fewer seats than it now has. Either way, Boris will be gone as Prime Minister, his ignominious parody PM act having lasted only a few months.

Look at those who are now in Cabinet and in other ministerial posts! I have blogged already about some: Priti Patel as Home Secretary! This is a bad dream! Sajid Javid; Esther McVey!…; Grant Shapps…; Dominic Raab; Liz Truss (!); GAVIN WILLIAMSON…WHAT?!…the idiot who plays with his pet spider and wanted our troops to face the Russian Armed Forces with guns mounted on tractors or in the back of furniture lorries!…; even bloody Nadine Dorries is a minister of state now! Nadine Dorries, who was one of the biggest expenses freeloaders in the Commons, “employing” her recently-graduated daughters at the highest pay level permitted [in 2019, that level is £50,000 p.a.], and allowing one of them at least to occupy the taxpayer-funded flat in Central London meant to be for the MP’s own use, whereas Nadine Dorries actually commuted back daily to Bedfordshire (by rail, First Class, and of course again on expenses)! She also got all three (herself + 2 daughters) expensive new laptops and telephones etc on expenses! This is like a TV sketch writer’s joke!

I have little doubt that, just as his shambolic term as Mayor of London spawned the political comedy show The Thick of It, Boris Johnson’s term as Prime Minister will generate another political sit-com. The British people may not see the joke.

Well, enough for today, but anyone who saw Boris-idiot making promises of rail lines in Northern England when he was speaking in Manchester today saw a person well out of his depth, putting on a “prime ministerial” act and failing to raise to even a decent am-dram level. As a speaker, Johnson is poor (though his ad-lib humorous style might be OK for after-dinner speechifying). Content? Very poor. Delivery? Amateur and unconvincing.

Finally, one must ask why so many Conservative MPs voted for this clown to be their leader. I think that the answer is that most of the other candidates were also very poor, and even the few with potential to do the job of PM (leaving aside my firm ideological opposition to them) had impediments, such as that they were Remain supporters (eg Rory Stewart) or unconvincing recent Leave convertees (Jeremy Hunt and maybe Stewart), or with a negative public image (Michael Gove, a one-time cocaine abuser, as well as a flagrant expenses cheat in the 2005-2010 Parliament and possibly later).

The vote for Johnson, by most Conservative MPs, was a gamble, the gamble that the public entertainer and bullshitter can “reach the voters other MPs cannot reach”. I think that the Conservative Party is about to lose its shirt.

Update, 28 September 2019

Michael Gove, seen intoxicated through drink or drugs in the Chamber of the House of Commons recently! This is becoming just bizarre! (ignore the silly “Nazi newspapers” comment by the tweeter. “Nazi newspapers”? If only…!)

https://twitter.com/Aidan63499469/status/1177372771279605761?s=20

Update, 6 June 2021

Noticing that very many people from across the world have recently been hitting this mid-2019 blog post, I have decided that I should update it.

Well, since my article was posted, much water under bridge. My analysis, though correct in itself, was blown out of the water when political snake-oil salesman Nigel Farage stabbed his own party in the back during the 2019 General Election campaign by standing down most Brexit Party candidates, and thus gifting to “Boris” an apparent “landslide” victory and, as a consequence, an 80-seat House of Commons. Farage’s action has, as an extra consequence, probably finished off the Labour Party.

As to Brexit Party itself, Farage closed it down, having effectively killed it. He then started another party, “Reform Party”, which he then abandoned to its miserable fate. Farage is now to be seen promoting investment ideas online. Politically washed up (but wealthy…).

Some other matters have changed since I wrote the main post.

Charlie Elphicke [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Elphicke#Sexual_assault_charges_and_conviction] tood down as MP, was convicted and (in September 2020) imprisoned for 2 years. Arguably harsh for his very inept and minor sexual assaults. He will be released soon, after he has served 1 year. His now ex-wife was selected as candidate to replace him in 2019, and is now the MP in his place.

Both Sajid Javid and Esther McVey have left government but remain as MPs.

Alison Chabloz, Alison Chabloz, Alt-Right, Boris Johnson, Brexit, Campaign Against AntiSemitism, Carl Benjamin, Colin Robertson, Conservative Friends of Israel, Count Dankula, David Icke, Deadhead MPs, elections, ethnostate, free speech, historical revisionism, Ian Millard, immigration, Jewish lobby in UK, Labour Friends of Israel, London Forum, Mark Meechan, Millennial Woes, MPs, Party Politics, Paul Watson, Prison Planet, Sargon of Akkad, society, The Great Replacement, Tommy Robinson, Uncategorized, white flight

The Beginning of the End for Pseudo-Liberal “Democracy” in the UK

7 Comments

Tommy Robinson as public figure

Below, we see the supporters of the now-again-imprisoned activist known as Tommy Robinson, scuffling with police and msm employees on College Green by the Palace of Westminster and Westminster Abbey a few days ago.

Reporters reported these events as though at the Storming of the Bastille, whereas in fact the clash shows a few dozen, or at most a hundred demonstrators (though the police estimated the crowd of protestors outside the Old Bailey earlier the same day as having numbered about 200).

I do not want to comment on the rights and wrongs of the Tommy Robinson contempt case, but to examine the protests to launch a wider-ranging article. I have in any case written previously about Tommy Robinson:

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/02/26/tommy-robinson-banned-on-facebook-the-repression-of-free-speech-online/

I should make my own position clear: Ideologically, I am not much on the same page as Tommy Robinson. For one thing, Robinson makes it clear that, like his supporters Katie Hopkins and the tribe of Anglo-American “alt-Right” wastes of space (the main British ones being “Prison Planet” Paul Watson, Carl Benjamin “Sargon of Akkad” and Mark Meechan “Count Dankula”), he is pro-Israel and pro-Jew. This despite the fact that 99.9% of Jews in the UK despise and hate him and his followers. The American “alt-Right” have a word for people like that: “cucks”. Ironic, in view of the pro-Israel stance of many “alt-Right” persons. In fact, in the clip above, you can see some idiot waving a Israeli flag!

Tommy Robinson, however, parts company with the “alt-Right” in that he is able to mobilize fairly large (by UK standards) and very combative (by UK standards) partisan followers. Admittedly, 200 is not very many, but this was on a weekday, when the bulk of Robinson’s supporters are probably working on building sites or driving white vans, if that is not too patronizing. Also, Robinson’s support seems stronger in the North West and Midlands than in London.

I have a sneaking regard for Robinson, in that he is willing to put himself out at the front, is willing to lead “in action”, has a certain courage (others disagree and say that any courage is fortified by others backing him up), and is not by any means stupid, despite some of his behaviour. Also, he has been able to create at least a loose (and undisciplined) street army, or at least a sizeable street “troop”.

Having said the foregoing, Tommy Robinson is not a serious political figure. Even leaving aside the pro-Israel-ism, a few hundred or a few thousand marchers and bottle-throwers do not a revolutionary army make. I blogged about this quite a while ago, in relation to the connected “Football Lads’ Alliance”:

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2017/10/09/football-lads-alliance-march/

A figure such as Tommy Robinson needs to lead, if anything, not a political movement but the street army of such a movement. In other words, he should be not the overall or political chief but the “street” head of a movement, and subordinate to one with a proper political programme. He himself should understand that.

When Tommy Robinson stood as “Independent” MEP candidate for North West England, he was humiliated, getting 38,908 votes out of 1,744,858 (2.24%). A couple of the “alt-Right” wastes of space also stood, notably “Sargon of Akkad” (Carl Benjamin), who stood in the South West England EU constituency for “dead-parrot party” UKIP, whose group (Benjamin was one of 6) received 53,739 out of a possible 1,676,173 (3.24%).

Tommy Robinson and the “Alt-Right”— dependence on Internet platforms

An important point is that both Tommy Robinson and the “alt-Right” vloggers are highly-dependent on the Internet, and particularly social media. Those are the platforms they use in order to get views out to the public, as well as to receive donations, subscriptions etc. These are the platforms which are now being removed by the System (notionally by the platform-owning companies themselves, but this has all been co-ordinated behind the scenes, mainly by the Jewish lobby that the “alt-Right” and Robinson claim to support…).

Tommy Robinson and the “alt-Right” vloggers are not alone in now having their online platforms removed. The persecuted singer-songwriter Alison Chabloz has already been barred from Twitter and YouTube, many others including ex-BNP leader Nick Griffin have gone from some platforms (though so far Griffin is still on Twitter) and I was expelled from Twitter after a co-ordinated Jew-Zionist campaign in 2018 (and am not on Facebook; neither do I have a YouTube channel).

Many others have also had video and payment platforms removed arbitrarily (usually via a fig-leaf of “you are in breach of our rules” nonsense). The Jew-Zionists are behind most of this repression of free speech.

One such is the vlogger “Millennial Woes” (Colin Robertson). Removed from YouTube though still occasionally on Twitter (not posting much and presumably only keeping an account for use as as a private message facility).

There is a general move online to restrict and, in slow stages (thus deflating resistance) to remove, in particular, nationalist or social national people and organizations from the major platforms. That applies also to the “Alt-Right” and its offshoot known as the “Alt-Lite”. In fact, it goes further than that. We have seen how the social media platform GAB was almost taken down by a concerted campaign by Jews and “antifa” terrorists acting in concert with System forces. That almost worked, but GAB managed to survive by switching providers etc. The System has not given up, however…See:

https://reclaimthenet.org/google-play-bans-gab-app/

There are now other “free speech” fora emerging, such as “Free Speech Extremist”[https://freespeechextremist.com/main/all] but these have few users compared to Twitter, Facebook etc.

As far as Twitter is concerned, in the UK the Jewish-Zionist element, the mindless “antifa” element, and the politically-correct perpetually-offended element, which all love to “report” and denounce anyone social-national or even mildly nationalistic, have managed to reduce an interesting online platform to a boring and predictable echo-chamber. I certainly do not miss my own Twitter account, though it may be that my followers (3,000 at last count) are impoverished by not having sight of my tweets.

“Freedom” online has been diminished by, primarily, the Jewish-Zionist element. I imagine that many of my readers on WordPress will know of my own experiences in this regard:

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2017/07/13/when-i-was-a-victim-of-a-malicious-zionist-complaint/

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2017/07/09/the-slide-of-the-english-bar-and-uk-society-continues-and-accelerates/

CZpdYWeW0AQXGc_

The thing here is not just that there is a Jewish lobby, or a Zionist lobby, that tries to shut down free speech (as we now see “them” once again trying to do within the UK Labour Party), but the fact that there is a huge amount of collusion between that lobby and those who might protect freedom of expression but, increasingly, do not: the police, most journalists, professional bodies generally, the Press, the msm generally.

As I write this, there is a backlash from the Press because Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Neil Basu (half–Indian, half-Welsh, and the head of police “counter-terrorism”) warned the “free Press” not to publish leaked documents that might embarrass the government. He has been put back in his box for that, but only in respect of the Press. The general crackdown on freedom by, or with the collusion of, the police continues. In fact Basu, in the police vernacular, “has form” here. He has interfered with free speech issues on previous occasions:

https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/britains-top-anti-terror-cop-attacks-newspapers-over-publishing-uncensored-extremist-propaganda/

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/white-neo-nazis-britains-next-wave-of-terror-vr278qsx5

https://codastory.com/news/uk-concerned-far-right-mainstream/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7247769/Calls-Met-Police-chief-Neil-Basu-step-aside-strayed-brief.html

Looking at his background and known history, he has no reason to be kind or even objective as far as British social nationalism is concerned. He is not alone, in any case. The police are now ceasing to be protectors of the British people and are looking more and more like their zookeepers.

Free speech and its ever-more restricted limits

scan25

In fact, we hear more and more in the msm about how “legal free speech” could and should be shut down in order to more easily police and/or pacify the crazed multikulti society being created by the forces of evil in the UK. Or as the conspiracy puts it, the “necessity” to “prevent” “legal extremism” which does not reach as far as anything prosecutable (even as far as the cobbled-together recent prosecutions of young persons engaged in political activism: juries are beginning to reject the State’s attempts to crucify young social-national activists, I note). I blogged about this a year or so ago:

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2018/05/30/one-mans-extremism-is-another-mans-struggle-for-liberty-and-justice/

At street level, those trying to shut down freedom of socio-political expression are more usually the mindless “antifa” crowd.

c4jxgm2ukae7tt_

CzBDRDVWgAA_rt3

I saw and heard a few of them when I addressed the London Forum in early 2017:

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2017/02/08/my-visit-to-the-london-forum/

In the UK, though the “antifa” idiots have made a number of violent attacks here and there, they are no doubt well-infiltrated by the State monitoring organs and have not attained the level seen in Germany, the USA etc.

However, there are some in the UK who hide behind the false label of “journalist” or “historian” and who use online accounts to incite violence by “antifa” idiots (while themselves hiding away). One such is failed supply teacher (he was sacked some years ago from his last teaching position) Mike Stuchbery, an Australian with mental illness problems (about which he tweets in order to get sympathy), and who is a notorious beggar and grifter, always asking for money from those who read his material. Below, one of his more notorious tweets (despite which Twitter has not expelled him. Ah, I see…he did not say anything about Jews. Of course…)

Stuchbery retweeted the tweet(s) below only an hour before I wrote these words.

(for “anti-intellectuals” in those Jews’ tweets, read perhaps “those with whom I disagree” or “those with another view to me and my Jewish antifa friends”).

As seen above, Stuchbery loves to imagine those with whom he disagrees having their skulls broken in, or otherwise killed or injured. It was a different matter, however, when he set up Tommy Robinson’s wife and children for a kind of pseudo-legal “home invasion” (which failed, in the event). Robinson later turned up at Stuchbery’s own Luton-area house, at which confrontation Stuchbery had a meltdown. The “brave” keyboard warrior and “antifa” propagandist was suddenly again just an Australian ex-schoolteacher on the scrapheap, a begging grifter and fake “historian-journalist” with mental problems, blubbing because he cannot control the situation that he himself has created.

Stuchbery

In fact, I have discovered that almost all the Jewish/Zionist, “antifa” and other nuisances on Twitter who have obsessively denounced me (and others) have mental health problems and are on medication for them, but I shall blog about them separately. Something for them to look forward to.

In parts of the USA, this “antifa” nonsense has reached levels not seen even in Germany or France. See below.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/anti-fascist-protesters-kings-college-london-university-antifa-carl-benjamin-alt-right-talk-a8242181.html

Like something out of the state of Gilead in The Handmaid’s Tale.

In relation to this, it was disturbing to many to see pro-Israel tool Sajid Javid MP, an ex-Muslim (in effect), not only appearing (as Home Secretary) at Scotland Yard and apparently being on good terms with fake charity “Campaign Against Antisemitism” members such as Stephen Silverman of South Essex (exposed in open court as a serial troll and harasser of several women) but even expressing support for “antifa”! Sajid Javid might not be the brightest tool in the box but that really was hard to believe!

When the Home Secretary of the UK openly supports violent sub-terrorists, when the police or elected officials in the UK and USA collude with Jewish manipulators and/or violent extremists of various other kinds (cf. the recent “Extinction Rebellion” demonstrations in London), “democracy” as we know it is on the way out.

https://twitter.com/martinbeckford/status/1130435433714847747

Journalism? Take a look at the article I wrote about the Press coverage of the London Forum meeting at which I spoke in February 2017:

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2017/02/08/my-visit-to-the-london-forum/

and look at the report about Tommy Robinson, below, from the Sun “newspaper”:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9503627/tommy-robinson-youtube-remove-video-prison/

In tone, the Sun’s “report” is not unalike to the hysterical condemnations seen in the Soviet newspapers at the time of, say, the purges of 1937, the Yezhovshchina.

As for the “democracy” expressed in our system of parties and elections, it has failed. The boundaries of constituencies are rigged to create a faked “balance” between two or three similar parties, as shown below:

c64bh5xw0aiwygy

Then there is the selection process for candidates (PPCs). Anyone in the slightest social-national is excluded from all three “main parties”, i.e, System parties.

The House of Commons has become the home of, mostly, the very mediocre, often the uneducated, uncultured and stupid. One only has to look at the last few leadership elections of the two main System parties (the LibDems are even less impressive, though that may be hard to believe).

Take Labour: Corbyn is himself not very inspiring or impressive: poorly-educated, effectively a school dropout and, later a dropout from a polytechnic, who has very little real employment or work history, a poor grasp of history and whose wives claim that he never reads a book. Telling. Leaders are readers:

JS122152878_RESTRICTED-HITLER-NEWSC26TAuctions-BNPS-large_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqQgU7do4DKJa37l2rQGhYsAtCr9CEJaQ2HQ27XRihXxE

[above, Hitler reads on the terrace of the Berghof]

330px-Quisling_library

[immediately above, the library of Vidkun Quisling]

5

[some people have a bookworm, others have a book-cat…]

4

3

[above, parts of the library I once had]

Having said the above about Corbyn, look at those who tried to seize his crown! Chuka Umunna (I, admittedly rudely but oh! how truthfully!, call him Fathead Chuka), Liz Kendall (thick as two short planks and quite likely part-Jew), Andy Burnham (I suppose the best of an appallingly-poor group opposing Corbyn), Yvette Cooper (would-be dictator, hypocrite, freeloader and expenses cheat)…Later, Owen Smith MP, a little Welsh windbag, also tried to topple Corbyn and, like the previous rebels, failed.

Would any of the above-named really have had more electoral success than Corbyn? I doubt it.

Labour is now the party of the “blacks and browns”, the public service workers, and those dependent on State benefits.

Then we have the misnamed “Conservatives”. In 2015, the leadership contest to replace David Cameron (Cameron-Levita-Schlumberger) contained:

  • Theresa May (a hopeless Home Secretary, previously a local councillor and back-room person at the BACS cheque-clearing body; possible part-Jew);
  • Stephen Crabb, exposed as a serial sex-pest (and ineffective even at that) as well as so pro-Israel that he could well be termed “an agent of influence”; very poor employment record before getting into the MP racket; expenses cheat; in fact, Crabb is a complete deadhead and will probably find a place in my blog category “Deadhead MPs”;
  • Liam Fox: unreliable, dishonest, expenses cheat, very pro-Israel, with many links to Israel and covert US centres; considered to have generally “dodgy” lifestyle (see Notes, below);
  • Michael Gove: expenses cheat, pro-Israel extremist, unreliable, dishonest (and in 2019 revealed as having been a frequent cocaine abuser when he was a pro-Zionist Times scribbler prior to latching on to the MP racket);
  • Andrea Leadsom: nonentity.

What a useless, mostly dishonest and mostly (in fact, all) pro-Israel pack!

Then we have the 2019 Conservative leadership contest, about which I have blogged extensively already, and which, at time of writing, looks certain to be won by Boris Johnson over Jeremy Hunt. I have also blogged re. Johnson, and if I say that I think of him as Boris-Idiot, my view will be clear enough…(though I do favour leaving the EU).

We have seen, particularly in the past decade, institutions which were basically meant to be “non-political”, politicized: Civil Service, police, armed forces, the courts, the Bar (as witness my own unjustified disbarment). Below, the Financial Times agonizes about the “Conservative” approach to the Diplomatic Service, Parliament and the British Constitution.

As for the courts and justice system:

Somehow, I cannot recall “The Secret Barrister” (((The Secret Barrister?))) or any one of “his friends and his relations” (with apologies to Gilbert and Sullivan’s Trial by Jury; in fact, I have no idea of the identity of The Secret Barrister or his connections) at the Bar standing up for my rights, freedoms and civil liberties when I was wrongfully disbarred at the instigation of a pack of manipulative Jews, but “that’s life” (and what goes around comes around…eventually):

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2017/07/09/the-slide-of-the-english-bar-and-uk-society-continues-and-accelerates/

Still, his tweet gives an idea of what has happened to the justice system, at least the courts, in outline. There is also the crisis in the underfunded, undermanned, badly-run prisons, and the collapse of the Chris Grayling-idiot privatized probation service(s).

“They” are interfering with the justice system, of course, and even with how judges and magistrates are trained to handle supposed “anti-Semitism”:

As we have seen (see above), the UK police (certainly some areas or parts of the police) are well-infiltrated now, and politicized to a degree never seen before:

[above, Gideon Falter of the “Campaign Against Antisemitism” group and fake charity, with Commissioner of Metropolitan Police, Cressida Dick…]

What about the people?

The British people as a whole have been, in the now much-used phrase, “left behind”, and in fact ignored, as well as being repressed, bullied, lectured to. Whether it is the exploitation of the people as employees or private renters, by speculators, whether it is the epidemic of (mainly) Muslim rape conspiracies, or the dishonouring of the votes of the BRITISH majority who voted Leave/Brexit in 2016 (and if you took away all the non-white votes and those of Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and Gibraltar, the Leave vote would have been at least 70%…and if you took away the cosmopolitan exclave that is contemporary London, Leave would probably have won 80%), whether it is the banning of free speech (by which I mean free speech on matters of history, society and politics), the real people of the UK are being ignored, the needs unmet, their wishes for a better life laughed at.

ClVU6MSWgAAmfK6

The Labour Party is the party of the blacks and browns and other (non-Jewish) ethnic minorities, as well as of the entrenched public service employees. It cannot help the British people.

161214-matt-web_3139193a

ctgqcfywiaa6yvr

DEudsrrXUAAGEaZ

DKWRQw3WsAIEnNI

[above, Diane Abbott MP, lampooned during her attempt to become Mayor of London in 2015. She came third, netting 16.8%, in the selection process to be Labour candidate. If Labour form the next government, she will probably be Home Secretary. Have we fallen down the rabbit-hole?]

EmilyThornberryIsraelLobby

[above, Emily Thornberry MP, Labour Shadow Cabinet member, at a Zionist dinner in London, photographed with the Israeli Ambassador. formerly a major Israeli government spokesperson, Mark Regev (centre); her husband, a High Court judge, is half-Jewish]

What about the “Conservatives”? The name is every bit as much a bad joke as “Labour”.

CYHP3gvWYAArn3_

[above, Sajid Javid tries to use his brain]

The cartoon, below, from the George Osborne days of 2010-2015, puts the position succinctly

b-cisxdiqaa7qj_-jpg-large

There is every prospect now that a Boris Johnson (“Boris-Idiot”) “Conservative”-label government will plunge the UK into crisis. I am not talking about Brexit alone (which I supported and still support, but it has been criminally mishandled) but about the sheer ineptitude not only of Boris Johnson himself (bad enough) but of those likely to be made Cabinet ministers around him, deadheads like Matt Hancock (a mediocre suited thug), Priti Patel (a proven Israeli agent as well as being as thick as two short planks), Liz Truss (who basically only became an MP on her back), Chris Grayling (a sociopath who has failed in every single government job he has been given) etc.

There is a real and pressing need now for a proper social-national party and organization in the UK. Anything is possible within the next 10 years.

Soon, sooner than many imagine, those of us still alive will be called upon to re-establish European civilization and culture. That may be hard and may be harsh, but it must be done. God mote it be!

CFfvYYCXIAAkryu

Notes

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jul/11/tommy-robinson-given-nine-month-jail-term-for-contempt-of-court

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48942411

https://reclaimthenet.org/google-play-bans-gab-app/

https://freespeechextremist.com/main/all

https://gab.com/

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48356281

https://www.youtube.com/user/MillennialWoes/videos

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/nri/nris-in-news/indian-origin-officer-is-scotland-yards-new-counter-terrorism-chief/articleshow/63175281.cms

https://www.telegraphindia.com/world/the-bengali-keeping-uk-safe/cid/1666682

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/07/14/scotland-yard-terror-chief-neil-basu-left-isolated-press-threat/

https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/brexit-britains-democracy-all-dead

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Crabb#Early_career

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liam_Fox#Adam_Werritty

A few more thoughts…

The enemy know that the blacks and browns are breeding fast and will soon make “election politics” a waste of time for social-national parties. Look at the tweet below and its photos. Four young London-resident voters…and three out of four non-European, with the fourth possibly partly-European, maybe something such as Cypriot.

and look at these tweets below, look at the crowd registering to vote in South London! Not a white face anywhere (yes, in the cartoon there are a few whites, but not in the real crowd photographed…).

immigration, Reminiscences and Musings, society, The Great Replacement, The Great Reset, the Great Reset, Uncategorized

Nothing Works Any More

3 Comments

I saw this newspaper report today:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/teenagers-horrific-injuries-after-telling-18211982

What struck me, apart from the violent and cowardly attack on the girl victim and a friend of hers, was how useless every public service was proven to be. I leave aside my surprise (and disapproval) that a girl of 18 is in a Manchester nightclub at 0330 and leaves on foot to walk home.

Read the report above.

Initially, the victim and her friend (apparently a teenage boy who was also a victim), were helped by some civilian volunteers who offered to call an ambulance. The victims refused because they were told that there would be a 2 hour wait. Two hours! The victim(s) then went to hospital by taxi. The hospital simply dispensed eye drops and told the girl to go home. When she returned to hospital a day or so later, she was told that she has a blood clot on one eye. The police were informed of the attack, but no police officer has spoken to the victim. The victim utilized social media, as a result of which a witness has come forward. The police have made no comment to the newspapers. The local council has offered to check cctv for film of the attack or suspects.

In case anyone knows anything and, by some statistical miracle, reads this blog, the main suspect is white, about 5 feet 8 inches in height, and was wearing a pink T-shirt. I am no detective, but I should have thought that the starting point would be the nightclub interior cctv…

My point in writing about this is not just because the behaviour of the criminals outrages me (and makes me wonder whether flogging should be reintroduced as suitably condign punishment in such cases) and not just because I feel sorry for the girl (and her friend). My point is that this case shows that, all too often, things are just not working in our society.

In the case displayed here, the girl was let down by general public safety (police, primarily), by the ambulance service, by the NHS hospital A & E service, by the police. Had the perpetrators been caught, if they are caught now, the CPS and magistrates will no doubt also let her down.

As Napoleon is supposed to have said, “there are many reasons for failure, but never an excuse.” Funding for public services has been cut drastically in the past decade. That is obviously a factor. How, though, does that explain (still less excuse) the “polyclinic” approach apparently adopted by the hospital, or its failure to make a proper diagnosis? I concede that my knowledge of clinical-medical matters is limited, but even so…

Is lack of funding of police personnel really the only reason why the victim has not been interviewed? Yes, she was knocked unconscious, but still might recall identifying details from before that. Also, it would reassure her that she is not alone in a jungle.

Is the police force doing what it can (eg checking nightclub cctv) to track down the suspects? Why was the social media appeal left to the victim to do?

One sees everywhere, now, “things not working right”, from the NHS and police, through rail and road maintenance, every aspect of the justice system (from CPS and police to sentencing, probation and prisons), the postal service (still mostly OK), the planning system, education at every level, the DWP and its post-2005 “torture the unemployed and disabled” ethos, the armed forces, Parliament. Everything, pretty much; and it is unlikely that a government headed by Boris-Idiot will be able (or even try) to improve matters.

My feeling is that the UK is still in many respects in that state of which a 1960s senior civil servant said (I think, to Anthony Sampson) that his job was “the management of decline”, but more so. Further down the steepening slide. The migration-invasion of the blacks and browns, the destruction of culture in the msm etc, have accelerated that process.

Only a truly focussed social national government can fix this country.

Afterthought

I should not like it thought that my criticisms devolve mainly on individuals working in public service. No doubt most of those who work in the police, NHS etc do their best most of the time. I criticize, primarily, the system(s), the decisions taken, and the management.

I do not know Manchester well, in fact scarcely at all. I have been there a few times, many years ago now, driving straight to the Manchester County Court (there being a massive open-air car park nearby, close to an overhead rail line) and then driving away as quickly as possible. Apart from that, my only visit was to the Manchester Royal Infirmary in or about 1985, accompanying a member of the Georgian State Dance ensemble from the Soviet Union.

The dancer (who spoke only Russian and Georgian) had cut several fingers to the bone while practising, pre-performance, with his razor-sharp Georgian sword (the swords have to be that sharp in order to create showers of sparks during the mock fights that are part of the dance performance).

Even back then, some 34 years ago, we had to wait for about 30 mins or more to be seen, though the nurses tried to expedite it for me and were very pleasant (and very pretty, though perhaps my memory is sugar-coating things for me…).

Update, 17 July 2019

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/baby-left-starve-after-doctors-18327129

Brexit, by-elections, elections, immigration, Jewish lobby in UK, MPs, Party Politics, society, The Great Replacement, Uncategorized

Peterborough By-Election: post-poll analysis and thoughts

11 Comments

Well, I got it wrong vis a vis the headline result. I thought that the Brexit Party would win and indeed enjoy a near-walkover. In the event, Brexit Party had to accept a close 2nd place. As the Americans are supposed to say, “close but no cigar”.

The result of the Peterborough by-election

The result was:

  • Labour 10,484 votes, a vote share of 31% (down from 48% in 2017);
  • Brexit Party 9,801 (29%);
  • Conservative Party 7,243 (21%, down from 46% in 2017);
  • LibDems 4,159;
  • Green 1,035;
  • UKIP 400.

All others, nine in number, received fewer than 200 votes each, most below 100.

In retrospect, my own prediction was badly misled by the betting (which even on the day showed Brexit Party as very heavily odds-on) and by the large and impressive meetings Farage held in the city (one with 2,000 in the auditorium).

I was right about the Conservatives coming third and the LibDems in fourth etc. Still, irritating to have misread the main contest, close as it was. No cigar for me, either.

Why did Brexit Party lose at Peterborough?

In my previous blogging on the specific subject of this by-election, and on other topics, I have made the point that the UK now has cities (including London) where the white population (let alone the British white population) is less than 50%. Peterborough still has, supposedly, about 80% white population, but at least 10% are from other parts of Europe. The white British part of the population is below 70% of the whole, possibly as low as 60%.

There is also the point that the city and constituency are not delineated the same; part of the city is not within the constituency.

When a city has more than a token non-white presence, a nationalist party of any kind will struggle to win elections there, and that applies even if (as is the case with Brexit Party) the party is not social-national, has no racial or ethnic principles or policies, and even if (as with Brexit Party) some of its actual candidates are black or brown.

It is not only that, in general, the “blacks and browns” will not vote for even a mildly (and notionally) “patriotic” party such as Brexit Party (let alone a social-national party) because they fear that party. The point is that the vast majority of ethnic minority voters have little or no real connection with Britain, its society, its history, its culture etc. They are, in a word, alien to Britain. Look at how even those adhering to the far-longer-standing Jewish community are always “threatening” (“promising”?) to flee from the UK if their demands are not met. They are not really rooted here; the roots of the “blacks and browns” are shallower yet.

Thus, in Peterborough, one can surmise that few blacks, Muslims etc voted Brexit Party. Why should they? Why would they? Brexit Party is hardly the British National Party. It offers no implied threat to the minorities, but it is broadly conservative-nationalist in ethos, and that is enough for the ethnic minorities to vote elsewhere, mainly for Labour.

I have been blogging and tweeting for several years about how the UK part of the “Great Replacement” (of whites by non-whites) means that elections become a no-win situation in much of the UK. That was true, for example, in the Stoke-on-Trent Central constituency in 2017. In the by-election of that year, Gareth Snell, a spotty unpleasant Twitter troll, was the Labour candidate. Paul Nuttall stood for UKIP. Snell beat Nuttall, Labour beat UKIP, by only 2,620 votes. The Pakistani Muslim community locally, numbering over 6,000,  almost all (always) vote Labour, a cohesion enforced by dodgy postal ballots and “community” exhortations (eg in local mosques) to vote Labour. Local Muslims 6,000+, Labour majority 2,620…

In other words, without those 6,000 or more Muslims (and others), Nuttall and UKIP would have won Stoke-on-Trent Central easily. As it was, UKIP faded and, at the General Election of 2017, Labour won again, against the Conservatives in 2nd place. Labour won by 3,897 votes. Point made, I think.

Now look at Peterborough. The postal votes were very high (who knows who really fills in the forms?) but even leaving that aside, we see that Brexit Party lost to Labour by 683, in a constituency where the non-European ethnic minorities number perhaps as many as 20,000. “It was the w**s wot won it!”, to paraphrase the famous Sun headline of 1992.

Non-white ethnic minority population in the constituency—10,000-20,000. Votes for Labour in the by-election—10,484

In fact, Labour only won Peterborough by 607 votes at the 2017 General Election, thus propelling useless African ex-“solicitor” Fiona Onasanya into Parliament.

The Future

Labour is, as I have often noted before, now the party, in terms of core vote, of the ethnic minorities (excluding Jews), of the metropolitan “socially liberal” types, of public service workers or officials. The real hard core is mainly the blacks and browns, and the public service people. Labour struggles to win votes wider than that core. Labour won Peterborough in the by-election on a vote-share of only 31%.

Brexit Party has suffered a bad blow. Had it won at Peterborough, its momentum would have carried on. Now, its future seems unclear. It may continue and may yet win seats, but Peterborough was a very good chance despite the ethnic minority vote, and Brexit Party fluffed it.

The LibDems almost quadrupled their 2017 3.3% vote to about 12%, but are still well behind the 2010 days of “Cleggmania”, in which they scored nearly 20% at Peterborough. My opinion? There will be no LibDem revival, at least not on a big scale. Most voters are getting angry. “Centrism” is not the flavour of the times.

The Conservatives were the big losers, as in the EU elections. They achieved what might be regarded as, had it been elsewhere, a respectable 3rd place on a vote-share of 21%, 7,243 votes, only 3,000 or so behind the Labour victor; but Peterborough has mainly been a Conservative seat since 1945. It had a Conservative MP as recently as 2 years ago.

If this result were to be replicated nationwide, there would be little left of the Conservative bloc in the House of Commons. Seats would fall either to Brexit Party, or to Labour (or in a few cases, to LibDems).

Final words

Strategically, a Brexit Party win would have been my preference, in that, down the line, it would expedite the break-up of the “LibLabCon” “three main parties” scam. Having said that, the Conservatives were rightly cast down, while at least the Labour MP elected seems to be to some extent against the Jewish Zionists (though pretty invertebrate when “challenged” on that).

Tweets etc

https://twitter.com/KTHopkins/status/1136962411666321410

Below, illustrating my point that Labour’s core vote is now “the blacks and browns”

Notes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterborough_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoke-on-Trent_Central_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/05/09/notes-from-the-peterborough-by-election/

https://gab.com/Fosfoe/posts/YldMYkx4cXRRdlpGM2NqWE40QjNYZz09

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Forbes_(politician)

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/peterboroughs-new-mayor-says-prison-stint-should-be-forgotten-as-he-prepares-to-become-citys-first-citizen/

http://participator.online/articles/2019/06/peterborough_byelection_postal_voting_questions_20190611.php

https://twitter.com/RaheemKassam/status/1140260185446989824

Brexit, Conservative Friends of Israel, elections, free speech, immigration, Jewish lobby in UK, MPs, Party Politics, society, The Great Replacement, Uncategorized

Ding-Dong, The Witch is Dead

20 Comments

Well, that’s Theresa May gone. Or not. She may have given up the nominal leadership of the misnamed Conservative Party, but it seems that she will not be leaving the office of Prime Minister until July. Presumably, the hunt for her successor will start immediately.

What have I liked about her time as Prime Minister? Nothing much. In fact nothing.

Theresa May was (if possible) even more in the pocket of the Jewish-Zionist lobby than was David Cameron-Levita. She was the same when Home Secretary. Under her, malicious Zionist organizations gained even more influence in the UK. In fact, she could not even make her resignation speech without telling some cheesy anecdote about herself and Nicholas “Winton” (Wertheim), who imported about 700 Jewish children into the UK in 1939.

As for the rest of the content of the Theresa May resignation speech, it seemed to be about some other country, not about the UK at all. In that other country, the economy is apparently buoyant, the people happy and united, the “austerity” “necessary” in the recent past has been banished and everything is wonderful.

I am sure that the millions of British people who are homeless and/or literally (in many cases) starving, who cannot pay inflated rents, let alone think of buying a house (even with a mortgage), who are paid peanuts when working, who are subject to a Kafka-esque regime of callousness and cruelty if unemployed or disabled, would love to live in that other country Theresa May lauded to the skies.

In Theresa May’s speech, no mention was made of the country where the racial stock has been deliberately contaminated, where millions of unwanted immigrants continue to flood in, where nothing now seems to work properly (from road and rail to the NHS, the police, the educational system) and so on.

No mention was made of the country where, under her, as both Home Secretary and Prime Minister, freedom of expression has been restricted even more than it was under David Cameron-Levita, Gordon Brown and Tony Blair.

This hateful woman has now gone or is about to go, presumably hoping that her political spawn, such as Amber Rudd, will follow in her footsteps.

Well, I have some news for her. She has as good as destroyed the Conservative Party and may well prove to be its last elected Prime Minister. Ah… I knew that, in the end, I would find something good to say about her…

Cm3s14vW8AA8yIk

Czg6Vs0XgAQQTOE

[above, Theresa May with the Israeli Ambassador and his wife. Theresa May, like 80% of Con Party MPs, is a member of Conservative Friends of Israel, and is herself suspected of being part-Jewish by origin]

CmmGfz5WgAAWy1m

theresam

Bso85QHCEAA1yun

Update, 23 July 2019

Theresa May is likely to resign as Prime Minister tomorrow, 24 July 2019. Her successor is likely to be Boris Johnson, incredibly…

Update, 27 December 2022

Well, three and a half years on, we see that “Boris” Johnson did indeed succeed Theresa May; in turn, Johnson was succeeded briefly by Liz Truss, and now by Rishi Sunak, both the first non-white Prime Minister and the richest (£750M, apparently). Theresa May remains on the backbenches, a critical presence, rather like Edward Heath during the Thatcher era of the 1980s.

Alt-Right, Brexit, free speech, Ian Millard, immigration, Party Politics, Reminiscences and Musings, Russia and Russian relations, society, The Great Replacement, Uncategorized, white flight

Peter Hitchens and His Views

31 Comments

I am impelled to write a few words about Peter Hitchens after having just seen an interview with Owen Jones [see below], which interview dates from 2017.

I have already written a blog post about Owen Jones:

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/01/04/a-brief-word-about-owen-jones/

To examine the views and influence of Hitchens in detail would necessitate a blog article of inordinate length, but Wikipedia has a considerable amount of information about him:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hitchens

I should like to focus mainly on a few matters raised in that interview.

As to Hitchens himself, he is an odd fellow, apparently fairly well-educated. His family background had elements of tragedy (his mother bolted with an unfrocked priest, and the couple later died via a suicide pact in an Athens hotel). Not mentioned in the interview is that Hitchens (like Owen Jones) has part-Jewish roots, his maternal grandmother having been half-Jewish, in that her mother was Jewish. It was on that basis that Hitchens’ even more eccentric brother, Christopher, declared himself in latter years to be “Jewish” (taking the traditional Jewish course of deciding via the matrilineal side alone).

The interview mentions his having attended a naval school, but that must have been in early years, he then having attended The Leys School, Cambridge, an institution which has schooled a number of well-known people: at least one Rothschild, a few kings (albeit from Bahrain and Tonga), a number of MPs and journalists (in some cases both, as with Martin Bell).

Hitchens then went on to the City of Oxford College (a college of further education) and finally to Alcuin College, part of the University of York.

It may be that the university education and milieu that Hitchens found in Alcuin College permanently influenced his attitude. Wikipedia says of Alcuin College that,

“From early days of the college an uproar for secession of the college from the remainder of the university has been present.[3] It is a self-styled Separatist Movement and at times presented as a running gag at the University of York about Alcuinites….For many years Alcuin College was very much the outcast on the university campus, the only college physically separate from the others except for a bridge from the library…“

The photograph of Alcuin College in winter shows an almost Soviet bleakness and isolation.

Alcuin_College_in_Snow_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1691889

Hitchens, though characterizing himself in the Owen Jones interview as having been a “joiner” in his youth, has also been an outsider, defector and maverick. I wonder whether he applied to the University of York because Oxford and/or Cambridge (in both of which cities he had attended school) refused his application, or perhaps he made no application to Oxbridge because (I speculate) his developing extreme socialist views made him reject such “bourgeois” places of learning. A better interviewer than Owen Jones, such as the late and great Brian Walden, might have explored all that.

Hitchens was from 1968 (aged 17) to 1975, a member of the Trotskyist “tendency” called the International Socialists [IS], the forerunner of the Socialist Workers’ Party [SWP]. He joined two years before he went to York. Later, in his forties, he became a card-carrying member of the Conservative Party, but only for the six years 1997-2003, and —typically— at the very nadir of Conservative fortunes, which is interesting, psychologically. Does he court unpopularity? Does he deliberately express unpopular or contrary views?

Hitchens is known as what might fairly be called a “reactionary”, someone who thinks that Britain was a better place in the 1950s, no ifs no buts. In fact, I believe that I watched him say that or something like that on TV once. My own view is different, that some aspects of life in the UK are better now, though many are certainly worse. This blog post is about Peter Hitchens, not Ian Millard, but in my view, things that are better now than in the 1950s (which I scarcely remember, having been born in 1956) or the early 1960s (which I certainly do remember) would include

  • central heating as the norm;
  • wider selection of fruits and vegetables (and in general a healthier or at least more varied diet);
  • less antiquated snobbism;
  • more understanding of animal welfare;
  • far easier access to information (via Internet);

Whereas, on the other side, the aspects of British life now that mean that UK life is worse (than in the early 1960s, anyway) are (and Hitchens has a point, because it is a longer list by far)

  • the general pressure of life now (of course, I was a child in, say, 1963, so my perception is affected to that extent but I think the judgment is still valid);
  • pervasive lack of freedom of expression;
  • pervasive “political correctness” etc;
  • the cost of living, though that is a complex question; it includes
  • the cost of real property both for sale and rent, and the impossibility for most people to buy a property without family money;
  • British people swamped by mass immigration;
  • real pay and social benefits etc generally reducing;
  • hugely less choice of employment for most people;
  • many people in full-time work unable to live on the poor pay offered;
  • unwanted millions of immigrants and their offspring;
  • congested roads and railways (and refer to the above line);
  • a huge new mixed-race population;
  • a huge amount of crime;
  • public and private housing shortages (refer to immigration, above);
  • huge numbers of drug-contaminated persons;
  • workers exploited in terms of having ever-shorter lunch breaks etc, “on call” after hours etc;
  • public services near to collapse in some respects;
  • intensive farming, with consequent harm to wildlife;
  • standards in all areas (NHS, schools, social security, Westminster MPs, police etc) falling like a stone

We often hear (eg from very young Remain whiners) that, eg, “foreign travel is easier now”, whereas that is mostly illusion. True, there were some silly aspects “back then”, such as being restricted as to foreign currency taken on holiday (you even had to have the amount, bought from somewhere like Thomas Cook, written in your passport!), and that silliness (a kind of postwar sacred cow) lasted until Mrs Thatcher stopped it in 1979 or 1980! Yes, true, but that was about it.

If you listen to Remain whiners (esp. the under-30s), you read or hear that Brexit will mean either no visa-free travel to the EU states, or no travel allowed at all! They really believe that, pre-1972, British people were almost imprisoned, as if Cuban, Chinese or Soviet citizens!

Until blacks and browns abused it in the 1980s to import relatives illegally, you used to be able to get a “British Visitor’s Passport” from post offices for a small amount; the passport was valid for short visits to almost all Western European states (not many people went to Eastern Europe as tourists until the 1990s). I had one in 1978 or 1979, in between possession of two ordinary passports, when I wanted to travel to France at short notice. I think that it cost about £5 and took about 5 minutes to be issued at Lanark Road Post Office, Little Venice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_passport#The_British_visitor’s_passport

Transport to the European mainland: true, there were no budget airlines as such in the 1950s, 1960s, but there were routes and ways not now in existence: in the 1950s and 1960s, people could take their cars by air to France! The main route was Lydd (Kent) to Amiens. This was not only for the rich: 5,000 cars (20,000 passengers) as early as 1950, and over 50,000 cars (250,000 passengers) by 1955 (incredible when you recall that rationing lasted until 1955!):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_City_Airways#The_1950s

Yes, you might have to show your passport or wave it (you still do…)

There were excellent hovercraft services (though only from 1970-2000) across the Channel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoverspeed

The idea that some Remain whiners have that young people will be unable to travel if the UK leaves “Europe” (meaning the EU) is laughable to those who know. As a child I travelled with parents; and then (from 1971) as a teenager, I travelled alone to Paris, Amsterdam etc. No visa required, UK not in EEC (the then EU).

I might add that it actually takes longer to fly to Paris in 2019 than it did in 1970 or even 1960!

Anyway, back to Hitchens and his views.

True, the early 1950s did still have rationing (until 1954), the result of the stupid and terrible war against the German Reich: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationing_in_the_United_Kingdom#Timeline

One cannot say that Hitchens approves of that aspect of 1950s lifestyle, though, and (if I understand him aright), he thinks that the British war against Germany could have been avoided, but I may be mistaken here. He certainly thinks that of the First World War, which he says, surely rightly, destroyed British naval supremacy and economy.

Where Hitchens is certainly mistaken is in saying (in the interview) that Churchill’s refusal to countenance the German peace proposals of 1940 was “unquestionably the right and moral thing to do”. Oh really? Right and moral, to continue a war only started because triggered by a treaty obligation that could never have been fulfilled (the Anglo-French worthless “guarantee” to Poland) and when an honourable peace via armistice was on the table?

Such a peace might have been bought at the price of German victory in the East, but would that have been so bad? The destruction of the Stalin/Bolshevik regime? The saving of most of Eastern Europe from both wartime destruction and post-1945 Stalinism? The prevention of the enormous damage, loss of life and hurt across Western and Southern Europe and North Africa? Hitchens says, however, that he is “sceptical” about Churchill overall.

Hitchens is on surer ground when he says that British history has gone, in that no-one knows British history. He cites David Cameron-Levita being unable to translate the two words “Magna Carta” from Latin! After 6 years at Eton! That was when “Scameron” was a guest on the Letterman Show. Shaming for the whole country. Not just the Magna Carta bit. Cameron came over more like a part-Jew public entertainer (and not a good one) than a British statesman. Oh…wait…

[the bit about Magna Carta starts around 8 minutes in]

Scameron was also proven, though I think on another occasion, not to have heard of the Bill of Rights! Hitchens cites an apparently intelligent 6th-former whom he met, and who had passed exams in English History, and yet who did not know which side Oliver Cromwell was on during the English Civil War!

I have had similar encounters. Few people under 40 now know even the most basic facts about British history, and less about European history generally. An indictment of the British educational system. One should, though, be wary of thinking that this kind of ignorance developed overnight. I recall having a brief conversation with a South London couple I met by a swimming pool in Sousse, Tunisia, in 1986, and who, it transpired, had no idea at all that what is now Tunisia had been (part of) a Roman imperial province. Not knowing who was Nelson or Drake, though, is arguably of a different order.

Hitchens says, again correctly, that “we” “have no idea now what it means to be English or British”, but does not go on to examine the racial implications. Come to think of it, that may be one reason why so many people in the UK want to denounce others to Twitter, Facebook, the police, employers etc for holding the “wrong” views, i.e. because the denouncers have no idea of the English historical struggle for free speech (John Hampden etc…) and no respect for it.

CxDUqlFWgAAY3LX

D635NrZW0AAGWQo

scan25

Owen Jones talks about how open-minded (he says…) Corbyn is, and implies that he, Jones, is the same. Oh yes? Take a look at my blog post about him…

Hitchens himself is really little different. He once had a short and at first reasonable discussion with me on Twitter about the early Zionists, in 2017 or 2016, but then a Jew tweeted to him about how I was apparently an evil “neo-Nazi”, after which, just like Owen Jones, inter alia, Hitchens blocked me. I was unaware then that Hitchens is part-Jew, though not to the extent that would have rendered him liable to sanctions under the 1936 Nuremberg law(s), his maternal grandmother having been only part-Jew (Mischling) and his maternal grandfather not a Jew. In fact, under those laws he would even have been able to work as a journalist.

Hitchens says that Enoch Powell’s so-called “Rivers of Blood” speech “was a disgrace”. Why? He dislikes its tone, it seems. What about its truth, though? He also says that “the intermarriage [resulting from immigration] is great”. I begin to wonder what major part of modern British society he does dislike, when push comes to shove! To be fair to Hitchens, he does disapprove of the ghetto communities established by Pakistanis and others in, mainly, the Midlands and North of England. He is certainly not “white nationalist”, let alone social-national. If he were, he would be sacked at once. Long live freedom!…

An area in which I do find myself largely in agreement with Hitchens is in intervention by the “West” (in my terms, “NWO/ZOG”) in the affairs of the Middle East. Iraq, Syria, Libya. He opposes it. That’s something.

As to Russia, Hitchens seems to take an objective view (informed by better historical knowledge than most msm scribblers), eg:

https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/russia/

I apprehend that Hitchens likes the social conservatism of most Russians.

So what is my overall view of Peter Hitchens? I should say that he is someone of considerable intellect, though nowhere near as intelligent as he himself imagines. Someone of considerable education, but who imagines that he knows more and better than almost anyone else, and believes that it is his role in life to pronounce on the truth of any given social, political, historical or ethical topic. Someone who harks back to a supposed golden age prior to, perhaps, 1959, or 1989 (at very latest). Someone who sees what is wrong in the present society but appears to have no programme or (Heaven forbid!) ideology to move from here to there (to a better society).

Hitchens takes a reasonable view such as “the family is a good thing” and tests it to destruction. Likewise, in his critique of both socialism and the contemporary Conservative Party, he goes to an extreme, saying that the Conservative Party is “extreme Left-wing”, by which he means “socially liberal”. He defends traditional marriage and his arguments here have force.

Hitchens thinks that the Conservative Party is dying (understandable, looking at its MPs and ministers) but, yet again, goes to an extreme, wishing that it could have lost the 2010 General Election so that it might have died, and so made room for a new and socially-conservative party. I wish that it had lost too, but for other reasons!

Hitchens reminds me of two other scribblers of note, Peter Oborne and (now rather forgotten) Paul Johnson.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Oborne

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Johnson_(writer)

All three are often intuitively correct on some issues, risibly mistaken on others. They are alike in other ways, too. As the Russians say, they are all “Maximalisti”.

Hitchens (like Owen Jones) blocked me on Twitter for ideological reasons. Hitchens (like Owen Jones) makes a very comfortable living from the System msm. Hitchens (like Owen Jones) poses no danger to the existing state of affairs, despite making much noise. Hitchens (like Owen Jones) is a mass media pussycat pretending to be a tiger.

I like to read Hitchens’ words occasionally. He is often right, not always. However, his words are commentary, not inspiration. He says in the interview that Britain is finished and that the only serious history of contemporary Britain will one day be written in Chinese! Maybe, but God moves in mysterious though sometimes sanguinary ways. As a Christian and a student of history, Hitchens should know that.

Notes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hitchens

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcuin_College,_York

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Workers_Party_(UK)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Walden

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens#Early_life_and_education

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mischling#Jewish_identity

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/04/04/mass-hysteria/

Hitchens’ most recent Mail on Sunday article:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7045469/PETER-HITCHENS-green-seats-prove-careering-catastrophe.html

Other recent articles by Hitchens:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6993553/PETER-HITCHENS-time-view-police-just-like-failed-industries.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7019091/PETER-HITCHENS-country-slowly-choked-death-rights-wrongdoers.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7070715/PETER-HITCHENS-did-warn-Marshmallow-Lady.html

Hitchens’ recent book (which I have not yet read, but which promises to be at least as myth-shattering as those of the unjustly neglected historian Correlli Barnett)

Update, 18 September 2020

Since the above was written, Peter Hitchens has been almost a lone voice struggling against the “Coronavirus” panic and the allied government-proclaimed fear propaganda.

Update, 24 April 2022

Hitchens is now in the small minority of public figures unwilling to go along with the msm noise against Russia, and for Ukraine (meaning the Kiev regime of the Jew-Zionist Zelensky).

free speech, immigration, Reminiscences and Musings, society, The Great Replacement, The Great Reset, the Great Reset, Uncategorized, white flight

Sentencing As Virtue-Signalling

3 Comments

I do not often blog about criminal court cases, but this one caught my eye.

https://www.itv.com/news/2019-05-16/sad-man-jailed-for-daubing-racist-graffiti-on-african-familys-door/

On the face of it, a clear case, with no doubt about the immediately-relevant facts. The defendant admitted to the crime and was sentenced to a year in prison. There are some nuances, however.

Obviously, criminal damage cannot be tolerated, and it is certainly not very nice and certainly not very polite to daub words on the door of a neighbouring dwelling; but to my mind the sentence was harsh.

The defendant was sentenced to a year in prison and will therefore be released in 6 months’ time, possibly earlier. The chances are that he will lose his local authority home. I have no idea what possessions or companion animals he may have, but unless he has friends or family somewhere to look after them, they too will be lost. He will come out of prison with nowhere to go, and may not be rehoused if some local penpusher decrees that he made himself homeless by his own actions.

That is part of the background. Then we have the point that the defendant had no previous convictions save for a silly one, 27 years previously, involving a “sick-note”.

In view of the fact that the local authority would probably take the crime to be a breach of lease terms or conditions, and so would take away the defendant’s home anyway, would it not have been more just simply to have given this defendant a suspended sentence?

This looks like kicking a man when he is down. At the same time, we see the courts daily giving thugs, thieves etc non-sentences. Of course, this was a “racial” crime…the courts have obviously been told to treat any offence having a “racial” element more seriously (harshly), in an attempt to keep the doomed multikulti society from falling to pieces.

I noticed, also, that the victims were from the Congo. Again, I do not know the full facts, but it is odds-on that what we have here are either “refugees” or economic migrants who have left Africa in order to settle in the UK. Odds-on, again, that the British people (including the defendant) are paying for the victims to live here and breed.

The case above reminds me of one about 25 years ago in Hammersmith, in which a man was driven half-mad by the incessant noise of blacks and their “music”, parties etc in the flat above his dwelling; so much so that he burned them out, killing several. He got a sentence, I think, of about 10 years for manslaughter and arson. Again, the act can scarcely be “justified”, perhaps, but it can be understood. Legally, provocation does not exist and provides no defence in such a case. In real-life terms, though, I think that many will feel a little sorry for such a defendant.

There is a further point: the defendant in the immediate case in question felt the need to say that he is not “racist” (perhaps after consultation with solicitors or Counsel). So even he himself felt the need to “virtue-signal”! If he or his advisers thought that a display of “contrition” and “I’m not racist” protesting would mitigate the sentence, they seem to have been mistaken.

There is also the point that, as hundreds of thousands of blacks and browns etc flood into the UK every year, and as politicians bleat about the “need” to destroy what is left of the countryside in order to build little boxes for migrants on agricultural land and forested land, very many fully-entitled British people are homeless (after today’s sentence, add another one, 6 months down the line).

I am at present also preparing a blog post about Peter Hitchens, who thinks that the UK is doomed in terms of its present society. I suppose that most of us hope that he is wrong. I also suppose that he is probably right.

Brexit, by-elections, elections, immigration, MPs, Party Politics, The Great Replacement, Uncategorized, white flight

Notes from the Peterborough By-Election

23 Comments

Background

Fiona Onasanya has drunk her last draught from the taxpayers’ trough and has now been removed as MP, the Peterborough seat having been declared vacant on 1 May 2019. We therefore move to the question of who will replace her.

Peterborough

The constituency covers the majority of the city of Peterborough and some rural areas to the East. I myself have visited the city but once, in 1975, and the city I saw in a few hours and 44 years ago is a very different place now. The population increased about 50% in the years 1971-1991 alone, since when it has increased again hugely. The city of 1971 had about 100,000 inhabitants but now has about 200,000 and still increasing. Even that does not tell the full story.

A few years ago, Peterborough was said to have the second-fastest population growth of any city in the UK. In 2007, the Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire noted that, as recently as 2003, 95% of the teenagers in the county had been white (ie English), whereas the figure in 2007 was radically different and the population “diverse”. What is that figure now, I wonder? 50%? Probably far below that.

The true scale of the change is probably covered up. The city’s inhabitants are now 82% white (officially), but many of the white inhabitants are of recent Eastern European origin.

Peterborough constituency and by-election candidates

15 candidates are declared at close of list:

https://pcc-live.storage.googleapis.com/upload/www.peterborough.gov.uk/council/elections/ParliamentaryElectionForPeterborough-StatementOfPersonsNominated-May2019.pdf?inline=true

Conservative Party

The constituency has been a Con/Lab marginal for decades, with the two parties usually but not always within a few points of each other. The Liberal Democrats have come third in every election for decades, except in 2015 when the LibDems came fourth after UKIP (there was no UKIP candidate in 2017).

Stewart Jackson was the Conservative MP from 2005 until 2017, his vote share gradually declining from 42.1% in 2005 to 39.7% in 2015 before, ironically, peaking at 46.8% in 2017, in which year he was replaced by Labour’s Fiona Onasanya (she got 48.1%).

I have blogged previously about Fiona Onasanya, who has wisely decided not to bother standing again (Labour has another candidate, but Fiona Onasanya could, in theory, have stood as an Independent, despite her conviction and brief imprisonment).

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2018/12/21/deadhead-mps-an-occasional-series-the-fiona-onasanya-story/

The Conservative candidate for the by-election, Paul Bristow, is a local businessman who says that “I run my own public affairs and PR business centred around the medical device industry.” I dare say that Bristow, though one of the most likely to succeed candidates, will have an uphill struggle, the way things are with a Conservative Party in meltdown; I also wonder whether voters will want a “multikulti” public relations man (see Bristow’s website in the Notes, below) as their MP. We shall see.

Labour Party

The Labour candidate is Lisa Forbes. A trade union official, she was Labour candidate for Peterborough in 2015, at which election she apparently fought a fairly strong campaign, finishing second with 35.6% of the vote (the Con vote was 39.6%). For the by-election, she beat one other woman in a contest held using a women-only shortlist.

Liberal Democrats, Greens, Change UK

The LibDem candidate is Beki Sellick, about whom a local newspaper reports:

“The Liberal Democrats have selected Beki Sellick as their Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for Peterborough. The engineer fought the seat in the 2017 election, finishing third with 1,597 votes. She said: “I’m an ordinary person who’s had a variety of jobs – nationalised and privatised, shop floor and management, full-time and part-time, redundant. And then I started my own business in Peterborough two years ago. I chair our residents association where we run a monthly community café.””

The LibDems (same candidate) got a vote share of only 3.3% in the General Election of 2017, which result was even below the 3.8% they scored in 2015 (cf. 2010—19.6%, and 2005— 14.5%). I cannot see the LibDems winning. They are probably fighting for fourth or fifth place.

One interesting aspect is that Change UK, the new pro-EU and pro-Israel party, is not putting up a candidate. I read somewhere that the very strongly pro-EU and anti-Brexit parties (LibDems, Greens, Change UK) were going to not stand against each other in Peterborough and elsewhere, so as not to split the Remainer vote. Well, it looks like someone forgot to tell the Greens, who are standing, their candidate being one Joseph Wells, about whom nothing much is known.

The Green Party website says about their by-election candidate: “Candidate for Peterborough. Joseph Wells. No Candidate [sic] information at this time. Please check back.”

What a joke the Green Party is! Here we have a by-election held after a scandal. The ideal place for a small party to get some publicity and maybe save its deposit, yet on the day the nominations close, the useless creatures cannot even put out a few basic facts about the poor sap they have chosen as their doomed candidate! Not that it makes much difference: the Greens got 1.8% in Peterborough in 2017. Like the pro-Remain and pro-immigration LibDems, the Greens are unlikely to do well in an area which was over 60% Leave and where many of the English people feel (and have been) swamped by mass migration or “migration-invasion”.

The list closed at 1600 hrs. It is now 1611 as I write. At 1555, 5 minutes before closure of the list, Mark Pack, who does LibDem publicity, was tweeting this!

https://twitter.com/LibDemNewswire/status/1126500859070885888

The LibDems are as useless as the Greens and the new joke party, Change UK!

What is more significant is that Change UK have effectively chickened-out of this contest. Either that or they are just too incompetent even to register a candidate for the only by-election being held! Either way (and as I have previously blogged), they are a total waste of space.

Below, two of the wastes of space of “Change UK”:

So there it is: Change UK are too frightened or too incompetent to put up a candidate at Peterborough (voters might like to remember that at the 23 May EU election too…and at the next general election).

This means that, at the by-election, the Remain or pro-EU vote, which at best is probably no more than 40% of the electorate anyway, will be split between Greens and LibDems (and Labour). Bearing in mind that, in 2017, the combined vote for the LibDems and Greens was only 5.1%, it may be that most Remainers in Peterborough will vote Labour; neither of the two smaller parties has any real chance.

Minor candidates

UKIP is standing, thus splitting the hardcore Brexit vote, but is running at only about 3% in nationwide opinion polling. The candidate is John Whitby, a former UKIP councillor, who came last out of 5 candidates in the recent local election for Fletton and Stanground ward, Peterborough (he got 320 votes out of about 2,000):

Hard to predict UKIP’s vote share at the by-election, except that it will be below 5%. I am guessing that it will be around 2%.

The former journalist and UKIP MEP, Patrick O’Flynn, who now fights for the (post-1990) Social Democratic Party (SDP), is standing, but I would be surprised if he were to get above 1% of the vote. In a way, he was a loss to UKIP, in that he was probably one of UKIP’s more intelligent leaders, particularly on economic issues.

Why O’Flynn has chosen to ally himself with the SDP dead parrot party, God knows. Maybe because he did not want to be an Independent. He, in himself, is not a bad candidate, but the SDP is just silly: in 1992, it put up 10 candidates at the General Election. Total vote was over 35,000 or 0.1%, but individually they did not do badly at average 3,500 votes each. However, since then, their few candidates have registered not thousands, not even hundreds, of votes (at the General Election 2017, 6 SDP candidates stood, and got a total of 469 votes, about 75 votes each; in national terms, statistical zero).

Now we come to the bottom of the barrel: the Christian People’s Alliance (not to be confused with the Christian Party Alliance; yes I know…Judean Popular Front etc…) is standing a Dr. Rogers (not I think a medical doctor, but someone with a Ph.D who is a local teacher). I sometimes puzzle over why people even bother standing for silly no-account organizations like this. Still there it is. He may get 50 or 100 votes, who knows?

There are 2 Independents.

One Goldspink is standing for the faux-“nationalist” English Democrats.

There are candidates for “Common Good” and “UK European Union Party”.

There is a “Renew” candidate. There was one in the recent Newport West by-election: that candidate got nearly 4% of the vote there.

“Howling Lord Hope” of the Official Monster Raving Loony Party needs no introduction: the fat little man wearing a white or yellow suit is a veteran of dozens of elections and in fact was actually elected (unopposed) in a local council election at Ashburton, Devon, many years ago. I imagine that he will beat some of the Peterborough candidates who take themselves more seriously.

Brexit Party

Brexit Party has burst upon the political scene (or should that be “swamp”) and may change everything just by existing. Needless to say (to regular or frequent readers of this blog), I would never “support” a party which is not fully social-national, let alone one that has a “Friends of Israel” section already…Having said that, anything that helps to fragment the “three party” or “two party” FPTP scam, that is conventional politics in the UK, has my blessing.

Brexit Party is mushrooming and now has somewhere around 100,000 “supporters” (by any other name, members) who have, apparently, each donated between £5 and £200,000 (the average is about £30, giving Brexit Party somewhere in the region of £5 million in battle funds).

Below, Nigel Farage, the leader of Brexit Party, arriving in Newport, Wales, to a rapturous and almost ecstatic reception:

and here is a comment about both Brexit Party and Change UK rallies (well, Brexit Party’s 2,000-strong Peterborough rally and Change UK’s pathetic almost empty London meeting…)

another tweeter:

I have blogged recently about the effect of Brexit Party on UK elections from now on:

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/05/05/what-now-for-general-election-2019/

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/05/04/the-uk-local-elections-have-been-held-my-view/

These were the results of the 2 May 2019 local elections in Peterborough:

Brexit Party of course not standing.

The bookmakers have Brexit Party favourite to win the by-election: just odds-on, but closely followed at 11/10 by Labour. The Conservatives are on 20/1, the LibDems 50/1, Change UK 66/1 (rather ungenerous since they now seem not to be standing!), 100/1 bar. So Greens and UKIP are both 100/1. William Hill are similar but more generous. They have SDP at 125/1 and Green at 150/1.

A week ago, Labour were the favourites. That though was before Nigel Farage and Brexit Party had 2,000 people attend a rally in Peterborough for which, it seems, tickets were sold at £10 a pop. This is not British politics as we know it…most System candidates would struggle to get 200 (or, in some cases, 20) voters to turn out for a meeting where entrance is free!

Britain Elects has, a minute ago, tweeted the following polling for the EU elections:

Those figures might inform us re. the Peterborough by-election, except that Change UK is not, it seems, a factor.

The Brexit Party candidate is Mike Greene, a multi-millionaire businessman and considerable local philanthropist, who supports 40 local charities and good causes. He comes from modest origins and is a local resident who was brought up in or near the city. He was a Conservative until recently.

Conclusion and forecast

Unless something absolutely stunning happens in the next 4 weeks, this is a straight fight between Brexit Party and Labour. The Conservatives seem to be toast. In fact, now that that is plainly the case, I should expect many more Conservative voters to vote tactically for Brexit Party, in order to keep out Labour.

The Remain vote will probably gravitate to the LibDems, but the Greens will take quite a few Remain votes. Other parties can be more or less disregarded.

There is also the point that, on 23 May, halfway between now and the by-election, the EU elections are expected to be a triumph for Farage and the Brexit Party. The Conservatives are forecast to come 3rd or even 4th.

It looks as though this will be the Westminster victory that might launch the —as yet, policy-free— Brexit Party. Second place will go to Labour. Third? Either LibDems or Conservatives. Quite possibly the LibDems.

Notes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Peterborough_by-election

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiona_Onasanya

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2018/12/21/deadhead-mps-an-occasional-series-the-fiona-onasanya-story/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterborough

https://news.sky.com/story/former-tory-businessman-revealed-as-brexit-party-candidate-in-peterborough-by-election-11715137

https://www.paulbristow.org.uk/about-paul-bristow

https://labourlist.org/2019/02/labour-selects-lisa-forbes-to-replace-fiona-onasanya-in-peterborough/

https://my.greenparty.org.uk/candidates/106132

https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/politics/peterborough-by-election-christian-parties-alliance-confirm-candidate-1-8921620

https://www.peterborough.gov.uk/council/elections/local-elections/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_O%27Flynn

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democratic_Party_(UK,_1990%E2%80%93present)

https://cpaparty.net/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howling_Laud_Hope

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Peterborough_by-election#Candidates_and_campaign

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/05/05/what-now-for-general-election-2019/

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/05/04/the-uk-local-elections-have-been-held-my-

view/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/7198329/Labours-secret-plan-to-lure-migrants.html

Update, 21 May 2019

Current betting as of today (21 May) is: Brexit Party as odds-on favourites (8/13), though challenged fairly closely by Labour on 5/4. The rest of the field is comprised of also-rans, it appears: Conservatives 20/1, LibDems 50/1, and 125/1 bar those four.

Update, 23 May 2019

There has been movement in the betting market for the by-election: Brexit Party hardening and now at 8/15; Labour less firm and out to 7/4; Conservatives at 9/1 (from 20/1 only two days ago); LibDems sliding to 70/1; 125/1 bar those four.

https://www.betfair.com/sport/politics

Update, 24 May 2019

Just saw the clip below from BBC News. It exemplifies the BBC way of doing bias in political coverage. The whole clip lasts well over 2 minutes (2:16), out of which Mike Greene, the candidate for Brexit Party, was given 5 or 6 seconds! Brexit Party is way ahead in the betting and polling for the by-election, but the BBC chose to present the three System party candidates as the “serious” ones, each of whom got a number of short slots within the clip. Even the lady standing for the LibDems got two or three slots, despite the fact that the LibDems have no chance, are 70/1 to win, and when the same lady stood in Peterborough for the LibDems at the 2017 General Election, she only got 3.3% of votes cast!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-cambridgeshire-48356295/peterborough-by-election-candidates-debate

I am not a “supporter” of Brexit Party, as such, but the BBC’s bias against it is really showing now.

Update, 26 May 2019

By-election betting now shows Brexit Party hardening to 2/5, and now strong odds-on favourite; Labour slightly out at 15/8; Conservatives, who went from 20/1 to 9/1, are now again sliding and are at 12/1; LibDems in from 70/1 to 50/1; still 125/1 bar those four.

Update, 27 May 2019

After the stellar victory of Brexit Party in the EU elections, the odds on Brexit Party smashing the Peterborough by-election have hardened again, now to 4/11. Labour’s dispiriting results in the EU elections have lengthened its odds to 5/2. The Conservatives’ odds have slid back to 16/1, whereas the LibDems’ odds, also at 16/1, are hugely shorter now (they were 50/1 only yesterday!); 125/1 bar those four.

As my blog, written 9 May, said, this is a contest between Brexit Party and Labour, but now the LibDems are complicating the issue. If all anti-Brexit voters gathered behind one candidate, the Brexit Party could not win. The question arises: which one party and candidate? The Remain-oriented side is split, and there are other issues. It may well be that many Con voters and others will switch to LibDem for the by-election, but many Labour voters will recall the LibDems’ dreadful and dishonest support for the Con Coalition 2010-2015. My prediction is that the Brexit Party is going to win this by a goodly margin in the end.

Update, 29 May 2019

The betting continues to firm for Brexit Party. Now 1/5 odds-on (from 4/11). Labour has weakened to 4/1 (from 5/2). The LibDems are still at 16/1, but the Conservatives are still sliding, now at 20/1 again (from 16/1). As far as the bookmakers are concerned, it’s all over.

As my initial blog post speculated, Conservative voters are now flocking to Brexit Party, either out of conviction or because it is the best way to deny Labour the prize. It may be that, after the Fiona Onasanya fiasco, Labour is badly damaged. The candidate for Labour seems to be not very intelligent, which hardly helps (though I understand that she is at least anti-Zionist. On can rarely have everything.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/27/nigel-farage-sets-his-sights-on-party-winning-peterborough-byelection

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/29/peterborough-byelection-labour-and-tories-fear-brexit-party-surge

Update, 30 May 2019

Latest betting: Brexit Party still strong odds-on favourite at 1/5, Labour still 4/1 (both unchanged from yesterday), but LibDems and Cons have now both slid to 25/1. 125/1 bar those four.

Update, 31 May 2019

Brexit Party still at 1/5, Labour still at 4/1. LibDems have recovered to 12/1 after opinion polling suggesting that, nationwide, the LibDems are now, suddenly, the most popular party in England and Wales! Conservatives are available at 25/1 for the by-election. 125/1 bar those four.

Meanwhile, the newspapers converge on Peterborough to seek opinions…

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7092845/Peterborough-voted-replace-disgraced-MP-favourites-parties-vocal-Brexit.html

“A disillusioned Tory, his message is clear that the Lib Dems ‘may sneak in here’. He says Peterborough is ‘an absolute dump’ with poverty rife. People are so poor they think twice about buying even a multi-pack of crisps.” [Daily Mail]

“Back in Lincoln Road, at a cafe bar, I talk to Janet Tobolik, who is 65 and half Polish. A devout Eurosceptic, she says only one party cares about Peterborough’s problems. She is voting UKIP. ‘There is rubbish on the streets. This is my country and you suddenly find a settee in the middle of the road. Peterborough is a slum. They drop everything these immigrants.’” [Daily Mail]

“Down the street, a 73-year-old man who called himself Mr Dhillon, said: ‘I have lived here since 1967. I always supported Labour. But they and the Tories have done no good for Peterborough. I think we should leave the EU and then we can start again.’”

“Yes, as it stands, it is Farage who is on a roll. He is hoping to bury his opponents in Peterborough, just like Catherine of Aragon, and the odds are hugely on his Brexit Party’s side. Next Thursday we’ll discover if the people of this city will change the future of British politics.” [Daily Mail]

Update, 2 June 2019

The betting market has moved as far as Labour and the LibDems are concerned. Brexit Party is still strong odds-on favourite at 1/5, but Labour is now closer at 10/3 and the LibDems , who were 12/1 yesterday and 70/1 only a week ago, now move to 9/1. The Conservatives are still on 25/1; and 125/1 bar those four.

As I commented earlier elsewhere, the battle for second place at Peterborough is intensifying. The Brexit Party seems unchallenged now for 1st place. The only way for Brexit Party to lose would be if those opposed to Farage all clustered round one other party standing. That is obviously not happening. Labour is fighting hard for the seat, but the LibDems are “playing a blinder” bearing in mind that they only got 3.3% in 2017 and 3,8% in 2015. Even at the height of 2010 Cleggmania, they only managed (just under) 20%.

The Conservatives are toast and have no chance. Labour is battling not to be toast. A 2nd place at Peterborough would keep Labour in the game nationally. If Labour drops to 3rd at Peterborough, heads may roll.

Brexit Party tweets cleverly: their tweet (below) is in fact correct, but from the purely electoral point of view helps Brexit Party, because Labour is still the main enemy of Brexit Party in this Peterborough by-election. Tactically, Brexit Party very much knows how to run a campaign.

Update, 3 June 2019

Three days before polling day.

The Guardian reports from Peterborough [link below]. Well worth reading.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jun/02/peterborough-prepares-for-byelection-that-could-see-first-brexit-party-mp

“…many Peterborians feel life is getting worse; nothing catastrophic, but a noticeable unravelling. Stagnation of living standards and diminishing prospects, as much as Brexit and migration, are likely to shape how they vote.”

“…people also sense deeper changes to the social fabric, caused in part by the march of buy-to-let property investors, the retreat of the state from providing housing for the working class and ever-shrinking funding for maintaining the fabric of neighbourhoods. With Brexit dominating the byelection, there is little room to debate much of that.”

The BBC has also posted a not very illuminating analysis:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-48300812

As for the betting market, Brexit Party is now even more firmly odds-on, prohibitively priced at 1/6. Labour has gone out again, returning to 4/1. The LibDems are now also further out at 10/1, while the Conservatives have all but given up the ghost at 33/1 (out from 25/1).

The LibDems were always going to be on the back foot in Leave-friendly Peterborough (in the 2016 Referendum, 61% voted Leave, on a high turnout of over 72%), but their apparent lack of success is a warning light about taking their 2019 EU elections performance and more recent opinion polling too seriously (particularly now that it seems that pollsters have been deliberately suppressing Brexit Party in some polling).

When push comes to shove, can the LibDems hack it? Their performance electorally over many years and in government from 2010-2015 would suggest not.

As to the Conservatives, I suggest that my initial analysis was right: former Conservative voters are backing Brexit Party both for itself and because they have lost confidence in the Conservatives as a potentially-winning party. A Conservative vote in Peterborough is now a wasted vote. The tactical option to keep Labour out is therefore to vote Brexit Party. They are obviously deserting the Conservatives in droves; incredible when you consider that Peterborough has had a Conservative MP for most of the years 1945-2019. A symptom of the general and possible terminal decline of the Conservative Party.

Labour is the only party now likely to come close to Brexit Party in the by-election. The “blacks and browns” (etc), comprising a fifth of the inhabitants, will vote Labour if they vote at all. Remain voters are more likely to vote LibDem now. The non-Brexit-Party vote is thus split. Brexit Party may get 50% of the vote, it may get only 40%, but it does seem likely to win.

Note: in the few hours since I wrote the above update for 3 June, the betting market has moved again. Now Brexit Party is in at 1/7, Labour has gone out to 5/1, the LibDems have slumped to 14/1 and the Conservatives are still in outer darkness at 33/1 (125/1 bar those four).

It is pretty clear that the punters and bookmakers have decided that Brexit Party is unassailable at Peterborough. I think that Brexit Party will be elected, and maybe on as much as 50% of the vote.

The Labour candidate has been (supposedly) damaged by her (again, supposedly) “anti-Semitic” online statements of some time ago (my problem with her is that she has recanted, and cravenly “apologized” to the Jew-Zionist lobby). She will probably get 2nd place, and on a vote of about 25%.

The LibDems have no realistic chance now. They will be looking to get the bulk of the Remain vote in a city where most people (61%) voted Leave in 2016, and where the LibDem core vote has been between 3% and 4% for several years (and even in 2010 was only 19% or so). I shall be surprised if the LibDems can get to 2nd place in this by-election. My guess as to their vote share would be somewhere around 20%.

Conservatives? They are just going through the motions. If their vote exceeds 10%, I shall be surprised.

…and the msm “journalists” are still making assumptions based on their belief that the System parties (LibLabCon) are eternal and immortal. Those parties will all be dead soon. “Protest vote” does not begin to cover what is happening.

https://www.itv.com/news/2019-06-03/protest-vote-expected-in-peterborough-by-election/

Update, 4 June 2019

Early in the morning. The betting is now 1/9 Brexit Party, 6/1 Labour, 14/1 LibDems, 33/1 Conservatives. It is already over.

ps. this tweeter makes a good overall point:

https://twitter.com/darrengrimes_/status/1134879812621864960

Update, 5 June 2019

So here we are, the day before polling day. The betting has moved in a little. Brexit Party still heavily odds-on but a little out from yesterday (1/7 from 1/9); Labour has come in to 9/2 (from 6/1); the LibDems are at 14/1 (from 16/1), Conservatives still 33/1 (125/1 bar those four).

There was a late attempt in the Guardian to connect Mike Greene, the Brexit Party candidate, with the retention-of-freehold-rights scam/scandal, but it seems to have had little impact for various reasons, not least that 99% of Peterborough voters never read the Guardian.

Brexit Party looks, on the face of it, as if it is going to walk this one.

Update, 6 June 2019

The moment of truth. The polls are open. Brexit Party is still at 1/7 in the betting odds, with Labour again firmer at 4/1; the LibDems and Conservatives have settled together at 20/1.

and at 1330 on polling day…

The betting has altered “in play”, so to speak: Brexit Party still at 1/7 and looking on the face of it like a shoo-in to win; Labour firmed today, to 7/2; as to the others, both the LibDems and the Conservatives have been sliding, the LibDems to 25/1, the Cons to 50/1. (125/1 bar those four).

If the current betting reflects what will be announced tonight or tomorrow, this is disastrous for the Conservatives, who not only provided the MP for the constituency for most of the past 80 years but also had the tactical advantage of the recent history of Labour in Peterborough: Fiona Onasanya etc: https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2018/12/21/deadhead-mps-an-occasional-series-the-fiona-onasanya-story/

It is clear that the Conservatives are going to go down very badly. How badly, we wait to see. This may prove to be the most significant by-election since 1945.

(as a light ending, until the result, I reproduce—see below—the most stupid, also the funniest tweet I saw today!)

https://twitter.com/MatthewMahabadi/status/1136626475174699009

Update at 1615 hrs on polling day:

Betting: 1/6 Brexit Party, 11/4 (from 7/2) Labour.

As I predicted weeks ago, it is between these two now. Labour struggling hard not to be too badly beaten. Many of the Remain votes will go Labour, and almost all of the votes of the blacks, browns etc, and those of any immigrants eligible to vote.

The LibDems are only 40/1 in the by-election betting now. Cons 50/1, others 125/1 or more. As usual, the LibDems talk a good game but rarely follow through. They wasted their chance of getting proportional representation in 2010. That sank their party and many of Britain’s people.

Just saw this, illustrating my point that Labour’s core vote is now “the blacks and browns”:

Aftermath, 7 June 2019

Labour won, unexpectedly (and because of the organized ethnic minority vote, including postal vote), and on 31% of the votes cast (Brexit Party got 29%).

My post-poll thoughts are here:

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/06/07/peterborough-by-election-post-poll-analysis-and-thoughts/