Three Conservative Party MPs, Anna Soubry, Heidi Allen and Sarah Wollaston, have defected to the Independent Group. All three have cited “no-deal” Brexit (which they oppose) as the triggering fact.
I have blogged twice already about IG in the past few days and also blogged recently about possible splits in both main System parties:
The three apparently intend to sit as Independents. They could have done that without pledging allegiance to IG, so presumably they look forward to IG becoming a registered political party, so that they can fight under its banner with a greater chance of retaining their seats in the House of Commons.
Heidi Allen
I start with the least experienced but also (the one I take to be) the best of the three. Heidi Allen has shown, in her stance on social security/welfare issues, that she has a social conscience lacking in most Conservative MPs (though her actual voting record has been patchy); in other areas she has shown a certain shallowness (she seems to favour so-called “refugees”). In other areas yet, I also disagree with her views: she is pro-EU and pro-abortion.
Her constituency, South Cambridgeshire, is safe Con territory, which she has made more safe: in her 2 elections, she has garnered 51.1% and 51.8% of the votes cast, whereas Andrew Lansley, her predecesssor, only got between 42% and 48% in his 4 elections (1997-2010).
How many votes will follow Heidi Allen, I have no idea. At one time, the Liberal Democrats showed strongly in South Cambridgeshire: their vote did not collapse in 2015, despite being at half of its 2010 level, and recovered slightly to 18.6% in 2017. Labour got 27.2% in 2017.
If Heidi Allen faces a new Conservative candidate, she will probably go down unless a large number of former LibDem and Labour voters switch to her. An uphill struggle though not impossible.
Anna Soubry
The oldest (62) and best-known of the three: a former local TV face, mainly in the East Midlands region. She was a TV reporter and presenter from age 25 to age 39 (1995), after which, having graduated in Law in the 1970s, she became a barrister, doing criminal cases. As far as I know, she was in the lower ranks even of the criminal Bar, but practised for about 12-13 years until elected to Parliament in 2010.
Anna Soubry seems to be one of the “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” crowd (anathema to me, of course): eg she favours both fracking and “equal marriage” (marriage of gays and lesbians).
Accused by many —and more than once— of having been drunk at Westminster (she denied the allegations), she threatened on Twitter (before I was expelled), to sue me, for referring to her as “the MP for Plymouth and Angostura”! That threat never materialized. Perhaps it was just the drink talking…
Anna Soubry is known for her rudeness of speech and for her opposition to what she is pleased to call “xenophobia”, i.e. she either supports or does not oppose mass immigration into the UK.
Broxtowe, Anna Soubry’s constituency, is a Con-Lab marginal, held by Labour 1997-2010. Anna Soubry scored 48.6% in 2017, perhaps helped by her numerous TV appearances on BBC Question Time etc. The Labour vote was 45.3%. Majority: 863. The other parties are of no importance. Anna Soubry might be able to get enough votes to win through, but the more likely result is that Labour takes the seat next time.
Sarah Wollaston
The most independent, superficially, of the three, Sarah Wollaston was selected as candidate following an “open primary” election held by her local Conservative Party branch. She was helped to election by her former occupation as a doctor (general practitioner), the profession consistently rated as “most trusted” in opinion polls.
Like the other two examined here, Sarah Wollaston is another one who is “fiscally conservative, socially liberal”, favouring “choice” (ie pro-abortion), not opposing mass immigration, supporting “equal marriage” etc (and calling its opponents “bigots”). Indeed, she is rather intolerant of opposing views: she blocked me on Twitter, without my ever having tweeted to her, but I cannot now recall whether her intolerance was triggered by my opposition to mass immigration or whether it had something to do with the “holocaust” mythus.
Sarah Wollaston is not as strongly pro-EU as the other two MPs, but seems to oppose mainly the “no deal” or “WTO” exit/Brexit path.
Sarah Wollaston’s carefully-crafted “liberalism” does not seem to extend to the poor or those in receipt of State benefits. She mostly voted for the punitive measures introduced by Iain Dunce Duncan Smith and his cohorts (eg bedroom tax, eg removal of lifetime tenancies of council housing).
Sarah Wollaston’s constituency, Totnes, is the only one of the three which I know personally. I appeared in 2006 as Counsel in the small magistrates’ court there several times (on behalf of South West Water, the utility company, which stood accused of minor corporate offences), and have many times visited the town. Totnes could be described as a town for affluent, well-educated (many bookshops, a Rudolf Steiner school nearby) and somewhat liberal-minded people.
Politically, Totnes has been Conservative since 1923 (though the present seat was only created in 1997, the previous one having been expunged in 1981), with the Liberals and then Liberal Democrats coming in strongly in second place until 2015. The LibDem vote collapsed then and did not much recover in 2017. In 2015, UKIP took second place with 14% of the vote (LibDems last out of five), while in 2017, Labour was second on 26.8% (LibDems third).
Sarah Wollaston’s vote has been consistently higher than scored by the previous Conservative MP, Anthony Steen (his father changed name from Stein), a rich Jew who had to resign during the pre-2010 expenses scandal.
Sarah Wollaston has the best chance, out of the three defector MPs, of retaining her seat. She is a truly local candidate (has lived there since the early 1990s), reflects the socio-political attitudes of many locals, and will probably be able to rely on many former LibDem and Labour tactical votes when opposed by a new Conservative candidate. However, in what could be a fairly tight 4-way split, anything is possible.
Final thoughts
These three MPs will sit as Independents until or unless the Independent Group becomes a registered party. The only one I would put any money on to retain her seat would be Sarah Wollaston. In any case, all three have a fallback position: Heidi Allen’s family has a successful motorbike paint company, Anna Soubry’s personal “partner” is a director of the Morrison’s supermarket business, while Sarah Wollaston remains a doctor (though non-practising since 2010) and her husband is an NHS psychiatrist.
The fact that the absurd, leaderless, policy-free “Independent Group” is now already running at 14% in the opinion polls tells me that the British people are getting desperate for change, perhaps any change. Social nationalism is now in with a real chance.
Twitter reaction
🧨 BREAKING: Times/YouGov voter intention poll
Con 38 Lab 26 *TIG 14* LD 7 SNP/Plaid 5 Other 11
(Weighted by likelihood to vote, excluding would not vote and don’t knows) https://t.co/3TfImvFDv4
#IsItOK#TheLastLeg have got #AnnaSoubry back on AGAIN, after her last appearance when they only questioned her about welfare reform after a Twitter outcry?
Soubry, who voted:
51x times to cut benefits 14x for the Bedroom Tax 23x to reduce corporation tax
Jeez Anna, it's not about MPs – It's only about the masses and their burden of 'austerity' under the 'hostile environment' of tory tyranny – how 'out of touch' can TIG all be ????? – think you're all a funny thingy adrift of our real world …..
— Liverpool4u – Liverpool History. A City in Time. (@liverpool4u) February 23, 2019
Well, much water under bridge in the intervening three and a half years.
As we know, the General Election of 2019 swept away the members of the “Independent Group”, which by then had changed name to “Change UK”: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Change_UK.
Their chosen identity is the bland “The Independent Group”. Note, “group”, not party. When the SDP was formed in 1981, it quickly adopted a firm identity which everyone in the UK understood. It was a political party, with a firm policy position.
These Jewish and pro-Jewish-Zionist whiners are not a party, even on the face of their own now-public identity. They are just a group of Jewish and/or pro-Zionist MPs, all facing retirement or deselection, and whose main gripe is “anti-Semitism” in the Corbyn-led Labour Party. None of them, at their launch yesterday, actually tried to put forward any thoughts about what is wrong in Britain, let alone what might improve the country. The Jew Zionist Mike Gapes MP was the most honest, talking purely about his hatred for so-called “Anti-Semitism”. As noted, his tribal interest was at least not concealed by some faked concern about the British people.
The mass media are agog at the thought of what might happen in some game of fantasy politics where numbers of disaffected MPs from the traditional “three main parties” all coalesce in a House of Commons bloc to thwart the plans of Corbyn and (if she has any plans) Theresa May. For example, see here below (the tweeter is that little Indian who sometimes presents Channel 4 News):
The Independent Group of seven former Labour MPs could grow – with more Labour, even a couple of Tory and potentially all the Lib Dems – and then become a new party. It would then have to decide who it would and wouldn't go into coalition with.
Corbyn Labour supporters, however, were swift to seize on the group’s weak points:
So 3 hours after Independent Group launch:
No policies. Website crashed. Exposed their registered as a Ltd Co to avoid donor scrutiny. Website registered in Panama tax haven. Received backing from the Far-Right.#ChangePolitics bantz
Just realised Angela Smith is the MP who wrote an article in the Guardian about why water companies shouldn't be nationalised, without disclosing her husband's interests in private water companies! 🤔#LabourSplit#FunnyTinge#independentgroup
Luciana Berger. Rented a flat in London which is owned by a company based in the British Virgin Islands, but didn’t want anyone to know. That’s not Labour. #BlairRichProject
Yesterday's #independentgroup Ltd. launch has changed nothing in the lives of those suffering from the Tories universal credit, austerity, rigged system, or hostile environment.
TIG Ltd are nothing but wreckers. Lets hope they prove to be as incompetent as their record so far.
The above tweets are a selection of the more polite ones criticizing the new not-a-party.
Meanwhile, Chuka Umunna has now broached the “elephant in the room” question, saying that he “hopes” that a new party could be formed “by the end of the year”. Hopes? Could? Imagine Adolf, back in 1919, “hoping” that a new party “could” or might be formed “by the end of the year”! That’s Chuka for you, as seen in the Labour leadership contest: a half-Nigerian fathead, irresolute, shallow, lacking will and force.
Questions about the initial funding of the “Independent Group” of 7 Jewish and/or Zionist MPs are building now. A Labour MP has suggested that the funding may have come (directly or indirectly) from Israel:
It is interesting that the company which owns this “Independent Group” is based in the secretive offshore jurisdiction of Panama, long a favourite of rich Jews connected with Israel and/or MOSSAD. “Robert Maxwell” for one.
My thoughts so far
As ever, the msm Westminster Bubblers are getting it wrong. Polls have been produced to show that the public would be “more likely to vote for” the Independent Group MPs than Labour. Really? What would those poor sheep be voting for? There is no point in asking the “Independent Group”, for their own website is as innocent of policy (even in the broadest of broad brush terms) as were the brief statements made by the seven defectors at yesterday’s launch (media event). Their published statement of intent could have been produced by almost any political party, tendency, or even religion.
My own view is that, yes, most UK voters, certainly most English and Welsh voters are thoroughly sick of pseudo-democratic politics in the UK, they do want a new direction and would be willing to embrace a new party, but that party is not this party.
In fact, of course, the Independent Group is not (yet) a party anyway. It is not (yet) registered as such with the Electoral Commission, does not say that it is going to become a political party, and, as noted already, not only has no policy, but has not even any locus standi in the sense of where it stands, beyond a vague and implied “Centrism”.
If further Labour defections happen (rumours abound about 20-30 MPs, with a few wild msm assertions that 100 might go) then the new party (if it becomes a party) might have traction in the short term. I still doubt that any “centrist” party could get anywhere in the medium term (i.e. beyond 2022), let alone have any greater durability.
What strikes me but does not shock me is the sheer ineptitude of the defectors: they had three years in which to get this together, to recruit more cohorts, to organize things. Needless to say, I am not surprised to see that fathead Chuka was unable to organize anything more than an evening in one of the expensive and decadent nightclubs which he is said to patronize.
What a difference it would have made, had yesterday’s launch announced that a new party had been founded or was about to be registered, and if the Independent Group had actually managed to organize a decent website (to digress: my own website, http://ianrmillard.com/, is amateur, yes, because I did it myself as best I could, and spent almost nothing on it; one expects something more professional from a group of individuals with plenty of money, wealthy Jewish backers, and who are hoping to soon form a major party). Above all, it would have made a huge difference had the defectors been able to say yesterday: “We are 100 [or even 30] Labour MPs who have now left Labour, are forming a new party, and invite applications for membership and candidature.” The new party would then have been in a position to recruit members and candidates for office.
Any new party [even if] based on the “7 defectors”, and which fields hundreds of candidates in a general election, would have to be taken seriously, though the experience of both the 1980s SDP and, more recently, UKIP shows that even a party capable of fielding hundreds of candidates might well end up with no MPs under the FPTP system.
As it is, we have 7 MPs who seem to be wanting mainly to make Jewish-Zionist propaganda against Corbyn-Labour, and who now have no party, no obvious policy, and no way yet of building a party organization in a situation where there might be a general election this year. Such an election would wipe out the defector cabal at once. No question.
It is interesting to note that even long-time anti-Corbyn plotters such as pro-Zionists Liz Kendall MP and John Woodcock MP, the sex-pest depressive, have not pledged allegiance so far. In Woodcock’s case, he might have been warned off as just too toxic, but Liz Kendall must have other reasons, maybe the wish not to risk that easy lucrative job as MP, with the £75,000 salary, the huge expenses, the opportunities for “nice little earners” on the side etc. Not to mention, down the line, the possibility of getting a nice little fake “peerage”, and so £300+ per day taxfree for merely turning up and signing a register!
I should imagine that there was jubilation at Corbyn HQ yesterday. They may even have popped open a few bottles of vintage Soviet “champagne”. The hard core of opposition to Corbyn has just committed hara-kiri.
Interesting: the “Independent Group” launched yesterday, 18 February 2019. Today, as I have been writing and looking at Twitter, I noticed that, as I thought and wrote, there were 38 tweets under hashtag #IndependentGroup in a period of one hour. Over an hour later, another 35. Twitter is not the world, or even the UK, but the low interest shown tells me much. The “Independent Group” now has over 80,000 followers on Twitter, but Twitter followers are not members, donors or even necessarily going to vote for the new party (if it ever emerges).
My guess is that this new non-party is going to fail. If there is no general election this year and if the Independent Group can recruit at least another couple of dozen MPs and a small army of candidates and foot-soldiers, then it might just about have a run in it. I doubt even that, though.
An earlier Survation poll seemed to indicate that people would prefer to vote for the “Independent Group” as compared to Labour, but a Sky poll now puts “support” for the IG at only 10%. Admittedly, not bad for a party which is not yet a party and which has no policies! All the same, in itself, that only puts IG firmly in “UKIP” territory, i.e. “good also-ran”…UKIP still had no MPs after its 2015 General Election peak of about 12%.
It will be noted that the percentages add up to 87%, meaning, I suppose that 13% are “Don’t Know”. It seems, and assuming (I am skeptical) that IG can organize itself as a party before the next general election, that there will be a crowded field: Con and Lab jostling for position with IG, LibDems, UKIP and Greens, as well as smaller parties and the usual independents. IG will have to have at least some broad policies before it tries to contest elections, though. Oh…and a leader…
Update, 19 February 2019
Joan Ryan MP has now also joined the “Independent Group”. Though not Jewish (nor even part- or crypto-), she is or until today was a member, like the other members of IG, of Labour Friends of Israel, chairing the Zionist organization in 2015.
Thousands of tweets attacking Joan Ryan this evening. One that caught my eye:
Good job, will you be claiming any more expenses, or paying back those you claimed incorrectly? You are great, I have to take my own rubbish out, but luckily for @UKLabour the rubbish is taking itself out! Marvellous. #JC4PM@ToryFibs
That one really made me “laugh out loud” in the now-superseded Twitter/text phrase!
In fact, Enfield North is a Lab-Con marginal seat, so if Joan Ryan contests it (as an IG candidate rather than as simply “Independent”) at a general election, there is every chance that a Conservative will win the seat. In the recent past, Nick de Bois, who was one of the better MPs on the Conservative side, held the seat (2010-2015)
And why would you believe one word that Joan Ryan says? Given she’s a proven expenses fraud, voted to keep MPs expenses secret, and was filmed being offered £1 million by Shia Masot, the same Israeli official who conspired to ‘take down’ Sir Alan Duncan!
The fact that the absurd, leaderless, policy-free “Independent Group” is now already running at 14% in the opinion polls tells me that the British people are getting desperate for change, perhaps any change. Social nationalism is now in with a real chance.
🧨 BREAKING: Times/YouGov voter intention poll
Con 38 Lab 26 *TIG 14* LD 7 SNP/Plaid 5 Other 11
(Weighted by likelihood to vote, excluding would not vote and don’t knows) https://t.co/3TfImvFDv4
Another tweet from today, attacking fathead Chuka and his combination of hypocrisy and stupidity (Chuka’s tweet is from two and a half years ago, when he was still being puffed by the msm as a “senior” Labour MP…):
It is absolutely infuriating the MSM fails to mention the vital fact that Ian Austin is a serial fraudster. Should have been forced out of the Party long ago. https://t.co/A6dtrPZghH
Seems now that Ian Austin MP is in fact not joining the “Independent Group”, though he is leaving Labour with immediate effect. He is not stepping down as MP for Dudley North and is not expected to repay any of his inflated expenses.
As to Austin leaving Labour, it means that he has probably committed political suicide, like most of the defectors from Con and Lab in the past week.
More Twitter comment…
Would anyone care to guess how long my BTL comment on the Guardian website Politics Live stream will last? pic.twitter.com/uzqx88QJoJ
In other blog posts, I have criticized Aaron Bastani, Ash Sarkar etc, but Bastani is surely right in tweeting that “The space for a successful far-right party in the UK is massive.” The label “far-right” I disparage, of course, but in essence I agree with him. The difference is that he opposes it, I support it!
The space for a successful far-right party in the UK is massive. We are fortunate that both the BNP & UKIP failed to fill it.
The fact that much of the establishment still thinks a 'centrist' politics is even remotely possible shows they either don't know this or don't care >
Here is a good example of a Westminster bubbler unable (perhaps) to distinguish between people noticing a news item and the same people supporting a political group, or the same people actually voting for a new political party a year or three in the future…Those in and around the Westminster bubble are probably often rather well-paid, but are they worth their salt?
How much cut-through has the @TheIndGroup had beyond the bubble? 19% spontaneously mentioned it to Populus as their number one most noticed news story. For those of you not familiar with this series, that's A LOT. https://t.co/lU4mipHapp
Fathead Chuka announces that the Independent Group is now a registered party: “Change UK”. Not “The Independent Party”? That would have sounded odd, but then the USA had the “Tea Party”. Anyway, “Change” it is. Loose change? Small change? Am I being unkind?
BREAKING: We have been overwhelmed by the public support for @TheIndGroup since we were established last month, with tens of thousands or people all over the country signing up as supporters. Today we've announced we have applied to become a political party – Change UK. (1)
“The Independent Group for Change, also known as Change UK, was a British centrist, pro-European Union political party, founded in February 2019 and dissolved ten months later, shortly after all its MPs lost their seats in the 2019 general election.”
Today, seven Jewish, Zionist or pro-Zionist MPs left the Labour Party, though so far all are remaining as MPs in order to hang on to their pay and expenses (one, Angela Smith MP, also “employs” her own husband on her Parliamentary expenses, at a salary of about £50,000).
I have only recently blogged about the possibility that something like this might happen:
I was wrong about Luciana Berger being unlikely to leave Labour. She has resigned from Labour (though not as MP), alongside useless creature Chuka Umunna, Angela Smith, Ann Coffey, Chris Leslie, Mike Gapes and Gavin Shuker. Out of the seven, two or three Jewish, two or three maybe part or “crypto”. The others anyway doormats for Zionism.
A few points:
Mike Gapes MP, a Zionist Jew (who blocked me on Twitter without my ever having tweeted to him);
Chuka Umunna MP (see the link above) and: “In August 2018, The Guardian reported that “Umunna and fellow Labour MP Chris Leslie, are widely believed to be laying the groundwork for the creation of a new [political] party although both have denied this.”[68] In October 2018, it was announced that Umunna would serve as the chairman of a new centrist think tank called Progressive Centre UK. It was revealed that he would be earning £65,000 a year for his work on the advisory board” [Wikipedia]; and “Umunna is associated with the Labour Friends of Israel; along with Liam Byrne, he made an official visit to Israel in October 2012 as part of the LFI’s UK-Israel Economic Dialogue group” [Wikipedia];
Angela Smith MP: pro-Zionist, very very interested in money (an expenses cheat)…“[Angela Smith] is one of 98 MPs who voted unsuccessfully to keep their expense details secret in 2007. She defended her vote on the grounds that it would help member-constituent confidentiality, and to help prevent the private addresses of MP’s being readily available to the public.[18]In 2009, Smith was one of the MPs whose expenses were highlighted by The Daily Telegraph during the Parliamentary expenses scandal, as she had submitted expenses claims for four beds for a one bedroom flat in London.[19]Smith employs her husband as her Senior Parliamentary Assistant on a salary up to £40,000 [now £50,000].[20] The practice of MPs employing family members has been criticised by some sections of the media on the lines that it promotes nepotism.[21][22] Although MPs who were first elected in 2017 have been banned from employing family members, the restriction is not retrospective – meaning that Smith’s employment of her husband is lawful.” [Wikipedia];
Gavin Shuker MP, a pro-Zionist of Jewish or part-Jewish origins, though he was also apparently a “pastor” of some small Christian sect in Luton at one time;
Ann Coffey MP: pro-Zionist. “During the expenses scandal of 2009 it was revealed that Anne Coffey claimed £1000 per month for the interest on the mortgage of her London home and £160 per month for a cleaner.[8][9] In addition to her salary of £60,000 in 2007 she claimed £150,000 for staff salaries and office costs plus reimbursable expenses” [Wikipedia];
Luciana Berger MP: prominent Zionist Jewess;
Chris Leslie MP: careerist Blair-Brown drone and pro-Zionist.
Thoughts about the effect of the resignations:
The seven MPs were almost all living on borrowed time. Luciana Berger faced a (withdrawn) vote of no-confidence only recently. Mike Gapes is 66 (only 4 years older than me, but he looks about 20 years older). Ann Coffey is 72. The others were facing possible deselection. Chris Leslie, a typical bland careerist, obviously saw that his career in Parliament had ground to a halt, with no possibility of ministerial preferment even if Labour can form some sort of ramshackle government.
This is a Zionist group mass media event rather than a Labour “split”. Labour still has 241 MPs. The 7 departees will all lose their seats at the next general election, if they even stand for election. They have not formed a party, not as yet anyway, and, as I blogged previously, would have no chance of success if they did.
Are hearts really in this? Berger accidentally introduced herself as a Labour MP. Chuka's twitter handle still says "Labour MP". If you do this, you have to commit. You can't lightly dabble in full blown act of leaving your party!
It really would be great if the Zionists and doormats for Zionism, at least on the Labour side, were to be deselected or otherwise removed. Yvette Cooper would be my favourite to go. That virtue-signalling, moneygrasping, expenses-blodging hypocrite, who wants to swamp the UK even more than it has already been swamped by immigrants of all kinds, including the (fake) “refugees” who seem to be her obsession. She and her husband, ex-MP and moneygrubbing “anti-fascist”, pro-Israel drone Ed Balls, live far from the consequences of mass immigration and their own actions, in the luxury bought by their business activities and the money they have squeezed out of their years in Parliament: salaries, “expenses” (including fraudulent or near-fraudulent claims), “consultancies” etc.
“In May 2009, it was revealed that together with her husband Ed Balls they changed the designation of their second home three times in a 24-month period. Following a referral to the parliamentary sleaze watchdog, they were exonerated by John Lyon, the Standards Commissioner. He said that they had paid capital gains tax on their homes and were not motivated by profit.[16] Cooper and Balls bought a four-bedroom house in Stoke Newington, North London, and registered this as their second home (rather than their home in Castleford, West Yorkshire); this qualified them for up to £44,000 a year to subsidise a reported £438,000 mortgage under the Commons Additional Costs Allowance, of which they claimed £24,400.[17] An investigation in MPs’ expenses by Sir Thomas Legg found that Cooper and her husband had both received overpayments of £1,363 in relation to their mortgage. He ordered them to repay the money.” [Wikipedia] (A real Parliamentary whitewash!).
In a Twitter Tiggernut nutshell (she replying to disgraced Jew Zionist lawyer Mark Lewis, who now resides in his beloved Israel but who, like so many Jews there, cannot resist interfering in UK affairs…):
Now look! (see below): so it’s my fault that the 7 defectors defected?!
Back then a small number of people catalogued them and tackled their lies: @Rattus2384 @SSilvUK@AntiNazisUnited. There were worrying signs of infiltration into the Left: Labour members regularly engaged with Neo-Nazis like Ian Millard and Chabloz but not the deluge of today
Their chosen identity is the bland The Independent Group. Note, “group”, not party. When the SDP was formed in 1981, it quickly adopted a firm identity which everyone in the UK understood. It was a political party, with a firm policy position.
These Jewish and pro-Jewish-Zionist whiners are not a party, even on the face of their own now-public identity. They are just a group of MPs, all facing retirement or deselection, and whose main gripe is “anti-Semitism” in the Corbyn-led Labour Party. None of them actually tried to put forward any thoughts about what is wrong in Britain, let alone what might improve the country. The Jew Zionist Mike Gapes was the most honest, talking purely about his hatred for so-called “Anti-Semitism”. As noted, his tribal interest was at least not concealed by some faked concern about the British people.
More Twitter comment…
Would anyone care to guess how long my BTL comment on the Guardian website Politics Live stream will last? pic.twitter.com/uzqx88QJoJ
The defectors grew to 11 in the end, 3 being “Conservatives” Heidi Allen, Sarah Wollaston and Anna (hic, gurgle) Soubry. This group called itself Change UK and is fighting seats in the EU elections (23 May 2019) and (when called) the next UK general election. So far, the new party has not done well, despite favourable news (puffing) in the msm, some of whom have joined Change UK (eg Gavin Esler, the Jewish journalist who once presented BBC Dateline London).
See below: massive Brexit Party rally in Peterborough; same day, tiny Change UK meeting “starring” Anna Soubry MP.
The Brexit argument in the UK has brought to the fore divisions and truths which, until recently, had been covered up by a “politically correct” or bien-pensant “consensus” in the (largely Jew-Zionist-controlled or strongly influenced) mass media and political milieux.
Anyone who imagines that “Brexit” is just about the UK’s membership of the EU is indulging in hobby-politics and joke-politics and/or exhibiting very poor political judgment. I have blogged about this on previous occasions, eg:
UKIP is the joke party and hobby-politics party of the UK, effectively a one-trick-pony, obsessed with the EU and EU immigration but not hitting hard on non-EU immigration and only peripherally touching on other issues. However, those voters who grasped at the UKIP straw up to 2015 were voting to a large extent not for Nigel Farage as Prime Minister, not for UKIP’s clown MEPs as UK ministers, not even simply to get Britain out of the increasingly sinister EU matrix, but as a protest and shout of anger against a whole host of issues, not all of which are connected directly to the UK membership of the EU.
What Is Democracy Anyway?
“Democracy” is one of those terms which is rather imprecise and commonly misused (another is “holocaust”, usually and deliberately misused and distorted by Jew-Zionists and others as “the Holocaust”, the definite article and the capital letter supposedly differentiating any misfortunes visited on Jews in the Second World War from similar misfortunes visited on non-Jews throughout history).
In ancient Greece (for example Athens, the home of the idea of “democracy”), we see that only the relative few had full political rights. In the 4thC BC, Attica had about 300,000 inhabitants (in the state as a whole, not just the “urbanized” polis of Athens itself). Out of that population, only about 100,000 were citizens. Out of that 100,000, only 30,000, being adult male citizens who had completed military service or similarly accepted service, were allowed to vote or to participate in political life. Women, slaves, freed slaves, children and metics (foreigners resident in Attica) were not allowed to vote etc. In other words, out of 300,000 inhabitants, only about 30,000, 10% of the whole, played a significant political role.
UK Democracy: the expansion of the electorate
In more modern times and in England/UK, we see that, though a kind of representative Parliament existed from the 13thC AD, the electorate (using the term broadly) widened over the centuries. At the time of the first great Reform Act (1832), the population of England and Wales (excluding Scotland) was about 12 million, out of which only 200,000 in counties and perhaps 20,000 more in boroughs had voting rights (see Notes, below), about 2% of the whole population (nb. population estimates of that era are not very accurate: some estimates say 400,000 in toto, so perhaps 4% of all inhabitants could vote), a far smaller percentage than in Periclean Athens! In France, the percentage with voting rights was even smaller, but was expanded hugely when universal suffrage was introduced in 1848.
The percentage expansion of the electorate in Scotland in the 1830s was far greater than applied in England and Wales. Some historians use the term “revolutionary”. I wonder whether that has perhaps had a lasting effect on Scottish socio-political attitudes down the line, even to the present day. Just a stray thought…
Further expansion of the electorate in the UK (as a whole, not just England and Wales) in the 19thC meant that, by 1912, there were 7.7 million voters, a figure that increased to 21.4 million following the Representation of the People Act 1918, which extended the franchise to most women of 30+ years, as well as to almost all men of 21+. Of course, the actual population had also increased very greatly, from 27 million in 1850 to 42 million in 1918.
In 1928, women 21-29 also gained the vote, increasing the number eligible to vote to about 27 million.
Changes in the Post-1945 era: where are we now?
UK voting qualifications have not changed substantially since 1928, except that, since 1948, university graduates have no longer had two potential votes, and the minimum voting age is now (and since 1970) 18.
There are now about 65 million inhabitants in the UK (some put the figure higher, by reason of undocumented, unregistered “illegals” etc).
Does “democracy” mean that all inhabitants of the state must be enfranchised?
The South African Example
We have seen that, in ancient Athens, only male citizens who had completed military service could vote. In “apartheid” South Africa, there was a fully-functioning democracy limited however to those of European (white) origin.
There had, prior to 1910, been non-racial forms of limited democracy in Cape Province, limited by reference to property etc. From 1910-1961, the vote was granted to all white men in South Africa, to mixed-race men in Cape Province, and to black men in Cape Province and Natal. Only white men could become Senators or MPs. White women were allowed the vote in 1930 and could serve as MPs or Senators. Blacks and “coloureds” (mixed-race) were barred from holding those offices. In 1960, the black franchise was terminated; the mixed-race franchise followed in 1968. Later, in 1984, an attempt was made to re-enfranchise the mixed-race population and to enfranchise, on a limited basis, the Indian population.
In 1992, a small majority of (white-only) voters endorsed, by referendum, the end of the apartheid system, after which South Africa adopted a different system, under which all person of 18+ years can vote or be elected. In practice, however, this led to what is effectively a one-party, typically-African state, shambolic and corrupt. The African National Congress (ANC) operates what is effectively an elected dictatorship. In the most recent election (2014), its vote declined, but it still holds 249 out of 400 seats (on 62% of the popular vote).
Under this “new” (post-1994) “democracy”, the white population of the country is under siege from both crime (racially-based) and/or (connected) “political” attack, such as the robbery, rape and murder of whites, particularly in the rural areas. Neither are the (mainly black) poor of South Africa helped by the “elected dictatorship”. Indeed, in some respects they are worse off than they were under apartheid. The “infamous” pass laws may have restricted the blacks, but also restricted crime, which has become epidemic.
The USA
The USA is supposedly a “democracy”, but in practice any Presidential candidate has to be a multi-millionaire or billionaire, or have the support of such, simply to be seen as a credible candidate, or to be able to buy TV ads (this is about the same thing, in practice). If elected, he will find that to do anything effective requires that he be not opposed by either the Congress or the Supreme Court. This rarely happens. In most cases, the separation of powers prevents anything effective, let alone radical, being implemented.
The UK
In the UK, there is “democracy” (we think). Almost everyone can vote, almost everyone can be a candidate. Yet there are impediments: the powerful Jewish-Zionist lobby (special-interest group), the entrenched First Past The Post (FPTP) voting system, the need for finance, and the way in which boundaries are deliberately sliced up to provide a semblance of “fairness”, but in fact to favour 2-party or sometimes 3-party “stability” over real reflection of popular opinion. There is also the fact that “main party” (System) candidates are usually carefully selected to exclude anyone with even mild social-national views. The “choice” is then put before the electorate (together with the minor candidates who almost invariably have no chance at all).
Another important aspect is that, since the Tony Blair government passed its restrictive laws, political parties have to be registered, can be fined (eg for refusing membership to certain types of person, or certain racial or national groups), and can even be “de-registered”, thus barring them from standing candidates in elections. Democracy?
Here is an example from the General Election of 2015.
Brexit
The Brexit vote has exposed the sham or part-sham of British democracy. David Cameron-Levita thought that the 2016 Referendum would be easy to “manage”. He had, after all, “managed” two previous referenda: the Scottish Independence referendum and the AV-voting referendum. Third time, he miscalculated. The people, on the FPTP basis, voted about 52% to 48% for Leave. This was a shock to the System. Immediately, the Remain leaders started to demand “No Brexit”, and for a second Referendum, which would (once the voters had been exposed to enough fear propaganda) come to a different result, and/or for Parliament (most MPs being “Remain”) to just ignore the 2016 Referendum result which (they said) had been procured by fraud, lies, or post-KGB Russian trickery…
The fact is that, leaving aside the “sheeple”, the hard core of anti-Brexit Remain consists of
the affluent/wealthy metropolitan self-styled “elite”;
the big business people;
the Jews (most of them);
those who have done well financially in the 2010-2019 period;
the brainwashed under-30s, mostly from not-poor backgrounds, who imagine that not being in the EU somehow prevents them from getting (for most of them, non-existent) jobs in the EU, or that they will even not be allowed to travel after Brexit!
Those shallow little nobodies (again, mostly young or would-be young urban-dwellers) who think that it is old, unfashionable and “gammon” (white Northern European British) to support Leave or indeed to have any pride in England’s history, race and culture;
Almost all of those working in the msm.
These groups have become ever more severe and open in their hatred of Leave supporters. There are now open calls for the rights of, in particular, voters over the age of, perhaps, 60, to be restricted, for older people to be disenfranchised, especially if white, (real) British, or “racist” (i.e. people who see their land and culture being swamped and destroyed).
Here, for example, we see an almost archetypal Remain whiner, the broadcaster Jeremy Vine, 53, who is paid over £700,000 a year by the BBC and maybe as much as £100,000 p.a. from elsewhere (despite having been awarded only a mediocre 2:2 in English at university and then been –in my opinion– a markedly mediocre Press/radio/TV journalist).
Do we need a maximum age for voters? We have an aging population and as a result so-called "grey voters" have a huge influence over the outcome of elections and referendums.
We see from examples around the world, eg South Africa, or Zimbabwe (etc) that one-man one-vote “democracy” can lead to elected dictatorship. In the UK, it has become increasingly clear that the Parliamentary democracy in place does not reflect the views of the bulk of the population, and certainly not the bulk of the white real British population, those with whose future I concern myself.
Leave may “only” have won the EU Referendum by 52%-48%, but there are nuances here: the assassination of pro-Remain MP Jo Cox, only a week before the referendum certainly had an effect, and is thought to have changed the outcome by as much as 10 points (at the time of her death, Leave was 10 points ahead of Remain in some polls); particularly as much was made of supposed secondary culpability of Leave propaganda for the attack. The referendum outcome might easily have been 60% or even 65% for Leave.
There is also the point that most “blacks and browns” and other ethnic minority voters (eg Jews) voted Remain if they voted at all. Most Scots voted Remain too (no doubt because they have a faux-nationalist SNP as a comfort blanket). Take away those Remain blocs and it might be that about 60% of white English and Welsh voters voted Leave, which might have been 70% without the Jo Cox matter.
Alternatives to Parliament Deciding Everything
I favour the Rudolf Steiner concept of the “Threefold Social Order”. As I paraphrase it, and in the contemporary UK context,
it means that an elected Parliament decides matters properly within the political sphere or “sphere of rights”;
it means that Parliament (and government) does not run the economy or economic enterprises (though it can regulate it and them); likewise, economic forces and personalities cannot rule the political sphere and/or “sphere of rights”;
it means that the State (or economic forces) cannot rule over the proper ambit of the sphere of spirit, culture, religion, medicine, education.
This obviously moves on from the conventional “Parliament rules supreme” idea, developed in the UK since the time of Cromwell.
We can see that Parliament in the UK is no longer fit for purpose. Those currently elected have only a limited mandate. Greater freedom and a more efficient as well as a more just society depend on proper integration of the three basic spheres: political, economic, spiritual/cultural.
There is no necessity for everyone to vote. Voting should be for citizens who are resident and who are of suitable age (I favour 21 years, at minimum). Foreigners, offspring of foreigners, persons who are mainly of non-European origin etc should not be allowed a vote.
Brexit and the future
People voted for Brexit for many reasons and fundamentally out of a lack of satisfaction with the existing way of life in the UK. That urge for something better may be the basis for social-national reform or even revolution. The British people will no more allow themselves to be treated as helots.
Well, it seems that I spoke too soon in saying that the British people will no longer allow themselves to be treated like helots! The “panicdemic”, weaponized for the purpose, has (or the moment at least) put both the British people and “democracy” back in the box. Still, “the night is young”, I suppose. “Tomorrow is another day”…
I am moved to write this by a couple of stimuli. First of all by a UK Labour Party National Executive Committee delegate (I think on the NEC as “youth” representative) to some recent conference in Cuba, and who said something like how wonderful it was to be in a country which showed how real socialism worked.
The second impetus came from an interview I heard on BBC World Service radio: an interview with an “artist” of whom I had never heard, called Tania Bruguera. Apparently, her father had been a Cuban diplomat and politician, and had actually handed her over aged 7 (or maybe I misheard and it was 17) to the security police with the statement that she had said anti-“Fidel” things and that the security police should do with her what they liked. She now says that that was a result of the Cuban system of selfish save-your-own-neck denunciation (rather than her own father being a complete shit, which is what she probably really thinks).
I looked up her “art” (“installations”, “performance art” etc). Unimpressed. To me, it looks like talentless rubbish. Having said that, she has the right to do it, which right is not accepted in Cuba. She is allowed to travel fairly freely. These days, she gets hassled and threatened, at times arrested, though not simply shot or chucked into a concentration camp or prison, which is what might have happened in the 1960s or 1970s.
There is the nagging feeling that Corbyn and many around him actually view states such as Cuba, 1980s Nicaragua, or even the Venezuela of recent years as success stories. I have previously blogged about Corbyn’s almost fossilized politics and policies, as well as his friendly or supportive attitude towards Cuba:
As regular readers of this blog will know, I am not totally hostile to Corbyn and at least some of his supporters (vis a vis the misnamed “Conservatives”), inasmuch as the Corbynists want to create a more equitable society in the UK, want to control or remove the Jewish-Zionist influence which has been so pervasive since about 1989, want people to have decent health, housing, social security etc. The devil, however, is in the detail.
The intellectual inconsistency of many of the Corbynists is shown by the fact that while they oppose Jewish exploitation of and behaviour toward the Palestinian Arabs, they ignore the same pattern when Jews exploit British, German or French (or Russian!) people; they also often still unthinkingly parrot “holocaust” propaganda. Corbyn and John McDonnell are themselves prime examples.
Another example: Most people accept that, in any market economy, more labour available means lower unit labour cost. Many of the Corbyn-Labour people disagree. They say that mass immigration makes no real difference to pay, even at the lower levels. Employers are to blame for exploiting employees and government is to blame for not simply setting a high minimum pay level. Faced with that kind of economic illiteracy, one tends to shake head and refuse to argue. Those people, though, genuinely think that all that has to be done for paradise to descend is for the State to lay down and enforce pay levels and, indeed, price levels.
Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman said, many years ago, that one can have a welfare state, and one can have open borders (and consequent mass immigration), but one cannot have both. When will Labour MPs and members wake up to this?
While there is room for relatively minor tinkering with pay and prices (minimum pay, enforced cheap prices in targeted areas such as public transport etc, even Basic Income —which I favour—), for the State to overwhelm the economic sphere is to invite the economic paralysis that caused even Cuba (and, famously, 1980s China) to introduce quasi-free market reforms, as indeed did Lenin himself in the Soviet Union, via his New Economic Policy of the 1920s. Complete State control of the economy leads to shortages or even economic collapse, as we see in Venezuela. I do not see much understanding of these truths in Corbyn or McDonnell.
It is in relation to mass immigration that we see the madness most obviously. In a sense, this is unsurprising. Polls have shown for some years that Labour is mainly voted for by the “blacks and browns”, in the sense that the one demographic which is very pro-Labour is that of the ethnic minorities (except the Jews, who hate Corbyn’s anti-Zionist tendencies).
I should not let anyone reading this go away under the misapprehension that I “prefer” the Conservatives to Labour. I oppose both main System parties, and Labour is at least (in parts, in some senses) anti-Zionist now. I also despise what the Conservatives have done since 2010 to trash society. However, anyone who thinks that Labour is a real alternative need only look at the total deadheads around Corbyn. Look at Diane Abbott, Dawn Butler (both of whom might well be Cabinet ministers under a Corbyn prime ministership!), or the recently disgraced MPs Kate Osamor and Fiona Onasanya (the latter will almost certainly be in prison soon). Not only blacks, by the way: Angela Rayner, for example, would probably be a Cabinet minister under a Corbyn government. Words start to fail…
I favour Labour over Conservative not because I imagine that Labour’s idiots are actually able to operate a government, but because
Corbyn and many of his supporters are now fighting directly against Zionism here in the UK, not merely in the Middle East; and
a weak government under Corbyn can lay the ground for social nationalism.
Notes
The title of this blog post of course refers back to the 1920 Leninist pamphlet usually referred to as Left-Wing Communism, An Infantile Disorder [Детская болезнь “левизны” в коммунизме], perhaps more accurately translated as The Children’s Illness, “Leftism”, in Communism. However, in using the words “infantile” and “disordered” to refer to some aspects of “Corbynism”, or some people in Corbyn-Labour, I do so advisedly…
I thought to include a few examples. Here’s one. Stupid enough to state on UK TV that she is “literally a Communist”! Hardy ha ha…but note that her absurd statement did not make her a pariah, despite the hugely bloodstained history of Communism/Socialism. Now what if she had said that she was “literally a National Socialist”? Hm…Ash Sarkar’s statement did not prevent her from continuing to write for major newspapers occasionally, and also to appear on TV from time to time. The Jewish influence over the mass media is right in front of us, and in the case of TV, “literally”!
Senior Editor @novaramedia. Literature bore. Anarcho-fabulous. Muslim. THFC. Walks like a supermodel. Fucks like a champion. Luxury communism now!“
Here is her Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ash_Sarkar which, unbelievably, states that she “lectures in global politics at Anglia Ruskin University” [former Anglia Polytechnic].
Wikipedia adds that “Sarkar’s great-great-aunt, Pritilata Waddedar, was a Bengali nationalist and an active participant in armed struggle against the British Empire in 1930s Bengal. Her grandmother is a hospital carer…Her mother is a social worker who was an anti-racist and trade union activist in the 1970s and 1980s. Sarkar’s mother helped “organise marches…“
“The Times has described her as “Britain’s loudest Corbynista“…and Dazed magazine said she is one of “the voices resetting the political agenda in the UK”.” [Wikipedia]
Basically, an enemy of the British people.
and take a look, or rather listen, to one “Liz from Leeds”, whose incredibly naive and just plain wrong (inaccurate, ahistorical) idea of, inter alia, “why Soviet socialism failed” is actually unintentionally funny. “Novara Media” (the collective of Corbyn supporters Ash Sarkar, Aaron Bastani etc) tweeting that “Liz from Leeds” was correct! [the black woman shown is the TV show presenter]
and here is another idiot, Hevreziya-Something, attempting to sound like a real “Communist” (who thinks that he –sounds more like she, but apparently not– can be “Anarchist” and –a male–“Feminist”, and a “Populist” etc all at the same time!…oh, and an economist…once he has finished school, that is, though he claims to have been commenting for years; age does not preclude political infantilism, I suppose)
he offers political advice in the tweet below, which made me laugh out loud (the bit about a General Strike in UK and USA, but the first tweet is also amusingly naive):
Well, I think that I shall draw a veil over that particular “Communist/Anarchist/Populist” now! He/she probably has to go and wash its hair or something…
The trouble is that there are literally thousands of people, maybe hundreds of thousands, quite as stupid. Most support Labour. Many, such as Ash Sarkar and the Hevreziya-someone tweeter, above, are of non-European origin, but there are many others, such as the Englishwoman tweeting below, calling herself “Countess Helen Nonny Nay” [since this blog post was written, altered to Cringing Peasant Helen NonnyNay], who thinks that white British families who want a better life should just “fuck off” as the UK welcomes the dregs of Africa and Asia to our shores…
I don't care if a whinging family decide to move to Australia or not. Go on, fuck off! Or stay here – it makes no difference to me.
Caught out by background TV while doing my dusting. 💃
— Dr Nonny (indistinct chatter) (@nayright12) January 3, 2019
Actually, the sad thing is that some of these people have their hearts sort-of in the right place in some respects— animal welfare, a better society, anti-Jew-Zionism (though most are still brainwashed by the “holocaust” scam/myth). The white Northern European ones would support social-nationalism were they not so indoctrinated and silly.
Update, 6 January 2019
Another idiot, Laurie Penny, who was at one time on TV occasionally (like Owen Jones), until even msm people realized that (like Owen Jones) she is pretty much a one-trick pony…
Do these people, the Owen Jones’s, the Laurie Penny’s etc, realize that their intolerance (yes, their intolerance) might one day not only bring society (the Social Contract) crashing down, but bring down the skies on their own little worlds? I doubt it.
but then, the resistance…
Marxism-Leninism as a political force was destroyed or ebbed away to nothing by 1989 and a host of (other) devils have rushed in to fill the vacuum…
In the end, a complete cleansing of UK (and world) society will have to take place.
Further Update, 6 January 2019
I happened to see the photo below, a kind of “family portrait”: Ash Sarkar and Aaron Bastani in what is perhaps a room designed with reference to either “luxury Communism” or tasteless tat. You decide…
Below, Andrew Neil nails Ken Livingstone on Venezuela…
"If all that's true, it would be appalling, but I have watched America impose sanctions… an appalling impact on their country" @ken4london on how Alan Johnson & Esther McVey reacted to his #bbctw film
Not that everything said by Ash Sarkar (or Aaron Bastani) is wrong. This, below, is right (because grounded in reality, not incorrect theory):
It just really brought home to me that so many people in this country are in similar positions: trapped in low-paid and precarious work, up to their eyeballs in debt, with children and families to care for, but no avenue into quality employment.
What Ash Sarkar and her ilk cannot accept, if only because it might imply that they themselves should clear out of the UK, is that mass immigration is, ultimately, “white genocide” by replacement of real British (i.e. white) people by blacks, browns and others.
He's no different to you: another foreign invader with a massive chip on their shoulder and an even greater inferiority complex. You hate this nation and its people, but are happy to reap its benefits.
— DeAndre DeShawn DeWilliams (@PaddyThePinko) March 1, 2019
Here we see some reaction to Ash Sarkar’s and Owen Jones’s doormatting for the Jewish lobby…
Seems that “someone” sees a vacancy in the msm-approved “licensed Bolshevik” slot previously occupied by Owen Jones (usually by Owen Jones; sometimes Laurie Penny or others). That way, the msm can say, “look! We are open to all shades of opinion, even radical and revolutionary ones!”, while in fact only inviting the kind of people who are in reality completely harmless to the ZOG/NWO System. Non-white or Jewish faux-rebels. White social-nationalists are, of course, banned…
Update, 20 July 2019
A late entrant, a comedienne (for the brainwashed, that’s “comedian”, apparently…), of whom I have never heard but who I am sure is very proud to have 130K Twitter followers (and I am sure at least a few dozen regularly read her tweets…). She believes in “anti-fascist action” and intimidating anyone standing up for free speech.
and, quelle surprise, she has been contracted at various times for those present gravediggers of culture, Channel 4 (usually a gravedigger) and the BBC (sometimes a gravedigger).
…from the Independent, reporting on beach patrols at Dover; all too typical of the sort of persons now prominent in “Labour” and what is left of the trade unions:
“Riccardo La Torre, firefighter and Eastern Region Secretary of the Fire Brigade Union, branded the coast patrol “despicable” and said: “These have-a-go, racist vigilantes have no place in any kind of enforcement or emergency activities and will only serve to make conditions and tensions worse.”
So “Riccardo La Torre” (que?), a regional secretary of the Fire Brigade Union, thinks that migrant invaders from Africa and the Middle East are “working class people”, who are “trying to get to safety”?!
Safety from, er, France? There you have in a nutshell, the craziness that is much of “Labour” now. Alien migrant-invaders are “working class people”, who should be allowed to occupy the UK at will (and be subsidized too)!
Note particularly the fag-end “Marxism”, trying to shoehorn the facts into some 1980s polytechnic back-of-postcard Marxism-Leninism.
I have blogged previously about Corbyn, Labour etc. About Corbyn, I have not much changed my view, which is that
Corbyn is someone with an almost pathetic level of formal (and also, judging from his pronouncements, informal) education, someone with what at least appears to be a poor knowledge-base even in respect of those areas where he seems to think himself knowledgeable (eg the 1930s, Fascism, National Socialism, Marxism, Mosley, the Second World War and so on);
Corbyn was never expected to be more than a back-bench Labour MP and (in the view of many) an infantile crypto-Communist nuisance (perhaps more “anarcho-Communist”), and who was more likely to appear in the now-all-but-defunct pages of Militant (now, The Socialist), Tribune, Lobster or Private Eye than in the commentary columns of the more serious newspapers;
Corbyn’s election as Labour leader had something supernatural about it, in that he was only able to get the necessary 35 nominations to stand in the contest because he was nominated by a number of MPs who had no intention of voting for him!
Corbyn’s nomination was (to use the Leninist metaphor) the spark that created a raging conflagration in Labour;
Corbyn has, on the one hand, energized Labour’s activist base and “created” a party of between 500,000-600,000 members (though pre-2015 Labour did have a total of about 550,000 full members, affiliated members and registered supporters, of which 147,000 were full members); on the other hand, there is no evidence that Corbyn-Labour has solid support in the country as a whole;
The Jewish-Zionist element has tried to unseat Corbyn several times, by holding a second leadership election, as well as by a relentless msm and social media campaign;
As I predicted throughout would happen, Corbyn saw off all challenges despite his being a poor leader (indeed, scarcely a leader at all) and despite the relentless Jew-Zionist assault on his leadership; this again indicates the supernatural nature of, not Corbyn himself, but his placement as Labour leader. Corbyn is there for a reason;
Despite his strange fuzzy “sort-of-Marxist” or almost anarcho-syndicalist ideology (as it seems to me), Corbyn is actually not as alien a figure to many voters as are or were the “entitled” trustafarians David Cameron-Levita, George Osborne (both part-Jew, in fact) and Nick Clegg, with their cosmopolitan sheen of wealth, easy road to fame, inherited money and foreign origins. Corbyn is in fact, as I have said before, a recognizable English/British type, with his Lenin-meets-engine-driver caps, his vegetable-growing allotment, his non-Oxbridge bicycling etc. At any point from the 1920s or even the Edwardian age to the present day, such a figure might be encountered on, indeed, local allotments, in local Labour constituency parties, at the Tolpuddle Martyrs’ commemoration, the Durham Miners’ Gala, at steam fairs or on heritage railway lines, not forgetting marches and demonstrations in solidarity with this or that obscure foreign cause.
I have thought for some time, certainly since 2015, that voters in England (and maybe Wales, and even Scotland) today are voting (if at all) against and not for this or that party. I now see more mainstream commentators taking up that baton. Someone on the BBC World Service radio made the same point in the past week.
The Jew-Zionist lobby has thrown everything at Corbyn from “antisemitism” (which may even have rebounded to his advantage!) to his silly pro-IRA linkage in the 1970s and 1980s. Nothing has worked. Labour has not overtaken the Conservative Party by much (if at all) but has not collapsed in the opinion polls either. Likewise, the shambolic performance of the Conservative Party in government has not collapsed the Conservatives in the polls. To my mind, that is because there are huge numbers who are going to vote against parties rather than for them. That means tactical voting to exclude the most disliked party in any given constituency.
To me, it is telling that, when asked to give a thumbs-up or down re Corbyn as PM, he scores only about 25%; Theresa May scores slightly better, maybe 35%, but “Don’t Know” beats both of them at about 40%.
The odds must favour a hung Parliament. Neither main System party is now in a position to deliver a killer blow, though much depends on whether the SNP vote continues to decline or whether it holds up enough to maintain a serious voting bloc. It looks as if the SNP will hold on to at least 30 MPs, maybe more.
What is holding Labour back more than anything is the corona of “deadhead” MPs (many, though by no means all, black or brown) around Corbyn. The “Diane Abbott effect” has been seen in spades recently, with the Fiona Onasanya and Kate Osamor scandals.
In the end, I think that Corbyn has a good chance of being the next Prime Minister, though at the head of a minority government, so long as the next general election occurs before boundary changes kick in in 2022.
“Man proposes, God disposes”…as someone (Mark Twain?) once wrote. My blog post was right in almost everything but its main prediction! In fairness, it was written over a year before the disastrous General Election of 2019, which propelled Boris-idiot into real power as Prime Minister, a role which, at time of writing, he has been unable to fulfil with any credibility.
I have, in the recent and fairly recent past, blogged about various MPs in a House of Commons where, increasingly, to be mediocre is a standard few can reach. See Notes, below. I have now decided to blog from time to time about a few more deadhead MPs, starting with recently-convicted Fiona Onasanya.
Now let us be clear: people in the UK, especially in the mainstream media [msm] tend to bend over backwards to be fair to ethnic minorities and especially blacks. You see it on quiz shows and in TV interviews and elsewhere. You see it even more in that echo-chamber of the pathetic “me too” “socially-liberal” multikultis, Twitter.
Some of the deadhead MPs (indeed, most) are white; however, the black ones can rely on getting a fairly easy ride from the msm until they really push the boat out in terms of stupidity, aggression or general uselessness. See, for example, Diane Abbott, Dawn Butler, Kate Osamor and now Fiona Onasanya.
Fiona Onasanya
Fiona Onasanya, a black African (Nigerian origin) but born in Cambridgeshire, and now 35 years old, is usually described as having been “a commercial property solicitor” prior to having been selected as a Labour PPC (prospective Parliamentary candidate) then elected as MP. I suppose that most people merely accept that bland potted bio, but in fact it is only superficially true.
Fiona Onasanya was Admitted to the ranks of solicitors in November 2015, at the age of 32. Prior to that (but exactly when, I do not know) she attended the University of Hertfordshire on an LL.B course, and then the University of Law (former College of Law) in order to qualify as a solicitor.
So what did Fiona Onasanya do between the ages of 18 and 32? A first degree and then Solicitors’ course together add up to about 4 years. That leaves 10 years outstanding. Her constituency website is not at all illuminating. Her Wikipedia entry states that she was a County Councillor in Cambridgeshire from 2013. That of course pays an allowance these days, as well as expenses (such as fuel for a car). Fiona Onasanya was also Deputy Leader of the Labour Group on that council, which pays extra (exactly how much, I do not know, but there are councillors with “extra responsibilities” that make a modestly good living out of it). At any rate, there seem to be 8-10 “missing years”, for which there may or may not be a good explanation.
Fiona Onasanya’s (self-drafted?) Wikipedia entry states that “She worked as a solicitor at Eversheds, Howes Percival, Nockolds and DC Law, specialising in commercial property law”, but she can have been little more than an office gopher. She worked for 4 different law firms in only 18 months! Probably no good and did little more than make coffee and read up on “diversity” regulations etc…
As for her selection as Parliamentary candidate, it seems to me that to have selected Fiona Onasanya, especially for somewhere like Peterborough, was almost an insult to the people of that city, 82.5% of whom are white, while only 2.3% are black (and little more than half of those are black African).
It now appears that there was no proper selection process. Here are tweets from the Political Correspondent of Channel Four News, Michael Crick, on the subject:
Fiona Onasanya, found guilty today, is one of the 36 new Labour MPs in 2017 – like Jared O’Mara In Sheffield Hallam – whom Labour picked without a proper selection process in 2017 – no interview, no speech, no selection by local members. Just picked by a small NEC panel.
I have confirmed it was left-winger Pete Willsman who effectively chose Fiona Onasanya on the small Labour NEC panel which met to pick candidates at the 2017 general election for the eastern region. https://t.co/nkloN6umN3
The meeting lasted a gruelling six hours, in which the NEC panel simply read people's CVs. The panel didn't meet or interview any of the people they picked. https://t.co/wad8pZHrvw
Fiona Onasanya was prosecuted for perversion of the course of justice, a charge which has brought a number of MPs to a prison cell, among them Jonathan Aitken and Chris Huhne (the latter on very similar facts to the present case).
Fiona Onasanya was lucky in her first jury, when the jury could not agree, even on the required 10-1 majority basis (one juror became unwell during trial). There must have been blacks and/or Labour Party partisans on that jury! Its prolonged deliberations and weekend adjournment brought hundreds of mocking tweets (heedless of “contempt of Court”), such as one which suggested that the jury would be sequestered for the weekend “in the local mental hospital”, so open-and-shut was Onasanya’s case. In fact, the second jury did not take long to find her guilty.
Since then, Fiona Onasanya has compared herself to Biblical figures who faced courts, such as Jesus Christ and Daniel, and to others who (apparently unknown to avid Nigerian church-goer Fiona) never faced courts at all (Moses, Joseph etc).
Fiona Onasanya faces a prison sentence. Though perversion of the course of justice carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, the relevant judicial guidelines indicate between 4 months and 36 months, with 12 months not uncommon in cases where the defendant lied about the identity of a car driver. Chris Huhne got 8 months, and that was on a guilty plea and far simpler facts (a simpler conspiracy). Jonathan Aitken got 18 months, also on guilty pleas, but his offence, in fact 2 offences, were intrinsically more serious, arguende.
If Fiona Onasanya is sentenced to a year or more in prison, she will be forced to vacate her seat (though in theory an MP so forced out can re-enter if again elected). The judge’s sentence will therefore either trigger a by-election, or keep Fiona Onasanya in her seat (at least until the next General Election). Jeremy Corbyn has given a broad hint that she faces deselection before that election anyway. Without the Labour label, she would probably get only a handful of votes.
My guess, albeit an educated guess, is that Fiona Onasanya will get a year or more of imprisonment. Why? Apart from the bare offence, she not only pleaded Not Guilty in both trials but also made up a complicated story with her brother (guilty of several similar offences), part of which was to blame an entirely innocent young Russian of whom they knew. He was saved from possible (indeed probable, arguably) prosecution only because he was visiting his family in Russia at the material time. The failure of the first jury to agree was plainly perverse and flew in the face of a plethora of convincing circumstantial and other evidence.
As to Fiona Onasanya’s future outside politics, it looks bleak: if imprisoned, she will undoubtedly be struck off the solicitors’ roll (that is a likelihood in any case). She is now 35. If imprisoned, she could be 37 when released. It looks as if the dole queue beckons. Either that or digging up potato from the heavy soil of Cambridgeshire.
On today’s date, Fiona Onasanya MP was sentenced to 3 months’ imprisonment, which means that she will actually be in prison for about 6 weeks minus days in court and in police custody, so probably about a month in the end, if that. Her brother got 10 months.
I am surprised at the leniency of the sentence, in that she deliberately set out on a course of deception, tried to blame someone else for the offence and pleaded Not Guilty despite overwhelming circumstantial evidence, thus necessitating two expensive trials (the first jury being unable to agree on a verdict).
In his very similar trial a few years ago, Chris Huhne got 8 months on a Guilty plea! As a former practising barrister who has (long ago, in the early/mid 1990s) conducted Crown Court criminal trials (though I was always more civil and commercial), I am aware that every sentencing is different because every defendant is different, but the anomaly here is stark. Fiona Onasanya gets about a third of Huhne’s sentence despite her crime being worse on the facts, despite having pleaded Not Guilty (twice). Is it because she is black? Or because she is a black woman? Vicky Pryce (see below) was a woman, after all, and she got 8 months, not 3, and for less. I read much about “white privilege”. Hardy ha ha.
Vicky Pryce got 8 months for having done less than either her husband or Fiona Onasanya. Vicky Pryce and Chris Huhne both actually served 9 weeks in prison before being released early, not the strict 4 months as might have been expected.
Reading the judge’s remarks in the Onasanya case (see tweet below), it is clear that he was floundering in trying to find a reason to suspend the sentence, but in the end could not, so made the sentence as lenient as he felt was possible.
Judge to Fiona Onasanya's barrister on suggestion of suspended sentence: "I'm in difficulty."
"If she wasn't an MP or wasn't in a position of responsibility, she would go inside. It's not one law for those in a position of power, and another for those who are not,"
The lenient sentence means that, until removed by the electors of Peterborough, Fiona Onasanya will continue to collect about £1,000 a week after tax, whether in prison or not. She will also continue to get her flat rent, utilities etc paid for via Parliamentary expenses!
The only way to remove her early would be for 10% of Peterborough electors to demand that via a Petition of Recall, which would trigger a by-election. She has been expelled by Labour, which supports such a petition. However, it will take months both to organize the petition and then for a by-election to be held.
In fact, latest news is that the Recall Petition cannot even be started until Fiona Onasanya has finished her appeal process, which might be months or even (potentially) years. For all that time she will be dragging down £1,000 a week after tax, despite the fact that her assistant has said (to a newspaper) that she did no work as an MP whatsoever, and had 5,000 emails unanswered until she employed said assistant (via expenses, of course).
I suppose that there will be a General Election soon anyway and that, if this waste of space stands, she will get only about 10 votes, or at least only a few hundred (depending on how many Africans in Peterborough are totally stupid).
The Onasanya case proves yet again what a load of useless trash many MPs are now. In this case, her only known jobs are 18 months working as trainee (making the tea?) at a few law firms. At the age of 35. We should find some island somewhere and start deporting. Tristan da Cunha? Target number? In the millions.
Well, I had no idea that the Attorney-General reads and takes account of my blogging! Only joking…but it seems that the A-G is considering whether to refer Fiona Onasanya’s sentence to the Court of Appeal as “unduly lenient”.
Fiona Onasanya, still an MP and likely to remain one until the next general election, was released after only 28 days in prison. I guessed right on that.
Update, 5 March 2019
Fiona Onasanya lost her appeal, in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) against conviction. In theory, she might appeal to the Supreme Court, but it is unlikely that that would be allowed, there not being (as it seems) grounds for such appeal. It is doubtful too whether legal aid would be forthcoming for it, and Fiona Onasanya has no means with which to pursue a privately-paid appeal, though it occurs to me that it is in her financial interest, possibly, at least to make application to appeal, in that, as noted here above, she is getting (net of tax) about £1,000 (in pay) and a similar amount for her London rent, utilities etc paid to her (on Parliamentary expenses) for every week in which she still sits as MP, despite disgrace, despite conviction, despite imprisonment, despite the fact that “her assistant has said (to a newspaper) that she did no work as an MP whatsoever, and had 5,000 emails unanswered until she employed said assistant (via expenses, of course)“. Typical. Most of Africa is in near-chaos for the same reasons, because most blacks are incapable of organization…
So far, there have been no active moves made to start the procedure of recall, because the criminal appeal process is still active, even if only notionally. I expect that Fiona Onasanya will be able to hang on as MP until the Summer, if not until the end of the year. To stop her clinging on until the next general election, there has to be the political equivalent of stamping on her fingers, meaning
an end to the appeals process;
a Recall Petition in proper form;
a petition signed by at least 7,000 people in Peterborough;
The deadhead has now made a video appealing to Peterborough voters to keep her as MP. She really must think that the people of Peterborough are as thick as she is! My guess? If there is a recall petition before a General Election, then I think that it will be voted for overwhelmingly, and that, in the subsequent by-election, she will get a vote of somewhere around 2%. Of course, in the meantime, because she is appealing her conviction, she is still receiving her over £77,000 p.a. salary, plus expenses such as a paid-for London flat (with all utilities, Council Tax etc also paid for).
The creature (Fiona Onasanya) could not pronounce “eligible” or “ineligible”, saying “illegible” (i.e. did not know the difference!).
She is still on Twitter, and still tweeting as if the axe will not soon fall on her whole life and lifestyle!
Update, 30 April 2019
It seems all but inevitable that tomorrow a recall petition will approve the sacking of Fiona Onasanya and the calling of a by-election which might result in Brexit Party scoring a hit:
BREAKING: Constituents in Peterborough opt to remove their MP Fiona Onasanya- 19,261 signed the petition which will trigger a by-election. pic.twitter.com/xeZUJSm0xF
It would be incredible if Farage stood for the seat and captured it (despite the fact that “Brexit Party” is obviously rather far from my position ideologically).
Update, 7 May 2019
The by-election will be held on 6 June 2019 (the anniversary of the Normandy Landings of 1944! You couldn’t make it up!) and, while Nigel Farage will not be standing, the Brexit Party will be putting up a candidate. Nominations close on 9 May. Look at the rally below. According to local newspapers, nearly 2,000 people. In a provincial city. In England.
Peterborough rally for the Brexit Party. When was the last time British politics saw something like this?? Astonishing. They’re doing three rallies a week! pic.twitter.com/YVUlQnhTdw
Change UK London Rally vs Brexit Party Peterborough Rally. One made lead story on BBC News, the other didn’t even feature. That’s right. The tiny one made the front page, the massive one didn’t. Why’s that I wonder? pic.twitter.com/0MVGwgUoly
— The Other Nigel. My truth. (@TheOtherNigel) May 7, 2019
(In fact, the photo there may not be of Brexit Party’s meeting)
As for Fiona Onasanya, she has now been removed as MP, and will almost certainly be expelled (struck off) from the solicitors’ profession (in which she only practised for about a year anyway). She is already effectively forgotten and will soon be back on the dole.
Update, 8 August 2019
Fiona Onasanya has, as expected, now been struck off the solicitors’ roll.
The fact that creatures like Fiona Onasanya were and still are selected as Labour candidates was one major reason why Labour started to slide from being a major party to becoming a niche party appealing to blacks, browns, public service workers and a few other groups.
Update, 5 October 2022
At the by-election necessitated by the removal of Fiona Onasanya as MP, Labour’s new candidate, Lisa Forbes, won narrowly from Brexit Party. pushing the Conservative Party candidate into third place. However, at the General Election of 2019, some 6 months later, Lisa Forbes was unseated by the same Conservative candidate (and Brexit Party relegated to a poor fourth place): see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterborough_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s
“I have now authored and published a book about my journey into politics, Parliament and prison entitled ‘Snakes & Adders’ (see http://www.fionasanyaa.co.uk), currently release monthly newsletters to subscribers, host workshops and am seeking to establish trauma informed care support for women in prison.
Outside of the political arena, I am an active member of my church, an avid reader and seek to encourage, inspire and assist others utilising the experience I am privileged to have.”
Those who have read my recent blogs on Brexit and Theresa May will have noted that I predicted (in the posts and/or in the Comments sections to the posts) that, if the Commons vote on the Theresa May Brexit “deal” were to go against the Government, as always seemed probable, one likely consequence would be that there would be a revolt among Conservative Party MPs, with the aim of ejecting her from her leadership position. That has now happened, though the Commons vote on the Brexit “deal” has not been taken, and may never be.
Theresa May as Prime Minister
I do not conceal that I am very opposed to Theresa May.
She has had passed repressive legislation, both as Prime Minister and in her former office as Home Secretary;
She is very pro-Jewish, very pro-Zionist, very pro-Israel and is a member of Conservative Friends of Israel;
There are indications that she herself may be of partly-Jewish origin;
She has continued the Con Coalition (and, even before that, Gordon Brown Labour) demonization of the poor, unemployed and disabled, even to the extent of promoting dishonest and thick-as-two-short-planks Esther McVey to Cabinet as Work and Pensions Secretary;
She failed, both as Home Secretary and as Prime Minister, to stop or even slow mass immigration;
She has shown no strategic grasp.
[Theresa May became Prime Minister after all other candidates “killed” each other]
I will say that, for a few days after having become Prime Minister, Theresa May looked like a slightly better choice than David Cameron-Levita had proven to be. She made statements in the “One Nation Conservative” vein and seemed to be willing to revisit the obviously not-working bits of Con Coalition policy, such as Dunce Duncan Smith’s pathetic and misconceived Universal Credit fiasco. However, it soon turned out that Theresa May had few ideas of her own and yet was completely inflexible.
Theresa May worked for 20 years, before entering Parliament, as a back-room bureaucrat at the BACS cheque-clearing organization. She is out of her depth as Prime Minister (in fact she was no good as Home Secretary either).
Theresa May’s brittle persona, which might be described as “barely-concealed hysterical panic”, disguised under a “Wicked Witch” outer layer, became very apparent during the General Election campaign of 2017. Afraid to show herself in public, even to the limited extent of her predecessors, her “campaign speeches” to carefully-vetted tiny groups in aircraft hangars etc were every bit as fake as those of US Presidents, and were seen as such. Her hysterical “Nothing has changed! Nothing has changed!” screech turned her from a perceivedly “solid” Prime Minister to an embattled and weak one. Immediately. The 2017 election was probably lost right there.
After the 2017 election, Theresa May was a lame duck PM, dependent on the Democratic Unionist Party votes, which were bought at great expense. Without those DUP votes, Theresa May is totally powerless. The EU establishment saw that and has taken full advantage of Theresa May’s political weakness.
How Has Theresa May Survived This Long?
The answer, in my view, is that there has not been seen to be an obvious challenger for her position. She is second-rate. All right, but most of the would-be leaders and prime ministers are third-rate:
Clown Prince Boris Johnson: completely unfit for any public office, being acquisitive, greedy, lazy, incompetent, often rather stupid, narrowly-educated, unethical, untrustworthy, callous, as well as cosmopolitan in his origins (part-Jew, part-Turk, a bit of this and a bit of that, born in New York City); Conservative Friends of Israel; a poseur and overall a fake, a £3 note who attempts to present himself as “Prime Minister in Waiting” via an am-dram reprise of Winston Churchill, but with none of the intellectual depth or personal steel; supported Remain but turned coat;
Sajid Javid: A Pakistani by origin, cosmopolitan business type by pre-political career; his earnings at time of departure from Deutsche Bank in 2009 are said to have been £3M a year; he owns 4 homes in the UK; someone whose judgment is very questionable, as witness his support for the masked “antifa” thugs (a remarkable stance for someone now posing as Home Secretary!); connected with that is Javid’s doormat-level support for Jews and indeed Zionists —and Israel—; Javid and his English wife took their honeymoon in Israel; member of Conservative Friends of Israel; supporter of American neo-con adventurism and “intervention”; an Ayn Rand devotee…it just gets worse; incompetent in office; supported Remain;
Jeremy Hunt: dark horse; smarmy snake type; possible front-runner; multi-millionaire (tens of millions); property speculator; supported Remain, but has turned coat;
Michael Gove: has a Jewish or part-Jewish wife, and is a member of Conservative Friends of Israel; one of the most egregious expenses cheats of the pre-2010 Parliament; arguably more intelligent than most of the other likely successors to Mrs May, but often wrongheaded; dishonest; supported Leave;
Amber Rudd: member of Conservative Friends of Israel; complete doormat for the Israel/Jewish/Zionist lobby; wants to pass even more repressive laws targeting British patriots etc, making even reading dissident literature online a criminal offence (!); despite her financial services background, pretty thick; incompetent and dishonest in office; personally involved with African and Old Etonian MP, Kwasi Kwarteng; Remain Queen Bee;
Philip Hammond: dull but predictable and therefore perceived as “safe”; supported Remain;
Dominic Raab: a half-Jew, Raab has worked in diplomatic activity; there have been some controversial news reports about his personal behaviour; supported Leave;
Jacob Rees-Mogg: may or may not be a candidate; multi-millionaire and Leave luminary; may not want to give up his big City of London wealth fund operation to become PM, but the lure of the highest office is powerfully magnetic.
The above seem to be the most likely candidates to vie for the succession to Theresa May, if she cannot get 158 MPs to vote for her this evening (50% of the total).
Incredibly, some even less suitable names may want to be on the ballot paper, including
sex pest and doormat-for-Israel Stephen Crabb;
Esther Mcvey (another, yawn, Conservative Friends of Israel member); an evil associate of Dunce Duncan Smith;
dull nobody Andrea Leadsom;
even Penny Mordaunt! (but this is a contest for leadership of the Conservative Party, it is not a swimsuit competition…).
It has been the lack of alternative and credible leadership candidates that has kept Theresa May from having to face a leadership challenge; that and the fact that, should she get 158+ MPs to support her, she will be safe from challenge for a year.
At present it seems that about 110 MPs have pledged to support Theresa May, but the ballot is secret, so their support cannot be confirmed or checked. The vote is a Yes/No one.
A month ago, I should have thought (and did think) that Theresa May would win any confidence vote fairly easily, though perhaps not convincingly. Now, I doubt it, though the outcome must still be seen as uncertain. Her authority as PM, let alone as Conservative Party leader, is in shreds. Her power is non-existent, now that the DUP have as good as pulled the rug from under her government. She is disrespected by the EU, the public, her own party. She must surely go. If she does not, the Conservative Party will ebb away to nothing with her.
Life After Theresa May
Life for the UK has become very uncertain. It might even be said that the British are starting to follow Nietzsche’s dictum, and are living dangerously. It seems to be not unlikely that any successor to Theresa May might want to revoke the invocation of Article 50, thereby stopping Brexit in its tracks. After that, a new Referendum could be held. Not that I favour that course of action. I myself should prefer Britain to wake up, kick out the traitors and unwanted cuckoos in our nest, and leave the EU completely, finally. However, I am not Prime Minister.
Well, as I have repeatedly written over months and years in this blog, the “glorious uncertainty” of the racecourse is replicated in British politics. I thought, only this afternoon, that the outcome of the no-confidence vote would be close, somewhere around 50-50. In the event, Theresa May won by 200-117, so 63% of Conservative Party MPs backed her or at least were unwilling to get rid of her (at present), as against 37% who voted to dump her.
I see the vote not as MPs having confidence in Theresa May, but in having no confidence in any of the likely candidates vying to replace her.
What Now?
Theresa May now cannot be challenged in any no-confidence vote of her party for a year, i.e. until December 2019.
Theresa May still has no credibility, politically. She still has no chance of any substantial revision of her EU exit “deal”; the DUP are distancing themselves from her, which may completely paralyze her legislative programme (such as it is); she now knows for sure that 117 of her MPs have no confidence in her. In reality, few have confidence in her but are not willing to eject her right now.
Theresa May should realize that, just as she became Conservative Party leader and so Prime Minister by default and not by reason of her own merit, so she has now survived the no-confidence vote for the same reason.
There is uncertainty now as to whether the Brexit “deal”, with minor EU concessions as a figleaf, will be put to the House of Commons soon (or at all). As for revoking Article 50, that seems to be not unlikely, perhaps if any revised Brexit “deal” is voted down by the Commons, whatever Theresa May now says.
We must never forget that ZOG/NWO wants the UK to either stay in the EU or to leave the EU but on a basis of effectively still being tied to it.
Afterthought, 14 December 2018
It may be thought surprising that I left out the name of David Davis from the list of possible leaders. Back in 2008, I predicted that he might return to government as Cabinet minister and even Prime Minister. I have subsequently been proven correct in the first part; as to the second, that is now unlikely though (things being what they are…) not impossible. Davis is now 69, but the main obstacle to his being elected as Conservative Party leader and notionally then Prime Minister is that he is for Leave, most MPs are for Remain. That, and his more traditional type of Conservatism.
Update, 15 December 2018
“It’s over. If Brexit happens at all – and for the first time I’m beginning to think it won’t – it will be on terms that keep the worst aspects of EU membership. Britain will be humbled in the eyes of the world, having tried to recover its independence and been faced down. The largest popular vote in our history will be disregarded, and the nation that exported representative government exposed as an oligarchy. Plus – and I know this sounds almost trivial next to those calamities, but it matters to me – the Conservative Party might never recover.” [Daniel Hannan MEP, in the Daily Telegraph]
Update, 1 April 2019
Incredibly, Liz Truss, who only became an MP on her back, is now spoken of as a potential Conservative prime minister! This is madness!
@BBCr4today Liz Truss was on Radio 4 this morning and was simply dreadful. For a cabinet minister it was embarrassing. What on earth have we become when these mediocrities are running our country? #LizTruss#brexit
— capitano coffee #NHSBlueheart 💙 (@capitanocoffee) April 1, 2019
Liz Truss: Tory leadership candidate: Just imagine; Prime Minister Liz Truss: God forbid, politics can’t foist this Tory dimwit as the country’s leader😳🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪can it?😱😱
Well, now we know that, in between 2019 and now, Britain had to endure 3 years of shambolic “Boris” Johnson, followed by 6 weeks of Liz Truss, “ably” supported by Woollyhead Trussbanger (Kwasi Kwarteng), who together managed to tip the UK into a downward economic spiral in only a few weeks.
Now we have diminutive Indian former money-juggler, Rishi Sunak, as “Prime Minister”. This is not looking good.
I came late to the Kate Osamor party. I had vaguely heard the name. One of the blacks that Jeremy Corbyn considers are worthy of ministerial office (though until Corbyn-Labour’s electoral success, only shadow-ministerial). The newspaper stories about “MP’s son charged with drug dealing” etc caught my eye only peripherally. In the past week, however, the trickles and leaks increased to a flood, as the dam burst.
The facts:
Kate Osamor was elected for the very safe Labour seat of Edmonton in 2015;
Kate Osamor MP employed her son, one Ish [Ishmael] Osamor, now 29, in her Parliamentary office, on a salary believed to be between £40,000 and £50,000;
“Ish” Osamor’s job is as Senior Communications Officer (get that— “Senior“…);
Kate Osamor’s total staffing costs for her office were over £145,000 in 2017-2018 (for? Unspecified. Another family member? Uncle Remus? We do not know);
Ishmael Osamor was, before sentence, a councillor in the Borough of Haringey (which is not a completely unpaid post: many councillors get generous expenses as well as an “allowance” which in some cases can be tens of thousands of pounds per year); in fact, “Ish” Osamor was a “Cabinet member” of the council, which means that he got extra money, probably a fairly generous “allowance” amounting to a salary;
Ishmael Osamor was arrested and charged with the drug supply offences in September 2017, before he was elected as a councillor! Banana republic UK! Words fail…;
Ishmael Osamor was convicted in September 2018 of possession of drugs with intent to supply and received the (to many, ludicrously lenient) sentence of 200 hours of “community service” (picking up litter etc), and £400 costs; even the sentencing judge said that 3-4 years imprisonment “would be the usual sentence”…;
Kate Osamor wrote to the trial judge in September 2018 requesting leniency for her convicted son; she claimed more recently that she had no idea until a week ago that her son was even on trial! In other words, she lied straight out;
Kate Osamor was doorstepped by a reporter from The Times; she responded by telling him that she “should have come down here with a bat and smashed your face in”, followed by “fuck off”. She then threw a bucket of water over him and made a malicious complaint of stalking against him to the local police;
Kate Osamor finally resigned as Shadow Secretary of State for International Development;
Latest news is that she intends to stay on as MP, and that her son is still en poste as “Senior Communications Officer”;
Kate Osamor repeatedly tried to edit and censor her Wikipedia page, as a result of which Wikipedia barred her from editing;
In other Osamor family news, Kate Osamor’s mother has just been elevated to the joke “peerage” as a “baroness” in the House of Lords! She was nominated by Jeremy Corbyn on behalf of the Labour Party.
The Kate Osamor Scandal: Wider Issues Arising
I have often tweeted (before Twitter expelled me at the behest of the Zionist cabal) and blogged about the poor quality of MPs (and “peers” for that matter) now. I often wonder just how low the quality-level can fall. Parliament always had on its benches (especially the green-leather ones) a few frauds, mountebanks and charlatans, from Horatio Bottomley on (before him, too). However, the bulk of MPs used to be at least decently mediocre, with a few genuine stars here and there. The Commons is now full of people who not only would find it hard to have a decent career or job outside, but in many cases have proven that!
Let us look at this case (to examine all the deadheads in the Commons —and now the Lords— would take far too long). There are also numerous MPs who have abused the expenses system, in effect defrauded the people: Nadine Dorries and Iain Dunce Duncan Smith, to name just two. Smith claimed for his wife’s “salary” for years even though she never turned up to do a day’s work! Nadine Dorries claimed for the maximum she could at all times and even made faked claims for a generous “salary” for her effectively unqualified two daughters, one of whom also lived in a rented luxury apartment paid for out of Nadine Dorries’ expenses and supposedly for the MP’s use! This blog post is, however, not the place for all that.
It appears from Wikipedia etc that Kate Osamor was born in 1968 and, after having read “Third World Studies” at West Ham Technical Institute (renamed Polytechnic of East London in 1989 and, since 1992, the University of East London), “worked for The Big Issue, a magazine sold by homeless people.[9] She then worked for 15 years in the NHS; she was a GP practice manager before becoming an MP.” [Wikipedia].
If that is true, she worked in the NHS from 2000-2015. [edited October 2019:Wikipedia now says that Kate Osamor was studying from 2003, graduating in 2006]. So she spent 11 years at the Big Issue? Or was she breeding in those years? We do not know.
[Update, 12 December 2018: a more recent edit of Kate Osamor’s Wikipedia entry says that in fact she was a practice manager for only 2 years, and some kind of “executive assistant” or clerk for 9 years, making 11, rather than 15, years in toto in the NHS. So that leaves 15 years unaccounted for…].
[The chronology of Kate Osamor’s life, and especially her work background, seems very unclear, on the face of it. Suspicious?]
Now, what about Kate Osamor’s mother, the recently-elevated “baroness”? She seems to have spent her time in the UK (having arrived, age unspecified, from her native Nigeria) agitating for what amounts to black power (eg defending those charged with the savage Broadwater Farm riots) and based in a law centre in the Haringey area. Well, not all her time: she also produced several children. Now she styles herself “Martha, Baroness Osamor, of Tottenham in the London Borough of Haringey, and of Asaba in the Republic of Nigeria.” Those whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first make mad, it is said. That is what UK society now is— mad.
Let’s not forget “Ish” Osamor. I have no idea what kind of academic or work background he may have, but I doubt that it all amounts to very much, and he has been “working” for his mother in Westminster, we are told, since 2015, when he would have been 25 or 26. £40,000 or even £50,000 p.a.: not bad for a twenty-something with, as it seems, little or no experience of any work.
We are talking about the legislature of what is still one of the most important countries of the world. It is now packed with completely unqualified, uncultured, unsuitable rubbish.
The Effect on Labour Party Electoral Chances
“Corbyn is always surrounded by a pack of black or brown women.” So I have heard here and there. That does mirror what is or has been my impression. The Jews, at least most of them, hate Corbyn because he is anti-Zionist (“they” say he is “anti-Semitic”), whereas I favour his anti-Zionism, though it is weakened by his lip-service re. the “holocaust” fable and his unwillingess to come right out against the Jewish Zionist lobby in the UK.
On the other hand, it is clear that Corbyn’s core support comes from the “blacks and browns” and also from those who could be described as “politically-correct” and/or those whose ideology could be described by the title of the 1920s pamphlet “Left-wing Communism, An Infantile Disorder” [which can also be translated as the slightly different-meaning “…a Disease of Childhood”, but no matter].
On Twitter, there have been thousands of tweets supporting Kate Osamor and many urging her return to the Shadow Cabinet! All the idiots such as faux-revolutionary Owen Jones are supporting her, because they say that a drugs offence is a minor matter, that her lies etc (not to mention nepotism) are not worthy of criticism and that she had every right to tell a reporter to “fuck off”, or to say that she should be bashing in his head with a bat, and to throw water on him. Well, I myself dislike today’s so-called “journalists”, after having been doorstepped by the Daily Mail in 2016 the day after the Jew-Zionists procured my disbarment, but I just told the little round-skulled creature to get lost. He did.
The point is that the Owen Jones’s of this world will accept almost everything that a pseudo-socialist black woman MP does, because her identity makes her immune.
I expect that the bulk of the Corbyn-Labour ranks will support Kate Osamor and the others like her around Corbyn. One thinks of Dawn Butler and, a fortiori, Diane Abbott. However, beyond right-on Twitter, beyond the Westminster bubble, beyond London, there are millions and millions of people, especially white English and Welsh and Irish people (some Scots too; as to the rest, is it something in the water? The Scots have their faux-nationalist SNP as a security blanket, I suppose) who look at these deadheads around Corbyn and think “wait a moment…I want rid of the Conservative Party, but Labour is as alien in its own way, maybe more alien…”.
The ethnic minority women (mainly women, but not entirely: Clive Lewis MP –etc– too, and he supports Kate Osamor…of course…) around Corbyn must be worth a million votes —maybe each!— to the Conservatives. They are a major millstone round the neck of Labour, electorally. True, there are others, not black or brown, who are also completely unsuitable, such as Angela Rayner. I am talking about the overall impression given to the voters. It is not good.
I still think that Labour has a good chance of becoming the major party in the Commons after a general election in 2019, though without a majority. Labour has little chance of a majority however unpopular the Conservatives are, because of the way the 650 constituencies are composed. After 2022, the cut-down Commons of 600 constituencies will make a Labour majority even less likely. Hung Parliaments may well be the norm now. That makes social nationalist growth a good possibility.
I think that, especially as white English/British people, we have to look seriously now at Parliament as it is, and those in it, and consider whether it can be reformed, or whether it needs to be removed in its present form and content.
“It can not of been easy“? I hope that no reader of this blog is so ill-educated as to require the correction (“it cannothave been easy”). What is genuinely frightening is that nonsense people such as Kate Osamor (with or without drugdealing, freeloading sons or uncles Remus) might be ruling us within a few years, or even a few months. I suppose that it is unlikely that Kate Osamor will very soon now resume her position as a member of the Shadow Cabinet, but just consider how far into the pit Labour (and we, as a nation) have fallen, that this ignorant, semi-literate, foul-mouthed, violent and drug-connected (not to mention non-European) woman was ever considered to be suitable to occupy a place in the Shadow Cabinet! Such individuals should not even be MPs!
The “useful idiots” in academia etc are still supporting Kate Osamor! Look at this one, a white woman (or “he/she”?) , a “Research Support Officer” at a UK university, but who seems not only to be obsessed by blacks and their supposed merits, but who, in her Twitter profile, describes herself as a “Black Atlanticist”!
@KateOsamor is a hero of the grandest proportions. Shame on those that would condemn her for continuing to occupy a council property (as is her right). My grandparents’ generation was able to thrive thanks to social housing. We need to build more to ensure sustainable futures.
Leave aside the social housing point, but “a hero of the greatest proportions”? I say that “those whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first make mad”…the UK?
“Idle Thoughts of An Idle Fellow”…
Is Kate Osamor on good terms with fellow black Labour MP Fiona Onasanya? Did Fiona ever buy her stuff from “Ish”?
“Ish” Osamor has now vowed to become an “anti-drugs” campaigner! Hey, clever move! That could be a “nice little earner”! It might even develop into a quango/taxpayer-funded career…What clever little [n******] “Ish” and his freeloading mama, Kate, are!
Well, we now know that the House of Commons is not going to be cut down to 600 MPs, not in time for the expected 2024 General Election anyway.
At date of writing, Kate Osamor is still a Labour Party MP, though her chances of higher office are now minimal. Corbyn is gone, and has even been deselected as Labour candidate for Islington, and Keir Starmer will not appoint Kate Osamor to anything even if Labour does triumph in 2024.
Update, 20 September 2025
Well, she is still there, still pulling it in via pay, expenses, freebies etc:
I am often to be found ranting about the lack of education (in the real sense), culture or plain commonsense in the connected worlds of politics, journalism and law, as well as at the steep decline in quality in those areas and generally. Thus it was with a cynical sneer that I read the statements made by Cabinet ministers (!) this past week and in other recent weeks. Take a look at this piece from The Guardian (a pro-Remain article, but leave that aside).
“I hadn’t quite understood the full extent of this, but if you look at the UK and if you look at how we trade in goods, we are particularly reliant on the Dover-Calais crossing.” [Brexit Secretary, Dominic Raab];
“My wife would say [my Lego collection is] far too large, but I find Lego therapeutic … Everybody who does any difficult or stressful job needs a way to switch off. We all have different ways. Mine is Lego.” [Culture Secretary (!), Jeremy Wright];
“I freely admit that when I started this job, I didn’t understand some of the deep-seated and deep-rooted issues that there are in Northern Ireland. I didn’t understand things like when elections are fought, for example, in Northern Ireland, people who are nationalists don’t vote for unionist parties and vice versa.” (!)[Karen Bradley, Northern Ireland Secretary].
There are hundreds of other examples from the last 8 years of total incompetence. Iain Dunce Duncan Smith alone contributed dozens, though his metier is more in complete executive incompetence mixed with graft and outright fraud. He may never have been promoted beyond Lieutenant in the Guards, but he did manage to learn the Guards officers’ knack of sounding authoritative despite complete ignorance and despite being as thick as two short planks.
One of the more honest (perhaps— some disagree) of recent Conservative Party MPs, Johnny Mercer, not long ago called the Theresa May government-of-fools “a shitshow”! Blunt Army language, but can anyone now disagree?…
Things are really coming to a head now with this sorry excuse for a government. Either Brexit is going to be in name only, or it will happen but under conditions of chaotic incompetence, thanks to this government’s inability to do its job.
It really does say something about the Theresa May government that until his self-interested resignation recently, the “great intellectual” in it was supposed to be Boris Johnson, who has not once been able to do competently any one of the jobs given to him by reason of his privileged background. This is a man whose idea of appearing intelligent and cultured is (or was, until people generally started to laugh openly at it) quoting bits of rote-learned Latin and Greek and dog-whistling classical-history soundbites. The amazing thing is that, until very recently, Johnson’s self-publicized image as “Prime Minister in Waiting” was actually taken seriously by the msm and so the masses. Indeed, few were willing to point out that Johnson was a walking self-parody, with his classical crammer-college allusions and his pathetic am-dram reprise of Winston Churchill, right down to the gruff comments and slight stoop. He even copied Churchill’s gait sometimes!
Well, thank God for small mercies: it now seems that even Boris Johnson himself has now accepted that he will never be Conservative Party leader and so will never be PM either. Only about 20 or 30 MPs would back him and so he would not be in the top two places. About 5th-ranked, probably.
Most MPs can scarcely be called mediocre, let alone competent. That applies equally to Labour, but this Government stands or falls on its own record. Labour has every chance of being largest party in the Commons quite soon, perhaps by some date in 2019.
The situation now seems to be that the Brexit-in-name-only scenario may not pass the Commons. The Democratic Unionists [DUP] will not accept Northern Ireland being treated differently from the rest of the UK, and if forced to that will simply oppose the Government (or abstain) on all other legislation. Collapse of Government not long after.
Alternatively, if a real no-deal Brexit happens, unprepared for and resulting, in the words of Johnny Mercer MP, in “a shitshow” economically, then a situation of both economic and social turmoil might be brought about within months.
Social nationalism can only prosper from now on.
Update, 20 June 2019
Well, on rereading this for the first time since writing it, and because I noticed that it had had a few hits recently, I have to admit that I underestimated the level of stupidity of the Conservative Party MPs and membership. The exceptional (crazy) Westminster politics of the hour have brought about a crazy result (probably): Boris Johnson now looks quite likely to become Conservative leader and so, by default, Prime Minister next month.
Update, 3 December 2023
In the words of Macmillan, “Events, dear boy”… Events and “Conservative” MPs conspired to get “Boris” Johnson elected (by Con Party members) as Con Party leader, and so Prime Minister. As we now know, he then won the 2019 General Election and, on resignation in 2022, was replaced by absurd and vacant “ho”, Liz Truss, who in turn was replaced after about 6-7 weeks by Indian money-juggler Rishi Sunak.
Despite having underestimated Johnson’s chances of becoming Prime Minister, I think that the original blog post stands up quite well.
As to the others mentioned in that original post, half-Jew bully Dominic Raab is standing down as MP in 2024, after being found guilty of bullying civil servants, and after 13-14 years as MP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominic_Raab.
Jeremy Wright was sacked (by Johnson) after only a year in post as Culture Secretary, but is still an MP and fairly likely to remain one unless the swing to Labour in 2024 is huge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Wright.
Karen Bradley was dismissed from Cabinet in 2019 but remains an MP and, like Wright, has a notionally very safe seat.
Ian Robert Millard 