Morning music

Saturday quiz

Well, 7/10 this week, thus beating political journalist John Rentoul, who scored 5/10. I did not know the answers to questions 3, 7, and 10, though I was at least in the right area re. question 7.

Tweets seen

That idea, that the online pseudo-political “grifters” (“Jack Monroe”, “Supertanskiii”, “Man Behaving Dadly”, Julia Grace Patterson etc) will have to nuance their begging appeals now that the hated “Tories” have switched places with the supposedly better but actually quite similar (in policy terms) Starmer-Labour, had occurred to me.

I doubt that the online fraudsters need to worry too much, though. Their target audience is almost begging to be cheated, and will accept as true almost any variation in the “facts” put forward. You only have to look at the lies of “Jack Monroe” over the years. Stunningly unbelievable. Like something from a book of fairy stories. Yet the “useful idiots” believe…and continue to send money to her.

There is a belief around that “mainstream” political parties must aim to be in the non-existent or notional “centre”.

Regular readers of the blog will know that I effectively never use the descriptors “right”, “left”, “centre” etc in that way.

What matters is policy, and what matters to the people is the overall effect of policy on their lives. The Conservative Party failed the people in terms of how their confused policy offering actually affected or changed, or failed to change, the lives and lifestyles of the people. Labour is about to follow suit, in my opinion.

A frequently-encountered problem in our society of pervasive b******t…

…said well-known political journalist John Rentoul in...2014. Oh…

That aged well…

Sunak is already forgotten. It is as if the little Indian money-juggler departed the stage (pursued by a bear?) years ago, rather than nine days ago.

Talking point

Not that Churchill himself wanted to finish off the British Empire. He wanted, in an ideal world, to destroy National Socialist Germany and, at the same time, the Soviet Union.

Churchill’s strategic ineptitude (seen in numerous examples throughout his career) led not only to the destruction of the German Reich, followed by the division of mainland Europe into a Stalinist sector in the East, and a basically American, or notionally Anglo-American, sector in the West, but also to the destruction of all the European empires, and thus their generally civilizing influence over Asia, Africa (including North Africa) etc

The same basic division in Europe (though into 4 national sectors) was carried out in much of Germany and Austria for several years after WW2, with the capital cities (Berlin and Vienna) likewise divided.

Vienna was divided until 1955, Berlin until 1989, and France was, as a notional Western ally, given one sector despite having been defeated in 1940, partly occupied the same year, and fully-occupied in November 1942 (and having not participated in the defeat of the German Reich).

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

The end of WW2 led directly to the collapse of European rule across the world. The colonies of Britain, France, Belgium, Spain, the Netherlands etc were decolonized, some almost immediately, some much later. Thus began the environmental degradation and loss of wildlife across Asia, Africa, the Pacific etc, which situation continues even today, as do the wars, civil wars, corruptions and tyrannies of the formerly colonial territories.

Churchill, an educated and erudite man who was also completely wrong in his political judgment(s) was, so to speak, “the wrong man at the wrong time”, though the accepted System/msm narrative says the opposite, of course.

As for Britain itself after WW2, I recommend the books of the very underrated Correlli Barnett: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlli_Barnett.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlli_Barnett#Writings

As Barnett points out in one or two of those books, after WW2 Britain would have been able to do one of three things well, possibly even two of those things: maintain its status as a great power; regenerate its economy; create a Welfare State. Britain tried to accomplish all three, but was unable to do so satisfactorily. Britain had been beggared by its war against the German Reich.

These three aims or tasks (or problems) are still with us, in some or another form, today.

Britain today is the “also ran” in respect of its military power, its society (Welfare State, NHS, State education etc), and economy.

As far as Barnett is concerned, I should say that he was right far more often than he was wrong.

Incidentally, Barnett was probably denied a knighthood, a life peerage, and other official honours (he did get a CBE) by reason of his having spoken, or strongly implied, the unsayable— that Britain should never have declared war on the German Reich or, having declared war in September 1939, should have concluded an armistice sometime after Dunkirk, in mid to late 1940, before too much hurt and damage had been done in western and central Europe.

Reform UK

Reform UK’s vote suffers from being wide, indeed nationwide (though not so strong in Scotland), but shallow. 14.29% across the board could easily have meant zero seats anywhere, rather than the 5 Reform actually captured.

The LibDem vote, only 12.22% nationally, was nonetheless concentrated here and there. Result— 72 MPs.

Reform UK, to me, seems to be in a fairly good position to concentrate some of its overall support in certain parts of the country, and certain constituencies, just like the LibDems. For Reform, that would be, primarily or firstly, in the East of England and the East Midlands: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_Kingdom_general_election#Full_results; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_Kingdom_general_election#By_nation_and_region.

In the East of England, Reform UK scored 17.5% of the vote; in the East Midlands, 18.9%.

Indeed, though Reform won no GE 2024 seats in the West Midlands or North-East England, its vote was still high— 18.1% in the former, and 19.9% in the latter (less than half a point behind the Conservative Party). Reform was also not very far behind the Conservative Party in the West Midlands.

Reform UK came second in 98 constituencies, of which 89 were won or held by Labour.

It is not impossible to surmise that, if the Conservative Party vote were to collapse further in those 98 seats, Reform UK might capture some, many, or even all of them.

That would be even more likely, arguende, if Starmer-Labour in government disappoints the mass of the people, as I believe it will.

Late tweets seen

I am glad that I am not alone in having noticed the sickening sycophancy of the “occupied” UK msm towards Starmer-Labour (though would anyway be unconcerned were I the only one).

Today, on Sky News, I caught literally seconds of the end of a piece by some sports journalist woman. Her take was that, with “England” in the final game of some football contest, and a new Labour (New Labour?) government in power, it feels (she claimed) like the dawning of a new era. I believe that was the brainless and derivative way in which she put it.

Of course, Starmer-Labour will probably be in power until 2029, so the msm drones naturally want to curry favour, but I think that the said sycophancy goes beyond even that. I think that many in the msm seriously believe that Starmer-Labour is wonderful and will bring about some minor “golden age”.

I see no real connected thinking in the msm about what happens when the UK is importing literally a million invaders every single year, about what happens when a Labour government is harder on workers, the unemployed, the sick, the disabled than has been the past 14 years of “Conservative” government (etc).

What happens when the lights go out? What happens when lawlessness finally overwhelms a fairly civilized court and legal system which evolved over long periods but which is now already swamped?

Also, with a deadhead like Lammy as Foreign Secretary, what happens to Britain’s already-tattered international standing?

What interests me is what will be happening 2025-2029 under the surface of the Labour Party pseudo-landslide Commons majority.

Who can forget Ed Miliband at Copenhagen in 2005, bleating outside the UN conference (so badly-organized that he was not allowed in at first) about the fake “3/5/7/whatever years to save the world” narrative? I also recall that little monkey, who was the President of the Maldives, jumping up and down and clapping once he realized that his country might receive millions in “climate aid” in case the Maldives sank below the waves (nearly 20 years later, though, it is still there).

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maldives#Sea_level_rise]

Late music