The likely date of early release is now some day uncertain next week. “They” are trying to get their full pound of flesh, it seems.
Latest news about persecuted singer-songwriter Alison Chabloz is that, according to usually-reliable sources, her early release on electronic tag has been further delayed by wrangling over the terms of her release; in other words, it may be that the Jew-Zionist lobby, operating as always behind the scenes, is trying to have her gagged, i.e. there may be conditions around use of or posting on the Internet. Such conditions, if imposed, might last until the end of the 18 weeks starting on 31 March 2021, the day of her sentencing; if so, she may be unable to post until early August 2021.
Books sent should be *new, *paperback and preferably (though not necessarily) sent via online vendors [important update: Bronzefield Prison now does not accept Amazon deliveries but will accept books from elsewhere]
Looks as though the technology first publicly seen in the 1965 film, Thunderball, has finally come of age and is finally of use in practical operations:
Gotta say, whilst I don't share all of the conclusions he comes to, this mini-documentary by Owen Jones is the most interesting and informative piece I've yet seen on the Hartlepool by-election. Far better than anything put out by the BBC/Sky/ITN etc. https://t.co/biQGOT1IRd
— Mathew Hulbert 🔶️ 🏳️🌈 (@MathewHulbert) May 5, 2021
Worth watching (pity about the horrible ending soundtrack, though).
The few, in (eg) Hartlepool, who are still Labour loyalists, point at achievements of the past, such as those of the Attlee government of 1945 (NHS, mainly…), but that is like saying that Lloyd George brought in the Old Age Pension, so vote Liberal, or LibDems in today’s terms. Absurd. Doesn’t work…
It is ridiculous for people in Hartlepool to vote “Conservative”, but it is equally silly to vote “Labour”, which supports mass immigration, and in that and other respects is now almost identical in real policy terms to the equally-misnamed “Conservatives”, and now led by a man who is married to a Jewish woman lawyer, whose children are being brought up as Jewish, and who is a puppet of the Jewish Zionist lobby.
Does Keir Starmer have anything to say to the people of Hartlepool? No. Neither, of course, does the part-Jew chancer and political bad joke, Boris Johnson. However, the voters of Hartlepool have no other realistic choice. The electoral system is itself a fraudulent bad joke. The result is that those voters want a change, but cannot get a change except to make a gesture at least, by binning Labour, which has won Hartlepool since 1974 when the present constituency was created.
The opinion polls show the Conservative Party well ahead of Labour in the Hartlepool race. The result may be tighter than some expect, but it seems likely that Labour will lose to the Conservative Party.
It is unlikely that Reform UK (effectively Brexit Party without the name, the support, or even the leader— traitorous Farage has decamped for the money) will get many votes. Thus the Conservative Party vote will be little impacted.
As for Labour, I predict a poor showing. There are many in Hartlepool, no doubt, who will not vote Conservative under any circumstances. Many former Labour voters, as in the 2019 General Election, will probably vote with their feet, and stay at home to watch the televised sport and pseudo-“celebrity” nonsense so beloved of the contemporary British masses. If so, the Labour Party is toast at Hartlepool.
A Conservative Party “victory by default” at Hartlepool is more than likely, and the same effect will be seen, in the near future, across much of England, in the absence of a real social-national party.
Tweets seen
Digbeth's railway viaduct was built 150 years ago but has never seen a single train.
So I'm determined to make use of the space by transforming it into a green walkway providing a much needed green lung for the city – similar to the NY Highline.
Another new solo show. How Brits should vote on Thursday. A nurse exposes New York's real covid scandal. I rip apart the BBC's 'black Cheddar man' hoax. And find a piece of environmental good news thanks to unfashionable but inventiveness of white men. https://t.co/gxpwbgzxsk
Blair was one of the most fervent members of Labour Friends of Israel when he was an MP. Corbyn, though weak, was relatively anti-Zionist. Starmer is another Labour “Friend of Israel”, and is married to a Jewish woman who is a lawyer; their children are being brought up as Jewish; Starmer and his wife celebrate Jewish tribal holidays.
The Jewish lobby wanted to regain control of the Labour Party. They have. Corbyn is now an “unperson”, but Starmer seems to be doing worse, as Labour leader, even than Corbyn (a result which I predicted in these blog pages).
Philip Proudfoot should report Lewis to the SRA for harassment and breaching their code of conduct. The threat of doing this to solicitors/barristers usually makes them stop because they don't want their professional career to be negatively affected. More people need to do this.
Aaron Bastani and Jew-Zionist solicitor Mark Lewis are “discussing”, in the tweets above, the new Northern Independence Party, which is standing a candidate —a former Labour MP— at the Hartlepool by-election. As to Lewis himself, I have blogged quite extensively about him in the past: https://ianrobertmillard.org/2019/01/11/update-re-mark-lewis-lawyer-questions-are-raised/.
Morning music
More tweets
More evidence that the police are just making this up on the hoof. How do you define ‘gender’ Derbyshire? Is denying that gender should have anything to do with policing ‘hate’? https://t.co/4x5Z3yzxhE
I have seen and heard nothing as to whether Alison Chabloz’s trial Counsel (who, on her behalf, will be appealing her conviction and sentence), has as yet lodged that appeal and/or applied for bail pending that appeal. I apprehend that such application(s) will be lodged and made as soon as possible, possibly today.
[Update, 7 April 2021: It now appears that Alison Chabloz’s prisoner number is in fact slightly different from that quoted in the above tweet, and is A6478EK]
Johnson the alleged 'libertarian' flounders as he evades questions about 'vaccine passports'. Fraser Nelson writes: https://t.co/v3PrfwwaIQ via @spectator
I'm sick of our governments not protecting us from these savages. Open borders has always meant open season on white people. pic.twitter.com/heL34t1H1k
Polling seems to show that this is essentially a straight fight between Con and Lab:
There are likely to be at least 10 candidates in all, possibly 11 or 12.
Hartlepool has been held by the Labour Party since its creation in 1974. The Labour vote peaked, perhaps surprisingly, when Peter Mandelson was the candidate in 1997. Over 60%. The lowest trough was in 2015, when Labour scored 35.6% (UKIP second with 28%). Labour recovered to 52.5% in 2017, but crashed back to 37.7% in 2019.
The Conservative Party vote peaked early, in the first election of 1974 (45.7%). The Con trough was in 2001 (20.9%).
Brexit Party, represented by its deputy leader, Richard Tice, might have succeeded in 2019 had Nigel Farage not stabbed his own party in the back in order to help the Conservatives win the General Election. Even so, Tice managed a 25.8% third placing, not far behind the Conservative candidate. Reform Party is the forlorn reincarnation of Brexit Party, but already seems doomed. Even Farage, its “leader” until recently, has jumped ship.
Labour’s national problems have been intensified in Hartlepool by its candidates of recent years. Mike Hill, the MP since 2017, stepped down because he was facing sex pest allegations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Hill_(British_politician). A pretty dull Labour Party drone, who worked in trade unions and public libraries before becoming an MP.
[Paul Williams, Labour Party candidate at the 2021 Hartlepool by-election]
Williams is obviously a careerist, and was the MP for Stockton South 2015-2017, when he lost to the Conservative candidate. He has also tried to become a Police and Crime Commissioner.
On paper, Williams looks like a solid candidate, with a solid background in healthcare as a GP etc, but is said to have been not very liked when MP for Stockton South. He is pro-EU in a very anti-EU part of the UK.
Labour’s national profile at present is not encouraging. The Jewish lobby managed, after a four-year struggle, to bin Jeremy Corbyn, replacing him with Keir Starmer, married to a woman who is a Jewish lawyer, and whose children are being brought up as Jewish.
Starmer is doing no better than Corbyn did in gaining public trust or popularity.
I do not feel inclined to call the result, as yet, though obviously Labour is on the back foot. If the Conservative Party wins, it will not be because there is sudden enthusiasm for it, or for Boris-idiot, but because Labour is sliding to oblivion. If Labour loses, Hartlepool may go down in British political history as the beginning of the end for the Labour Party.
Out of over 70,000 eligible voters, fewer than 30,000 turned out to vote. Official turnout was 42.7%. Of those (nearly) 30,000, only about 8,500 voted for the Labour Party candidate. 8,500 out of a possible 70,000…
The beginning of the end for the Labour Party.
Update, 13 July 2025
Well, since 2021, much water under the bridge. At the 2024 General Election, Labour recaptured the seat with 46.2% of the vote. The former MP, Jill Mortimer, sank with the rest of the Sunak Con Party, and came third, with a vote-share of only 21.9%. Reform UK came second, with 24.5% (about the same as the Brexit Party vote in 2019).
The present MP is one Jonathan Brash, an almost invisible former schoolteacher. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Brash. I imagine that Reform UK might unseat him in 2028-2029. We shall see.
As for the 2021 by-election candidates, the Labour candidate, Paul Williams, returned to work as a doctor in the NHS, and the Conservative Party candidate and then MP, Jill Mortimer, seems now to have returned to her farm and B&B business in North Yorkshire.
I have blogged many times about the Labour Party. An important topic, in that the UK has a basically binary system which was Liberal Party v. Conservative and Unionist Party until just after the First World War, then Labour Party v. Conservative Party. A situation which still pertains, and which, from the psychological point of view, emerges from the typical British mindset of “rivalry”, which also results in the British love of sporting rivalry, particularly in team sports.
“Lewis joined the Army and toured in Afghanistan“. Very naive. Clive Lewis, a person of mixed race, joined the Territorial Army as commissioned officer, then did three months in Afghanistan, as far as publicly known not seeing any action, after which he had a breakdown or meltdown on return to the UK. More of a gap year misadventure than Bravo Two Zero…
Goodwin’s main point is that Labour must show itself “patriotic”, which apparently means waving a flag or wearing a red poppy once a year. Hard advice to follow when the voters know that Labour under Blair and Brown uined Britain by deliberately importing millions of blacks and browns, who have since been breeding prolifically.
True, the “Conservative” Party record on mass immigration is almost as bad, and now is getting worse, part-Jew Boris-idiot having now decided to allow entry to as may as 6 million Hong Kong Chinese, 300,000 of whom are expected to arrive within a few months! That however, will not help Labour much.
As Goodwin correctly says, though, Labour is now a party of “London progressives” (in terms of members and supporters); its voting base among English and Welsh voters (meaning white people) has all but collapsed, making Labour reliant on “the blacks and browns” and/or those employed by the State and its offshoots such as the NHS.
The 2019 General Election made plain that the Labour vote is only about a third of the total vote. Core vote? Maybe 25%.
There is a ray of hope for Labour, in that persons under 30, maybe more under 24, seem better disposed towards Labour (that may also have an ethnic dimension, because the proportion of blacks and browns is increasing in that part of the age demographic as those populations breed). However, the under-24s are notoriously non-voting.
I wonder how many SNP supporters know, accept, or care about that prediction? Few, probably.
The belated rise of the long-struggling SNP has been remarkable. The SNP was founded in 1934, yet took 33 years to get its first MP (Winnie Ewing, in a 1967 by-election). Between 1967 and 2015, the SNP representation at Westminster swung between 1 and 7; on the eve of the 2015 General Election, the SNP still had only 6 MPs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_National_Party#House_of_Commons_2.
In a sense, the most remarkable thing about the SNP is how its post-2014 rise at Westminster shows up the absurdity of FPTP voting. In 2015, the SNP landslide —56 out of 59 Scottish Westminster seats— was achieved on the back of only 50% of the actual popular vote in Scotland.
At Holyrood (the Scottish Parliament), elected under a fairer —proportional representation— system, the SNP has never won more than about half of the MSP seats: 69 out of 129 in 2011, and 63 out of 129 in 2016: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_National_Party#Scottish_Parliament_2. It will be interesting to see what happens later this year. The SNP representation at Holyrood broadly equates to the support for Scottish Independence. Somewhere around 50-50, so far.
I do not hold myself out as any kind of expert on Scottish politics, and in fact have never been North of Hadrian’s Wall, but it seems to me that SNP support comes from two main directions: voters committed to “Independence”, and voters disgusted by the other major parties, and so voting by default. An overlapping Venn diagram.
At any rate, as I have recently and previously blogged, if the SNP manage to wrest Scotland away from the UK, that pretty much sinks Labour in England and Wales, at least in terms of being a party of government.
Tweets seen today
If #KeirStarmer is serious about Labour pretending to think & feel like normal Brits, he'd better stop kneeling for Blacks Love Marxism and ditch the 'gender' lunacy for starters. Nah, don't think so!#allredunionjackhttps://t.co/czXY0SOLZn
Germany is a dustbin now, ruled and/or strongly influenced by Jews, full of Central European and Eastern European (ethnically non-European) Gypsies. I noticed the decline in standards, from when it was mostly West Germany, when I returned for the first time in 13 years in 2001. Huge numbers of non-Europeans in Munich (which city looked quite scruffy as well).
While a succession of proper winters has pushed the 1% elite to switch from CO2 to Covid as their excuse for World Government, the global warming cult remains a danger to us all. Ridiculing the Virgin High Priestess is therefore not mean, it's legitimate self-defence. pic.twitter.com/22EQ3h4l7O
No @adamgarriereal, they have no idea of the forces they are playing with. Those who know no history are condemned for ever to be children.. https://t.co/EJBIwS2cyd
That minor msm radio drone, “@adamgarriereal”, has no conception of the evil wrought by the “holocaust” mythus and the connected quasi-heresy laws extant in several countries (not in the UK, but the System politicians, msm etc operate a kind of unwritten “holocaust” “denial” law). Once you start to criminalize or demonize truth by mandating “official truth”, Pandora’s Box is open, and out fly not only “holocaust” “denial” laws or quasi-laws, but the description of other dissenting views as “denial”…
@eldram_artworks. How very sad. I do hope that you will soon overcome whatever has gone so wrong with your life. Spite of this kind is not a sign of strength or confidence.. https://t.co/ANRenvRXQw
I was once trolled (on Twitter, some years ago) by a whole group of idiots grouped around one very stupid woman who thought herself terribly clever, a nurse (oh, yes, one of those supposedly caring, sharing people…) from the North West of England. I had to block about 15, and they had no choice but to FO. Such people are very tiny minds (as can be seen in the tweets of some of the “antifascist” and allied Jew-Zionist crowds).
It will be fun, if it becomes mandatory to use your own name on social media, to see who exactly trolled me in the past (some still comment about me). Then we’ll see what happens. What fun!
I just read a few of the tweets of “@eldram_artwork”. Two minutes of my life wasted, minutes that I shall never get back.
The wicked flourish like the green bay tree, indeed…That bitch should be really grateful to her inept and stupid (and, arguende, over-sentenced) husband. Not only has she got shot of a husband with whom she was probably bored anyway, but she managed to take over his position as MP and now, it appears, sold her story to the Press for £25,000! As good as the plot of a cheap novel by one or another disgraced Conservative MP…
As to why I think that Elphicke was over-sentenced (probably the only thing with which I might agree with Natalie Elphicke), when you look at what Elphicke actually did, it amounted to making very inept attempts to seduce three women. His actions make “cringeworthy” reading, but being a complete idiot and rather unpleasant is not a crime. If it were, there would be few MPs left (yay! ha ha!).
More seriously, a sentence of a month, or a couple of months, would have been enough to mark the badness of his actions. He would still have lost his seat: while that would not have been automatic —the sentence has to be a year or more for that— there is no doubt that he would have gone, and probably within a few months.
There is much too much leniency in some sentencing, but also a great deal of over-sentencing. For example, we see daily in the tabloid or local Press, “she (and it is often a woman) was spared prison” (often but not always because the woman has a child). There are many male thugs too who are let off lightly.
I saw a report about how a gang of “people” attacked two policemen trying to arrest a motor thief, and poured petrol on them, but failed to find matches or a lighter. Sentence for the main perpetrator? 3 years, 9 months, so that one will be out in less than two years. Another got a short sentence, while a third was given a “community penalty”!
Jez Turner of the London Forum got a year for making a short speech! More than a quarter of what he would have got for trying to murder two policemen! (note: those criminals with the petrol were not actually charged with attempted murder; why not?).
The video itself is nice; I could do without the repetitive and noisy musical soundtrack, though.
It's a strange time when the former Marxists at #spiked have far more sense and resist the abuse of state power more than the mainstream right wing press.#Sweden#lockdownhttps://t.co/2p1EZ2f7Yx
But @Drchrisparry, we are not strong at sea. Our fleet of destroyers and frigates, much better suited to our real needs rather than these fantasies of world power, has been savagely reduced to pay for these enormous floating car parks. https://t.co/CepnH8ZlKo
A curious article @NavyLookout as it seems to think that the RN is still a 'first-tier navy'. The purpose and nature of your fleet is plainly important in your choice of ship. But by what definition is the RN not already a second (if not a third) tier navy? https://t.co/3MEumHgHG5
2/2 @johndstats The real naval race of the 20th century was the one with the USA, which we lost. https://t.co/lroUDyVKkE But we did not need to go this far in self-abasement. Turning our Navy into a sort of sub-contractor for the USN is just wrong. https://t.co/DVWtQMUasF
Again exactly right. From Roman times to our own, the position of an ally can quickly become that of a vassal. The two world wars, and particularly the unnecessary world struggle with the German Reich, killed Britain as a world power. Britain gave many of its bases overseas to the USA, and now many “British” bases (RAF bases) in Britain are really American bases. Britain is still America’s “unsinkable aircraft carrier“, in the words of Roosevelt.
Don't encourage the Muzzle Zealots . So many people seem actively to enjoy being muzzled and depersonalised that you really shouldn't give them any more excuses, or this will go on to the end of time, and an exposed human face will become a rare and shocking sight. https://t.co/g3OfhdzlII
I believe there now such severe shortages of some skills that the RN is borrowing people from the US Coastguard. Overstretch always destroys the experienced backbone of a military organisation. Decent home life becomes impossible. @Dan_Gaskinhttps://t.co/0rr7z5kHsB
I believe similar things happened to civil servants who were against the Iraq invasion. The old pillars of liberty and good government are all rotted and crumbled away. @dan_gaskin . I thought Boyce was quite good. https://t.co/VQtMBIgEjr
A good parallel @Dan_Gaskin . These things survive, against all sense and reason, because they swell the vanity of the politcians who propose them. Meanwhile the proper effective Navy melts away, and normal trains are starved of funds. https://t.co/oGGMm3wRMj
He who has not the mark of the Beast cannot buy or sell…
This video from Laura Towler and Mark Collett is worth seeing. Laura’s account [from about 8 minutes in] of how her bank account was frozen (without right of access, appeal or much information), frozen because of her political views, is chilling.
That is the future that awaits. Dissidents will have their bank accounts closed and/or stolen, and you will be stuffed then even if you have cash for immediate necessities, because almost everything will require a debit or credit card. In the UK, it is halfway there already.
For a number of years, and until about 11 years ago, I used to stay in hotels (mainly in the UK) about 10 days per month, usually arranging things via Internet and paying by debit card. Once, I wanted to pay by cash when I was somewhere in England unexpectedly, and was told that I not only had to get permission to pay cash but also pay a deposit (about the same amount as, or maybe slightly less than, the cost of one night’s stay)!
I once went to Hong Kong without more than a small amount of cash, only a debit card and a credit card. The organization operating the debit card (a major bank) had a serious technical problem that affected much of East Asia. I was unable to use that card. Fortunately, I had the credit card too, and my suite at the Sheraton in Kowloon was paid for in advance, but under other circumstances I might have been stuck for days, without shelter or food.
Imagine a future where there is no cash. You are then entirely dependent on the centralized money power. You can become an unperson overnight, unable to pay utility bills, get fuel for your car, food for yourself, and so on.
All very true, but the eternal bleat of the self-describing “Left” is a function of weakness. No programme, no policy, no power, just a continual “it’s unfair” bleat.
The above idiot tweeter (a teacher…wouldn’t you know? Almost a guarantee of ignorance) thinks that the importation of millions of immigrants, and their having bred for decades now, resulting in a population of over 70 million, compared to 56 million in the 1990s, has nothing to do with homelessness! Oh, no, nothing at all! It’s all the fault of government! Didn’t you know? It is the fault of government, failing to wave a magic wand to solve the (homelessness and housing) problem(s).
Well, when government has waved a magic wand to solve the terrible and increasing housing problems in the UK, perhaps tweeter “@JamieKay22” can get government to wave that wand for a second time, and thus magically transform the migrant-invaders of all sorts (and their UK-born offspring), almost all of whom are totally useless, and totally unemployable, into the brain surgeons, nurses, entrepreneurs and public service staff that we are always being told that they are…
Well, my grandfather fought in WW2 (France/Dunkirk and, later, Burma). He was older than average, having been born in 1901. Even someone who was 18 in 1944 and so might just have served in, or even actually “fought” in, WW2 by the time it ended (Spring 1945), would have to have been born no later than 1926. In other words, such a person would now be at least 94 years old.
What evidence is there that the few surviving “veterans” of WW2, 94+ years old, are “anti-racists”, let alone “Remainers”? None. Typical pseudo-socialist drivel. Yet note how many similar types have “liked” that last tweet. Hundreds…
Incidentally, that tweeter has no less than 37,000 Twitter followers (over 10x more than I had when the Jewish lobby had me expelled from Twitter in 2018). Another indication of how pointless Twitter is as a tool of real influence.
Seems that “@JamieKay22” does not like the truth being said; see below:
A reminder about the existence of Jud Suss [The Jew Suss], a German film of 1940 (remake of a 1934 one), which is now banned by the BBC, other TV channels, and even YouTube, despite it having been based on real historical events in the Germany of the 18th Century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jud_S%C3%BC%C3%9F.
I once had a copy of a booklet which listed all the “antisemitic” famous composers, writers, artists, scientists, inventors etc of Europe. Hundreds. Most people who are educated and intelligent enough to think for themselves see the problem.
A very significant cultural figure, influential in his day and later. I once had a lease of a house in Cornwall with (originally) 26 bedrooms. In the entrance hall or Outer Hall, there was panelling to head height, and above that original William Morris wallpaper, though sadly decayed thanks to over a century of the damp Cornish climate, and neglect.
More tweets seen
What an irony that you believe you're the know it all expert yet even the Labour Party rejected you. You're middle aged with absolutely nothing to show for your life not even the dubious degree that no one's ever seen any evidence of. Loser
— Mrs Ronald Raccoon.. 2024 Parliamentary candidate (@CentralReserva9) October 4, 2020
This “Femi Sorry” person is a UK-born Nigerian who has been pushed and puffed by the System merely because he can string a few words together, and because there is now a campaign for more blacks in the msm and politics (despite the proportion on TV and in the Commons being in fact at least as great as that in the population).
“Femi” has parents who both have well-paid positions in the NHS, his father being a surgeon, his mother a paediatrician.
“Femi” [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femi_Oluwole] apparently “worked in non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and human rights agencies” for a few years, presumably as a “gopher”. He “gave up his job” (whatever that was; teaboy?) at age 27 in order to campaign against Brexit. His Wikipedia entry does not point out that his organization, “Our Future Our Choice”, was bankrolled by an EU-funded entity.
Wikipedia: “Oluwole regularly appeared in the media during the process of the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union.[16][17] Oluwole has written for The Independent,[18]The Guardian,[19] and the Metro,[20] and is a regular guest on Talkradio.” “Femi” has also attacked “antisemitism”, apparently. Ah, I think we can see who or what is pulling the strings of this puppet…
In fact, the tweet from “@CentralReserva9” is slightly unfair. “Femi” is still only 30. Perhaps he hopes that Keir Starmer Labour will eventually ask him to become a Labour Party MP. Alternatively, that he can build on his now-weekly appearance on the Sky News talking head show, which features such as Nick Ferrari and Rachel Johnson.
“Femi” tweets fairly often (as I write, several times in one hour) and has about a quarter of a million “followers” on Twitter. I should imagine that his real political influence is close to zero, but it says a lot about the naivety of so many self-describing “Left” people on Twitter that they see him as some sort of, so to speak, “great white hope”. After all, what has he ever done, really? Blagged a fairly soft degree (from Nottingham) in French and Law, worked in very minor jobs for about 3-4 years, then —thanks to the support of the EU and his own parents (in whose home he was and maybe still is living)— presented himself as anti-Brexit “youth” figurehead.
I should add that the financial support for “Our Future Our Choice” must have been considerable. During the Referendum campaign, it had offices in a Westminster building that also housed departments of the Labour and Conservative parties, and offices of major transnational enterprises and organizations. Someone laid out quite a bit of money for this puppet.
The above says something about more than just one System-approved talking head. It goes to the way in which what is on TV and radio is presented to the general public. Put “Femi” with Nick Ferrari, maybe Rachel Johnson and a few others, and you have the semblance of a “diverse” discussion, whereas in reality it is as controlled as a Punch and Judy show.
ps. Seems that I am not the only person who wants to tell irrelevant little “Femi” to shut up and get lost (preferably out of both the UK and the rest of Europe):
Poor wee Femi. Is he still howling in the wind? I muted him weeks ago to block out the din. So much more peaceful. https://t.co/FADOVIhUuU
As we approach 2021 and our total freedom from the cess pit called EU. Femi is feeling more and more redundant. Lashing out at all and sundry in a fit of childish anger.
An israeli drives his car though a herd of Palestinian-owned sheep near the town of Al-Samou, killing 10 of them & injuring several others #BDShttps://t.co/O5G6zpKJDw
Hitchens is quite wrong. Abstention, even organized abstention, does not affect the System, because it will then just be said that “people have a right to vote; if they fail to exercise that right, then they cannot complain”. Already only about two-thirds bother to vote in general elections in the UK; in by-elections, sometimes as few as a fifth vote. In local elections, so few vote that a handful of voters (a few dozen) can change the outcome.
It might be the case that if 90% or more were to boycott general elections, there would be enough pressure to change the electoral system etc, but such an event is unlikely to happen.
Yeah @knittedkittie , silence dissent , deny airtime to sceptics! Always the civilised solution eh? Is this country slowly turning into The People’s Republic of China? Feels increasingly like it. https://t.co/UPiqHLn1Zn
Lord Sumption warns that new rules can only be enforced through ‘a Stasi-style surveillance state with a poisonous network of informers’https://t.co/SL8eLlU8hN
This vague subjective claim ( not based on hard experiment) cannot possibly justify either state compulsion or individual self-righteousness. Please wear a mask if you wish @jostucke . I won’t try to stop you. Do me the same favour. https://t.co/rRzJVhgEZg
I’ve sent you a link to the story about Blair’s confession that he was a Trotskyist at Oxford @markseddon1962 . A story that would have led every bulletin and front page in 1997, was not even picked up 20 years later. Except by me. https://t.co/iru5fWUiIX
…and even Peter Hitchens has never alleged (as others have) that Tony Blair, as a student, was actually arrested, charged and convicted (on a guilty plea) on a charge of gross indecency in a public loo, but (allegedly again) gave a false name, and so escaped any negative career consequences.
I think that those allegations say that Blair came up before the “beak” at Great Marlborough Street Mags (Magistrates) in London, where I appeared a couple of times as Counsel when I was still a “second-six” Bar pupil, i.e. a pretty green recent-trainee barrister. I think that both of my appearances related to theft charges, though.
I have blogged on previous occasions [https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/10/23/a-few-words-about-mike-stuchbery/] about Mike Stuchbery, who keeps making empty threats about suing me in libel. Hardy ha ha…Even less chance of that than of his suing Tommy Robinson (in respect of which Stuchbery, his cohort Roanna Carleton-Taylor of Derbyshire —“@AntiFashWitch” on Twitter— and a Pakistani back-room solicitor extracted over £11,000 from mugs via GoFundMe…https://www.gofundme.com/f/sue-tommy-robinson.
-no fever since Fri am -no shortness of breath today – had 2nd dip of oxygen yesterday to 93% -walking w/o limitation -2nd dose remdisivir – 1st dose of dexamethasone – hoping for discharge tomorrow if all continues as is
So there it is. Trump is 74, unfit, very overweight, has had “the virus”, yet has only been in hospital a couple of days and is likely to be discharged tomorrow. He personifies the opposition to the “panicdemic”. His wife, Melania, has not even been hospitalized. Yet the fearmongers have had societies and economies across the world shut down because of this virus which, worldwide, has killed only 1 out of every 8,000 people. Madness.
Covid-19 “Coronavirus”
Beware of official statistics, cause-of-death statistics in particular…
There’s a whole bunch of people on Twitter, normally hugely critical of Boris Johnson, the Tories and the government, but 100% behind every government lockdown measure and even the now clearly unlikely Whitty-Vallance 50,000 cases graph. Who can explain this strange phenomenon?
Andew Neil should read my previous blog posts in which I examine the phenomenon. It comes down to political infantilism.
The people who are usually Twitter pseudo-socialists are basically politically naive. They think that mass immigration can be combined with high pay, high State benefits, a decent NHS and a viable national future. They think that they support “freedom” yet want to remove the free speech rights of those whom they deem “Nazi”, “fascist”, “racist” etc etc. They think that the “lockdown” and facemask nonsense is essential, should be stricter, and will have little effect on the economy (or all those high salaries and State benefits they also want…). They love being told what to do, love the restrictions on liberty; they also (quelle surprise) love the EU.
Sadly, I am no longer on Twitter (thanks to the Jew lobby that Andrew Neil usually seems to support). Maybe someone else can tweet my views to him…
That Harry and Meghan barrel on regardless, to the applause of the metropolitan set and the supreme irritation of almost everyone else, speaks to their own vanity, writes Tom Slater https://t.co/8r9CKRmppJ
Claire Fox tells Andrew Neil that the Prime Minister should stop making 'glib' comments and address the nation about the culture wars@afneil | @Fox_Claire
Boris now rules by decree, says Petronella Wyatt, forgetting that it is parliament that is supreme in this country. Either that, or he has splinters in the windmills of his mindhttps://t.co/0vNZWk3lJ9
I happened to see the tweet below by Nick Griffin:
I had a long discussion with Jayda and others a couple of days ago. She's head & shoulders above anyone else on the UK scene. Some exciting plans shaping up.#Resistancehttps://t.co/PkdiV7nASc
I hate to criticize any British nationalists unless they are obviously either controlled opposition or completely degenerate, but what on Earth is Griffin talking about?!
I have never met Jayda Fransen, and have never had any contact with her, but if Griffin is correct that she is “head and shoulders above anyone else on the UK scene“, then I despair…
I am just watching the video in that tweet. Based on that video, Jayda Fransen is no less articulate than many System party MPs, but that is, frankly, not saying much.
I looked up Jayda Fransen on Wikipedia, but the entry about her is not very enlightening: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayda_Fransen. Wikipedia is (((infested))) and that comes out in its more “political” articles.
Jayda Fransen’s Wikipedia entry contains little about her as a person. No date or place of birth, no educational details, no family details.
I have now attempted to discover a few facts about her. If any readers have any further or better information, preferably verifiable, to add to what I have discovered, it can be left in the Comments section below.
It seems that Jayda Fransen was born in 1986, making her about 34.
In the video which I am now watching, Jayda Fransen refers to a time when she “practised law for many years“, presumably as a solicitor. Certainly I (who was a practising barrister) have never heard of any Jayda Fransen who was a barrister. I have just looked at the Bar Registry: no trace.
There is no trace of Jayda Fransen as a solicitor either, whether on the present roll of solicitors or on the record of struck-off former solicitors (see: Solicitors’ Regulation Authority website).
I did see this, https://www.allinlondon.co.uk/directory/solicitors/67054-martin-wilkinson, which indicates that at some point many years ago, Jayda Fransen was working for a “one-man band” solicitor, based in Forest Hill, South London and/or at Thamesmead in South East London. At that time she was apparently doing a correspondence course for a degree in law (LLB).
It is unarguable that merely working in a solicitor’s office is not “practising law” in normal English usage.
That Martin Wilkinson solicitor’s office is now, it seems, closed.
Conclusion: Jayda Fransen is not and never was a solicitor or barrister. Indeed, it is an open question whether she even has a law degree.
Jayda Fransen herself has only stood for election once, at the 2014 Rochester and Strood by-election, where she represented the Britain First party.
At the Rochester and Strood by-election, Jayda Fransen/Britain First came 9th out of 13 candidates. She received 56 votes out of 40,065. In percentage terms, very roughly 0.1% or slightly more. About 1 vote out of every 765; by any standard, a pathetic result. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Rochester_and_Strood_by-election#Result
Jayda Fransen’s new party is online https://www.britishfreedomparty.com/news but as far as I have been able to discover is as yet unregistered with the Electoral Commission.
I have not been very impressed by the Jayda Fransen video which I have just seen. Muslims mentioned but no mention at all of the Jew-Zionist influence in the msm, or in politics, legal system, finance etc.
There was no attempt in the video to address the serious problems facing the UK and Europe, whether the problems are economic, racial, or cultural.
I could also do without the references to “Lefties”. That is Daily Mail or Sun-speak from the 1980s, and says nothing, really. I myself never use such meaningless terms as “Right”, “Left” etc. As for the frequent use of “Marxist”, that will convey little to most people, certainly to the bulk of the people.
Trump: why support that idiot? He is a parrot in a gilded cage, guarded by a troop of Jews. Even his son-in-law is a Jew!
She seems to have tattoos on her arms.
Jayda Fransen seems to be a pleasant enough person, not completely unintelligent either. I could agree with some of what she said in her video. However, speaking politically, she is a non-starter in my view, though I am not “opposed” to her as such, and at least she seems to have the energy to get out and do things, which itself distinguishes her.
I have read the “manifesto” of the new party; again, I can agree with much of it.
This is not the new movement that Britain needs.
[Update, same day: I have been sent the video below since I published the above assessment of Jayda Fransen:
Jayda Fransen when she was a leading member of the Britain First party, in Golders Green (North London) with Paul Golding, who is still its leader and, as I understand, Ms. Fransen’s ex-boyfriend.
Spouting nonsense about how wonderful the Jews are…
Absolutely naive, ridiculous and stupid. To choose between Islamists and the Jewish lobby is a false choice, for one thing. Apart from that, Ms. Fransen either is unaware of the effects of the negative influence of the Jew-Zionist element on race and culture in the UK, in Europe, in the world, or thinks it acceptable.
I was willing to be favourable, in principle, to this new British Freedom Party, or at least even-handed, but I have seen and heard enough now. In the formula of Dragons’ Den, “I’m out“!
What on Earth is Nick Griffin playing at?]
[Update, 14 October 2021: since the above was written, Jayda Fransen stood as candidate at the July 2021 by-election at Batley and Spen. The result was that Labour just held on against the Conservative Party, with George Galloway coming in a fairly strong third. As for Jayda Fransen, she came in 15th out of 16 candidates. Her 50 votes (out of 37,695) represented 0.13% of turnout. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Batley_and_Spen_by-election#Result. Point proven, I think…].
[Update, 16 February 2023: in the past year or so, Jayda Fransen has stood for election twice more (as Independent), at Southend West and at Wakefield. In the latter she scored 0.1% of the votes cast, meaning that 23 voters voted for her. At Southend, she did better, scoring 2% (229 votes) but the Labour, LibDem and even Reform UK parties did not stand: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayda_Fransen#Westminster_by-elections
Is the ‘centre’ beginning to grasp that the National Panic Strategy is a vast disproportionate mistake? @iainmartin1, anxiously reassuring us that he is not a ‘libertarian’ or a ‘Covid denier’, manages to squeeze some sense into a paper that has until now been Johnson’s ‘Pravda’. https://t.co/jQ2cBuopr1
The UK Govt is broken. @Conservatives MP going crazy on WhatsApp groups, Emails ex… over @BorisJohnson & Dominic Cummings dictating laws & breaking treaties. They wanted Boris because they knew how he would behave, they didn't expect it aimed at them though.
I have seen nothing about Katie Hopkins in the msm since she was expelled from Twitter, though she is still on YouTube and Facebook. At present she herself is in the USA.
As I have blogged previously, the “alt-Right” put all its lucrative eggs in one basket— social media. Take that away (at the clamour of “antifa” idiots and the Jews behind them) and they have nothing on which to fall back; no political parties, no street armies, no armed cadres. Without social media, they just fade away.
Look at “Prison Planet” Watson. His quite popular rants against the migration invasion, the “virus” fear propaganda etc, are fine as far as they go, but (like Ms. Hopkins) he puts forward no political programme. A megaphone with little behind it. Also like Ms. Hopkins, he never defended —as far as I have seen— those who have actually been suffering for years in the cause of free speech in the UK, meaning, inter alia, me, Alison Chabloz, Jez Turner etc.
Both Katie Hopkins and Paul Joseph Watson make a big song and dance about being pro-Jew and pro-Israel. That puts them in the “useless” category as far as I am concerned. You can add Breitbart, “Milo”, “Sargon of Akkad”, Tommy Robinson and many others to the same list, then chuck it in the bin.
Again, I sympathize with the statement, but for me the earlier building is almost as unaesthetic as the newer one (which Prince Charles criticized when it was in the planning stage).
Yes , it's everywhere @leoniedelt I am currently in the midst of a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority about this advertisement. The pictured person has no experimental basis for her suppsoed claim that her wearing of a mask protects anyone else. https://t.co/zcDfNM15Iz
The poster shown above is symptomatic of the “new Britain” which is not worth defending but eminently worth replacing: a mixed-race woman, of child-bearing age, wearing a mask-muzzle, and both propagandizing and socially-intimidating the public, all under the “caring-sharing” NHS banner…
Nor do I claim to be such @jeffvahue. But why don't you also observe that you don't see 'virologist' in the bios of Alexander 'Boris' Johnson or Matt Hancock. Prof Ferguson is a physicist. But Prof Sucharit Bhakdi of Mainz, who shares my view, is a virologist. Your point? https://t.co/U2yqmHalqK
Ah, Commissar Fogarty @shelaghfogarty, like Wee Willie Winkie running through the town making sure everyone's in bed, rushes around the rail network trying to get people to muzzle themselves. Isn't there something a bit Freudian about this preoccupation? https://t.co/X7SldQ6KzB
Quite @iainmartin1 . We are being ruled by decree, and it is probably ultra vires. But constututions are only as good as their defenders. Media, MPs and courts have so far *all* failed to defend the rule of law. So you're stuck with me. https://t.co/WfsNttttwb
If the UK is now acceptedly not a democracy (even a Parliamentary one), not under valid law, not even under competent administration, then anything is justified by way of resistance.
We live in a time where the globalist/Marxist agenda is so advanced, even The Telegraph – a formerly conservative newspaper – is ridiculing people for not wanting to sexualise children. I hope you're ready for what's coming. pic.twitter.com/HQhlkCyI4I
A cultural revolution, indeed at first a cultural purge, is the most necessary revolutionary action in the UK. The mass media is sick and rotten to the core, the worst of all being the BBC. There has to be a wholesale purge of mass media personnel. Press, online outlets, TV, radio etc. TV is the worst. Harsh measures are necessary.
‘In the last 10 years, we see an average of 500,000 acres burn in an entire year. We've seen that nearly double in the past three days,’ said Oregon Governor Kate Brown as wind-driven wildfires burned through forests and towns in U.S. West Coast states https://t.co/66vMxeXuo5pic.twitter.com/1I3aY0BSbb
The planet is showing signs it’s in peril. Recently, the world has seen ferocious wildfires in the U.S., torrential rains in Africa, weirdly warm temperatures on the surface of tropical oceans and record heat waves from California to the Siberian Arctic https://t.co/YfTHPuXE1bpic.twitter.com/WIMa1mkjZB
While I do not accept the mainstream narrative re. the overall causation of climate change, a change is in some form happening. The major problem that the world has is that there are too many people, and that really means too many black, brown and yellow people: persons of African and Asian descent, mainly. Numbers. Percentages too.
The above tweet refers to events in the USA, but applies to the UK and mainland Europe to an equal extent.
It is clear that, for social nationalists, online activism, though good and useful, is not enough. Do not be dependent on it, or on funds from it. As for those enemies intent on taking away your rights, you cannot oppose them effectively just by tweeting, leaving messages on Facebook or, for that matter, writing a blog.
Late music
The most brilliant staging of it that I have ever seen.
This has of course been a farce for a very long time. At least in the mediaeval period, there was no hypocrisy involved. You were a crony of the King, or helped him out in battle or otherwise, you got a title, and maybe the lands (and so, income) with which to support your new-found estate (status).
Later, absurdity (such as the creation of the “baronet” class, the earliest example of the “sale of honours”) went alongside honours given for real achievement in the arts, sciences and commerce.
There were scandals along the way. The sale of honours under Lloyd George was egregious not in quality (it happened before, it still happens in 2019) but in quantity. Few “average citizens” realize that hardly any of the still extant hereditary titles predate 1900. And that is before we even consider the “life peers”, which rival the baronetage is risibility.
A woman starts a bra company. Turns out that it is a house of cards that eventually collapses, but not before Michelle Mone is “elevated” to the House of Lords as a “baroness”, having convinced idiotic David Cameron-Levita that she is a great role-model. A West Indian woman’s son is killed by some white ruffians in a scuffle at a bus stop. What?! Oh my God! Make her a “baroness” too! And bung her family a hundred grand at the same time.
The “House of Lords” was badly “reformed” by Blair; a poorly-thought-out reform, like so much of his legislation. It is time to get rid of it.
As to the new honours list: I have not read it in detail but, for one thing, is it not incredible that Iain Dunce Duncan Smith, a proven liar and fraudster, should be “knighted”? His record:
A part-Japanese, who attended a secondary modern State school near Birmingham and then went to a substandard merchant navy school on Anglesey, later fraudulently inventing a university background (was found out, but sadly too late);
Poses as a kind of “upper class” Englishman by reason of having been a Scots Guards officer (never got beyond Lieutenant in 6 years, and was considered a deadhead even in Guards circles);
Married a wealthy wife but still, for a while, fraudulently claimed State benefits;
Has always sponged off his father-in-law, even —and to this day— living for free in a house on the latter’s estate in Swanbourne, Buckinghamshire;
Has wasted literally billions of State funds in trying to make his misconceived “welfare” “reforms” work, while subjecting the sick, disabled, unemployed etc to a regime characterized by an Oriental cruelty and vindictiveness;
Has, in effect, killed tens of thousands of people;
Fraudulently claimed hundreds of thousands of pounds on his MP expenses for “employing” his wife; she never did any work at all; Dunce was, however, never tried for what was a plain fraud on public monies;
Claimed that he could easily live on a few pounds a day; meanwhile he claimed on his MP expenses for underwear and also for a £39 breakfast at the Waldorf in London (among a huge number of other doubtful claims);
Has shown himself incapable of properly holding high office;
Time and again proven to be a liar.
Dunce is the most obviously unmeritorious recipient of an honour this time, but what about the degenerate singer-songwriter, Elton John? I should like to have him removed from the airwaves and from sight. There again, a black woman has apparently been given a minor honour for baking cakes. Also, there is the now-usual plethora of sports people etc. Win a cricket match or rugby game on the other side of the world? Knighthood. Bloody joke.
At the other end, there are the people who get honours for years of “service” (work). OK, and many may be meritorious; many may not be. I was slightly acquainted once (1980s) with a woman who later (2006 or 2007) got an honour (MBE, I think) “for fostering relations with Russia”. From what I heard on good authority, mainly carnal ones…
I think that this whole business needs a reboot, especially the higher honours, the “peerages”, “knighthoods” etc.
The LibDems won fairly decisively, but with a smaller majority than the betting might have been suggesting. I have posted several informative links below.
Why did the LibDems win, why did the Conservative Party not win?
For me, the most important aspect beyond the headline result is the fact that the Conservative ex-MP, Christopher Davies, would have won, perhaps even handsomely, were it not for the candidature of Brexit Party, which received 3,331 votes.
The LibDem majority over the Conservatives was only 1,425. In other words, had Brexit Party not been standing, the Conservatives would almost certainly have won, and probably by nearly 2,000 votes. The Brexit Party received a vote-share of only 10.5% (LibDems 43.5%, Conservatives 39%), but that was more than enough to sink the Conservative candidate.
The Labour vote has suffered a general decline in the constituency over the years (all-time high was 57.69% in 1964), but this was its lowest-ever vote-share (5.3%). I attribute that partly and perhaps mainly to tactical voting: Labour supporters voting against the Conservatives (mainly) in a situation where Labour had no real chance anyway (the Labour vote here has not exceeded 20% since 2001 (21.4%). However, the 5.3%, barely enough to retain the deposit, does tend to support my view that Labour is now the party of the blacks and browns, the public service workers and those mainly dependent on State benefits.
The Sky News Political Correspondent tweeted something interesting about the Labour vote in Brecon and Radnorshire, which had been in the 10%-18% range since 2005 and until this by-election’s collapse to 5.3%:
Lib Dem source tells me Labour vote is in freefall: “Lab vote in deposit losing territory. We will have been massive beneficiaries of that. Lots bringing up Corbyn as a reason for switching to us on the doorsteps – more than just a tactical squeeze.” #BreconByelection
Brecon and Radnorshire is almost entirely white British in demographic terms (Powys, the county in which is situated the constituency, is said to be 99.3% white British). In white British areas, Labour increasingly has no chance. Labour scarcely speaks to or for white British people now. This has implications that go far beyond Brecon and Radnorshire.
The Conservatives and Brexit Party down the line
Brexit Party is one of two parties that emerged in 2019 despite having no real policies (the other being the pro-EU, pro-Remain, pro-Jewish lobby party, Change UK, which sputtered to a halt almost immediately and now scarcely exists).
There is no doubt that the early promise of Brexit Party has somewhat blunted since its great 2019 EU elections success. The recent Peterborough by-election was nearly won, but not quite, Brexit Party losing to Labour by a mere 683 votes. Now we have another, though less unexpected, disappointment. Nigel Farage and his large meetings held before both the EU elections and the Peterborough by-election built up a head of steam and a head of expectation, but so far that pressure has just tooted into the void, at least as far as Westminster is concerned.
The political landscape has just suffered an earthquake. Boris Johnson (aka, to me, “Boris-idiot”) is now, incredibly, Prime Minister (or Fool posing as “King for a Day”), having been put there by about 92,000 Conservative Party members (out of about 50 MILLION voters, in other words by about 1 out of every 500 or so eligible voters). He has “pledged” (for what little his pledges are worth) to leave the EU “deal or no deal” by 31 October 2019. If that seems about to happen, I am assuming that the anti-“no deal”/WTO MPs will block it and/or vote for a no-confidence motion. That might in turn cause Boris Johnson to trigger a general election.
Alternatively, the EU might offer Johnson a form of words that he can present to the Commons as a workable “deal” (in the now familiar vulgar terminology). The UK can then pretend to leave the EU but in reality stay in, or kick the can down the road by means of an extension, which Johnson himself seemed to find acceptable recently. The Commons might block the former, but probably not the latter.
An extension (as mooted) might last until 2021 or even 2022. In 2022, new electoral boundaries will be in place in the UK. MP numbers are set to be reduced from 650 to 600. Those changes will hit both Labour and the LibDems hard.
If the Conservatives can hang on until 2022, their chances of survival (as individual MPs and as a party of government) look better. In the meantime, Boris-idiot can go on posing as Prime Minister, and his Cabinet of Conservative Friends of Israel, enemies of the people, can (with the help of their Labour Friends of Israel accomplices) pass more repressive laws to destroy (real) “democracy” and (real) civil rights in the UK…
That, at least, could have been the scenario had the Conservatives a majority or at least a working majority (reduced by Brecon and Radnorshire to 1 MP vote) and so able to continue as a government. As it is, whatever happens on 31 October, it cannot be long now before Labour moves a no-confidence motion. If not in November, then surely in December or early next year.
Brexit Party has not yet proven that it can win Westminster seats, but it has proven that it can prevent the Conservative Party winning. In Peterborough, the successful Labour Party candidate got 10,484 votes (30.9%). The Brexit Party got 9,801 votes (28.9%). The Conservative got 7,243 votes (21.4%). While it may be that not all of those who voted Brexit Party would, in lieu of that, have voted Conservative, most would have done; hardly any would have voted Labour, in my opinion anyway. It is clear that, without Brexit Party, the Conservatives would have won Peterborough. The same is true in Brecon and Radnorshire.
Boris Johnson may have shot Brexit Party’s fox by going all-out (supposedly) for a “no deal”/WTO Brexit if the EU does not play ball, but he has not killed that fox, just wounded it. If the UK leaves on a “no deal”/WTO basis, then Brexit Party probably will deflate to nothing, though it may reinvent itself even then. However, it seems unlikely that the majority of MPs of all parties will not block such a departure. If that happens, then Boris Johnson, however much he tries to play the Leave “tribune of the people”, will be seen by Leavers as a waste of space, “all hat and no cattle”. In that scenario, the anger of the Leave-preferring voters will devolve upon both Remain MPs and Boris-idiot. Brexit Party will then, like Antaeus treading on his native earth, be revived and take on new strength.
What Boris Johnson and the Conservatives would like is for Brexit Party to just disappear, thus leaving the Conservatives to trample all over the hopelessly-split Labour Party and the LibDems. What is more likely is that the UK will not leave the EU on any real basis by the beginning of November. Brexit Party will thus put up 650 MPs and the Conservative Party will be slaughtered. Most hard-core Leavers will vote Brexit Party, most hard-core Remainers (especially in the South) will switch to the LibDems. For Boris Johnson and the Conservatives, a two-front war. Apart from Brexit issues, anyone who believes in the Welfare State, in decent public services, in animal welfare, will not vote Conservative. Anyone hostile to Jewish Zionism, likewise.
The Brexit Party may only get 10%-20%, so say 15%, nationwide, but that alone all but destroys any hope for a majority Conservative government. My own efforts at working it out using Electoral Calculus [see Notes, below] indicate Conservative Party as largest party in Commons, but without a majority and quite possibly worse off than now.
Much depends on the LibDem vote. At present, the opinion polls show intended LibDem vote somewhere in the 15%-25% range, with latest educated guess (via Ipsos/MORI) at 20%.
That might give a Conservative majority of as much as 74. However, even if that poll is accurate, it is unlikely that the Conservatives will actually maintain a lead of 10 points over Labour. If Labour were able to achieve 30% instead of 24%, which is well within the parameters of reasonable possibility, then the Conservative Party would be 20 MPs short of a majority, i.e. worse off than now.
There again, even if Labour were still on 24%, but if Brexit Party could reach to 15% at the expense of the Conservatives on 29%, the Conservatives would be no less than 57 MPs short of a majority.
On the other hand, If Brexit Party can get 20%, LibDems 20%, Labour 25% and Conservatives 30%, the Conservatives would be about 35 MPs short of a majority.
It is a game one can play for hours.
Conclusions
The LibDems are back in the game, if only by default. They have much of the Remain vote, they have a (notionally) fresh and energetic leader, they have the votes of those disliking the other two main System parties as well as those of persons wishing to vote tactically. They have at least the possibility of a 50-seat bloc (again) in the Commons.
Brexit Party is not looking good as a potential party of government but it is looking effective as a way of blocking Conservative Party ambitions. A general election resulting in 30% Con, 30% Lab, 20% LibDem, 15% Brexit Party and 5% Green comes out with Labour as largest party, but 46 MPs short of majority, the Conservatives not far behind and the LibDems with perhaps about 50 MPs. On that basis, the LibDems could, as in 2010, be once again the kingmakers. Plus ca change…
Andrew Rawnsley predicting the demise, quite soon, of both Boris-idiot and the Conservative government (and party):
“As he [Boris-idiot] points the country at the cliff edge and depresses the accelerator, does prime minister Johnson have any idea where this will end? It is a mistake to think that he does. No one knows what he is really up to, including himself. In one breath, he tells us that this is “do or die”; in another, he sets the odds on a no-deal Brexit at “a million to one”;
“He [Boris-idiot] has to know that there is a strong possibility that it will mean an autumn general election. The least credible message from Number 10 is that it is not contemplating this outcome”;
“Tory strategy for winning an election makes some very big and risky assumptions. One is that the gains harvested by the Conservatives at the expense of Labour among Leave-supporting voters will outweigh Tory losses in Remain-supporting constituencies. Nearly every top Lib Dem target is a Conservative seat, while Scottish Nationalists are hoping to scalp Tory MPs north of the border. The other perilous assumption is that Nigel Farage’s party will fade away or fold up. The leader of the Brexit party is enjoying being the object of renewed attention and displays no signs of wanting to retire again. He declares that he does not trust the prime minister and he has a bitter history of mutual loathing with Number 10’s chief strategist, Dominic Cummings.”
“One lesson from the Brecon & Radnorshire by-election is that the Brexit party doesn’t have to do all that well – it polled barely a double-digit share on Thursday – to hurt the Tories. If the Conservatives could have added the Brexit party vote and that of Ukip to their tally, they would have held the seat with just over half the vote, rather than narrowly lose it to the Lib Dems. They’d hope to put a harder squeeze on the Brexit party in a general election, but couldn’t be absolutely confident. All the hazards of this strategy will be multiplied many times over if an election takes place after 31 October. In one scenario, we would still be in the EU, breaking the Tory leader’s “absolute commitment” to his party that Britain will be out “under any circumstances” and hugely boosting the Faragists.”
“In the alternative scenario, Britain has tumbled out of the EU without an agreement. That is no longer a threat or a promise. The countdown has reached zero and no deal is a reality. Even in the less chilling versions of a crash-out Brexit – the ones that don’t involve supermarket shelves being stripped bare by panic-buying and children dying for lack of life-critical medicines – I wouldn’t want to be a prime minister trying to make a case for his re-election when the country has just suffered a big economic shock and the currency is collapsing.”
“My suspicion is that the Armageddon Clock isn’t really there to count down the seconds to Brexit day. It is there to remind Boris Johnson how long he has left before it becomes too late to avoid his own doomsday.“
Of course, I myself have made, in the above and previous blog posts, similar points to those now made by Andrew Rawnsley. He, however, has the inside contacts (and public profile) which I do not have. I, perforce, have to use simply my own knowledge and powers of reason (also, I am doing this unpaid, pro bono publico!)
I should say that there is little incentive for the Brexit Party to form a pact with the Conservatives unless the Conservatives in effect gift Brexit Party at least 50 winnable seats in return for Brexit Party standing down in the other 600. Such a pact might backfire for the Conservatives in that it would
deprive the Conservatives of a number of seats which, even with Brexit Party standing, the Conservatives themselves might win; and
create a bloc of up to 50 “fourth party” Westminster MPs for the first time, so
making Brexit Party far more electorally credible in subsequent elections.
If Brexit Party candidates give up their candidature in seats where the Conservative candidates might lose if there is a Brexit Party candidate, then not only has the Brexit Party given up what might be good chances of winning in those seats, but it has restricted itself to standing only in seats where it has, arguably, little chance of winning.
In other words, a one-way electoral pact with the Conservatives almost wipes out Brexit Party’s reason for existing. It might confirm as MPs a few Conservative Eurosceptics, but no political earthquake is going to happen just because of that. The better strategy is to fight all 650 seats and see what happens. If it should be that 200+ Conservative MPs lose their seats, then good.
Update, 23 June 2020
My analysis was not too bad (as good that of Andrew Rawnsley, anyway), but nexpected events happened, as they often do: as we now know, duing the General Election campaign of December 2019, Nigel Farage, for whatever reason, decided to stand down all his Brexit Party candidates standing in Conservative-held seats. That killed Brexit Party stone dead and ensured a Conservative Party victory by default. 2017 Labour voters did not, most of them, vote Conservative, but some did, in some seats. A relative few defected to the LibDems or what was left of Brexit Party, but almost as many as all of those simply decided not to vote.
Result: a Conservative Party majority of about 80.
Nearly eight years ago, when I still had a Twitter account (read “before the Jew-Zionists prevailed upon Twitter to expel me”), I tweeted that the LibDems were finished. At that time, around 2011, the height of the Con Coalition, the LibDem careerists were signing up to pretty much everything required of them by the misnamed “Conservatives”. In fact, even now in 2019, new tales come to light about how totally supine the LibDems in coalition were: recently, for example, it was revealed that the LibDems agreed to screw down harder on the sick and disabled in return for a 5p tax on plastic shopping bags.
The public were so disgusted by the LibDems 2010-2015 that the LibDem support and vote in the country hit almost rock-bottom in 2015. The 2010 general election had seen so-called “Cleggmania” and a popular vote of 23%, resulting in 57 House of Commons seats. In fact, that 23% was only 1 point above the level achieved in 2005 under the LibDems’ former (1999-2006) leader, Charles Kennedy; the LibDems in 2010 had 5 fewer seats than they had in 2005.
Naturally, the UK’s unfair First Past The Post [FPTP] political system left the LibDems with far fewer Commons seats than they “deserved” by reference to their popular vote. 23% of the 2010 popular vote “should” have given the LibDems about 150 MPs, not 57.
The 2010 hung Parliament result gave the LibDems their chance to demand proportional representation, instead of which their leadership (Nick Clegg, Danny Alexander and David Laws, mainly) accepted from the Conservative Party leader, David Cameron-Levita, the mere promise of a referendum on Alternative Vote [AV], a halfway house between FPTP voting and proportional representation [PR].
Gordon Brown, on behalf of Labour, the then Prime Minister, was willing to offer the LibDems immediate AV, via a new law to be passed by Labour and LibDem MPs, but the LibDems instead (and to my mind inexplicably) chose the Conservative offer of a mere referendum on AV over the Labour offer of immediate AV. When they did that, it was already clear that the LibDems (so called “Orange Book” LibDems, meaning pro-finance capitalist LibDems) much preferred to make common cause with the Conservatives.
This “Orange Book” “liberalism” underpinned what the LibDems did in coalition with the Conservatives from 2010 to 2015. The “Orange Book” itself took the LibDems far from the positions of the old Liberal Party and even from those of the LibDem party itself during the time when it was in the hands of Paddy Ashdown and Charles Kennedy.
The authors of the Orange Book favoured socio-political positions not far from those of leading members of the Conservative Party post-2000: effectively anti-Welfare State, pro-business, socially-judgmental, favouring so-called “choice” etc.
It is striking how many of the Orange Book authors have, in the years since its publication, been hit by scandal:
David Laws: found to have cheated on his Parliamentary expenses to the tune of about £40,000; many thought him fortunate not to have been prosecuted for fraud;
Chris Huhne: prosecuted and imprisoned for the very silly crime of perversion of the course of justice relating to a speeding offence [cf. Fiona Onasanya];
Mark Oaten, exposed as a coprophiliac and user of “rent boys”; since when Oaten has represented the International Fur Trade Federation, a largely Jewish body despised by animal-lovers worldwide. Oaten was also a supporter of fox-hunting.
“Only” three, but three out of only nine LibDems who wrote the Orange Book (Oaten admitted that in fact his research assistant had written his, Oaten’s, designated chapter, and that he, Oaten, had not even read that chapter, let alone the rest of the book). Of the other LibDems involved, Danny Alexander and Nick Clegg both lost their Commons seats in 2015 and 2017 respectively, gratefully then accepting lucrative directorships from transnational finance-capitalist companies.
The LibDem fortunes since the days of the Con Coalition
The LibDem popular vote crashed in 2015, sliding from its 2010 level of 23% to only 7.9%. MP numbers were slashed from 57 to 8.
In 2017, the LibDem popular vote slumped further, to 7.4%, though by the quirk of the FPTP voting system combined with the way boundaries are drawn, the LibDems actually managed to increase the number of LibDem MPs from 8 in 2015 to 12 in 2017.
The present situation
Nick Clegg took the Zuckerberg shilling (or should that be million?) and became an apologist for Facebook. He was replaced by Tim Farron, someone who was from an earlier, Nonconformist tradition within the LibDems and their ancestor-party, the Liberals. For example, “Farron was one of only two Liberal Democrat MPs to vote against the under-occupancy penalty (also known as the bedroom tax) in 2012.” [Wikipedia]. Farron was in the anti-Orange Book Beveridge Group [see Notes, below].
In 2017, Farron in turn was replaced by another Orange Book author, Vince Cable. Then, in 2019, Jo Swinson took the reins. She, though very much of the Orange Book persuasion, is more identified publicly with “socially liberal” than with “fiscally conservative” positions. Jo Swinson held the positions of PPS, and then Business Minister, during the Con Coalition period, but has managed to escape too great an identification with the social policies of the Coalition. Surprising, really, in that she
“Almost always voted for reducing housing benefit for social tenants deemed to have excess bedrooms (which Labour describe as the “bedroom tax”)”;
“Consistently voted against raising welfare benefits at least in line with prices”;
“Consistently voted against paying higher benefits over longer periods for those unable to work due to illness or disability”;
“Consistently voted for making local councils responsible for helping those in financial need afford their council tax and reducing the amount spent on such support”;
“Almost always voted for a reduction in spending on welfare benefits“;
“Almost always voted for reducing the rate of corporation tax“
I have to say that I have always seen Jo Swinson as a ghastly bitch, who, like her husband (Duncan Hames, also a LibDem MP from, in his case only, 2010 to 2015) has been mainly a careerist type in politics; in Jo Swinson’s case, her brief period in provincial commerce before 2005 can only be seen as underwhelming, at best.
My view of Jo Swinson is, admittedly, mainly a personal impression based on what I have seen on TV etc. Her voting record on domestic UK issues must give pause, though, to those who see her as enlightened, socially compassionate etc.
Jo Swinson is a LibDem leader who does not frighten the Conservative horses. That could be key. In 2017, there were, if memory serves, 35 seats where the LibDems were in close 2nd place; there were many others where the LibDem was in close 3rd place. Most of those are Conservative-held seats. The implication is clear: if Brexit Party weakens an already-flagging Conservative vote, scores of (mainly) Conservative seats could fall, many to the LibDems. The Brexit Party is a major factor here.
Then we have the Remain vote. About 48% of the UK, famously, voted Remain. All three System parties were split in the 2016 Referendum, but the LibDems less so than the other two. As a party, the Conservative Party is now seen as basically Leave; the Labour Party is seen as sitting on the fence. That leaves the LibDems as the sole unalloyed Remain party. How that translates into votes and then into seats is another question. For one thing, people are likely to vote in any 2019/2020 general election on various issues, not only Brexit. However, Brexit is probably the one leading issue at time of writing.
The British electoral system is a bad joke. We know that a simple matter such as how the boundaries are drawn can alter everything:
In 2022, new boundaries will come into effect, along with the reduction of MP numbers to 600 (from the present 650). The Conservatives will be far less affected than Labour and the LibDems. It has been suggested that the LibDems will be all but wiped out by those changes. Perhaps, but any 2022 or later general election is still at least 2-3 years away. We are looking at the very strong likelihood of a general election within maybe only 2-3 months or so. The Conservatives would like to wait longer, but how can they, when they have a majority of one or none?
Boundaries and other factors make the popular vote indeterminative. In 2005, Labour’s popular vote was 35.2%, and the Conservative vote was not far behind (32.4%), yet Labour ended up with 355 MPs, while the Conservatives won only 198!
If the LibDems can gather to their banner the bulk of the votes of those for whom the number one issue is Brexit and for whom Remain is the only way to go, and then add those votes to the LibDem core support (which may be as low as 7%), then it is not impossible to conceive of the idea of the LibDems under Jo Swinson getting a vote at least as high as Charles Kennedy’s 22% or Nick Clegg’s 23%, and possibly even higher. As against that, many voters will not support the LibDems under any circumstances, either because the party is pro-EU Remain, or because it is seen as weak on immigration (but are the other two System parties any better?) or because most voters remember the LibDems as doormats for the Conservatives during 2010-2015.
In order to form the largest bloc in the House of Commons, the LibDems would have to get a popular vote in the region of 35% or 34%, both Lab and Con getting below 30%. Even then, the LibDems would be or might be at least 100 seats short of a majority.
As I have blogged previously, I do not think in terms of a LibDem surge, but more a concatenation of circumstances —LibDems as sole Remain party, weakening of Conservative vote because of Brexit Party, disenchantment with Labour— drawing votes away from the other parties and so to the LibDems. LibDems as largest Commons bloc? Unlikely but, now, not totally impossible.
So there it is: Jo Swinson could never work with (be in coalition with? proffer “confidence and supply” to?) Jeremy Corbyn and Labour under Jeremy Corbyn.
It’s against her “principles” to support any criticism of Jews or Israel, it seems. Pity that her principles did not extend to refusing to work with evil part-Jew manipulators such as George Osborne and David Cameron-Levita. She and most of the LibDem MPs voted for all or most of the measures which for a decade have demonized, impoverished and actually killed sick, disabled and poor people in the UK via the “welfare” “reforms” of evil part-Jap Iain Dunce Duncan Smith and the Jew “lord” Freud (etc).
I was right about Jo Swinson. My instinct told me that she is an evil bitch. I was right.
Some LibDems are actually saying that the LDs could get hundreds of MPs in the upcoming general election! Proof positive of their disconnection from reality. People are mostly going to vote LibDem (if at all) only as a way of hitting out at the more major parties. There is no “LibDem surge” as such, but (as I have repeatedly blogged) there is a desire on the part of many Remain partisans to vote against the Conservative Party (mainly).
I imagine that the LibDems will pick up some seats, maybe even 50, but what will prevent Jo Swinson getting 200 or becoming PM is that no-one really wants a LibDem government (well, about a tenth of the voters might…), but many more will vote LibDem negatively, to block other parties or to signal pro-EU Remain support.
Well, my analysis in the above article was right, but the basic facts changed in that Brexit Party candidates standing in Conservative Party-held seats were ordered by their duplicitous leader, Farage, to stand down. That order applied to all Conservative-held seats, even those held by the most committed pro-EU MPs!
That decision by Farage, which betrayed his own candidates and supporters, meant that dozens of pre-election Conservative Party MPs kept their seats when, had Brexit Party stood candidates, they would have lost them to the LibDems.
The LibDems were on track to win several dozen MPs until Brexit Party self-destructed.
Jo Swinson’s decision to push for a General Election, and Corbyn’s silly willingness to be shamed into going along with that, led directly to the victory of the Conservative Party at the 2019 General Election. It led directly to Boris Johnson, a part-Jew, part-Turk public entertainer, as Prime Minister. Disastrous.
My more recent pre-General Election blogging guessed the LibDem result almost exactly. I predicted that the LibDems would get fewer than 10 seats. They got 11. So nearly right, anyway.
As for Jo Swinson, her doormatting for the Jewish lobby paid off, in that she was made a fake “baroness” and elevated to the House of Lords once she lost her Commons seat.
My conclusion was that the Conservatives are unlikely to “win” a general election in the sense of achieving a House of Commons majority, but that it is not unlikely that the Conservative Party might, after a general election in late 2019 or early 2020, still be the largest party, i.e. the party with the largest number of MPs.
Until recently, I thought that Labour would probably be the largest party in the Commons after a 2019/2020 general election; now I am unsure. I still think that Labour might beat the Conservatives in terms of numbers of MPs, but the chances must now be close to 50-50.
I now want to lay out my thoughts about Labour’s chances
Just as the Conservative Party has been running out of rank and file members and also (good) ideas for several decades, the Labour Party, though in recent years, under Corbyn, increasing its membership and activist support base, has at the same time been —-what would be the correct term?–laagering or hunkering-down or being concentrated in ever-fewer loyal constituencies. The membership of the Conservatives is still getting older on average (the majority now being over 51, and almost 50% being 65+ years old), whereas the Labour membership is more evenly-aged and far greater in numbers. The Conservatives can muster, at least on paper, about 160,000, whereas Labour has over 500,000 members or registered supporters. All the same, Labour now has 247 MPs, while the Conservative Party has 311.
It is a truth universally acknowledged…that it is better to win 2 constituencies barely than it is to win 1 constituency by a huge majority. That in a nutshell is the problem faced by both major System parties but particularly Labour:
“Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour party now has the 10 of safest seats [sic] in the UK, according to a new House of Commons analysis of marginal constituencies…The briefing adds that the number of very safe seats – those won by a margin of over 50 per cent – increased by 21 in 2015 to 37 in June’s election. Labour have all of the top 28.” [The Independent]
Piling up votes in safe seats does nothing, or very little, for a political party under the British “First Past The Post” [FPTP] electoral system. Labour is piling up empty votes. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that Labour is now, to a large extent “the party of the blacks and browns” and other ethnic minorities (except Jews). The tendency of the ethnic minorities to huddle in concentrations, whether for historical, economic, cultural or other reasons, has resulted in concentrations of the Labour vote in areas already historically Labour-voting.
Another aspect to the above is the flight of white English people out of areas becoming “diverse” (in reality, changing from white non-diverse to non-white non-diverse), thus concentrating in those “ghetto” constituencies (or particular wards within constituencies) the “ethnic” vote.
Coming to Brexit, Corbyn has managed to sit on the fence so far. More Labour voters voted Remain than voted Leave, but more Labour constituencies voted Leave than voted Remain, another proof of the concentration of the Labour vote.
In one sense, Corbyn’s fence-sitting means that Labour can in theory appeal to both Leave and Remain voters; in practice, it may make Corbyn and so Labour seem undecided and indeed the victim of events, rather than the setter of the agenda.
Beyond all that, though, Labour has a policy message which might appeal to many, if it can be heard: nationalization or more regulation of public utilities and rail transport, curtailment of the excesses in the private-rental housing sector, an end to the demonization, bullying and even quiet killing by neglect of the disabled, sick, unemployed etc.
Even if Labour is the party of “blacks and browns”, that voter bloc, when combined with the votes of public service workers and those dependent on State benefits, must in theory add up to a vote of something like 30%.
Many commentators have said that, after a period of fragmentation, voters are returning to the main two parties. They say that because, in 2017, the main two parties got 89.1% of the popular vote (Conservative Party 48.8%, Labour Party 40.3%). This consolidation, however, was the result of specific factors which no longer apply.
In 2017, the LibDem popular vote slumped further from its post-Con Coalition collapse in 2015: from 7.9% in 2015 to 7.4% in 2017. Likewise, UKIP, having attained 12.6% in 2015, fell back to 1.8% (UKIP contested only 378 seats). In other words, Con and Lab were really the only two games in town in 2017.
The situation today is very different. The LibDems can appeal on several fronts: to Remainers, because the Liberal Democrat Party is the only unalloyed Remain party of any importance; to those who dislike both main System parties; to the “socially liberal” in London and the South of England (mainly). The LibDems are therefore in theory able to draw from the dissatisfied of both Labour and Conservative. It is important to understand that this is not a “LibDem surge”, more a negative vote against the two main System parties and Brexit Party, though also a vote for a clearly pro-EU party, the only one left [in England].
Then we have Brexit Party. Its mere existence, even on 10% or 15% of the nationwide popular vote, means that the Conservative Party can almost certainly not get a Commons majority. If Brexit Party stands (as promised) in 650 seats and gets an average 20%, then Conservative MPs will die like flies as their seats are taken by the LibDems, by Labour and, in a few cases, by Brexit Party itself.
Labour is fighting against the Jewish-Zionist contrived “antisemitism” protest or faked “storm”. That is not too interesting to the general public, but may support a wider narrative about “Corbyn the extremist”, someone supposedly not patriotic, a supporter of radical and in some cases very unpopular causes in the past. There again, there is the public scepticism about whether Corbyn can do the job of Prime Minister. However, it might be said in response that if Boris-idiot can do it, why can Corbyn not do it? That does rather beg the question, though…
Looking at the electoral picture in the round, I think that Labour will be able to mobilize its core vote of maybe 25%, maybe beyond that to 30%. The Conservative vote is tied to Brexit Party. If BP stands in 650 seats and if BP can get 15%, then I cannot see the Conservative Party getting more than about 30%. The LibDems will siphon off quite a few Remainer votes from both Lab and Con; overall that LibDem vote might amount to 15% or even 20%. “Socially-liberal” Jo Swinson is very pro-capitalist and her party might be an option for pro-EU former Conservative voters as well as some pro-EU and anti-Corbyn Labour ones.
The upshot seems to be that any 2019 or early 2020 general election might produce a Commons with Labour as largest party but as many as 60 MPs short of a majority; alternatively, a Conservative bloc far larger than that of Labour but still about 10 short of a majority. In other words, about where things are now.
My conclusion is that Labour might “win” in the sense of becoming the largest party in the Commons, but cannot at present get a majority.
This, below, is all too typical of the sort of person now prominent in “Labour” and what is left of the trade unions:
“Riccardo La Torre, firefighter and Eastern Region Secretary of the Fire Brigade Union, branded the coast patrol “despicable” and said: “These have-a-go, racist vigilantes have no place in any kind of enforcement or emergency activities and will only serve to make conditions and tensions worse.”
So “Riccardo La Torre” (que?), a regional secretary of the Fire Brigade Union, thinks that migrant invaders from Africa and the Middle East are “working class people, trying to get to safety”?!
From, er, France? There you have in a nutshell, the craziness that is much of “Labour” now. Alien migrant-invaders are “working class people” who should be allowed to occupy the UK at will (and be subsidized too)! Note the fag-end “Marxism”, trying to shoehorn the facts into some 1980s polytechnic back-of-postcard Marxism-Leninism.
Update, 23 September 2019
This creature might well be Home Secretary under a Labour government…
Ian Robert Millard 