Category Archives: by-elections

Brexit, by-elections, elections, Party Politics, society, Uncategorized

EU Elections 2019 in Review: Conservative Party

4 Comments

The Conservatives were the big losers of the 2019 EU Elections in the UK: 1,512,809 votes, a vote-share of 8.8%, 4 MEPs (down from 19), 5th-placed after Brexit Party, LibDems, Labour and Greens.

The Conservatives were in 5th place in most of the 11 EU constituencies. Their best results were in Scotland, East of England, South East England and South West England, in all of which they were placed 4th, the largest vote-share being in Scotland (11.6%).

This was the worst nationwide result for the Conservatives since the party was officially formed in or about 1832, the year of the first Reform Act (some date its foundation by reference to the publication of the Tamworth Manifesto by Sir Robert Peel in 1834; no matter).

Since the 2019 EU elections (last week), much has happened: Theresa May staying on temporarily as a ghost PM, but having resigned as Conservative leader in advance (effective 7 June 2019); between one and two dozen candidates scrabbling for her purple, with Boris Johnson (“Boris Idiot”) in the lead. More significantly, only 40% of 2017 Conservative voters aver that they will vote Conservative at the next general election, and a YouGov poll taken a week after the EU elections resulted thus:

(UKIP and CHUKUP both on 1%; I have taken SNP support in Scotland as 40%, Con 20%).

If that poll reflects the next general election, the House of Commons would be hung: largest party would be Labour (186 seats), then Brexit Party (184 seats), then LibDem (116 seats). The Conservatives would have 86 seats, only 30 ahead of the SNP.

Note that, though: 86 seats! That would be the smallest MP contingent ever for the Conservatives, easily beating the smallest so far, following the General Election of 1997, at which the Conservatives scored 165 seats on a vote-share of 30.7%: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK)#UK_general_elections

Many cannot forgive the Conservatives the cruel “welfare” policies of 2010-present. I am at one with that. The “Conservative” ministers responsible should be put on trial at some future point.

However, the uncaring policies of the Con-Coalition and of the Theresa May government did not directly affect the majority of the population. What has affected the majority has been the starvation of large areas of other public spending: police (albeit that I think that much police effort is misdirected), NHS, justice system etc.

Then there is the sheer ineptitude of so many Conservative ministers. Chris Grayling alone! How many times does that obvious sociopath have to mess up before he is sacked and booted back onto the backbenches? God knows. He is still a Cabinet minister today, despite having messed up at Transport, Justice and Employment, as well as in other roles! The Labour Party has alleged that Grayling alone has mis-spent nearly £3 BILLION in public funds, the Probation Service fiasco merely being his latest failure. “Failing Grayling”.

Grayling is not alone. One only has to think of Esther McVey, dishonest and thick as two short planks. Others abound. Iain Dunce Duncan Smith comes to mind…

Again, the UK (ie the Conservatives) adopted the wrongheaded “austerity” policies of 2010-present, which have not only made the country so much more threadbare but are in in contrast to those of other EU countries (except Greece), which have recovered, and grown so much faster, in recent years.

Now, as Theresa May is banished to the land of the political shades, a mass of idiots (mainly) is scrabbling to tear off her purple. The eventual field may number as many as 20.

The dilemma the Conservatives have is that they can

  • elect a leader who is Remain or “Soft-Brexit” (Brexit In Name Only), and then very likely get slaughtered when they eventually find the courage to hold a general election (perhaps not until 2022 or until Brexit Party deflates, which latter may never happen); or
  • elect as leader a Brexiteer (or, like Boris Johnson, a fake Brexiteer), which will mean that his/her attempt to exit the EU on WTO terms will trigger a vote against in the Commons and then a confidence vote, which, with a number of Remain Conservatives abstaining, or even voting against the Government, will mean that the Government must fall and a general election held, at which the Conservatives will probably be slaughtered. Catch-22.

The Conservatives really are in trouble, and it could be terminal. The newspapers (look at the Daily Telegraph) are full of articles saying how the Conservatives have no decent leadership candidates, no ideas, no overarching “story” or ideology etc.

Who now votes Conservative? According to opinion polls, only 4% of under-25s, and only 16% of under-35s. The bulk of Conservative voters are retired people, often in their 70s, 80s, 90s. A rapidly-depleting contingent.

Then we have income and capital demographics. The Conservatives are desperately trying to appeal to renters, students etc, by bringing in “helpful” measures to match Labour promises. I doubt that these late ploys will be very effective.

As to “culture wars” aspects, the Conservatives have failed to prevent the continuing migration invasion, are very much identified with the Jewish Zionist and City of London speculator element, and have lost their traditional supporters by supporting “socially liberal” policies such as gay marriage and all the “multikulti” stuff. One MP personifies all that, though he is not alone (far from it): Nick Boles MP, Bilderberg attendee, Remainer, expenses cheat and blodger (he even claimed on expenses to have Hebrew lessons so that he could communicate with his Israeli boyfriend!); he wants to continue with mass immigration, building millions of rabbithutches on the countryside for the influx and their offspring. Goodbye England!

On 6 June, there will be held the very important Peterborough by-election. Peterborough is or was a Con-Lab marginal.

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

In 2017, a black African woman, Fiona Onasanya, was foisted on the people of Peterborough by the Labour Party machine in London. It turned out that she was not only yet another MP whose CV was partly a fake, but that she was totally incompetent and useless (5,000 unanswered emails from constituents were found by the assistant she then hired, which lady is now suing Onasanya in the Employment Tribunal).

Onasanya was only removed as MP following a petition triggered by her conviction for perverting the course of justice; she spent 28 days of a lenient 3-month sentence in prison. That did not stop her from not only getting her pay, free London flat, bills paid etc until she was kicked out, but she even voted maliciously against Brexit in the Commons, while still wearing her electronic tag!

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

Labour has a lot to live down in Leave-supporting Peterborough. However, their present candidate, Lisa Forbes, a trade union woman, is 2nd favourite (after the odds-on Brexit Party candidate) to win the by-election. At time of writing, 4/1. At the start of the campaign, Labour was Evens favourite with the bookmakers, so is struggling.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1134470/peterborough-byelection-labour-candidate-gordon-brown-nigel-farage-hustings-brexit

As to the Conservatives, who only lost to Labour in 2017 by 607 votes, their stock has fallen, or should I write “plunged”? 25/1 today with the bookmakers. My analysis is that Brexit Party is being supported on its merits as anti-System but also supported as the best way to keep Labour out. That is, even Conservative voters who prefer their usual party to Brexit Party are going to vote Brexit Party to keep Labour out. At the same time, Remain voters (including former Con Remainers) are clustering round the LibDems (whose odds have fallen from 70/1 a week ago to 12/1 today). The Conservatives are therefore being deserted both by Brexit-favouring voters and Remain-favouring voters.

If Brexit Party wins at Peterborough, that will confirm that 2019 is the beginning of the end for the Conservative Party. If Brexit Party can get 10% at the next general election (assuming before 2022), the Conservative Party is unlikely to get a majority. If Brexit Party gets 20%, then the Commons will have, probably, three or even four English parties with substantial blocs of MPs (and also the SNP). Above 20%, and the Brexit Party effectively replaces the Conservatives (and maybe Labour, to a lesser extent) in the Commons.

Both Labour and Conservatives are fading from relevance, partly for the same reasons, partly for different reasons. The Conservatives face the immediate threat of near-extinction. They now look as if their days are numbered.

slipperyslope1

Notes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2019_European_Parliament_election_in_the_United_Kingdom

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Act_1832

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK)#UK_general_elections

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Grayling#Government_Minister_(2010%E2%80%93)

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

Afterthought, 4 June 2019

I watched “63-Up”, the latest in the TV experiment that follows a group of people born, as chance would have it, the same year as me (1956), a film about them being made every 7 years. The sort of original-thinking TV project that is rarely if ever attempted today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_(film_series)

The subjects are now all 62 (like me) or 63. One of those featured today was a young London East-Ender, Tony Walker [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_(film_series)#Tony] who had been a jockey and a taxi driver. Politically, what interested me is that the subject said that, as an adult, i.e. since the late 1970s, he had always voted Conservative, but now would never do so again. Why? Not for economic reasons: he had done well in aspirational terms, had moved from East London proper to relatively leafy South Woodford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Woodford,

https://www.pettyson.co.uk/area-guides/south-woodford

and even had a holiday home in Spain.

The subject, Tony, was never going to vote Conservative again because he wanted the UK to be free of EU control but also because he evidently has woken up to the fact that globalist puppet-masters are pulling the strings. I do not know what other issues were or are of importance to him, and in a sense it hardly matters. What does matter, as we look at events politically, is that Tony and a million other Tonys are not voting Conservative in the next UK general election. People like him do not vote Labour these days, so where? In the film, he even said that the Greens might get his vote (to me, surprisingly). The film would have been made a few months ago, before the advent of Brexit Party and its rise to pre-eminence, but I think that I can guess where Tony’s vote is going next time…

The Conservatives are now revealed by events and their own actions as a bunch of clowns, who have failed on Brexit, failed on everything. They cannot even run the election for their own leader effectively! I really believe that the Conservatives, even more than Labour and the LibDems, are heading for the scrap-heap, rapidly.

Brexit, by-elections, elections, Party Politics, Uncategorized

EU Elections 2019 in Review: the LibDems

8 Comments

The Liberal Democrats had a good election. Everyone says so. From having 1 MEP to now having 16 MEPs. 3,367,284 votes. A vote-share of 19.58% (second only to Brexit Party, which scored 30.22%).

In London the LibDems came 1st, with a 27.2% share. London was the only EU constituency of England and Wales where Brexit Party did not top the poll (it came 3rd, behind the LibDems and Labour).

The only constituencies where the LibDems failed to get at least one MEP were Wales and North East England.

It seems clear that the LibDem surge and vote was, more than the vote for any other party in these elections, purely an outcome of the Remain/Leave binary. The LibDems are the party of Remain, Remain at all costs, Remain no matter what.

Not that the LibDem vote in these elections was solely a Remain vote, a Remain vote and nothing else, but 90% probably was. The two major System parties were both ambiguous in terms of statements, policies and, especially, their MPs. Brexit Party and UKIP were of course both unambiguously Leave. The Greens and the new joke party, Change UK, were also Remain. The LibDems got about 70% more votes than the Greens, who came 4th overall.

At an educated guess, the Remain votes that went Green rather than LibDem were from people who remember the way in which the LibDems (arguably the least honest party in the UK) enabled the dreadful and cruel policies of the Conservatives, of David Cameron-Levita-Schlumberger and his 2010-2015 “Con Coalition”, while still spouting the language of “social justice”. Nick Clegg, Danny Alexander etc. Remember them?

The above being so, the support that the LibDems received in the EU elections will almost certainly not follow them into the Westminster arena. A good test will be the result of the Peterborough by-election scheduled for 6 June 2019. In 2010, the LibDem vote in Peterborough peaked at just under 20% (3rd place), which was a few points up on previous general elections. The LibDem vote fell back to 3.8% in 2015, then fell back again to only 3.3% in 2017 (as it did in most constituencies, though the LibDem MP cadre actually increased from 8 to 12 thanks to the UK’s mad electoral system).

Now, in Peterborough, the LibDems, with the same candidate they stood in 2017, look like losing, possibly badly, at the by-election. Their odds re. winning are at time of writing 25/1, joint 3rd place with the Conservatives (Labour 4/1, Brexit Party 1/5  odds-on favourite).

Brexit is not the only issue in a Westminster election. Yes, the LibDems are still the go-to “dustbin” vote out of the System parties, and there may be many (especially in the Southern parts of the UK) who will vote LibDem as a tactical measure in the next general election, but in the most heavily Conservative-voting areas that will not much dent massive Con majorities, whereas in more marginal areas it will (with Brexit Party) help to sink the Conservatives, but only in a few areas will the ultimate beneficiaries be the LibDems themselves.

In any case, by 2022, boundary changes and the reduction of MP numbers to 600 will have culled almost all LibDem MPs.

I have considered the LibDems to be effectively dead since the days of the Con Coalition. The EU elections will have cheered them, but their fires will soon be but glowing embers.

Update, 31 May 2019

If that poll were to be given effect in a general election, the result would be about (depending on various factors): Brexit Party 188 MPs (and largest party in Commons), Labour 186 MPs, LibDems 114 MPs, Conservatives 83. Hung Parliament (Brexit Party 138 short of majority). Popular vote does not exactly equal number of MPs.

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

Also, if that general election were held in or after 2022, remove about 10 from LibDems and about 30 from Labour; and maybe 5-10 from Conservatives.

I still cannot see that the LibDems will be able to replicate 2010 Cleggmania even if it seems that many are able to forgive and forget the “Con Coalition” of 2010-2015 (I cannot. I will not). I still see the LibDem vote next time as amounting to no more than about 10% and the LibDems as coming away with fewer than 20 MPs. I concede that I may be wrong on this if hard-core Remain voters continue to flock to LibDems and away from Conservatives (as they did in the EU Elections 2019). Everything is uncertain in that no-one knows who will be Conservative leader, how long he (or she) will last as PM (not long, I think) and whether he or she will be basically Remain or Leave.

Update, 1 June 2019

The betting on the Peterborough by-election, scheduled for 6 June, five days from now, continues to shift. At present, the LibDems, who were at 70/1 and in 4th place just a week ago, are now, as of 1 June, on 12/1 and in firm 3rd place (Conservatives 25/1 and in 4th place, and already looking well-beaten). Brexit Party 1/5, Labour 4/1. It still seems unlikely that the LibDems can win:

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

but it is just possible if and only if pro-Remain and/or anti-Brexit Party voters abandon both the Conservative candidate and Labour, and go LibDem. Tactical voting to block the Brexit Party candidate.

If the LibDems can pull off the coup of getting their candidate elected at Peterborough (in the 2017 General Election, her vote share was only 3.3%), it will rank, arguably, above the other LibDem and Liberal Party revivals in the post-1945 era, such as the 2010 “Cleggmania” and the 1961 Orpington by-election

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1962_Orpington_by-election

In that event, the Brexit Party juggernaut would be halted in its tracks, quite possibly.

Update, 1 March 2022

In fact, at that Peterborough by-election of 2019, Labour managed to pull off an unexpected victory, scoring 30.91% as against Brexit Party’s 28.89%. The LibDems came in 4th, with 12.26%: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Peterborough_by-election.

I blogged about the by-election result: https://ianrobertmillard.org/2019/06/07/peterborough-by-election-post-poll-analysis-and-thoughts/; https://ianrobertmillard.org/2019/06/08/a-few-peterborough-afterthoughts-about-the-libdems/.

Since then, much water under the bridge. There was a General Election only 6 months later. At that election, the Labour MP, Lisa Forbes, lost her seat, being replaced by a Conservative Party MP who had not been the by-election candidate. Brexit Party nationwide was betrayed by its own leader, Farage; Mike Green stood again for Brexit Party but received a poor vote-share of 4.4%. As for the LibDems, a mere 4.9% (same candidate).

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

Notes from the Peterborough By-Election

23 Comments

Background

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

Peterborough

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

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

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

Peterborough constituency and by-election candidates

15 candidates are declared at close of list:

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

Conservative Party

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

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

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

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

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

Labour Party

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

Liberal Democrats, Greens, Change UK

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Minor candidates

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

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

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

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

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

There are 2 Independents.

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

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

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

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

Brexit Party

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

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

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

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

another tweeter:

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

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

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

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

Brexit Party of course not standing.

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion and forecast

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

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

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

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

Notes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://cpaparty.net/

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

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

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

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

view/

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

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

Update, 21 May 2019

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

Update, 23 May 2019

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

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

Update, 24 May 2019

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

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

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

Update, 26 May 2019

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

Update, 27 May 2019

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

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

Update, 29 May 2019

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

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

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

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

Update, 30 May 2019

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

Update, 31 May 2019

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

Meanwhile, the newspapers converge on Peterborough to seek opinions…

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

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

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

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

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

Update, 2 June 2019

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

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

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

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

Update, 3 June 2019

Three days before polling day.

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

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

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

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

The BBC has also posted a not very illuminating analysis:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update, 4 June 2019

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

ps. this tweeter makes a good overall point:

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

Update, 5 June 2019

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

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

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

Update, 6 June 2019

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

and at 1330 on polling day…

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

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

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

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

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

Update at 1615 hrs on polling day:

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

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

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

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

Aftermath, 7 June 2019

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

My post-poll thoughts are here:

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

Brexit, by-elections, Conservative Friends of Israel, elections, Jewish lobby in UK, Labour Friends of Israel, MPs, Party Politics, society, Uncategorized

The “Independent Group” of MPs

12 Comments

The seven ex-Labour defectors now have a website:

https://www.theindependent.group/

Their chosen identity is the bland “The Independent Group”. Note, “group”, not party. When the SDP was formed in 1981, it quickly adopted a firm identity which everyone in the UK understood. It was a political party, with a  firm policy position.

These Jewish and pro-Jewish-Zionist whiners are not a party, even on the face of their own now-public identity. They are just a group of Jewish and/or pro-Zionist MPs, all facing retirement or deselection, and whose main gripe is “anti-Semitism” in the Corbyn-led Labour Party. None of them, at their launch yesterday, actually tried to put forward any thoughts about what is wrong in Britain, let alone what might improve the country. The Jew Zionist Mike Gapes MP was the most honest, talking purely about his hatred for so-called “Anti-Semitism”. As noted, his tribal interest was at least not concealed by some faked concern about the British people.

The mass media are agog at the thought of what might happen in some game of fantasy politics where numbers of disaffected MPs from the traditional “three main parties” all coalesce in a House of Commons bloc to thwart the plans of Corbyn and (if she has any plans) Theresa May. For example, see here below (the tweeter is that little Indian who sometimes presents Channel 4 News):

Corbyn Labour supporters, however, were swift to seize on the group’s weak points:

https://twitter.com/Nornenland/status/1097859948179017728

The above tweets are a selection of the more polite ones criticizing the new not-a-party.

Meanwhile, Chuka Umunna has now broached the “elephant in the room” question, saying that he “hopes” that a new party could be formed “by the end of the year”. Hopes? Could? Imagine Adolf, back in 1919, “hoping” that a new party “could” or might be formed “by the end of the year”! That’s Chuka for you, as seen in the Labour leadership contest: a half-Nigerian fathead, irresolute, shallow, lacking will and force.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/19/chuka-umunna-hopes-new-party-will-be-created-by-end-of-year?CMP=share_btn_tw

Questions about the initial funding of the “Independent Group” of 7 Jewish and/or Zionist MPs are building now. A Labour MP has suggested that the funding may have come (directly or indirectly) from Israel:

It is interesting that the company which owns this “Independent Group” is based in the secretive offshore jurisdiction of Panama, long a favourite of rich Jews connected with Israel and/or MOSSAD. “Robert Maxwell” for one.

My thoughts so far

As ever, the msm Westminster Bubblers are getting it wrong. Polls have been produced to show that the public would be “more likely to vote for” the Independent Group MPs than Labour. Really? What would those poor sheep be voting for? There is no point in asking the “Independent Group”, for their own website is as innocent of policy (even in the broadest of broad brush terms) as were the brief statements made by the seven defectors at yesterday’s launch (media event). Their published statement of intent could have been produced by almost any political party, tendency, or even religion.

My own view is that, yes, most UK voters, certainly most English and Welsh voters are thoroughly sick of pseudo-democratic politics in the UK, they do want a new direction and would be willing to embrace a new party, but that party is not this party.

In fact, of course, the Independent Group is not (yet) a party anyway. It is not (yet) registered as such with the Electoral Commission, does not say that it is going to become a political party, and, as noted already, not only has no policy, but has not even any locus standi in the sense of where it stands, beyond a vague and implied “Centrism”.

If further Labour defections happen (rumours abound about 20-30 MPs, with a few wild msm assertions that 100 might go) then the new party (if it becomes a party) might have traction in the short term. I still doubt that any “centrist” party could get anywhere in the medium term (i.e. beyond 2022), let alone have any greater durability.

What strikes me but does not shock me is the sheer ineptitude of the defectors: they had three years in which to get this together, to recruit more cohorts, to organize things. Needless to say, I am not surprised to see that fathead Chuka was unable to organize anything more than an evening in one of the expensive and decadent nightclubs which he is said to patronize.

What a difference it would have made, had yesterday’s launch announced that a new party had been founded or was about to be registered, and if the Independent Group had actually managed to organize a decent website (to digress: my own website, http://ianrmillard.com/,  is amateur, yes, because I did it myself as best I could, and spent almost nothing on it; one expects something more professional from a group of individuals with plenty of money, wealthy Jewish backers, and who are hoping to soon form a major party). Above all, it would have made a huge difference had the defectors been able to say yesterday: “We are 100 [or even 30] Labour MPs who have now left Labour, are forming a new party, and invite applications for membership and candidature.” The new party would then have been in a position to recruit members and candidates for office.

Any new party [even if] based on the “7 defectors”, and which fields hundreds of candidates in a general election, would have to be taken seriously, though the experience of both the 1980s SDP and, more recently, UKIP shows that even a party capable of fielding hundreds of candidates might well end up with no MPs under the FPTP system.

As it is, we have 7 MPs who seem to be wanting mainly to make Jewish-Zionist propaganda against Corbyn-Labour, and who now have no party, no obvious policy, and no way yet of building a party organization in a situation where there might be a general election this year. Such an election would wipe out the defector cabal at once. No question.

It is interesting to note that even long-time anti-Corbyn plotters such as pro-Zionists Liz Kendall MP and John Woodcock MP, the sex-pest depressive, have not pledged allegiance so far. In Woodcock’s case, he might have been warned off as just too toxic, but Liz Kendall must have other reasons, maybe the wish not to risk that easy lucrative job as MP, with the £75,000 salary, the huge expenses, the opportunities for “nice little earners” on the side etc. Not to mention, down the line, the possibility of getting a nice little fake “peerage”, and so £300+ per day taxfree for merely turning up and signing a register!

I should imagine that there was jubilation at Corbyn HQ yesterday. They may even have popped open a few bottles of vintage Soviet “champagne”. The hard core of opposition to Corbyn has just committed hara-kiri.

Interesting: the “Independent Group” launched yesterday, 18 February 2019. Today, as I have been writing and looking at Twitter, I noticed that, as I thought and wrote, there were 38 tweets under hashtag #IndependentGroup in a period of one hour. Over an hour later, another 35. Twitter is not the world, or even the UK, but the low interest shown tells me much. The “Independent Group” now has over 80,000 followers on Twitter, but Twitter followers are not members, donors or even necessarily going to vote for the new party (if it ever emerges).

My guess is that this new non-party is going to fail. If there is no general election this year and if the Independent Group can recruit at least another couple of dozen MPs and a small army of candidates and foot-soldiers, then it might just about have a run in it. I doubt even that, though.

Notes

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-6718385/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-Chuka-Umunna-Labour-rebels-just-favour.html?ito=amp_twitter_share-top

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/02/18/cabal-of-7-zionist-mps-leave-the-labour-party-good-riddance/

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/02/14/will-both-main-parties-of-the-system-split-will-new-parties-emerge/

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/up-to-three-tories-could-join-new-independent-group-of-mps-a4070431.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1550592814

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

19 February 2019. Latest polling:

An earlier Survation poll seemed to indicate that people would prefer to vote for the “Independent Group” as compared to Labour, but a Sky poll now puts “support” for the IG at only 10%. Admittedly, not bad for a party which is not yet a party and which has no policies! All the same, in itself, that only puts IG firmly in “UKIP” territory, i.e. “good also-ran”…UKIP still had no MPs after its 2015 General Election peak of about 12%.

It will be noted that the percentages add up to 87%, meaning, I suppose that 13% are “Don’t Know”. It seems, and assuming (I am skeptical) that IG can organize itself as a party before the next general election, that there will be a crowded field: Con and Lab jostling for position with IG, LibDems, UKIP and Greens, as well as smaller parties and the usual independents. IG will have to have at least some broad policies before it tries to contest elections, though. Oh…and a leader…

Update, 19 February 2019

Joan Ryan MP has now also joined the “Independent Group”. Though not Jewish (nor even part- or crypto-), she is or until today was a member, like the other members of IG, of Labour Friends of Israel, chairing the Zionist organization in 2015.

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

Joan Ryan is or has been a noted expenses blodger and seems to be excessively fond of money. Perhaps that explains her…affiliations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Ryan#Expenses_controversies

That brings the MP bloc of IG to 8.

Thousands of tweets attacking Joan Ryan this evening. One that caught my eye:

That one really made me “laugh out loud” in the now-superseded Twitter/text phrase!

In fact, Enfield North is a Lab-Con marginal seat, so if Joan Ryan contests it (as an IG candidate rather than as simply “Independent”) at a general election, there is every chance that a Conservative will win the seat. In the recent past, Nick de Bois, who was one of the better MPs on the Conservative side, held the seat (2010-2015)

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

20 February 2019

The debate continues…

Another thought…

The fact that the absurd, leaderless, policy-free “Independent Group” is now already running at 14% in the opinion polls tells me that the British people are getting desperate for change, perhaps any change. Social nationalism is now in with a real chance.

Another tweet from today, attacking fathead Chuka and his combination of hypocrisy and stupidity (Chuka’s tweet is from two and a half years ago, when he was still being puffed by the msm as a “senior” Labour MP…):

https://twitter.com/GaryHerringto12/status/1098256026804146176

Update, 20 February 2019, evening

Complete doormat for Israel and the Jewish lobby, Ian Austin MP, has just announced that he too is joining the IG “not-a-party”!

Seems that he is not considered to be any great loss!

https://twitter.com/tswaddington/status/1098365037998206976

Correction, 22 February 2019

Seems now that Ian Austin MP is in fact not joining the “Independent Group”, though he is leaving Labour with immediate effect. He is not stepping down as MP for Dudley North and is not expected to repay any of his inflated expenses.

As to Austin leaving Labour, it means that he has probably committed political suicide, like most of the defectors from Con and Lab in the past week.

More Twitter comment…

https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/joan-ryan-mp-who-fabricated-anti-semitism-quits-labour

In other blog posts, I have criticized Aaron Bastani, Ash Sarkar etc, but Bastani is surely right in tweeting that “The space for a successful far-right party in the UK is massive.” The label “far-right” I disparage, of course, but in essence I agree with him. The difference is that he opposes it, I support it!

24 February 2019

Turns out that a Jew property developer and former Blair-Labour donor, with £100M+ capital, is donating to the “Independent Group”:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/02/23/one-labours-biggest-private-backers-has-donated-independent/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Garrard_(property_developer)

Here is a good example of a Westminster bubbler unable (perhaps) to distinguish between people noticing a news item and the same people supporting a political group, or the same people actually voting for a new political party a year or three in the future…Those in and around the Westminster bubble are probably often rather well-paid, but are they worth their salt?

Update, 7 March 2019

Fathead Chuka doormatting to the Jews in the hope of mass media and financial support (and if some of that goes his way, he will not complain…)

 

Update, 29 March 2019

Fathead Chuka announces that the Independent Group is now a registered party: “Change UK”. Not “The Independent Party”? That would have sounded odd, but then the USA had the “Tea Party”. Anyway,  “Change” it is. Loose change? Small change? Am I being unkind?

Many tweeters noting that “Change UK” might = “CUK”! Ha ha! Others just underwhelmed…

Update, 1 June 2023

As I predicted in this and other blog posts, “Change UK” sank without trace: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Change_UK.

“The Independent Group for Change, also known as Change UK, was a British centrist, pro-European Union political party, founded in February 2019 and dissolved ten months later, shortly after all its MPs lost their seats in the 2019 general election.”

[Wikipedia].

Update, 18 October 2023

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

Nowhere, as I predicted:

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Change_UK#2019_general_election_and_deregistration

Alt-Right, Brexit, by-elections, Carl Benjamin, Count Dankula, elections, immigration, Jewish lobby in UK, MPs, Party Politics, Paul Watson, Prison Planet, Sargon of Akkad, society, The Great Replacement, Uncategorized

Accept No Imitations: Fake Movements

Leave a comment

Introduction

In the past, by which I mean as far back as you want to go, but particularly the 1920s, 1930s etc, the primary method of opposing a political movement or tendency was to do so directly. Political battles on the streets, electoral contests involving propaganda and shows of strength etc; books might be written, too. One thinks perhaps of Trotsky’s book Terrorism and Communism, largely a polemic against the social-democrat Karl Kautsky. That was then. Today, while elements of the former methods still exist, new ones have come to the fore. One of these, applied particularly to (deployed against) the nationalist wing of politics, is the fake party, fake movement, fake tendency (call it what you will).

Fake Movements: example

It may be that the modern “fake movement” tactic had its genesis in the repressions of the Russian Empire in the period before the First World War. The Tsarist secret police, the Okhrana, established agents as “dissident” voices, attracting to those agents genuine dissidents. Thus society had “safety valves” and could blow off steam safely, with no danger of serious damage to the overall society or the government’s hold on the people.

There were many examples. The famous Father Gapon became one such, though it seems that, like his even more famous predecessor, Judas Iscariot, he started off as an “honest dissident” or believer in social justice. Likewise, the assassin of Stolypin was another “double agent” or double player, being both a revolutionary and an agent of the Okhrana.

Fake Movements Today: UKIP and how it was used to beat down the BNP; the Alt-Right fakery now joins with UKIP to prevent the rise of any new and real social-national party…

It is of the essence of a “fake” movement that it starts off or seems to start off as a genuine manifestation of socio-political frustration. UKIP was like that. It started life as the Anti-Federalist League, the brainchild of a lecturer at the London School of Economics, Alan Sked, whose first attempt at electioneering led to a 0.2% vote (117 votes) at Bath in 1992. UKIP itself was created in 1993. At that stage, UKIP’s membership could be fitted into one or two taxis.

By 1997, UKIP was able to field 194 candidates, yet still only achieved 0.3% of the national vote, perhaps equivalent to 1% in each seat actually contested, the same result as had been achieved in the 1994 European elections. In those 1997 contests, the Referendum Party funded by Franco-Jewish financier James Goldsmith was its main rival (beating UKIP in 163 out of 165 seats). The BNP was another rival, on the more radical, social-national side. However, the votes of all three combined would have amounted to only a few percent in any given seat.

It is at this point that an early joiner, Nigel Farage, emerges as leader. Alan Sked left UKIP, fulminating about “racism” and Farage’s meetings with BNP members etc. Farage had been the only UKIP candidate to have saved his deposit in 1997 (getting 5% at Bath, Sked’s old test-bed). Goldsmith died; most of the Referendum Party joined UKIP. “Major donors” emerged too.

In the 1999 European elections, UKIP received 6.5% of the vote; not very impressive, but enough (under the proportional voting system in use) to win 3 seats in the EU Parliament. From that time on, UKIP slowly gathered strength. In the 2001 general election, it still only had 1.5% of the national vote, but 6 of its candidates retained their deposits.

On a personal note, I missed much of UKIP’s rise. I was living out of the UK for much of 1990-1993 (mostly in the USA), again in 1996-97 (in Kazakhstan) and after I left Kazakhstan again spent much time overseas (many places, from North Cyprus to the Caribbean, the USA, the Med, the Canaries and Egypt, among others). In any case, I was not much interested in UK politics at the time. I had lunch with a girl in a pub at Romsey in Hampshire in the Spring of 2000. She told me that most of her time was spent “working on behalf of something called UKIP. Have you heard of it?” Answer no. When it was explained to me, I have to admit that I thought, secretly, that something like that had no chance. I suppose that I was both right and wrong at once.

Now, at the time when UKIP was gaining strength, after 1999, the BNP under its new leader, Nick Griffin, was also gaining strength and –in Westminster elections– doing better overall than UKIP at first. In 2001, it got over 10% of the vote in 3 constituencies (16% in one).  It is important to note here that the BNP was a genuine party, proven as such by the hatred it engendered in the “enemy” camp(s): Jewish Zionists, “antifascists” (many of whom are also Jews, though some are naive non-Jews), and the System (a wide term but certainly including existing MPs, the BBC, the journalistic swamp etc).

The anti-BNP forces were trying constantly to repeat their success in destroying the National Front in the 1970s. It lived on after the 70s, but as a shell. Internal factionalism was aided and abetted by skilled enemies. Akin to cracking marble in Carrara.

Whatever may be said of Nick Griffin (and I am neutral on the subject, though certainly more sympathetic than hostile), it cannot be denied that he gave the BNP its only chance of becoming a semi-mainstream party in the manner of the Front National in France. A strategic thinker, he managed to bring the BNP to the brink of success by 2009.

Within UKIP itself, there were social-national elements as well as what I would call conservative nationalists and others who were really Conservative Party types who, being anti-mass immigration, anti-EU etc, had defected. Two of the last sort later became UKIP’s 2 MPs, both initially elected as Conservatives: Mark Reckless, Douglas Carswell. Their kind of pseudo-“libertarian” “Conservatism” was exactly the wrong position for UKIP to take and positioned UKIP somewhere near but beyond the Conservative Party, when, to really break through, it needed to go social-national.

When the BNP imploded after the disastrous post-Question Time 2010 General Election, UKIP was able to get the votes of most of those who had previously voted BNP, if only fuelled by frustration or desperation, or “better half a loaf than none”.

UKIP beat all other UK parties at the 2014 European elections, getting 27 MEPs. OFCOM then awarded UKIP “major party” status, enabling it to get huge amounts of airtime (and people still talk about Britain’s “free” mainstream media…).

UKIP however, was unable to beat its way through the British fair-seeming (but in fact as good as rigged) “First Past the Post” electoral system at the General Election of 2015. 12.6% of national vote (nearly 4 million votes), but only 1 seat (Carswell’s, at Clacton, Essex). Meanwhile, the BNP vote had collapsed even from its 2010 level (1.9%, 563,743 votes) to effectively zero (1,667 votes).

I myself had already tweeted and blogged from 2014 that UKIP had peaked. I paid virtually no attention to the BNP, which by that time was already yesterday’s news. The 2017 election brought UKIP 1.9%, whereas the BNP bumped along with statistical zero (despite having tripled its individual votes to 4,642).

Douglas Carswell, the “libertarian” Conservative faux-nationalist resigned before UKIP’s 2017 failure to take up lucrative “work” in the City of London. His work with UKIP was done, let us put it that way. As for Farage, he reinvented himself as a touring talking head, while keeping his hand in as a “nationalist” by referring to his concerns about the “US Jewish lobby” (strangely, he failed to mention the Jew lobby in the UK or France…).

Today, in 2018, with neither main System party commanding firm support, we see the System, the Zionists in particular, “concerned” about the “resurgence” of the “far right” (i.e. worried that the British people might awaken and turn to a real alternative).

So what happens? The System “operation” revs up a little: the “Alt-Right” talking heads –who rarely if ever criticize the Jewish Zionist lobby– are now flocking to join UKIP! Milo Yan-whatever-he-is-opolous, “Prison Planet” Watson, “Sargon of Akkad”, “Count Dankula” etc…all the faux-“nationalist” fakes and fuckups are going to UKIP, have in fact gone to UKIP, have all suddenly joined as members of UKIP.

Conclusion

Naturally, all this could be co-incidence, but it is very odd that the events that I have chronicled seem to have happened at just the “right” time:

  • UKIP rising at the same time as the BNP which was, at that time, a rapidly-growing potential threat to the System;
  • Nick Griffin ambushed on BBC TV Question Time;
  • BNP marginalized in msm while UKIP was promoted as a “threat” to LibLabCon;
  • UKIP given endless msm airtime so long as it was “non-racist” (it now has quite a few non-whites as prominent members and is pro-Israel etc…);
  • Conservative Party MPs defecting to UKIP and so (in the absence of any elected UKIP MPs) bound to take leading roles in UKIP and steer it into capitalist, “libertarian” backwaters;
  • as the people look ready to follow any new credible social-national party (were one to emerge a little further down the line), suddenly dead-and-nailed-to-its-perch UKIP gets a boost from those fake “Alt-Right” figures…;
  • Former msm “radical” talking heads such as Paul Mason turn up shouting about the UKIP/Alt-Right convergence as if the SA were marching down Whitehall.

It is just all too convenient.

Still, God moves in mysterious ways. Maybe the System, in its cleverness, will score an “own goal”. After all, that’s what the Okhrana did in pre-revolutionary St. Petersburg…

Notes

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukip-alt-right-members-paul-joseph-watson-mark-meechan-carl-benjamin-a8418116.html

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/lostinshowbiz/2018/jun/28/neil-hamilton-ukip-supergroup-supremacist-a-team-infowars-breitbart

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/06/ukip-s-turn-alt-right-warning-sign-we-need-fight-back

https://archive.org/details/storymylifebyfa00gapogoog

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

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

C64bh5XW0AIWYgyhttp://altrightnotright.com/

by-elections, elections, MPs, Party Politics, Russia and Russian relations, Uncategorized

Manchester Gorton By-Election

4 Comments

Introduction

Manchester Gorton, one of the most solidly Labour constituencies in the UK, was represented 1955-1967 by Konni Zilliacus, an interesting character who was acquainted with many of the most significant political figures of the 20th Century (his widow, whom I met a few times, carried on in the local Labour Party of Maida Vale, London until her death in 1999).

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

The recent death of Gerald Kaufman MP (a famously anti-Zionist Jew, MP for the seat since 1983 and for a neighbouring seat from 1970-1983) has triggered a by-election, though the date (probably 4 May 2017) is yet to be confirmed. It follows that there is still time for candidates to be nominated (e.g. the Conservative Party has not yet selected its candidate).

At present, the candidate list includes those of Labour, Green Party, Liberal Democrat and, standing as Independent, George Galloway. UKIP may or may not stand. Previous elections in the seat have attracted a host of minor candidates: Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition [TUSC], Pirate, Christian, Workers’ Revolutionary Party [WRP], Resolutionist Party, Socialist Labour; and going back further, Revolutionary Communist, Red Front, Natural Law, BNP (only in 1983), National Front (only in 1979) etc.

Manchester Gorton is a Labour seat, has always been Labour, right back beyond the creation of the seat in 1918 and further back to when it was called South-East Lancashire, Gorton Division: Labour won in 1906 and in 1910 (twice). This is rock-solid Labour Party territory and considered to rank as the 9th-most-Labour seat in the UK

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/orderedseats.html.

The Labour vote in Manchester Gorton has only once (since 1918 anyway) fallen below 50% [1967 by-election: just below 46%] and peaked in 1945 at over 69%, though Gerald Kaufman almost equalled that in 2015, with just over 67%.

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

Analysis

There is no prospect of Labour losing in Manchester Gorton. It is a question of how many voters turn out and of the margin of Labour’s inevitable win. Turnout, at one time over 70% and even over 80%, has fallen back in recent years [2015: nearly 58%]. The other points of interest will revolve around the votes garnered by UKIP (if standing), the Liberal Democrats and George Galloway.

29% of the voters of Manchester Gorton are ethnic Pakistanis. The most recent ICM polling has made clear that the Conservative Party is preferred to Labour by every standard demographic except non-whites. The Labour shortlist contained 5 candidates, all Pakistani Muslims.

The Conservative Party always came second in Manchester Gorton until 1997, since which year it has always come third and always third to the Liberal Democrats, until 2015, when the general LibDem slaughter led to their 2010 vote share of 33% collapsing to 4%, which put the LibDems only fifth (after UKIP). Since 1997, the Conservative Party vote has always been around 10%, compared to 20%+ in the 1980s and 30%+ in 1970s. In the 1967 by-election, the Conservative candidate was Winston Churchill, grandson of the former Prime Minister. Winston junior nearly won that by-election, getting 44.51% as against Labour’s 45.89%.

Interestingly enough, the 2015 Liberal Democrat rout did not help the Conservative candidate: third place and 9.7% as against 11% in 2010. Second place went to the Green Party , which got 9.8%, its previous best having been 3.1% (in 2001).

The 2015 UKIP vote was 8.2% (2010, 2.7%). Likely 2017 vote would be around 5%.

George Galloway has attacked the all-Asian Labour shortlist. This may indicate that he is hoping to attract to his banner English (i.e. white) former Labour voters who were willing to vote for Kaufman but will not vote for a Pakistani Muslim as their MP. A proposition which may be flawed. Abstention is more likely, in my opinion.

Conclusion

There is nothing much to disturb the inevitable Labour victory here.

  • The Pakistani Muslim demographic will turn out in large numbers for the Labour candidate and that alone will ensure a Labour win.
  • The Conservatives may see a small increase, no more, in vote share.
  • The same is true of the Liberal Democrats. This is an area hard hit by the spending cuts of the Con Coalition, which was propped up by 2010-2015 LibDem MPs’ votes. On the other hand, there is the “dustbin” or “catch-all” factor.
  • George Galloway will probably only get a few per cent of the vote (hard to see who would vote for him either from white or non-white communities, despite his new role as TV face on RT).
  • The Greens will have achieved a victory if they save their deposit.
  • If UKIP stand, they will be lucky to save their deposit.

In the end, turnout may be very low. The white former Labour voters may well vote with their feet and stay home and Labour will probably see both its vote numbers and vote percentage fall to some extent, but Labour has in its favour the fact that almost a third of the voters are Pakistani Muslims and that there are other non-white groups in the constituency.

Likely result:

1.Labour;

2.Liberal Democrats;

3.Conservatives;

4.Green;

5.UKIP (if standing).

Postscript, written in early 2018

In the event, a General Election was called and the by-election was cancelled. Almost all candidates standing in the constituency at the General Election were the same as had been candidates in the cancelled by-election.

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

Boris Johnson, by-elections, Conservative Friends of Israel, Deadhead MPs, elections, Jewish lobby in UK, Labour Friends of Israel, MPs, Party Politics, Uncategorized

Stoke Central and Copeland: the aftermath for Labour and UKIP

10 Comments

The by-elections in Stoke Central and Copeland have been held. The public relations people for Labour (UKIP seems to have no public relations section) are still trying to spin positives out of the Stoke result and even the Copeland defeat. The time has come to look to the future based on what can be taken from these by-elections.

The Result in Stoke Central

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoke-on-Trent_Central_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s

The Result in Copeland

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

First Thoughts

I blogged before the poll that, if UKIP failed to win Stoke Central, that that would surely be the end or at least beginning of the end for it as a serious contender. I have also blogged and tweeted for 18 months my view that UKIP peaked in 2014. I have no reason to change those views now.

As a candidate, Paul Nuttall was fairly poor, not resilient, not intelligent, not really passionate enough politically. The UKIP organization or administration of the campaign also seemed poor. Overall, as in the past, UKIP seemed to be afraid to really set the campaign alight. The law being what it now is, UKIP could hardly have copied the successful 1960s Smethwick Conservative by-election candidate whose posters said “if you want a n****r for a neighbour, vote Labour”, but UKIP seemed to want to bypass the race/culture question entirely. There was no bite to the UKIP campaign.

The Labour candidate at Stoke Central, Gareth Snell, might fairly be described as “a poorly-educated and spotty Twitter troll, living mainly if not entirely off his allowances and expenses as a local council leader, who seems never to have had a non-political job (except a trade union one of some kind)”. In some respects he was a worse candidate than Paul Nuttall.

One has to bear in mind the heavily-industrial, heavily-Labour-voting history of Stoke-on-Trent. Labour has always had a built-in advantage there. The Conservative candidate, Jack Brereton, though looking like a schoolboy, did well to come a close third to Labour and UKIP, though in fact the Conservative vote increased by only a modest 1.8 points over the 2015 result.

Apathy or hostile apathy was the real winner in Stoke Central. 62% of the electorate did not vote. No party energized them to come out to vote for it.

As to Copeland, the main point that leaps out, apart from the obvious Labour car crash, is the poor performance of UKIP.

Future View

UKIP

UKIP surely must be finished now. It started in 1993 and in the nearly 24 years since then has failed to win a single Westminster seat, save for that of former Conservative MP Douglas Carswell, who is really just a Brexit Conservative and “free market” globalist.

UKIP would have been in a far better position had it won even a couple of seats at the 2015 General Election, but, in the irritating phrase, “we are where we are”. Theresa May’s Brexit policy has “shot UKIP’s fox” on the EU.

That leaves immigration, race and culture. UKIP now seems to have many spokesmen who are not of European race, so UKIP is not even offering the UK a white persona, a white country, if you like.

The conclusion is clear: UKIP is pointless, hopeless and must go.

Labour

Labour has been declining for years. Corbyn is both symptom and cause. The disappearance of the industrial proletariat has swept away the bedrock underneath Labour, replacing it by the sand of the “precariat”. Labour imported millions of immigrants, who are now breeding. The social landscape becomes volatile. The political landscape too.

The elimination of “socialism” from Labour led to focus-group rudderlessness, surely personified by Tony Blair, who has no principles, no real ideology, just careerism, self-seeking and politically-correct non-thinking. Labour became a party made in Blair’s image. It has no real ideology any more, not even social-democracy.

By 2020, the House of Commons will consist of 600 MPs, reduced from the current 650. Labour is currently at about 25% in the opinion polls and it is likely that, in 2020, Labour will have between 100 and 200 MPs in the House. Labour cannot now form even a coalition or minority government. It will slowly crumble.

The Future Beyond 2020

A new social nationalist party must be formed. It must be ideologically clear, administratively disciplined, capable of gaining trust and credibility. When a crisis comes, that small party may be able to seize control, as has happened before in history.

Update, 23 April 2019

I am updating because there has been much water under the bridge in the past 2 years and 2 months. Labour did fail to become the largest party in the Commons at the 2017 General Election, held a few months after the above was written. However, the Conservatives lost ground. Labour has trailed in the opinion polls since I wrote the above blog post, but just recently has managed to come back, not really on its own merit but because the Conservatives under Theresa May have had a complete car crash in several respects, especially Brexit. Labour has been sitting on the fence, not exactly a “cunning plan” but effective enough…

Update, 20 November 2020

The world turns…the 2019 General Election finished off the “15 minutes of fame” political career of Gareth Snell. He lost out to the Conservative Party candidate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gareth_Snell; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoke-on-Trent_Central_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s.

As for the planned reduction of MP numbers to 600 (from 650), that will not now occur.

Update, 6 December 2020

I just noticed that my prediction of Labour MP-strength in the House of Commons (100-200 by 2020) was right: the Labour Party now has 200 MPs (201, if presently-suspended Jeremy Corbyn is included).

At date of writing, and despite the appalling incompetence of the Boris Johnson government, Labour under Jewish lobby puppet Keir Starmer is still trailing a few points behind the Conservative Party.

Update, 26 January 2026

The Copeland constituency no longer exists.

As for Stoke Central, Gareth Snell managed to regain it at the 2024 General Election with 42.4% of the vote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoke-on-Trent_Central#Elections_in_the_2020s.

The Reform candidate came second, with 24.2%. The Conservative vote slumped to 17.6%.

It is not unlikely that Reform will triumph next time, looking at the present opinion polling nationwide.

Incidentally, Snell is now married to half-Jewish former MP Ruth Smeeth, the Labour Friends of Israel member and alleged agent for both Israel and USA, who now sits in the degraded House of Lords as “Baroness Anderson”, having been “ennobled” by Conservative Friends of Israel former PM, “Boris”-idiot. What price “democracy”?

Alt-Right, by-elections, Farage, immigration, MPs, Party Politics, society, Uncategorized

Stoke Central By-Election: Final Word before Polling

6 Comments

I have blogged twice previously about the upcoming Stoke Central by-election:

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2017/01/18/stoke-on-trent-central-preview/

and

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2017/01/26/stoke-on-trent-central-by-election/

in which I predicted a very close race. In the latter post I suggested that UKIP and Paul Nuttall could finally crack it and defeat Labour in a former Labour heartland. That post was written on 26 January, since which date Paul Nuttall and UKIP have run one of the least impressive campaigns seen for a long time. Labour is now  (21 February) 8/13 odds-on favourite, with UKIP out at 9/4, having been at one point 10/11 favourite.

The latest polling seems to suggest, however, that UKIP and Labour are neck-and-neck in the affections of the voters:

http://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/survey-predicts-tight-result-in-stoke-on-trent-central-by-election/story-30149927-detail/story.html

As the Stoke Sentinel report says, turnout will therefore be key. UKIP voters tend to be older, tend to vote, tend to be more motivated politically than Labour voters now are. Those factors favour UKIP strongly. Against that, the NHS is a major issue, which favours Labour (especially because Nuttall seems to have flirted with market forces in the NHS, albeit some years ago). Immigration, race, and culture is probably a combined major issue under the surface, something which is often obscured in polling by reason of the pervasive political correctness.

All weather forecasts are showing that Polling Day, Thursday 23 February 2017, will be a cold, wet and windy day across the country, featuring “Storm Doris”. That will depress voting numbers in Stoke Central, which is already one of the least-voting constituencies in the UK (in 2015, the turnout was 49%).

On the face of it, Paul Nuttall seems a poor candidate and UKIP a bit of a joke. However, it was revealed during the campaign that the Labour candidate, Gareth Snell, is a spotty and rather unpleasant Twitter troll, who posted, only a few years ago, some juvenile-level insults about women. He also grievously insulted EU Referendum Leave voters, in one of the most Brexit-friendly parts of  the UK.

In addition, Gareth Snell seems not to have had a job outside local Labour and connected union politics, living off his council allowances and expenses.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4219874/Labour-s-election-candidate-caught-sexist-rant.html

One has to ask whether Stoke Central voters want to be represented by such an unpleasant person. We shall see.

Prediction

It may be foolish to predict anything now that the race seems so close, but I am still inclined to think that UKIP might crack it despite everything that has happened. In the end, if Labour wins, Stoke Central gets another and particularly useless Labour MP, whereas if UKIP wins, Stoke Central really is on the map.

The main indicators still look good for UKIP:

  • turnout
  • voter motivation
  • voter age profile

as against which Labour has on its side

  • traditional Labour voting pattern
  • Muslim voters [6%+].

Conclusion

This looks bad for Labour. Either Labour loses to UKIP or Labour scrapes a pathetic fingertips win. If the former, Labour will go into a tailspin and its MPs will be lining up to find new jobs after 2020; if Labour “only just” wins, then Labour’s decline continues anyway.

As for UKIP, only a win will do. A win keeps the UKIP train clattering along its rusty rails. If UKIP loses here, then that is derailment or the end of the line, whichever metaphor might be preferred.

Update, 14 July 2025

Well, in the end, Gareth Snell won the by-election for Labour with 37.1% of the vote. UKIP’s Paul Nuttall got 24.7%, and the Con Party candidate, Jack Brereton (who was later elected MP for another seat, Stoke on Trent South, 2017-2024), got 24.3%.

Snell was re-elected at the 2017 General Election, but was unseated at the 2019 General Election by the Conservative candidate, Jo Gideon, who however stood down before the 2024 General Election (she was then 71: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo_Gideon). Snell was then returned as MP at the 2024 General Election.

Paul Nuttall eventually resigned from UKIP, which became more or less dormant after that, or co-incident with that. Nuttall thereafter faded from political life until (surprisingly) he made a comeback, having been appointed Deputy Chairman of Reform UK in early July 2025. He therefore is (again, surprisingly), not necessarily washed-up, politically. He is still only 48. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Nuttall#UKIP_Leadership.

So there it is. At time of writing, Snell is still the MP, though it is an open question as to what will happen at the next general election. Reform UK may clinch it.

Arguably oddly, in May 2025 Snell married Ruth Smeeth, now also “Baroness Anderson” and a Labour peer (as well as Israeli agent and former informant for the U.S. Embassy in London). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Smeeth.

by-elections, elections, Jewish lobby in UK, Labour Friends of Israel, MPs, Party Politics, Starmer, Uncategorized

The Sliding Labour Party– What Next?

2 Comments

Some months ago I blogged about what I saw as the emerging political vacuum in England and Wales. My overall view now is the same but more so.

The 2015 General Election would have broken the mould of British politics had it been carried out under conditions other than the absurd First Past The Post system, more suited to the UK of the 1920s than that of the early 21st Century. The distribution of votes in Southern England illustrates this well enough, where the Conservative Party got about half the votes but won about 95% of the Westminster seats (a similar ration to that of the SNP in Scotland).

The UKIP insurgents famously won nearly 4 million votes UK-wide (mostly in England), some 12% of the vote, yet won no seat except that of Douglas Carswell, who is really a Conservative and was previously elected as one.

It can be asserted as simple fact that, in almost any given English seat, most of the voters do not get the MP or party that they want and for which they voted. Moreover, even the typical 30%-50% received by the winning candidate often reflects more the candidates that most voters did not want: voters vote tactically in the absence of a true choice being available.

FPTP has distorted British politics, giving the incumbent party in any given seat a great advantage and –far more– giving the main System parties as a whole a like electoral advantage and an anchor against sliding into ruination. All the same, when the forces become unstoppable, that slide does happen. It happened to the Liberal Party during and after the 1920s (replaced by Labour) and it happened to Scottish Labour after 2010. This illustrates it well:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_National_Party#UK_General_Elections

Founded in 1934, the SNP often scored less than 1% of the vote in Scotland and had to wait until 1970 to get a single MP elected. Even in 2010, the SNP only got 19.9% of the Scottish vote and 6 MPs (out of 59). Then the tipping-point was reached and in 2015, its vote swelled to 50% and suddenly the SNP had (a typically-disproportionate FPTP result) 56 MPs (out of 59). Labour in Scotland was ruined and now (2017) is only the third party in the polls there (after the Conservatives!) and has only about 15% voter support.

Moving to Labour overall, we see that this is a party that has been living “off its hump” for a long time. It even managed to jettison almost every remnant of “socialism” in its policies and yet win elections under Tony Blair (via appealing to otherwise Conservative or Liberal Democrat voters in the South and Midlands). Labour, in effect, “sold its patrimony for a mess of pottage”. When one asks oneself “what does Labour stand for?”, nothing coherent comes to mind: a confusion of old history, trade unions, strike banners, post-1945 nationalization, 1960s-1970s managerial technocracy, that old humbug Michael Foot in his donkey jacket at the Cenotaph, then, from the mid-1990s, the mirage of Blairism (New World Order pro-Americanism meets the Israel Lobby meets managerial “socialism” meets Common Purpose careerism).

It is often said that Labour is now split into Corbynists and Blairites. Another fault line (closely following the first) might be said to be the pro-Israel lobby bloc and the generally anti-Zionist bloc (though most in both still feel the need to pay lip-service to the “holocaust” narrative and its faked history, non-existent “gas chambers”, the now-derided “six million” etc).

In fact, Labour is now not even two parties but three:

  • the remnant of the old trade union-oriented Labour Party, based around traditional and unthinkingly Labour communities, mostly in the North;
  • the Blairite-Brownite pro-Israel bloc, consisting largely of MPs and their staffs, together with careerists in other parts of the country. These are those who want “to win elections” by promising pie in the sky: socialism to socialists, aspiration to the voters of the suburbs, “diversity” to the ethnic minorities and the rainbow loonies, profits and low taxes to the Jewish Zionist potential donors;
  • the Corbyn  camp, which relates to a partly-imaginary Labour history from the 1930s through to the 1980s: “no pasaran!” Communist (and some syndicalist) propaganda from the Spanish Civil War; an airbrushed “anti-Nazi” and “anti-fascist” Second World War narrative; the conflicts of the 1970s such as that in Chile or those in parts of Central America; the Miners’ Strike of the 1980s (seen mainly through a London lens though). This is largely a bloc based around London, around the half-mad pseudo-socialist local council enclaves that became notorious in the 1980s: Islington, Camden, Haringey, Lambeth. It is the dominant bloc now and is supported by at least half of the ordinary Labour Party members and supporters.

Naturally, there is overlap here and there within that tripartite split. However, what has fallen away is not only consensus among the Labour members and activists, but more, the voters. Most Labour voters now are in that first group and are only voting Labour out of traditional allegiance. When you look at, say, Stoke Central, where the by-election is about to take place, you see that voting Labour, not in 1945 but in 1997, 2001, 2005, 2010, 2015 has not given the people anything. Unemployment high, immigration high, large numbers of ethnic minority voters (Labour’s most reliable pawns now); little hope. Why would people in Stoke Central vote Labour? The answer seems to be that they see little choice (those that will actually vote, being probably a minority of those eligible).

In Stoke Central, the only alternative to Labour is UKIP, which is not the sort of social-national party likely to rise to power. In fact, UKIP is not social-nationalist at all, though some of its supporters are. The fact that UKIP is even being entertained (and may yet win the Stoke Central seat) is mainly a sign of Labour’s decline and not UKIP’s strength.

The industrial proletariat has gone, almost entirely. The trade unions are just a feeble bureaucratic, rainbow-coalition, “anti-racist”, Common Purpose-contaminated joke. The people who are suffering under fake “austerity” (the effect of #NWO/#ZOG globalism) and who belong to the burgeoning “precariat” (unemployed, underemployed, disabled, 50+, zero-hours-exploited, minimum-wage-exploited) are not now Labour voters but non-voters, sometime UKIP voters, potential social-nationalist voters. The Labour MPs are now mainly careerists, pro-Israel drones and “what’s-in-it-for-me?” bastards. Stoke Central MP Tristram Hunt abandoned his seat and constituents because, as he said, “the offer [from the Victoria and Albert Museum] was too good to refuse.” £250,000 a year. That was his price.

When a social nationalist movement of the new type emerges, as it must, it will start to scoop up the poor, or poor and angry and frustrated, masses. Labour will then disappear. Already it seems likely that Labour will only get between 100-200 seats in the 2020 Parliament, whether numbers are reduced from 650 to 600 or not. Labour policies– pro mass immigration, “welcoming” “refugees” (not of course to the MPs’ homes and neighbourhoods but to those of the former Labour voters), pro the EU octopus etc, simply have no appeal to those left behind by a conspiratorial globalism and multiculturalism.

As yet, a suitable party does not exist. When it does exist, Labour, already weakened, will fall to dust.

Update, 24 August 2025

Well, scroll on 8.5 years and here we are. The 2017 Stoke Central by-election was won by Labour (from UKIP and Con), and the seat retained by Labour at the 2017 General Election, but lost to the Conservatives in 2019, only for Labour to win the seat back in 2024: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoke-on-Trent_Central_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2020s.

In the bigger picture, of course, the Cons under Boris-idiot won in 2017, and won bigger in 2019, only to lose to Starmer-Labour in 2024, since which time Reform UK has arisen to prominence and, indeed, dominance. We now await events.

by-elections, elections, Party Politics, Uncategorized

Stoke-on-Trent Central By-Election

3 Comments

Last week, I wrote a preview of the upcoming (23 February 2017) Stoke-on-Trent Central by-election, one of two taking place on that day

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2017/01/18/stoke-on-trent-central-preview/.

Now that the main candidates are declared, I am ready to expand on that and to predict the result as best one can a month before polling.

The Stoke Central constituency has existed since 1950 and the Labour Party has won every election since then. Until Tristram Hunt appeared in 2010, the Labour vote varied between 48% and 68%. Hunt’s votes have been 38.8% (2010) and 39.3% (2015). Stoke Central has moved from being a Labour safe seat to one which can be regarded as marginal:

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

The Labour vote in 2015 was about 12,000, that of both UKIP and Conservatives about 7,000. The Liberal Democrats, until 2015 the second party, crashed to fifth place (behind an Independent) with 1,296 votes. In fact, the LibDem vote in 2010 was 7,000, the same as the UKIP vote in 2015, perhaps a sign that the “protest vote” bloc at Stoke Central is around 7,000 or so. Arguende. The LibDem candidate for the by-election is Zulfiqar Ali, a consultant cardiologist, who lost his deposit (vote share 4.2%) in the 2015 General Election.

Tristram Hunt, the outgoing-going-gone Labour Party MP, was never very popular in his own constituency, though London TV studios loved him. He made no bones about despising the leader of his own party, tried and failed to formulate policy of his own and was surprisingly bad (for someone of his background and education) at arguing his points when (as so often) being interviewed.

Hunt stepped down as MP in order to take a job as Director of the Victoria and Albert Museum. MP pay is about £74,000 (plus generous expenses); the V&A Director presently gets a package worth £230,000. Hunt may be getting more. No wonder that he said that “the V&A offer was too good to refuse.” So much for political conviction, vocation and, indeed, loyalty (whether to party or constituents). Stoke Central is well rid of him.

The Labour candidate in the by-election is Gareth Snell, a still fairly young former leader of the Borough Council of Newcastle-under-Lyme (3-4 miles from Stoke-on-Trent). His selection indicates that Labour are going to play on local roots and try to pretend that God is in His Heaven and Jeremy Corbyn far away, Corbyn being (arguably?) an electoral liability (seen as a credible future Prime Minister by only 16% in a recent poll).

The Conservatives have not been even the second party at Stoke Central since 2001. This by-election is one which will be decided between Labour and UKIP. The recent Theresa May Brexit speech may well have shot UKIP’s fox overall, but at Stoke Central no-one is expecting a Conservative win or even a Conservative second. The Conservative candidate is Jack Brereton, 25, who was elected at age 19 to Stoke-on-Trent City Council.

Since the 2001 General Election, the second and third-placed candidates at Stoke-on-Trent Central have received very similar numbers of votes (behind victorious Labour).

UKIP, joker in the pack. Paul Nuttall, a Northerner who was recently elected leader of UKIP, is the candidate. He must have a chance despite his partly-“libertarian” views (of which Labour is making the most, of course, claiming that Nuttall believes in NHS privatization). UKIP has a steep climb in the by-election, but it is possible. This is a by-election. The result will not affect who governs the UK. People can protest with their votes. Labour is now seen as the pro-mass immigration party and the pro-EU party. Stoke Central voted nearly 70% for Leave in the EU Referendum.

If turnout is low, if the 2015 Labour vote halves to about 6,000, if the 2015 UKIP vote mostly holds up at 7,000 or not much less, then UKIP can win. If.

It is not credible to imagine a win for the Conservatives or LibDems and they will vie for most votes not going to Labour or UKIP, but this is very much a Labour/UKIP contest. If enough people (eg 2015 Conservative voters) vote tactically for UKIP, UKIP has a good chance. On the other hand, many 2015 LibDem or Green voters may also vote tactically for Labour.

In 2015, an Independent got over 2,000 votes. Will those votes go to UKIP, now that that candidate has not renewed his candidature? Open question.

Unemployment is high, immigration is high and having had Labour MPs for 66 years has not prevented either in recent times. There is strong cultural resistance in the seat to the Conservative Party. UKIP is the insurgent here.

Prediction

The bookmakers still have Labour as odds-on to win the by-election and it would be tempting to call it as a Labour-UKIP-Conservative 1-2-3, but I am going to be bold and say that Paul Nuttall and UKIP can crack this. The seat must be one of the best chances UKIP has had or will have: anti-EU, pro-Leave, anti-mass immigration, disenchanted with the System parties and very much a “left-behind” area. Also, Tristram Hunt abandoning the seat for a quarter-of-a-million-pound job must sit badly in an area which is one of the poorest in England. In addition, Nuttall has the cachet, such as it is, of being his party’s leader.

In sum, I see the 1234 as: 1.UKIP; 2.Labour; 3.Conservative; 4.LibDem.

Effect

If the result is as I have predicted, it will push even more anti-Corbyn Labour MPs to jump ship and it will weaken Labour even further in the North (it being of little importance now in Scotland or most of the South of England). If Labour hangs on to win, then everything depends on the majority obtained but it might well be just a slower car crash.

Update, 30 May 2019

I blogged twice more about that Stoke on Trent by-election:

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2017/02/21/stoke-central-by-election-final-word-before-polling/

and

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2017/02/24/stoke-central-and-copeland-the-aftermath-for-labour-and-ukip/