Category Archives: Party Politics

Alt-Right, animal welfare, environment, ethnostate, free speech, historical, historical revisionism, Ian Millard, Party Politics, Reminiscences and Musings, Russia and Russian relations, society, Uncategorized

People are Worth More than Their Opinions

1 Comment

Someone, possibly Auden, remarked once that “people are worth more than their opinions” (in relation to the Comintern/NKVD agents of the 1930s active in the British universities). There is something in that. On Twitter, for example, I have noticed that people bitterly divided politically will often still support, separately, such causes as animal welfare or environmental improvement. Wider than that, I am willing to see that some of those who attack my views (and, often, me personally) are, in some cases –and like me– interested in the welfare of the more downtrodden parts of the population. Sadly, most of those who attack me –and this particularly applies to the Jewish Zionists– are unwilling to see the slightest good in me or my views. I can only assume that to do so would weaken their assertion that anything connected with social nationalism (and, a fortiori, National Socialism) is irredeemably evil and without any good in it at all.

Adolf Hitler was of different mind. He accepted into the ranks of the NSDAP and SA, even into the SS, many who had been his enemies. People, in other words, who wanted a better society but who at first did not accept that National Socialism would create one.

In the Soviet Union, from 1917 onward, many who fought Bolshevism or were at least opposed to it were later shot, imprisoned or exiled as so-called “former people”, others however were allowed to stay as free as anyone could be under Sovietism. Some even became members of the CPSU and/or the officer corps of the Red Army, at least until the purges of the late 1930s. Beria’s own past was full of ambiguities. During the 1941-1945 war, the vast majority of Russians fought and struggled together (whatever one may think of that).

In the UK at present, I can see that many want positive social change and that many (sometimes the same people) want to preserve the better aspects of the existing society. These people belong to Labour (especially the Corbyn wing), the Green Party, the LibDems, UKIP, even the Conservative Party. I trust that, when a real social national movement comes into existence, these people or many of them will feel able to join with me in the rebirth of this country.

Alison Chabloz, Alison Chabloz, Alt-Right, Campaign Against AntiSemitism, David Icke, David Irving, free speech, historical revisionism, Ian Millard, Jewish lobby in UK, Jez Turner, Nick Griffin, Party Politics, society, Uncategorized

Don’t Mention the Jews!

5 Comments

In Fawlty Towers, Basil Fawlty has to keep reminding his wife and staff, “whatever you do, don’t mention the War” (because German guests might be offended). In contemporary Britain, that injunction has become “don’t mention the Jews!” unless, of course, in terms that stress the huge benefits which they (according to they themselves) confer upon any nation hosting them.

The latest famous figure to fall foul of the “rule” has been Nigel Farage, the former UKIP leader. In fact, what he said was hardly even controversial, surely: that the well-funded Jewish lobby has a hugely disproportionate influence over US politics. As far as I know, he did not have the courage to mention that the same is true in the UK.

Farage has been the subject of the usual Jewish-Zionist storm that breaks if anyone “mentions the Jews”. They want the money, the influence, the power, but not the “recognition ” of it by non-Jews.

In the UK at present, there are several people who face trial, possibly even imprisonment, for “mentioning the Jews”.

Naturally, one has to tread carefully for fear of being in contempt of court in circumstances where trials are upcoming.

Alison Chabloz, satirical singer, after having been attacked and trolled mercilessly for 3-4 years by Jewish Zionists, was eventually prosecuted privately by the “Campaign Against Anti-Semitism” for alleged offences under the much-criticized “bad law” of the Communications Act 2003, s.127. Faced with that coup de main, the Crown Prosecution Service, which had not prosecuted her for her songs (without getting into the legal niceties of the charge), had the choice of allowing the private prosecution to run, taking over the prosecution and dropping it, or taking it over and continuing it. The CPS decided to take over the prosecution, drop the then-existing charges (drafted by Zionist lawyers) and substitute new charges. So far the case, which started in late 2016, has not run its course. One notorious Jew-Zionist pest, who was a prosecution “witness”, has now been dropped by the CPS for being in fact “an unreliable witness” and there will now be a further court hearing on several points of law before the matter (possibly) goes to trial in January 2018 or thereafter. All because a lady sang some songs…

British nationalist Jeremy Bedford-Turner [Jez Turner] has now been committed for trial on the more serious charge of “incitement to racial hatred”, having made a brief speech in 2015 (2015!) in Whitehall, in which speech he is alleged to have mentioned the Jews…

The Crown Prosecution Service, having had the matter referred to them by the police on a complaint by the same “Campaign Against Anti-Semitism”, initially refused to prosecute Jez Turner, so the “CAA” took the CPS to the High Court on a judicial review application. In the event, the CPS caved in, presumably so as not to set a precedent. The matter was “re-examined” and prosecution initiated.

Jez Turner appeared this week in the magistrates’ court and was committed for trial in the Crown Court at Southwark.

It is not without note that we in the UK live under a government which is very much tied in with the Jewish/Zionist/Israel lobby. Theresa May and Amber Rudd are strongly pro-Israel and do not deny that fact. It seems that Theresa May is in fact half or quarter Jewish herself (on the maternal side). At least, that has been credibly suggested. She and Amber Rudd have stated that they intend to criminalize even people merely reading “far right” (social nationalist) “propaganda” (views, analysis) online! Police state dystopia…

Talking of police states and repressions instigated by Zionists, many may have read previously my own experience of early 2017:

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

and many other people have been subjected to similar experiences in the past few years. I was disbarred after a malicious and politically-motivated complaint from, essentially, the same type of “person”, masquerading as “UK Lawyers for Israel”. See:

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

So we see that we are being told “don’t mention the Jews!” (or else…).

Forget that! I vote for freedom– for myself, for my people, for the peoples of Europe.

Party Politics, Reminiscences and Musings, Uncategorized

Encounter with Two Labour Ladies

9 Comments

I thought to blog about an encounter, on Twitter, with two ladies of seemingly similar views, both basically pro-Corbyn Labour Party supporters.

I happened to see that a Jew-Zionist lawyer and prolific tweeter was arguing with and, as the ladies tweeted (not inaccurately), “bullying” them because they opposed Israel. I myself block the Jew in question but started to talk to both ladies.

I could see that they had become aware of abusive tweets by one or two Jewish Zionist persons, notably minor academic Ben Gidley, who works at Birkbeck and Goldsmiths colleges of London University when not tweeting malicious pro-Zionism and supposed “antifascism” and who, while having his more “respectable” academic-oriented account, @bengidley, also runs @bobfrombrockley and did run the Zionist troll account @inthesoupagain (which was permanently suspended by Twitter for its abusive character). @inthesoupagain has in fact been resurrected as @antinazisunited, in which the same garbage pumped out by “Soup” is poorly-camouflaged behind tweets about US politics and other subjects. Other Zionist accounts are now connected with these, among them @gnasherjew (which “monitors” and denounces anti-Zionist Labour members).

At that stage, it seemed clear that both ladies were unaware of my own socio-political views (even in the cartoon form in which they are usually characterized by the Zionist element).

So it was that our Twitter conversation developed. Both ladies seemed well-meaning, wanting a better Britain in a better world etc. Not unlike some of my own views in many ways. They were becoming aware of the Zionist cabal on Twitter and of its methods (trolling those opposed to Zionist control).  They opposed Israel, possibly as much or more than I do myself. However, the amiable atmosphere was clouded when the discussion turned to Jews as distinct from Zionists.

Now the Zionists usually claim that up to 97% of Jews in the UK support Israel. The devil here is in the detail. What does “support” mean in this context? General sympathy? Allegiance right or wrong? Donating money? Serving in the Israeli army? More?

In the instant case, the Jew (and Zionist) lawyer wanted effectively all Jews to be regarded as Zionists. An attack on Zionists and their behaviour was therefore “anti-Semitic”. The two Labour ladies demurred.

As for myself, though I accept that there are some Jews who are ambivalent toward or even hostile toward Israel and/or Zionist activity in the UK or elsewhere, for me this is a sterile argument. I oppose Israel while recognizing that it is no worse as a society than most if not all of the states and peoples around it. I oppose Israel because it is the centre, or a major hub at least, of a world-wide web or network. My interests lie mainly in the UK, Europe generally and in the Russophone world.

My conversation with these two ladies started to take on the character of a debate akin to the debate which once existed between the mediaeval Scholastic school of philosophers (mostly priests and monks of the Roman Catholic Church and whose views devolved largely from Aristotle) and their Platonic-oriented peers. In other words, the Group as against the Individual. Which is the more important or determinative? The two ladies would only recognize individuals, individuals who may, for instance, be Jews, but who were not to be in any way labelled or analyzed by reference to their membership of the (race, culture, religion) group of Jews generally.

My own view is that I recognize the group first, but accept that an individual may not be a typical member of that group. So a Jew can have views and behaviours which deviate from the group of Jews (or Zionist Jews) generally. In other words, I think that I give weight to both the group identity and the individual identity.

While the two Labour ladies could not agree with me completely on the above points (and, while not wishing to characterize either of them as “thick”, they did seem to struggle with the discussion and indeed with logic at times), the conversation was still on a calm level until they realized (from reading about my politically-motivated disbarment, to which I myself had directed them) that my political views are social-national, not System or near-System “Labourist”.

In other words, the two ladies’ early and continuing brainwashing (by “holocaust” propaganda, other System programming at school, on TV, in the msm generally) kicked in. They became outraged (or, more accurately, were becoming or about to become outraged) that my views were slightly or rather out of their normal ballpark.

At that point, not wishing to engage in a fruitless discussion of the Third Reich or National Socialism with people whose views on the subject(s) came from The World At War (at best) or other (even more biased) Jewish/Zionist outpourings, I decided to politely mute these ladies before they became angry or hysterical.

All the same, I found the experience interesting. Their brainwashing or indoctrination may have prevented them from straying too far from what had been pumped into them at an early age (and I doubt that a latter-day “supporter” of Stalin would have outraged them…), but they at least were able to see that there is, on Twitter and elsewhere, a Jewish-Zionist cabal which is, inter alia, determined to trash anti-Zionist Corbyn. They and a million like them are not really ideologically awake, but it’s a start.

[the graphic is rather American, but still pretty good]

CponI2UUEAArtdyUpdate or Postscriptum

One of the “Labour Ladies” blocked me as soon as she understood (or, more accurately, misunderstood) my socio-political views. The other did not but left it for a day or so before tweeting the usual uneducated nonsense about how “Nazis” were (she apparently believes) “dying out”, that I should “rethink” my views and “love everybody”. I do not think that I need do more now than to close her curtains and tiptoe away…(actually, I politely replied and included a few suitable photographs with quotations to make my point; I was then blocked). Both ladies remain merely muted by me.

As for the dispute between the ladies and the Zionist, it seems that that rumbles on and may continue so to do.

Update, 11 April 2019

 

Party Politics, Uncategorized

The Purpose of Government

6 Comments

In Britain, we see the two main System parties vie for public support. The Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn was regarded, until a week or two prior to the 2017 General Election as a joke. Deadheads such as Diane Abbott and Angela Rayner were openly laughed at by millions. Many more disparaged the “anti-patriotic” political histories of Corbyn and his closest allies. The Conservative Party under Theresa May was generally regarded as a safer pair of hands, more patriotic, more electable. What changed in those final weeks and days before polling?

The Conservative Party election bubble burst when Theresa May made a policy announcement about social care for the elderly. I believe that that suddenly floodlit, for millions, what the contemporary Conservative Party is all about. Since 2010, the Conservatives (firstly as the “Con Coalition” during 2010-2015), demonized and attacked –in some cases killed– unemployed, disabled, sick, generally poor and/or marginalized people. Now, however (as I had in fact been predicting since 2010), they were going after the pensioners, but that alone  (meaning also a backlash from pensioners or those nearing pensionable age) is not the whole story.

There was once a theory of government which said that the purpose of government was, in the language of today, defence of the realm, primarily: what we now call “defence” and, by extension, “national security”. External and internal defence. That was then. Today, in advanced countries, government is expected to do a great deal more than that. It is expected to care for the people in practical ways, either providing education, policing, health services, career opportunities, social assistance etc, or laying down the conditions in which those services etc can be provided by the private enterprise sector or the “charitable” or “non-profit” third sector.

This is the reason why Labour was able, despite all its flaws, to catch up with the Conservative Party: because Labour was at least offering (promising) help to the people, in circumstances where the only other party choice, the Conservative Party, was not.

The electorate, even in Britain’s notoriously unfair First Past The Post electoral system, is now in the driving seat. The people want things and services and they will not vote for any party which does not at least promise that the people will get what they want.

Labour is presently benefiting from this wish of the people that government provides help. Tomorrow, next year, in 2020 or, especially 2022, the wish may become a demand and the party benefiting may be one which, in 2017, does not as yet exist.

elections, free speech, historical, historical revisionism, MPs, Party Politics, society, Uncategorized

They Go Like Sleepwalkers, whence Providence Dictates

5 Comments

Adolf Hitler once remarked that he went like a sleepwalker to wherever Providence or Fate dictated. A cynic might ask why, in that case, did Germany lose the Second World War. I have thought about this over the years, coming to the conclusion (decades ago now) that Germany’s bitter defeat saved not only Germany itself but all Central Europe and even all Europe from terminal disaster.

As is well-known, the atom bomb scientists working on the Manhattan Project (the British end being known as “Tube Alloys”), were almost all Jews who had fled from or anyway left Europe to live in the USA. Their motivation was to create a weapon which would obliterate National Socialist Germany. Japan was but an afterthought.

So focussed were the Jew atom bomb scientists on Germany’s destruction, that when it seemed possible in mathematical theory that detonation of the first bomb in the desert of the South Western USA would cause the world’s atmosphere to catch fire, destroying all life on Earth, those Jews decided to proceed. A sombre fact indeed.

Had Germany not been forced to surrender by complete military defeat, it would have seen its main cities destroyed by atom bombs. The air, water, soil of much of Central Europe would have been contaminated for decades, in fact for centuries. Seen like that, the bitter defeat and humiliating  surrender was a saving grace in the end.

Why do I bring up these facts? Because I want to make the point that agencies above the human level act on what might be seen as “purely” earthly concerns: war, politics etc.

Move now to the present UK political scene. Less than 2 years ago, Jeremy Corbyn, an eccentric and –his critics said– extremist radical, was persuaded to stand in the Labour Party leadership contest and agreed purely because he wanted to have his kind of politics at least represented. It was uncertain as to whether Corbyn would even be allowed to become a candidate, because to stand, a candidate required nomination by 15% (35) of Labour MPs. Corbyn did not have even that much support. In the end, he was nominated, not only by the few who supported him, but by a number of MPs who did not support him and who had no intention of voting for him. Reflect on that. A number of MPs who were anti-Corbyn still nominated him and without those nominations Corbyn would not even have been on the ballot. As it was, Corbyn only managed to scrape onto the list with 36 nominations (inc. his own), the last a few minutes before nominations closed.

Once on the ballot, Corbyn’s support mushroomed and he won easily, overwhelmingly. The same happened when there was a challenge to his leadership the following year. Events happened by which his opponents were wrongfooted. There seemed to be an aura of invincibility around Corbyn and his campaign. Indeed, in 2015, Conservatives were urged by Toby Young and others to join Labour under the £3 offer scheme and then vote for Corbyn, on the premise that a Corbyn leadership would sink Labour!

Mainstream media commentators seemed unable to fathom Corbyn’s appeal. Journalist Janan Ganesh, for example,  wrote that Corbyn’s election “spelled disaster” for Labour. I wonder if he wishes now that he had spiked that opinion!

Coming up to the 2017 General Election, the polls predicted Labour’s worst-ever disaster, with its MP bloc being reduced from 230 to as few as 150. Some predicted an even lower number. That general perception of Labour’s defeat persisted until about two weeks before Election Day, when the Prime Minister, Theresa May, suddenly destroyed both her own carefully-crafted public persona and her party’s chances. The bursting of the Conservative Party balloon was palpable. The polls immediately narrowed and by Election Day were showing the parties almost neck and neck. We should, again, reflect on this: Theresa May, for no reason, destroyed her own party’s campaign. For me, “the Hand of God” is shown here.

The eventual result of the General Election was a Labour MP bloc of 262, up from 230 and something few had seen coming. As for the Conservatives, though some loyalists said that “Labour lost”, that was and is not how it feels. The Conservatives lost 13 seats (317 won, down from 330) and their House of Commons majority. Corbyn’s stock rose and he is now said to be higher in public esteem than Theresa  May, while Labour is higher in the polls than the Conservatives.

Taking it as a fact, for the purposes of argument, that higher forces are protecting Corbyn, why would that be so? After all, he is some kind of agnostic, it seems, is not overtly religious or spiritual and does not on the surface seem to have anything to commend him to what Schwerin von Krosigk termed “the Angel of History”. All one can say to that is the admittedly-platitudinous comment that “God moves in mysterious ways”. There are a few ideas that come to mind: the Conservative Party may now be prevented from imposing a Jewish-Zionist repression on freedom of expression on the Internet, for one thing. It is also far less likely that the UK can get involved in Israel-instigated wars or attacks in other parts of the world.

It may be, also, that it is necessary that the UK has to have a weak System government, so as to gradually open the door to social nationalism and a completely different society down the line. I cannot say. All I can say is that it seems as if Corbyn does enjoy a degree of “divine protection” and it will be fascinating to see how that plays out in the coming months and years.

Party Politics, Uncategorized

General Election Day 2017

8 Comments

I write in the early morning of 8 June 2017, General Election day. Within 24 hours, most results will have been counted and announced. Some will come in later in the day on the 9th.

Against almost all expectations (including my own) the election looks as if it may be close-run. Predictions from polling organizations offer everything from a hung Parliament (no overall House of Commons majority) to a solid Conservative HoC majority. However, few if any “experts” are now predicting the 100+-majority landslide that seemed almost inevitable just a few short weeks ago. What happened?

To my mind, what happened to the “Conservative landslide” is that voters suddenly woke up to Theresa May as a brittle, nervy, unhealthy (type-1 diabetes) woman who, though clever at the Westminster version of office politics  (outmanoeuvring opponents etc), is not really a national leader. Her “strong and stable” mantra played well at first against a Labour Party frontbench that was (and still is, largely) a joke, but May’s U-turns on policy damaged her and her party badly. The impression was twofold– first, that policies which impact upon almost every family in the land had not been properly thought through; secondly, that faced with public and newspaper opposition, Theresa May was willing to trim or even abandon her policies. “Strong and stable” became “weak and vacillating”. There is a third aspect: Theresa May was seen suddenly as someone who might be ruthless in stamping on such as the pensioners whose votes are so vital to the Conservative Party.

There is that “backroom person suddenly given power” thing about Theresa May. Her career outside politics was at the banks’ cheque-clearing organization, BACS, hardly exciting or cutting-edge work. In fact, as MP and minister, Theresa May did not shine and her long tenure as Home Secretary was marked by absurd initiatives and continuing mass immigration, as well as by the sacking of 20,000 police officers. Her main focus was on careerism, becoming a minister, then plotting for years to become Prime Minister.

The people around Theresa May are not impressive and had been kept in the background by the Conservative election machine. In particular, clown prince Boris Johnson was not prominent. When he did emerge, he messed up (again).

Jeremy Corbyn, on the other hand, went during the campaign from looking like a mixture of crazed radical and ineffectual duffer to looking quite reasonable and, in a word, electable, at least to many. Corbyn too was surrounded by people at best mediocre: Diane Abbott (replaced a day before the election on grounds of “ill-health” after several staggeringly-bad TV and radio interviews); Dawn Butler; Angela Rayner. All deadheads.

Corbyn had been the hate-figure of the mass media, the Jew-Zionist-Israel lobby and the Conservative Party to such a great extent that he eclipsed those around him. In the end, ironically, that may have played well for Labour. The Presidential-style campaign pitted May against Corbyn and, as May’s campaign unravelled, Corbyn’s did not and Corbyn himself began to look a lot more reasonable than May to many.

Labour has promised much. It may not be able to deliver; but the Conservatives seem to offer nothing but ever-more poverty, low pay, poor prospects, more “austerity” nonsense and repression of free speech, egged on by the Jewish Lobby which is so powerful in the Conservative Party (Theresa May herself being a member of Conservative Friends of Israel, as are 80% of Conservative Party MPs).

Few, if any, expect Labour to somehow “win” the election, either by getting a House of Commons majority (practically impossible in view of Labour’s long-term shrinkage and the dominance of the SNP in Scotland) or by becoming the largest party in the HoC. However, Labour now looks as if, far from shrinking its MP numbers from 229 to 200 or even 150 as many (including me) had thought likely, it might retain a Commons bloc (cadre?) not very much reduced from where it was after 2015. A small increase is also not now impossible.

The small Conservative majority in the House of Commons (6, but in practice more because of the non-voting of the Speaker, Sinn Fein MPs, suspended MPs etc) might as easily decrease as increase. A hung Parliament would leave the Conservatives as the largest party, almost certainly, but unable to rule except as a minority government, outvoted easily by hostile parties, notably Labour and SNP.

Could Labour form a minority government? The convention is that the largest party in the Commons has first chance to cobble together sufficient Commons support. As Bagehot put it, a government is formed when a party has “the confidence” of a majority in the Commons. If the Conservatives as largest party could not agree something with the SNP, then Labour might try, with a greater prospect of success. Labour social policies are closer to those of the SNP. The same is true in the foreign policy arena.

If the Conservatives achieve a majority greater than that presently enjoyed, then the above will be –in the American sense– moot and irrelevant. If, however, the Conservatives have no majority, then it is quite likely that Labour, even if not the largest party, will be able to form a minority government.

The only fly in that ointment is that the SNP has fewer than 60 seats in the HoC. It may well have only 40 or 45 after the election. If Labour ends up with, even, 250 (20 more than where Labour was before the election was called), that will still be far fewer than 300 even with SNP support, 326 being the necessary number. That would necessitate support from LibDems, Plaid Cymru, Northern Irish MPs etc. Difficult.

One thing is for sure: if the Conservatives lose seats, then Theresa May will have to resign. Corbyn is in a better position. His power comes from the members, who still seem to support him strongly. Moreover, the anti-Corbyn Labour MPs (many of whom are pro-Israel mouthpieces) lose either way. If Labour does reasonably well or not too badly in the election, Corbyn’s position will be upheld. On the other hand, if Labour is badly defeated in the election, the most aggressively anti-Corbyn MPs will lose their seats. They are toast either way.

Looking beyond the election, there will be a space for a new social-national movement down the line. The System parties are increasingly less capable of sorting out Britain’s problems.

Update, 5 December 2018

Looking again at what I wrote 18 months ago, the only glaring error was in assuming that Theresa May would resign if the Conservatives lost seats. They lost seats, they lost their Commons majority, but Theresa May stuck.

I underestimated the limpet quality of a backroom careerist type who had plotted for many long years to become Conservative leader and Prime Minister. She may be hopeless as a Prime Minister, but, by Jingo, she’s there and nothing short of a grenade under her bony **** is going to remove her! I suppose that she might try to hang on even after her (vulgar term) “deal” on Brexit sinks this week or next. That would have to trigger either a no-confidence vote in the Commons or the equivalent in the Conservative Party.

Party Politics, Uncategorized

General Election 2017: Stoke-on-Trent North

16 Comments

Background

Stoke-on-Trent North constituency was established in 1950, since which time it has been a safe Labour (or Labour Co-op) seat. Only since 2015 has its status been considered to have become marginal.

For the first 29 years of the existence of the constituency, the Labour vote did not dip below 60% and was often above 70%, peaking at 75.49% at the 1953 by-election

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

Only in 1970 did Labour fail to secure over 60% of the vote, coming in with 59.36%. That was also the first election at which 4 candidates stood. In fact, only occasionally before the 1980s were there more than 2 candidates: in October 1974, Lab, Con, Liberal; in 1979 the Labour, Conservative and Liberal candidates were joined by one from the National Front (the NF lost their deposit, securing less than 1% of the vote).

In the 1980s, there were commonly 3 parties in contention, but from 1992 others joined the fray. There were 7 candidates in 2005, 5 in 2010 and 7 in 2015.

Joan Walley, the MP for 28 years (1987-2015) had vote shares above 50% and even 60%, peaking at 65.2% in 1997. Her final election, however, in 2010, was achieved on a lower level: 44.3%.

The MP from 2015-2017, Ruth Smeeth, was elected on a vote share of only 39.9%, the lowest Labour vote share ever in Stoke-on-Trent North. There may have been a number of causative factors: long-term decline in the Labour vote; also, the number of candidates contending (Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Green Party, UKIP and 2 Independents). The Labour candidate herself may have been another factor in the lacklustre Labour performance.

Ruth Smeeth

Ruth Smeeth is not from the West Midlands. Her origins (as far as the UK is concerned) lie in Edinburgh and London. Her Jewish mother came from a background in East London where her immediate family members in the 1930s were engaged in crime and gangsterism: the era of razor gangs and the like. They were violently opposed to the English people who supported Oswald Mosley, and were engaged in streetfighting or worse.

Ruth Smeeth has described herself as “culturally Jewish” and worked for years for the “Britain Israel Communications Centre” [BICOM], a public relations or propaganda outfit working on behalf of Israel and Zionism:

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Smeeth#Early_life

In 2009, Bradley Manning, the American whistleblower, made available to Wikileaks a cable in which the American Embassy described Ruth Smeeth as “a source” whom the Embassy staff should “strictly protect”. It is largely a question of definition whether such a person is called “a confidential contact”, “an agent of influence”, more simply “an agent” or (brutally? unfairly?) “a spy”. The diplomatic cable simply used the words “a source”.

Despite the above, the Labour Party machine was determined to get Ruth Smeeth adopted as the candidate for Stoke-on-Trent North and she was, after an all-women shortlist was imposed on the selection procedure. Surprisingly (or perhaps not), her activity for the American and Israeli governments seems not to have barred her from becoming the candidate.

As an MP, Ruth Smeeth has taken part in some minor campaigns (see the Wikipedia article, above), but has also spent much time attacking the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn; she has been vocal (on occasion, near-hysterical) about alleged “anti-Semitism” in the Labour Party and generally.

Analysis

Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Green Party are all putting up candidates. The obvious absentee is UKIP. In 2015, Labour’s vote was 39.9%, Conservative vote 27.4%, UKIP 24.7%, the LibDems 2.9% (down from 17.7% in 2010 and 14.8% in 2005); Green Party secured a vote share of 2.8%.

The constituency voted about 60%-40% for Leave in the EU Referendum.

It would be too easy to add together the 2015 vote shares of the Conservatives and UKIP (combined, 52.1%) and assume that UKIP votes will be transferred to the Conservatives. The chances are that a high proportion will either not vote or will go elsewhere than to the Conservatives. However, we can probably guess that half of 2010 UKIP votes will be gathered in by the Conservative candidate (particularly bearing in mind Brexit etc), making a possible Conservative vote share of perhaps about 40%, possibly several points higher. Then there is the (open) question of how many 2010 Labour voters will go Conservative.

Labour is unlikely to do as well this time as it did in 2015 after five years of Conservative-led coalition government. Any persons who support Labour generally but are anti-Israel (or anti-Zionist or, indeed, “anti-Semitic”) will not vote for Ruth Smeeth and will probably either vote Green or even LibDem, or just stay home, “voting with their feet”. Likewise, any Labour members who are strongly pro-Corbyn may well decide that what they have to do is abstain or vote elsewhere, simply in order to get rid of Ruth Smeeth and then get a more suitable Labour candidate for next time.

Realistically, only Labour and Conservative have a real chance. That means that the LibDem and Green votes, even if as small as they were in 2015 (under 3% each) are of importance.

Prediction

Both Labour and Conservative candidates are likely to be in the 35%-50% range, with the Liberal Democrats and Green Party contending for the remaining 10% or 15% of votes.

I assess the likely outcome as follows: Conservative Party to win Stoke-on-Trent North for the first time over Labour, with the Greens (possibly) third and LibDems (perhaps) bringing up the rear.

Press Coverage

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/general-election-2017-stoke-north-13066893

Bookmakers’ Odds

At time of writing, the Conservative Party is odds-on to win:

https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/stoke-on-trent-north/winning-party

Update, 2 March 2019

Well, I was wrong in my tentative tipping of the Conservative Party to win Stoke on Trent North for the first time ever. The Labour candidate, the Jewish Zionist, Ruth Smeeth, won the seat with 50.9% of votes cast, Labour’s best result here since 2005.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoke-on-Trent_North_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_of_the_2010s

Under Britain’s FPTP voting system, there are no prizes for coming second, but the Conservative candidate in 2017 (same person as in 2015) achieved 45.3%, which was the best result the Conservatives had ever had in Stoke on Trent North (2015 had been 27.4%, 2010 was 23.8%, and 2005 only 20%).

Labour’s majority in 2017 was by far the smallest in the seat since it was formed, both in percentage and in absolute terms.

In retrospect, it is clear that Ruth Smeeth benefited from the Corbyn effect, ironically, despite the fact that she has been one of those most involved in Israeli-Zionist attempts to unseat him as Labour Leader. Life is rarely “fair”…

There is also the point that, arguably, speculatively, most Stoke on Trent voters were and probably still are unaware of Ruth Smeeth’s criminal family background and/or her links with secretive Israeli and other Jewish organizations (not to mention her links with the American Embassy in London).

Update, 28 May 2020

Ruth Smeeth is no longer an MP (yay!), having been unseated at the 2019 General Election by the Conservative Party candidate, Jonathan Gullis, a not-very-interesting “free market” former schoolteacher aged (now) 30.

The Conservative Party candidate got 20,974 votes (52.3%) to Ruth Smeeth’s 14,688 (36.6%). A convincing win.

The reasons for Ruth Smeeth’s defeat were probably:

  • the general move away from Labour, nationally;
  • more knowledge in the electorate in 2019 than had been the case in 2015 and 2017 about Ruth Smeeth’s secret links with American and Israeli intelligence (also about her criminal family background);
  • perhaps the realization that Ruth Smeeth is not a very nice person anyway.

Of the above, the most important was probably the national move away from Labour, and the hostility to Jeremy Corbyn. Ironically, Ruth Smeeth had herself played a major part in the Jew-Zionist attack on Corbyn and Labour since 2015. Her treachery was suitably rewarded by her being dumped by the electors of Stoke-on-Trent North.

Alt-Right, Brexit, elections, ethnostate, immigration, Jewish lobby in UK, Labour Friends of Israel, Party Politics, society, The Great Replacement, Uncategorized

The Self-described “Left”, “Liberals” and “Democratic Socialists”: The Fall of the Pretensions

14 Comments

Those who follow me on Twitter, WordPress etc will know that I never use the now-outdated terms “Right”, “Left”, “far-Right” etc. Politics is more nuanced now. There are not two monolithic ideological blocs facing each other. However, others do still use such terms, for what they are worth. Those who self-describe as “left”, as well as some “liberals” and “socialists”, have been celebrating the rigged election (rigged via propaganda and hullabaloo) of a French presidential election candidate, Macron, who should be their worst nightmare.

In Macron, we see someone who believes in the virtually untrammelled movement of money across the world. He describes French culture as non-existent, he wants to destroy most of the rights of French citizens in respect of employment, State benefits and in respect of their culture. You would think that such a person would be anathema to the so-called “left”, yet most of the latter in France supported and voted for him rather than voting for Marine le Pen, not even abstaining. Their counterparts in England applaud Macron, because he opposed Marine le Pen.

As in other political matters, the role of the Jewish Zionist element is key.

In the UK, the upcoming General Election is likely to be a “landslide by default”, with the misnamed “Conservatives” sweeping all before them as their main rivals (UKIP, Labour) implode (the LibDems being unlikely to figure except as peripheral players). Again, the self-described “left” has nothing effective to say. Its supporters prefer to laugh at the demise of UKIP (and in general the failure of non-Conservative nationalist parties) rather than offer the British people anything by way of effective opposition to the Conservative regime under Theresa May.

The Labour Party is now widely expected to achieve no more than 150 or so seats, a prediction I made a year ago. Some predict as few as 125. Labour is declining from what it was until 2010, with a self-view and image as a national or UK-wide party, to that of an English and Welsh party focussed around and supported by, mainly, some ethnic minorities and public sector workers.

The self-described “left” favours many things which most British people do not: mass immigration, open borders, globalized movement of people, of money, of employment. These are also favoured by the Conservative Party and the LibDems.

The people have been left out. They are the victims not only of the rootless cosmopolitan finance-capitalists but of those who have claimed until now to speak for the people: the “left”/”socialist”/”liberal” political parties and the trade unions tied in with the “socialist” or “social democratic” political parties. The whole journalistic milieu, pretty much, can be added to the mix, as can a good deal of the “media” world generally, including entertainers etc.

The “Left”, “liberals”, non-national “socialists” etc are now not speaking for the people of Britain (or any part of Europe). Their pretensions are exploded. They can only applaud the anointing of a completely-manufactured fake and puppet, such as Macron, just as they applaud the finance-capitalist EU (and imagine that it will somehow protect “rights”, despite “holocaust” “denial” laws, arbitrary cross-border arrest etc), just as they applaud mass immigration and just as they want open borders so that the detritus of the failing post-1945 international order can flood across Europe, destroying everything in its path.

The fall of the pretensions means that, soon enough, nothing will stand in the way of pan-European (but anti-EU) social nationalism. It will speak for the people and it will be heard.

Update, 20 July 2019

I was right about the direction of travel, though wrong about Labour’s likely performance at the 2017 General Election.

Update, 5 July 2021

The 2019 General Election confirmed the essential accuracy of my analysis. Labour has lost most of the English people; it even seems to have lost some of the Muslims, now that it is under Jewish-lobby control again.

As for Macron, he is very much on the back foot with the French people.

Party Politics, Uncategorized

The UK Local Elections 2017 as a Guide to the General Election and Beyond

18 Comments

Writing before all results have been reported and collated, it is nonetheless simple to discern the main outlines: the Conservatives have done well, Labour has done badly, the LibDems have done fairly badly (though well here and there) and UKIP has been effectively extinguished. As the experts have been at pains to explain, the local election results do not translate exactly into General Election results, but they do provide clear indications.

Conservatives

The Conservative Party and government under Theresa May is not, in fact, “popular”, but that makes no difference electorally, because it is not judged on its merits (or those of the quite similar 2010-2015 government) but as against failing Labour. The Conservatives are winning by default, not by reason of their own (non-existent) merit.

Anecdotal evidence is always suspect, but in the South of England it is clear that relatively few will vote Labour on 8 June. Labour will win no seats and may lose the few still held, even in parts of London (the Labour bastion in the South).

As for the rest of the country, the SNP and Conservatives will sweep the board, very likely, in Scotland; in Wales also, the Conservatives are likely to do well (in places), now that UKIP is no more.

The only part of England where the Conservatives will struggle will be the North East and even there they may do better than at any time since the franchise was expanded in the early 20th Century.

The Conservatives have an almost unassailable advantage in that they need only avoid doing something which terrifies the voters in some way. Labour provides all the reasons voters need to vote Conservative: support for more mass immigration and open borders for “refugees” (migrant-invaders); its leaders’ one-time support for the IRA etc; uncertain policy on EU Brexit; most of all, Labour’s perceived ineptitude (one need only use two words– Diane Abbott!

The UKIP collapse alone will give the Conservatives votes enough to take many Labour seats. It seems that about half the 2015 UKIP voters will not only not vote UKIP but will vote Conservative. UKIP came second in no less than 120 constituencies in 2015. That speaks for itself. Many of those seats were Labour, 44 in fact: http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/ge15/UKIP-second.htm

2015 UKIP voters switching to Conservative has a twofold effect: firstly, Cons taking Labour seats; secondly, preventing Labour or the LibDems being able to take many, possibly any, Conservative seats.

Likely number of seats: from 400 to 425

UKIP

I have been tweeting and blogging that UKIP is washed-up for about 18 months now. Finally the msm has caught up with me. UKIP had two main policies which were popular: getting the UK out of the EU; reducing immigration. The Conservatives have taken over the first and pay lip service to the second. This leaves UKIP with nowhere to go. Add to that the clownish behaviour of its “leaders” (MEPs, mostly) and it is not hard to see why UKIP will struggle to avoid annihilation, even in Eastern England. Its Stoke Central by-election fail (see my earlier blog posts) was a warning: the disenchanted voters were not willing to get out of bed or leave their TVs long enough to vote UKIP.

UKIP’s weakness has always been its even distribution across England. Even on nearly a quarter of the vote in some seats and a national vote of 12%, nothing was won in 2015, whereas the Green Party, with a national vote of  less than 4%, could capture one seat because it had enough votes in one place to win narrowly in a 4-way split. UKIP’s support is expected to decline to as little as 4% nationally soon.

Under a proportional system, UKIP would have obtained 80 MPs in 2015.

That leaves open the question: if half of UKIP voters are defecting to the Conservatives, what about the other half? Probably staying home, not voting, most of them.

Likely number of seats: 0

Liberal Democrats

The LibDems call themselves “cockroaches” for their ability to survive. Many think them the least principled party in British politics. In 2010, the LibDems obtained roughly a quarter of the vote, but (like UKIP in 2015) were cheated by the FPTP voting system and ended up with 57 seats, when their vote share would under proportional voting have entitled them to 160 or so. As it was, the LibDems sold out on PR and other matters and suffered accordingly by being reduced to 8 MPs.

It is possible that the LibDems will be able to take seats from both Con and Lab, but their best chances will be in the South of England. Having said that, they may well also lose a few.

Likely number of seats: about 12

Labour

Labour is at last in that “existential crisis” which many (including me) have forecast for the past 18 months. The Jewish-Zionist plots against anti-Israel Corbyn have blown wide open Labour’s lack of relevance now that the proletariat has been replaced by the precariat. The Zionists have done such a good job of demonizing Corbyn (and so Labour) that many of Corbyn’s fiercest MP critics are likely to lose their seats!

Labour was struggling to present itself to the electorate as competent even before Diane Abbott started to come apart at the seams. The earlier mass resignations of more competent people left Corbyn surrounded by bad-joke Shadow Ministers: Diane Abbott as notional Home Secretary (to call that a joke is an understatement), Dawn Butler (both of the foregoing not only deadheads but expenses cheats!), Angela Rayner etc etc. Only the most unthinkingly loyal Labourites will be voting Labour under these conditions.

Labour’s leaders have consistently supported mass immigration (both past and future) and see nothing wrong in that. At the same time, the “Blairite” (Zionist) MPs have often also supported or not opposed Conservative cuts to social security (including the cruel and dishonest “assessment” of the disabled and sick, which Labour in fact introduced!); these policies and statements have alienated, perhaps forever, many traditional Labour voters.

Above all, perhaps, Labour is (surely correctly) seen as hopelessly divided, hopelessly inept, generally hopeless. It has no prospect of winning any seats at all and every prospect of taking a serious hit on 8 June.

Beyond the General Election, it is likely that Labour will decline into being a niche party for ethnic minorities and unionized public sector workers.

Likely number of seats: about 150

Other matters

I do not deal with other parties here, but it is likely that the SNP will end up with 40-50 seats; the Northern Irish parties have seats; Plaid Cymru will probably have a couple, perhaps a few.

Conclusion

Conservative landslide by default, barring something very unusual happening in the next month. People voting against Labour, not for Conservative, but the immediate result being the same.

The 8 June election will mean “Conservative” government for probably 5 years, to 2022 That is the 33-year-cycle successor year to 1989, which saw the end of socialism across the world. 2022 will see another huge change, in Europe and beyond its shores. A social national party, even if it only starts operations in 2017 or 2018, might be able to seize the initiative in the UK and then seize power.

Further Thoughts (written 22 July 2018)

Looking back now, after nearly 15 months, it is clear that I got a few things wrong. In fact, that is more apparent than real. The analysis was written 5 weeks before the 2017 General Election. In the final week or two before the election itself, I understood that an uncertain mood had gripped the country; in particular, while the brittle Theresa May Conservative bubble burst as the voters quite suddenly lost confidence in her, Labour was not in a position to capitalize on that loss of confidence. That led to the equally uncertain result on Election Day.

My view of UKIP as in the analysis has been proven correct; the same is true of my 2017 opinion about the LibDems.

I still see Labour as not enthusing more than about a quarter of the voters (if that), but one must always bear in mind that, in the UK, people tend to vote against rather than for. The unfair FPTP voting system reinforces that tendency.

The Conservatives now (July 2018) look tired, divided, incompetent. Labour, having been behind in the polls for months, is now ahead, despite arguably being as divided etc. That is because people are anti-Conservative Party, not because they are pro-Labour Party. I see the result of any 2018 election as being a hung Parliament, with Labour as, probably, the largest party, but only by a small margin.

Events remind us of the truth of Harold Wilson’s dictum that “a week is a long time in British politics”.

Brexit, Deadhead MPs, elections, free speech, historical revisionism, Jewish lobby in UK, Labour Friends of Israel, MPs, Party Politics, Uncategorized

John Woodcock, Barrow and Furness and the General Election 2017

17 Comments

It has been announced that John Woodcock will be allowed to stand for the seat of Barrow and Furness. He has therefore survived a serious threat of deselection, having said publicly that no-one should vote Labour in the General Election (presumably excluding from his exhortation those voting for him).

John Woodcock

Woodcock, now 38, is one of those MPs who has never had a non-political job, unless is counted a brief spell as a trainee journalist on The Scotsman. Personal details are “a little vague”, but he was born in Sheffield and attended the University of Edinburgh. After his time at The Scotsman, Woodcock was an aide to John Hutton, the MP for Barrow and Furness from 1992-2010 and now in the House of Lords. He was also (2009-2010) a Special Adviser (SpAd) for the then Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. He was elected as Labour (strictly speaking, Labour and Co-operative) MP for Barrow and Furness in 2010.

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

As MP, Woodcock has been associated mostly with the Israel lobby and was even Chair of (Parliamentary) Labour Friends of Israel from 2011-2013. He prefers to talk more about his self-serving support for Trident (the submarines for which are built in Barrow-in-Furness, the main population centre in the constituency).

Woodcock’s entries in the House of Commons Register of Members’ Interests show donations from the governments or agencies of Israel, China and Kurdistan:

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/regmem/?p=24837

Woodcock is one of the most anti-Corbyn Labour MPs and was until 2015 the Chair of Progress, the Blairite group. He has repeatedly called for the removal (as Labour leader) of Jeremy Corbyn and has been associated with the most anti-Corbyn of the Labour plotters, including Liz Kendall (who stood against Corbyn in the second Labour leadership election, receiving 4.5% of the vote and coming last out of the four contenders). Woodcock has denied that he had some kind of affair with Liz Kendall, though rumours persist. At present he is involved with fellow-depressive Isabel Hardman of the ultra-Conservative Spectator magazine.

Woodcock’s depressive illness is said to have been triggered by what his own political website describes as “a nasty fall from his attic ladder”, a Fawlty-esque vision, arguably: falling off an attic ladder hardly compares with, say, the WW2 Arctic Convoys, the Normandy Landings, the Siege of Leningrad or the Battle for Berlin. He is, it seems, separated from his wife, mother of his children.

Woodcock is intolerant not only of dissent generally but of views in conflict with his own, especially where Jews and Israeli interests are concerned. I declare an interest here: the fake “revolutionary” scribbler Owen Jones tweeted to Woodcock in 2015 that he should block me. Woodcock complied immediately!

https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/633675878342492160

[Update, 13 June 2024: looks as though Owen Jones has belatedly expunged the said tweet].

So there we have Labour’s 2017 General Election candidate for Barrow and Furness: a not very popular, pro-Israel, pro-China Blairite, whose marriage collapsed because of his behaviour and who is currently involved with another depressive case, which lady is an ultra-Conservative scribbler. Not very appealing.

Barrow and Furness: political analysis

It is possible to think of Barrow and Furness as being now a marginal Lab-Con constituency despite the fact that, since Labour’s win in 1945, the Conservatives have only won twice (1983, 1987). The Labour majority that Woodcock inherited was 5,208. Woodcock’s tenure as MP reduced that in 2015 to 795 on a similar turnout. The 2010 Labour vote share was 48.1% (Con 36.3%); the 2015 Labour vote share was 42.3% (Con 40.5%).

The Liberal Democrat vote share of 10% in 2010 was slashed to 2.7% in 2015. It is hard to see that increasing much, bearing in mind that the Barrow and Furness area voted Leave in the EU Referendum:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36598819

Woodcock is strongly Remain and that again pits him against most Barrow voters.

The UKIP vote in 2010 was a fairly miserable 1.9%, but was elevated in 2015 to 11.7%, enough to achieve a third place. However, it is unlikely that that relative success can be repeated. The majority of 2015 UKIP voters will probably defect to the Conservatives, especially now that they scent blood vis a vis removing Woodcock.

Other parties are not very significant. The BNP and Greens both stood in 2010, both losing their deposits. The Greens also stood in 2015, more than doubling their vote (but only to 2.5%).

Conclusion and Prediction

Labour will struggle to hold the seat. Woodcock is not considered to be a very good constituency MP and will be, so to speak, handicapped by his mental issues and by the fact that many Labour voters may prefer to stay at home rather than vote for him.

Woodcock (and so, Labour) has the advantage of being pro-Trident in a pro-Trident constituency, but (barring the Greens) that is a given for candidates in Barrow and Furness.

The 2015 Conservative vote increased by about 4 points over that of 2010. Earlier votes were far below this level: 1997 27%, 2001 30%, 2005 31%. The direction of travel has been upward for 20 years. If the Conservatives can add the votes of UKIP defectors to those of their own loyalists, they can win if enough formerly Labour voters either vote Conservative or stay at home. The Conservative candidate is the same as in 2015, which may help their cause.

Overall, the Conservatives have a good chance of scoring their first win at Barrow and Furness since 1987.

Update (15 July 2018)

I am updating the above for two or three reasons, not least because, of all my blog posts, this one has –to my surprise– been the most read (by nearly 1,000 people, to date).

In the 14 months since I wrote the original post above, Woodcock retained his seat at Barrow and Furness at the 2017 General Election, though only scraping home by 209 votes. John Hutton, Woodcock’s predecessor (and one-time employer) had enjoyed majorities of as high as 14,497 (in 1997) and had left Woodcock a majority of 6,037 (in 2005). Woodcock’s first (2010) majority was 5,208, which reduced to 795 in 2015 and to 209 in 2017.

In 2017, the Labour vote was 22,592 and the Conservative vote was 22,383. I think that I can claim that my original analysis was accurate despite Labour having pipped Conservative to the post. The Labour vote increased from 42.3% in 2015 to 47.5% in 2017 (but the Conservative vote also increased, from 40.5% to 47%). UKIP’s vote decreased from 5,070 votes (11.7%) to a mere 962 votes (2%) in 2017. The LibDem vote stayed exactly the same in percentage terms (2.7%). The only minor candidate in 2017 was a Green (whose vote share fell from 2.5% in 2015 to 0.8% in 2017).

Meanwhile, Woodcock has been investigated by Labour and the police over multiple claims of sexual harassment. It was reported in April 2018 that he was “planning to resign the Labour whip”, not (of course…) because of the sex allegations, but because of continuing concerns about Jeremy Corbyn! However, he obviously calculated that that would be the end of his already-stalled “high-flying” and “high profile” System political career. Were Woodcock to stand at Barrow as Independent or Independent Labour or Pro-Israel Labour, I imagine that he would be lucky to get 100 votes. He needs Labour hugely more than Labour needs him. In fact, Woodcock is a millstone round Labour’s neck. The voting figures make that clear. After the latest scandal, Woodcock is surely unelectable.

On 30 April 2018, Woodcock was suspended from the Labour Party pending conclusion of the inquiry into his behaviour. In late June 2018, Woodcock refused to appear before a Labour Party tribunal to explain or defend himself. His political future now appears to be non-existent. He will probably face deselection (at last); if not, it is unlikely that the voters of Barrow and Furness will elect him again. No doubt some Jewish and/or Zionist organization will arrange a well-paid sinecure for him whatever happens. The same has been done for other (and at least equally useless) disgraced MPs. Woodcock has done work for Israeli organizations previously.

Woodcock continues to tweet prolifically, as if he were still looking forward to a big political future, but tweets from Labour supporters and members are mostly very critical.

Notes:

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

https://order-order.com/people/john-woodcock/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5675423/Arch-Corbyn-critic-John-Woodcock-suspended-Labour-party.html

Further Update (18 July 2018):

John Woodcock has resigned from the Labour Party as of today’s date (18 July 2018), though he makes no mention of resigning the seat which the Labour label alone gave to him. Typical…As an Independent, his vote at Barrow would be a couple of hundred at best and he would have no chance, yet this useless pro-Israel parasite and freeloader is going to hang on until the next general election in order to maximize his pay, expenses and pension benefits. Labour and Barrow are well rid of him.

ds3 

Further update (25 January 2019)

Parasitic freeloader Woodcock is still tweeting, trying to present himself as the sort-of “Labour” MP for Barrow and Furness, despite having left Labour. I had assumed that he would be given a well-paid sinecure by the Zionists, as has happened to others (eg Michael Dugher), but it may be that he intends to try to fight the seat as a wild card Independent, on the basis that the vote is split between Labour and Conservative and that he might just squeeze in through the middle. Doomed, in my view, though…

In the meantime, he is getting pay, “expenses” and, no doubt, more money from elsewhere (he’s had quite a bit from Israel in the past). Also, the longer he spends as MP, the more money he will get when finally removed (gratuity, pension etc).

Note:

https://www.ft.com/content/1082473a-3979-11e7-ac89-b01cc67cfeec

Update, 1 May 2019

Woodcock continues to tweet, nominally, as MP, though he must know that his time is very nearly up (this year, if there is a general election, which seems more likely than not). In the meantime, he tweets against Labour (which he joined —or should that be “infiltrated”?…Let’s say “joined”, a more pleasant and less loaded word…— as a student twenty-odd years ago; he tweets for Israel and the Jewish Zionist interest etc. After all, he might find that useful when he needs a job…which might be rather soon.

Update, 8 May 2019

I missed this, Woodcock’s latest misadventure…

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-47775073

Update, 8 October 2019

Woodcock continues to attack Corbyn and the Labour Party, despite (or because of) the likely proximity of a general election in which Woodcock himself, if he stands, will be bumped out of Parliament. I wonder whether he was in Tel Aviv recently…My only question is what sort of lucrative sinecure the Jews will find for Woodcock after the electors of Barrow and Furness kick him out. Public relations/”comms”, as in the case of other ex-Labourites such as John McTernan? Head of some commercial or trade org, as with Michael Dugher? “They” sometimes pay their servants well. Personally, I should be unable to endure the dishonour, but that’s me…

Update, 28 October 2019

Woodcock is still going through the motions of being an MP, even questioning party leaders on their intentions. I wonder why he bothers. Do the Israelis tell him what to ask? Whatever the truth, his time is nearly up…

ds5

Update, 5 November 2019

Well, there it is. As I have blogged, “they” have arranged a suitable position for the sex-pest depressive, a position in which he will be able to doormat for Israel and the Jew-Zionist lobby— and be well-paid for it…

Update, 27 April 2020

Woodcock did not stand as Independent or whatever (Supporter of Israel?) in 2019, having been appointed by Boris Johnson as (presumably well-paid) “Special Envoy” on “Far Right” “Extremism” only a week before the 2019 General Election. The Jew/Israel lobby in action once again.

At that election, the Conservative Party candidate, one Simon Fell, won with a vote-share of 51.9%.

https://www.simonfell.org/about-simon

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

There seems to be relatively little hard information about Fell, who also contested Barrow and Furness in 2015 and in 2017. Provisional assessment: a dogged stayer.

The Labour Party vote dropped sharply, whether poisoned by Woodcock or by the Jewish lobby msm campaign against Corbyn. Both, I suppose; connected. The Labour vote-share was 39.3%. That gave Fell and the Conservative Party a majority of 5,789.

The Greens, LibDems and Brexit Party also stood candidates in 2019, all of whom lost their deposits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrow_and_Furness_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s

As for Woodcock himself, he has not been in the news recently. Presumably, he is snooping away in his new position. He does tweet, though, still plugging away for the Jewish lobby…

 

Update, 6 August 2020

It was announced recently that Woodcock would join 37 others (most equally unmeritorious) as a fake “lord” in the House of Lords, elevated by Boris-idiot. “For services to the Jewish lobby”? Peculiar expenses fraudster and doormat for Israel, Ian Austin, is another one of the 38. So Woodcock now has not only his paid sinecure, snooping on British nationalists, but also over £300 a day taxfree any time that the House is sitting and he manages to crawl through the door. Woodcock has reached peak parasite.

Update, 20 June 2023

Woodcock is now “Lord Walney”, and his tweets (including all the tweets above-exhibited from years ago) are now tweeted not by “John Woodcock” but by “Lord Walney”.