Category Archives: Party Politics

Party Politics, Uncategorized

What Are the Prospects for a Social Nationalist Party in the UK?

Leave a comment

Start with the following proposition: the UK has no social nationalist party. All across Europe, social nationalism is rising and has political expression both in parties such as the Front National and in the political discourse generally. In the UK, the latter has started to occur, but not the former. Britain needs a social national party.

Traditionally, the UK has been resistant to social nationalism, the two bits having been severed: the “Conservatives” (mainly) took the national and “Labour” (mainly) took the social. The one waved the Union Jack, the other brandished a poll card in the left hand and a National Insurance card in the right.

After 1945, the Welfare State mainly initiated by Liberals (and even some Conservatives) was taken up and vastly expanded by the Labour Party. That Labour Party was socialist enough to keep its core vote happy most of the time, while never abandoning totally the patriotic background, at least as a theme.

The Thatcher era changed much and one of the things it changed beyond recognition was the Labour Party, which at first lurched toward an anti-national but more “socialist” model under Michael Foot, then a stagnant period under Neil Kinnock, before abandoning socialism altogether and “rebranding” (significant vocabulary) itself as the vaguely “social” and vaguely “national” New Labour. Under New Labour, you could be a Pakistani Muslim, a Jew Zionist, an EU economic migrant, whatever. You were part of the New Labour “British” club.

What New Labour forgot was most of the real British people, left behind in decaying end-of-pier seaside towns, in the post-industrial wastelands of the North (and Scotland) and in many another setting. They lost both their jobs (at least, the decently-paid ones) and their nation, submerged under the waves of mass immigration which were not only tolerated by the Tony Blair/Gordon Brown regime, but actively encouraged (specifically, to destroy the British and especially English national character and culture), though the full extent of the treason did not come to light for several years. Not only politicians were guilty, but also TV talking heads, Andrew Marr being one obvious example.

Scroll on a decade and 2017 is about to dawn. The BNP had two MEPs elected in 2009, then disappeared forever. UKIP rose on the back of social nationalist feeling, had a number of MEPs elected but failed, in 2015, to break through the moat of the First Past The Post electoral system at Westminster: 4 million votes (nearly 13% of the total) and only 1 MP (and that one a Conservative by any other name). No wonder so many people protest by simply not voting. As for UKIP, it has stagnated because it failed to follow the Front National of France into social nationalism. Instead, it espouses a mixed-message of silly “libertarianism” mixed with flag-waving and occasional lip-service in favour of the NHS and public transport. Result? Failure.

The situation now is that Britain has a notionally economically-conservative party which tries to make “national” noises (despite being in the pocket of Jewish-Zionist cosmopolitans) against a Labour Party which has split noisily between the Blair-Brown rump  (including most of its MPs) and a socialist but anti-nationalist membership insurgency led by “accidental” leader Jeremy Corbyn. Former Labour voters are voting with their feet (failing to vote at all) or voting for other parties. There is, also, the Liberal Democrat Party, but that was mortally wounded in 2015 and is now seen as merely a refuge for votes against other parties rather than as a “destination-vote” party voted for in its own right.

The conclusion I draw is that there is a political vacuum. There is a place for a social nationalist party. However, that party does not yet exist. In the next few years, conditions will be perfect for its launch.

Party Politics, society, Uncategorized

The Labour Vote and the Effects of Insecurity and Mass Psychology in UK Politics Today

1 Comment

At present, across the advanced world, there is starting a political ferment. In the UK, attention has been focussed on the EU Referendum, Brexit, mass immigration and the economy. The backdrop for all that has been the decline of popular support for System parties in general and the Labour Party in particular.

There have been two contrasting by-elections recently: Richmond Park; Sleaford and North Hykeham. One, a very pro-Remain constituency which has only ever had Liberal Democrat or (one, Zac Goldsmith) Conservative MPs; in the other, Leave captured 62% of the Referendum vote in a constituency which has never had anything other than Conservative MPs. In both of these by-elections, the Labour vote bombed.

I have blogged about the results of both by-elections: Richmond Park

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2016/12/02/thoughts-on-the-richmond-park-by-election/;

Sleaford and North Hykeham

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2016/12/09/the-sleaford-by-election-post-poll-view/.

We hear various reasons put forward as to why the UK Labour Party is not gaining or regaining the support of the people. Some blame Corbyn and his ideology and connections; others make the valid point that Labour support was sliding even before Corbyn became leader. Labour did poorly in both 2010 and 2015 General Elections.

I should like to put forward the following idea: that Labour is sliding in public esteem and support for a more basic reason than ideology or even perceived competence. Labour is sliding because the people generally have no faith in its power or even willingness to protect them.

A primary function of the State, which predates even the State itself as we now know it, is the ability and willingness to protect the people from external danger. This primary function was, over time, added to. The State was expected not only to defend against other states and rampaging bands, but also to keep order within its own borders, to promote justice and fairness; also, eventually and in general, to keep the people fed and housed, their children educated, the national culture protected and promoted. These incidents of State functioning are now basic, even in those states which operate on a more or less laissez-faire ur-ideology.

The protective functions of the State are also transferred to or expected to be carried out by the ruling political parties, both those actually in government and those which aspire to government.

Apply the above to the Liberal Democrat Party. For decades, it had built up a respectable support base. It proclaimed all sorts of virtuous policies, said it would protect people in every way, acquired 62 MPs by 2005, yet was all but wiped out in the 2015 General Election after having engaged for 5 years in the “Con Coalition”. Why? It was because people expected the LibDems to protect their interests against the more savage manifestations of Conservative government: spending cuts, callousness toward the poor, unemployed, disabled etc. The LibDems (despite protests) did not, overall, do that. Their punishment was condign: to be reduced to a rump of 8 MPs (now 9, by reason of the special circumstances of the Richmond Park by-election), with effectively no hope of recovery.

Now we look at Labour.

Welfare State

The Labour reaction to the attack on the Welfare State which an earlier Labour Party had done so much to support was to join in the “me-too” mass media and Conservative Party onslaughts on the disabled, on the unemployed, on all those dependent on State assistance (except the Royal Family, the subsidized farmers and the increasing swamp-floods of immigrants). Time after time, Labour MPs, especially those who had been ministers or who were shadow ministers, supported the most callous “reforms” to the social security system. Many Labour MPs either supported the Conservatives in the Commons (even more so after the 2015 General Election) or failed to oppose measures such as the Bedroom Tax. Indeed, it was Alastair Darling, James Purnell, Stephen Timms etc (all Labour ministers) who brought in the dreaded, hated and incompetent ATOS organization in the first place.

Conclusion: Labour failed, both in Government and in Opposition, to protect those most dependent on the Welfare State. Reaction? Those people deserted Labour in droves, either going to (at first) BNP, then (later) UKIP, or dropping out of voting altogether. They will not vote Labour now, despite Corbyn’s support for them, because they have no faith in his (in effect) being elected as PM and because most Labour MPs are still a rabble of pro-neoliberal, anti-Welfare State me-too-ers and fakes.

Pay and Living Standards

In government, Labour under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown advanced the interests of the wealthy or affluent above those of the rest of the population, in the hope of general improvement of the economy. A pathetic version of trickle-down theory. Income and capital inequality soared. Gordon Brown’s Working Tax Credits and other tax credits ameliorated this to some degree, though at the cost of taxes and taxpayers subsidizing, in effect, low-paying businesses–and on a huge scale. Welfare for Business. Mad.

Pay has continued to decline or stagnate for most people, but Labour has no answer for that problem and is judged on its record. There is no sense that Labour stands with the poor working people (or middling people who are becoming poor).b-cisxdiqaa7qj_-jpg-large

Another factor in this is the continuing rise in rents as against pay. When the cost of rent in the private sector is added in, pay has slumped almost as much as has the Labour vote.

Result? Voters have no confidence either that Labour pay policy works or even that Labour is somehow “on their side”. This belief in the uselessness or untruthfulness of Labour has led many either to prefer Conservative policy on the economy as well as (if, arguably, bizarrely) on pay, or to cease bothering to vote at all.

The proletariat scarcely exists now in the UK and has been replaced by a more volatile “precariat”, without loyalty to the former certainties of class, background, region, or even race and culture.

Mass Immigration

Here Labour has no cards to play.  It deliberately imported millions of immigrants, (mainly non-European, i.e. non-white) under Tony Blair and then Gordon Brown, not only to provide big business with cheap labour and more consumers but also to destroy British (especially English) race and culture [see Tom Bower, Broken Vows: Tony Blair — The Tragedy of Power]. Whistleblowers exposed this treason far too late and, it has to be said, the swamping has continued under the misnamed “Conservatives”, right up to today.

Those behind the Labour Government’s immigrant-importation were and are traitors and include, among many others, these two then ministers:

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

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

The Jewish Zionist Barbara Roche was particularly culpable. The voters of her once-safe Labour constituency realized (years before Tom Bower’s book came out) that she hated English (and all European) race and culture– they voted her out in 2005 and she has never returned to Parliament, despite lobbying hard for either another Labour candidacy or a peerage. She had inherited a 20,000+ Labour majority in 1992. Straw in the wind?

Labour MPs are still lobbying for more immigration! Even those, such as Yvette Cooper, now belatedly paying lip-service to “having a discussion” about it (as the hordes break down the gates!) are “refugees welcome” dimwits and promoters. Most Labour MPs are not even interested in talking about mass immigration, let alone actually doing anything about it. Corbyn and his absurd or joke “front bench” will never even talk about the swamping of England, except to support it. Angela Rayner and the freeloading moneygrasper Diane Abbott are two names that come to mind.

The cartoonists have hit upon Labour’s immigration madness many times, yet all Labour MPs say is that the people need to have the “benefits” of immigration “explained” to them. Patronizing and wrongheaded.

161214-matt-web_3139193a

ctgqcfywiaa6yvr

The result of Labour’s immigration non-policy and its attacks (both now and in government) on English and British race and culture? Millions of former Labour voters voting for UKIP, for the Conservatives (who at least pay lip-service to slowing the rate of immigration despite doing nothing much in a practical way) or not bothering to vote at all.

Conclusion

On the big issues for most voters, meaning living standards and social protection generally and immigration (bearing on race, culture, identity, NHS, schools transport, crime etc), Labour is not only NOT protecting the British people, but is still actively against most of what is in the popular interest.

The “instant karma” of all that is that the people withdraw their support and withdraw their votes. Richmond Park and Sleaford were just the start, in fact not even that: Scotland is already a Labour Party-free zone, pretty much (Labour is only 4th in the polls there now, on a pathetic 15%).

One has to wonder what sort of people would now vote Labour. Some ethnic minorities, some public sector workers, some traditionally-minded (older? maybe not: older people have seen the devastation caused by mass immigration over decades) Northern voters. Not much of a mass-support base.

On the basis of the latest polls showing 25% support, Labour would have about 180 seats (out of 650) on present boundaries and only 140 (out of 600) on the proposed new ones.

Labour is on the way out. It has betrayed the trust of the people and deserves to be obliterated. The people rightly feel that they are not protected by Labour.

A new social national party must arise, to protect the people and to create and preserve a new form of State in England and Wales.

cqsbrinweaalitk

Party Politics, Uncategorized

Thoughts on the Richmond Park By-Election

Leave a comment

I write only a few hours after the Richmond Park by-election result, which saw the Liberal Democrats win an unexpected victory over former Conservative Party MP (standing as Independent) Zac Goldsmith.

I had not taken much interest in the by-election, mainly because the constituency is atypical, full of the sort of affluent self-described liberals who usually vote soft Conservative or Liberal Democrat and who believe in the EU, multicultural/multiracial Britain, “refugees welcome” (though not in Richmond, of course) and whatever helps to support their own comfortable lifestyles.

The result:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmond_Park_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Election_results

What struck me first of all was the poor showing of Labour, which lost its deposit for the first time since the constituency was created in 1997. Labour achieved a 12% vote in 2015 and managed 5% even in the 2010 General Election which Labour lost. Labour’s 3.7% vote in the by-election was only 9 times that achieved by the Monster Raving Loony.

UKIP did not stand, which perhaps says something in itself. UKIP had climbed from a vote of 0.7% in 2001 to 4.2% in the 2015 General Election.

Zac Goldsmith had increased the Conservative Party vote from around 39% under previous candidates to 50% in 2010 and 58% in 2015. However, his anti-Heathrow-expansion stance was irrelevant in the by-election, because the decision to expand the airport has now been taken. Another factor was the EU: Goldsmith’s pro-Brexit view was at odds with that of most Richmond voters in the most pro-EU constituency in England.

There were minor candidates: Fiona Syms, estranged or ex-wife of the Conservative MP for Poole. She received 173 votes (fewer than the Monster Raving Loony); a sullen Indo-Pak calling himself “Maharaja Jammu and Kashmir” (real name Ankit Love), representing his “One Love” crank party [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Love_Party] (which consists, it seems, of 3 or 4 people). The “maharajah” received 67 votes; there were a couple of other candidates.

What can perhaps be said about this by-election? What does it indicate? That Labour is still sliding and that UKIP has (at best) stalled.

What cannot be said about the Richmond Park result? That voters outside Richmond Park (or the few places like it) are anti-Brexit; that the Liberal Democrats are resurgent. In the end, the only practical result of the by-election is that it reduces by 1 the number of Conservative MPs (and so by 2, in effect, the already-small Commons majority of the Theresa May government).

Alt-Right, ethnostate, Party Politics, Uncategorized

Problems of Finance in Social Nationalist Politics

2 Comments

System political parties in the UK have sources of finance which are well known: wealthy donors, membership dues, fundraising drives, donations from big business or trade unions, as well as “Short money”, i.e. State monies given to parties depending on the number of MPs they have in the House of Commons. Smaller political parties, without many or any MPs, have to rely on trying to get large and smaller donations as well as collecting money from their members via subscriptions, collections and/or sale of items such as newspapers, magazines or, in some cases, memorabilia etc. There is another way.

When I lived in the United States in the early 1990s, I discovered that not only did many suburbs or little townships have countless churches (the names of which were unknown to me, usually), but that most of these churches were replete with cash. I was told that that was because they insisted, often, on the practice of “tithing”, i.e. the members had to give a proportion (usually 10%) of their income (post-tax income, usually) to the church to which they belonged. As a result, these churches had full-time staff, real property, vehicles etc. They were also able to help out members of the church fallen on hard times and had no difficulty raising the funds to print books. Some even owned radio and TV stations!

Returning to UK politics, were a social-national party or movement to operate the same system, the funds would be available for both pure political activity and wider work. A party might have as few as 100 full members, the income of which, after tax, might be only about £20,000 each (approx. UK average), but even that tiny party would, on the premises, have an annual income of £200,000. Small by the standards of the System parties or even UKIP, but still significant. A party with 1,000 members might have an annual income of £2 million. Now you’re talking…Such an income would enable a party to do more than conventional political activity. It could, for example, buy houses and flats wherein some of its members could live. The rents would thus go to the party, not to some buy-to-let parasite. This would also assist morale and esprit de corps.

Another way in which such income can help a political organization is in allowing it to operate a commercial arm and so not only make operational surpluses (“profits”), but also provide employment to members who need jobs.

As in many marriages, difficulties and dissent in political parties often arise out of money troubles. The tithing system is a way of avoiding that. A well-funded party is a credible party in a way that a shoestring organization can never be. An air of serious purpose pervades such a body.

It might be objected that it will be hard to persuade people to give up their (in many cases) hard-earned money. If so, their commitment must be questioned. There are enough “hobby politics” organizations around already. Most will never amount to anything. If someone wants to belong to something as a hobby, then fine, go do it..elsewhere. If, on the other hand, someone wants to belong to a serious movement, with a serious world-view, a serious plan and a serious chance of accomplishing something, then the need for tithing must be apparent and will be accepted by those most able to carry out the objectives set.

 

Alt-Right, Brexit, elections, ethnostate, Party Politics, society, The Great Replacement, Uncategorized

A Floor or a Ceiling?

Leave a comment

The Front National in France, other broadly social-national parties of the European mainland and (in England and Wales) UKIP are not “ceilings” (end results) but “floors” (starting points). Their function is to disrupt the political status quo and to awaken as far as they can the voting populations of the various European states. Naturally, that is not how they themselves see their role.

The case of UKIP is telling. UKIP came into a political milieu in Britain where (in the 1990s) there were only “three main parties” and a high majority of those who voted voted for them. Below the surface, though, there was growing but unfocussed discontent and alienation. Turnout in general elections, which peaked at 83.9% in 1950, fell (on the wider franchise after 1966) to a low of 59.4% by 2001, though it recovered slightly to 66.1% by 2015. An equally-telling fact is that the proportion of voters who voted and who voted for one of those “three main parties” fell steadily and is still falling. In broad terms, a third of eligible voters did not vote at the 2015 General Election; of those who did vote, about 75% voted for LibLabCon (UK-wide results), with another 12.6% voting for UKIP.

UKIP peaked in 2014, failed to break through in 2015 and is now declining fast in every way. Its 2016 by-election results have been poor, its donors are going and its membership falling. I addressed the UK political vacuum in an earlier blog post. However, UKIP has succeeded in a more major way than did the BNP and not only because UKIP scored 21 MEPs as against the BNP’s 2.

UKIP created an atmosphere across the country in which social nationalism might start to thrive, despite the fact that UKIP, as a party, is not really social-national.

UKIP, despite being now more or less washed-up, is a floor. On that floor a movement can be built. The Front National in France is not at all in decline (au contraire) but is also a basis for a movement, rather than the movement itself. The FN is, however, likely to become or coalesce with such a movement, whereas UKIP will just fade away even if it can score a few election victories in the 2016-2020 period. The importance of both parties, however, is that they have changed the atmosphere. Social nationalism is now not a fringe ideology. It stands ready, once the right vehicles arrive, to take command across Europe. In Britain (specifically England and Wales), there is a crying need for such a social national movement and I believe that it will emerge, will arise and will, eventually, seize power.