I was just reading a few appreciations of Paddy Ashdown, the one-time LibDem leader, who recently died. I tend to adhere to the saying de mortuis nihil nisi bonum, but when it comes to political people, kindness must sometimes give way to clarity.
In fact, I rather liked Paddy Ashdown, at least in parts (not that I ever actually met him). I certainly feel more respect for him than I ever could feel for the idiots who preceded and followed him (Thorpe, Steel, Kennedy, Campbell, Clegg etc, though I do have time for Jo Grimond, whose interesting and erudite memoirs I reviewed on Amazon years ago; Grimond was by far the best of the Liberal/LibDem leaders, to my mind).
I feel that Ashdown was a great deal more honest than most System politicians, for one thing. Also, he was an idealist, and someone willing to put a mission above his (and his family’s) comfort: not many men in their mid-thirties would leave a comfortable and perhaps promising SIS/FCO career to get involved in the hurly-burly of UK politics, particularly for something as marginal as the then Liberal Party (at the time it had only 13 Commons seats, despite having garnered nearly 20% of the popular vote in both of the two 1974 General Elections). Ashdown gave up a pleasant diplomatic/intelligence near-sinecure based in Switzerland to take ordinary jobs in the Yeovil (Somerset) area while pursuing his political mission. When his employer folded, nearly a decade later, Ashdown applied unsuccessfully for 150 jobs. When elected MP for Yeovil in 1983, he had been unemployed for 2 years and was doing unpaid volunteer work as part of a programme for the long-term unemployed.
Not that I agreed with much of Ashdown’s policy-set: Ashdown was a politician for an England which was disappearing even in the 1970s. He seems to have been sanguine about mass immigration, for one thing. I doubt that he was ever anti-Zionist in any sense (certainly not my sense). Ashdown was no intellectual and not (to my mind) a policy person. Neither was Ashdown intellectually honest in a way that might match what I still perceive to be his personal integrity (leaving aside the “Paddy Pantsdown” episode). Certainly, amid the pathetic rabble called the LibDems, Ashdown could hardly fail to be seen as a star, just as the young Bill Clinton, with his Georgetown, Oxford and Yale academic background, could not fail to shine in the intellectual backwater that is Arkansas.
Yes, much can be laughed at in Ashdown, not least his absurd sense of his own importance and weight, as when he was or tried to be (using my own parody-title for him) “the Lord High Panjandrum of the Balkans and Afghanistan”, but without at least some elevated sense of self-worth, Ashdown would never have tried to be a political leader in the first place, I suppose.
So why am I talking about Ashdown, when this blog piece is supposed to be about the creation of a social-national movement?
What caught my attention about Ashdown as politician was that he only got elected as MP in 1983, after about 8-9 years of trying; also, once he was an MP, it only took him 5 years to become the leader of his party (admittedly tiny in terms of MP numbers).
One of the precepts of the American “self-help” guru Anthony Robbins is that “most people overestimate what they can accomplish in a year and underestimate what they can achieve in ten years.” That is very true. Examples are all around in history.
Famously, Hitler joined the NSDAP as “Member no.7” in 1919. A year later, it was still of little importance even in its home city, Munich. By 1923 Hitler had attempted the Beer Hall Putsch, which went down in shambolic ignominy; by 1928, 9 years after its foundation, the NSDAP could still only raise a national vote of 2.6%. However, Hitler had built a party and beyond that, a whole volkisch movement. It only needed the right conditions in which to flourish. The Depression provided that, together with the widespread feeling against the Jewish exploitation of the German people: by 1930, the NSDAP had a vote of 18%, by 1932 of 33%, and by 1933 of nearly 44%.
Lenin’s serious revolutionary political activity could be said to have begun with the establishment of Iskra [The Spark] in 1900. Though by 1910, Lenin was still politically marginal, he was considered to be one of the leaders of the Marxist tendency, at least. However, both Bolsheviki and Mensheviki together numbered only 8,400 by 1910 (perhaps 75% of whom were under 30 years of age). Once again, though, the important point is that a party, albeit split, existed and, once the disastrous Russian participation in the European war of 1914 onward had destroyed the strength of the Tsarist government and society, that party could take over the existing uprising in 1917 and perform a coup d’etat later the same year.
Other examples? How about “Solidarity” in Poland? Founded by a small number of workers in Gdansk (former Danzig) in 1980, by 1989 it was the governing party in Poland.
UKIP was formed in 1993 and had become an organized though marginal party by 2003. UKIP never did break through. It peaked in 2014 and deflated from 2015. What stopped UKIP from taking power was not only the UK’s totally unfair First Past the Post electoral system (though that did not help). What stopped UKIP was, first, that it was and (to the extent that it still exists) is not a revolutionary, nor even radical, party/movement; also, there has been no truly “triggering” event comparable to the First World War, the Great Depression etc in the UK of the late 20th/early 21st centuries.
Even if the future for the UK and Europe is a kind of multifaceted civil war, a political party or movement must exist. It is the sine qua non. In a year, it would achieve nothing, but in ten years it could achieve everything.
I have, in the recent and fairly recent past, blogged about various MPs in a House of Commons where, increasingly, to be mediocre is a standard few can reach. See Notes, below. I have now decided to blog from time to time about a few more deadhead MPs, starting with recently-convicted Fiona Onasanya.
Now let us be clear: people in the UK, especially in the mainstream media [msm] tend to bend over backwards to be fair to ethnic minorities and especially blacks. You see it on quiz shows and in TV interviews and elsewhere. You see it even more in that echo-chamber of the pathetic “me too” “socially-liberal” multikultis, Twitter.
Some of the deadhead MPs (indeed, most) are white; however, the black ones can rely on getting a fairly easy ride from the msm until they really push the boat out in terms of stupidity, aggression or general uselessness. See, for example, Diane Abbott, Dawn Butler, Kate Osamor and now Fiona Onasanya.
Fiona Onasanya
Fiona Onasanya, a black African (Nigerian origin) but born in Cambridgeshire, and now 35 years old, is usually described as having been “a commercial property solicitor” prior to having been selected as a Labour PPC (prospective Parliamentary candidate) then elected as MP. I suppose that most people merely accept that bland potted bio, but in fact it is only superficially true.
Fiona Onasanya was Admitted to the ranks of solicitors in November 2015, at the age of 32. Prior to that (but exactly when, I do not know) she attended the University of Hertfordshire on an LL.B course, and then the University of Law (former College of Law) in order to qualify as a solicitor.
So what did Fiona Onasanya do between the ages of 18 and 32? A first degree and then Solicitors’ course together add up to about 4 years. That leaves 10 years outstanding. Her constituency website is not at all illuminating. Her Wikipedia entry states that she was a County Councillor in Cambridgeshire from 2013. That of course pays an allowance these days, as well as expenses (such as fuel for a car). Fiona Onasanya was also Deputy Leader of the Labour Group on that council, which pays extra (exactly how much, I do not know, but there are councillors with “extra responsibilities” that make a modestly good living out of it). At any rate, there seem to be 8-10 “missing years”, for which there may or may not be a good explanation.
Fiona Onasanya’s (self-drafted?) Wikipedia entry states that “She worked as a solicitor at Eversheds, Howes Percival, Nockolds and DC Law, specialising in commercial property law”, but she can have been little more than an office gopher. She worked for 4 different law firms in only 18 months! Probably no good and did little more than make coffee and read up on “diversity” regulations etc…
As for her selection as Parliamentary candidate, it seems to me that to have selected Fiona Onasanya, especially for somewhere like Peterborough, was almost an insult to the people of that city, 82.5% of whom are white, while only 2.3% are black (and little more than half of those are black African).
It now appears that there was no proper selection process. Here are tweets from the Political Correspondent of Channel Four News, Michael Crick, on the subject:
Fiona Onasanya, found guilty today, is one of the 36 new Labour MPs in 2017 – like Jared O’Mara In Sheffield Hallam – whom Labour picked without a proper selection process in 2017 – no interview, no speech, no selection by local members. Just picked by a small NEC panel.
I have confirmed it was left-winger Pete Willsman who effectively chose Fiona Onasanya on the small Labour NEC panel which met to pick candidates at the 2017 general election for the eastern region. https://t.co/nkloN6umN3
The meeting lasted a gruelling six hours, in which the NEC panel simply read people's CVs. The panel didn't meet or interview any of the people they picked. https://t.co/wad8pZHrvw
Fiona Onasanya was prosecuted for perversion of the course of justice, a charge which has brought a number of MPs to a prison cell, among them Jonathan Aitken and Chris Huhne (the latter on very similar facts to the present case).
Fiona Onasanya was lucky in her first jury, when the jury could not agree, even on the required 10-1 majority basis (one juror became unwell during trial). There must have been blacks and/or Labour Party partisans on that jury! Its prolonged deliberations and weekend adjournment brought hundreds of mocking tweets (heedless of “contempt of Court”), such as one which suggested that the jury would be sequestered for the weekend “in the local mental hospital”, so open-and-shut was Onasanya’s case. In fact, the second jury did not take long to find her guilty.
Since then, Fiona Onasanya has compared herself to Biblical figures who faced courts, such as Jesus Christ and Daniel, and to others who (apparently unknown to avid Nigerian church-goer Fiona) never faced courts at all (Moses, Joseph etc).
Fiona Onasanya faces a prison sentence. Though perversion of the course of justice carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, the relevant judicial guidelines indicate between 4 months and 36 months, with 12 months not uncommon in cases where the defendant lied about the identity of a car driver. Chris Huhne got 8 months, and that was on a guilty plea and far simpler facts (a simpler conspiracy). Jonathan Aitken got 18 months, also on guilty pleas, but his offence, in fact 2 offences, were intrinsically more serious, arguende.
If Fiona Onasanya is sentenced to a year or more in prison, she will be forced to vacate her seat (though in theory an MP so forced out can re-enter if again elected). The judge’s sentence will therefore either trigger a by-election, or keep Fiona Onasanya in her seat (at least until the next General Election). Jeremy Corbyn has given a broad hint that she faces deselection before that election anyway. Without the Labour label, she would probably get only a handful of votes.
My guess, albeit an educated guess, is that Fiona Onasanya will get a year or more of imprisonment. Why? Apart from the bare offence, she not only pleaded Not Guilty in both trials but also made up a complicated story with her brother (guilty of several similar offences), part of which was to blame an entirely innocent young Russian of whom they knew. He was saved from possible (indeed probable, arguably) prosecution only because he was visiting his family in Russia at the material time. The failure of the first jury to agree was plainly perverse and flew in the face of a plethora of convincing circumstantial and other evidence.
As to Fiona Onasanya’s future outside politics, it looks bleak: if imprisoned, she will undoubtedly be struck off the solicitors’ roll (that is a likelihood in any case). She is now 35. If imprisoned, she could be 37 when released. It looks as if the dole queue beckons. Either that or digging up potato from the heavy soil of Cambridgeshire.
On today’s date, Fiona Onasanya MP was sentenced to 3 months’ imprisonment, which means that she will actually be in prison for about 6 weeks minus days in court and in police custody, so probably about a month in the end, if that. Her brother got 10 months.
I am surprised at the leniency of the sentence, in that she deliberately set out on a course of deception, tried to blame someone else for the offence and pleaded Not Guilty despite overwhelming circumstantial evidence, thus necessitating two expensive trials (the first jury being unable to agree on a verdict).
In his very similar trial a few years ago, Chris Huhne got 8 months on a Guilty plea! As a former practising barrister who has (long ago, in the early/mid 1990s) conducted Crown Court criminal trials (though I was always more civil and commercial), I am aware that every sentencing is different because every defendant is different, but the anomaly here is stark. Fiona Onasanya gets about a third of Huhne’s sentence despite her crime being worse on the facts, despite having pleaded Not Guilty (twice). Is it because she is black? Or because she is a black woman? Vicky Pryce (see below) was a woman, after all, and she got 8 months, not 3, and for less. I read much about “white privilege”. Hardy ha ha.
Vicky Pryce got 8 months for having done less than either her husband or Fiona Onasanya. Vicky Pryce and Chris Huhne both actually served 9 weeks in prison before being released early, not the strict 4 months as might have been expected.
Reading the judge’s remarks in the Onasanya case (see tweet below), it is clear that he was floundering in trying to find a reason to suspend the sentence, but in the end could not, so made the sentence as lenient as he felt was possible.
Judge to Fiona Onasanya's barrister on suggestion of suspended sentence: "I'm in difficulty."
"If she wasn't an MP or wasn't in a position of responsibility, she would go inside. It's not one law for those in a position of power, and another for those who are not,"
The lenient sentence means that, until removed by the electors of Peterborough, Fiona Onasanya will continue to collect about £1,000 a week after tax, whether in prison or not. She will also continue to get her flat rent, utilities etc paid for via Parliamentary expenses!
The only way to remove her early would be for 10% of Peterborough electors to demand that via a Petition of Recall, which would trigger a by-election. She has been expelled by Labour, which supports such a petition. However, it will take months both to organize the petition and then for a by-election to be held.
In fact, latest news is that the Recall Petition cannot even be started until Fiona Onasanya has finished her appeal process, which might be months or even (potentially) years. For all that time she will be dragging down £1,000 a week after tax, despite the fact that her assistant has said (to a newspaper) that she did no work as an MP whatsoever, and had 5,000 emails unanswered until she employed said assistant (via expenses, of course).
I suppose that there will be a General Election soon anyway and that, if this waste of space stands, she will get only about 10 votes, or at least only a few hundred (depending on how many Africans in Peterborough are totally stupid).
The Onasanya case proves yet again what a load of useless trash many MPs are now. In this case, her only known jobs are 18 months working as trainee (making the tea?) at a few law firms. At the age of 35. We should find some island somewhere and start deporting. Tristan da Cunha? Target number? In the millions.
Well, I had no idea that the Attorney-General reads and takes account of my blogging! Only joking…but it seems that the A-G is considering whether to refer Fiona Onasanya’s sentence to the Court of Appeal as “unduly lenient”.
Fiona Onasanya, still an MP and likely to remain one until the next general election, was released after only 28 days in prison. I guessed right on that.
Update, 5 March 2019
Fiona Onasanya lost her appeal, in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) against conviction. In theory, she might appeal to the Supreme Court, but it is unlikely that that would be allowed, there not being (as it seems) grounds for such appeal. It is doubtful too whether legal aid would be forthcoming for it, and Fiona Onasanya has no means with which to pursue a privately-paid appeal, though it occurs to me that it is in her financial interest, possibly, at least to make application to appeal, in that, as noted here above, she is getting (net of tax) about £1,000 (in pay) and a similar amount for her London rent, utilities etc paid to her (on Parliamentary expenses) for every week in which she still sits as MP, despite disgrace, despite conviction, despite imprisonment, despite the fact that “her assistant has said (to a newspaper) that she did no work as an MP whatsoever, and had 5,000 emails unanswered until she employed said assistant (via expenses, of course)“. Typical. Most of Africa is in near-chaos for the same reasons, because most blacks are incapable of organization…
So far, there have been no active moves made to start the procedure of recall, because the criminal appeal process is still active, even if only notionally. I expect that Fiona Onasanya will be able to hang on as MP until the Summer, if not until the end of the year. To stop her clinging on until the next general election, there has to be the political equivalent of stamping on her fingers, meaning
an end to the appeals process;
a Recall Petition in proper form;
a petition signed by at least 7,000 people in Peterborough;
The deadhead has now made a video appealing to Peterborough voters to keep her as MP. She really must think that the people of Peterborough are as thick as she is! My guess? If there is a recall petition before a General Election, then I think that it will be voted for overwhelmingly, and that, in the subsequent by-election, she will get a vote of somewhere around 2%. Of course, in the meantime, because she is appealing her conviction, she is still receiving her over £77,000 p.a. salary, plus expenses such as a paid-for London flat (with all utilities, Council Tax etc also paid for).
The creature (Fiona Onasanya) could not pronounce “eligible” or “ineligible”, saying “illegible” (i.e. did not know the difference!).
She is still on Twitter, and still tweeting as if the axe will not soon fall on her whole life and lifestyle!
Update, 30 April 2019
It seems all but inevitable that tomorrow a recall petition will approve the sacking of Fiona Onasanya and the calling of a by-election which might result in Brexit Party scoring a hit:
BREAKING: Constituents in Peterborough opt to remove their MP Fiona Onasanya- 19,261 signed the petition which will trigger a by-election. pic.twitter.com/xeZUJSm0xF
It would be incredible if Farage stood for the seat and captured it (despite the fact that “Brexit Party” is obviously rather far from my position ideologically).
Update, 7 May 2019
The by-election will be held on 6 June 2019 (the anniversary of the Normandy Landings of 1944! You couldn’t make it up!) and, while Nigel Farage will not be standing, the Brexit Party will be putting up a candidate. Nominations close on 9 May. Look at the rally below. According to local newspapers, nearly 2,000 people. In a provincial city. In England.
Peterborough rally for the Brexit Party. When was the last time British politics saw something like this?? Astonishing. They’re doing three rallies a week! pic.twitter.com/YVUlQnhTdw
Change UK London Rally vs Brexit Party Peterborough Rally. One made lead story on BBC News, the other didn’t even feature. That’s right. The tiny one made the front page, the massive one didn’t. Why’s that I wonder? pic.twitter.com/0MVGwgUoly
— The Other Nigel. My truth. (@TheOtherNigel) May 7, 2019
(In fact, the photo there may not be of Brexit Party’s meeting)
As for Fiona Onasanya, she has now been removed as MP, and will almost certainly be expelled (struck off) from the solicitors’ profession (in which she only practised for about a year anyway). She is already effectively forgotten and will soon be back on the dole.
Update, 8 August 2019
Fiona Onasanya has, as expected, now been struck off the solicitors’ roll.
The fact that creatures like Fiona Onasanya were and still are selected as Labour candidates was one major reason why Labour started to slide from being a major party to becoming a niche party appealing to blacks, browns, public service workers and a few other groups.
Update, 5 October 2022
At the by-election necessitated by the removal of Fiona Onasanya as MP, Labour’s new candidate, Lisa Forbes, won narrowly from Brexit Party. pushing the Conservative Party candidate into third place. However, at the General Election of 2019, some 6 months later, Lisa Forbes was unseated by the same Conservative candidate (and Brexit Party relegated to a poor fourth place): see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterborough_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s
“I have now authored and published a book about my journey into politics, Parliament and prison entitled ‘Snakes & Adders’ (see http://www.fionasanyaa.co.uk), currently release monthly newsletters to subscribers, host workshops and am seeking to establish trauma informed care support for women in prison.
Outside of the political arena, I am an active member of my church, an avid reader and seek to encourage, inspire and assist others utilising the experience I am privileged to have.”
“The population of the United Kingdom is considered an example of a population that has undergone demographic transition – that is, the transition from a (typically) pre-industrial population with high birth and mortality rates and slow population growth, through a stage of falling mortality and faster rates of population growth, to a stage of low birth and mortality rates with, again, lower rates of population growth. This population growth through ‘natural change’ has been accompanied in the past two decades by growth through net international migration into the United Kingdom.” [Wikipedia]
I recently saw a pro-immigration poster put out, I think, by some trade union in the NHS. It said that the group of people shown on the poster (mostly but not all black/brown) were all NHS personnel who had come to the UK from other countries. The poster also said that, in the London Borough of Haringey, where the group had been photographed, there were (in round figures) some 82,000 persons who had come from other countries to the UK. The implication was that only thus is the (in Britain, near-sacred) NHS able to function.
Well, I am, in principle, pro-NHS (though I think, with reason, that quite a lot of the NHS system is barely functioning). I have no problem conceding that some of the foreign personnel in the NHS are excellent (though some others are hopeless). I am aware that the NHS has always been a major recruiter of immigrant labour. However, is that the whole story (as pro-Remain, pro-immigration people always pretend)? I say not.
The London Borough of Haringey has about 282,000 inhabitants, only 60% of whom are “white British” or Irish. If you were to take away the 82,000 immigrants already mentioned (even disregarding their offspring, and those non-English/Irish etc who are also resident in that borough), you would automatically have something like —and at the very least— something like 20,000 dwelling units available! Now multiply that appropriately across the whole of London, the whole of the UK…An end to the absurd property price valuations, an end to overcrowded hospitals, schools, transport —including roads—, an increase in pay across the board.
There is no doubt that the UK would be better off, the people of the UK would be better off, without the immigrant hordes and their offspring. Yes, on paper, the economy would perhaps be less vibrant, but most of the benefit of that at present goes to a tiny percentage of the population, just as a relatively small number of buy-to-let parasites and speculators profit from the overheated UK property market.
As for foreign NHS personnel, one has to bear in mind that the migration-invasion has placed enormous burdens on the NHS. The balance of convenience is by no means in favour of immigration. Without mass immigration, the UK NHS could easily handle the demand, particularly by training British people as doctors, nurses and ancillary personnel. Fewer British medical staff would leave (to emigrate to Australia, New Zealand etc), thus saving the State the cost of their education and training.
The same is true of all areas of society. Mass immigration penalizes the vast bulk of the British people. Big business loves mass immigration because it increases the number of consumers, results in higher prices for goods and real property, and reduces pay per labour unit.
When I was born in 1956, the UK population was estimated to be around (possibly below) 50 million. In 1990, 34 years later, the estimate was 57 million, a still very considerable increase. In 2018, the estimates have become less accurate because of the huge influxes of “migrants” (migrant-invaders) and their birth-rate, but anywhere from 66 million to 70 million. By, say, 2022? No-one knows. 75 million? This is totally unsustainable. Only those who knew England (especially) in the 1960s can appreciate what a difference and (mostly) a negative difference those extra 20 millions have made to the quality of life, environment etc in the UK and, again, particularly in England.
It is all very well saying that, because of Brexit and the stalling economy, ever-lower pay and State benefits, that the net immigration figure now is “only” about 400,000 a year instead of the half million or more per year in the past 15-20 years, but 400,000 is still the size of a very large town. Also, “net” means not 400,000 in but maybe 800,000 non-Brits in, and 400,000 desperate Brits out, fleeing the multiracial/multicultural society, desperately trying to find a basically white “Aryan” society in which to live (though most scarcely admit that even to themselves).
Those who have read my recent blogs on Brexit and Theresa May will have noted that I predicted (in the posts and/or in the Comments sections to the posts) that, if the Commons vote on the Theresa May Brexit “deal” were to go against the Government, as always seemed probable, one likely consequence would be that there would be a revolt among Conservative Party MPs, with the aim of ejecting her from her leadership position. That has now happened, though the Commons vote on the Brexit “deal” has not been taken, and may never be.
Theresa May as Prime Minister
I do not conceal that I am very opposed to Theresa May.
She has had passed repressive legislation, both as Prime Minister and in her former office as Home Secretary;
She is very pro-Jewish, very pro-Zionist, very pro-Israel and is a member of Conservative Friends of Israel;
There are indications that she herself may be of partly-Jewish origin;
She has continued the Con Coalition (and, even before that, Gordon Brown Labour) demonization of the poor, unemployed and disabled, even to the extent of promoting dishonest and thick-as-two-short-planks Esther McVey to Cabinet as Work and Pensions Secretary;
She failed, both as Home Secretary and as Prime Minister, to stop or even slow mass immigration;
She has shown no strategic grasp.
[Theresa May became Prime Minister after all other candidates “killed” each other]
I will say that, for a few days after having become Prime Minister, Theresa May looked like a slightly better choice than David Cameron-Levita had proven to be. She made statements in the “One Nation Conservative” vein and seemed to be willing to revisit the obviously not-working bits of Con Coalition policy, such as Dunce Duncan Smith’s pathetic and misconceived Universal Credit fiasco. However, it soon turned out that Theresa May had few ideas of her own and yet was completely inflexible.
Theresa May worked for 20 years, before entering Parliament, as a back-room bureaucrat at the BACS cheque-clearing organization. She is out of her depth as Prime Minister (in fact she was no good as Home Secretary either).
Theresa May’s brittle persona, which might be described as “barely-concealed hysterical panic”, disguised under a “Wicked Witch” outer layer, became very apparent during the General Election campaign of 2017. Afraid to show herself in public, even to the limited extent of her predecessors, her “campaign speeches” to carefully-vetted tiny groups in aircraft hangars etc were every bit as fake as those of US Presidents, and were seen as such. Her hysterical “Nothing has changed! Nothing has changed!” screech turned her from a perceivedly “solid” Prime Minister to an embattled and weak one. Immediately. The 2017 election was probably lost right there.
After the 2017 election, Theresa May was a lame duck PM, dependent on the Democratic Unionist Party votes, which were bought at great expense. Without those DUP votes, Theresa May is totally powerless. The EU establishment saw that and has taken full advantage of Theresa May’s political weakness.
How Has Theresa May Survived This Long?
The answer, in my view, is that there has not been seen to be an obvious challenger for her position. She is second-rate. All right, but most of the would-be leaders and prime ministers are third-rate:
Clown Prince Boris Johnson: completely unfit for any public office, being acquisitive, greedy, lazy, incompetent, often rather stupid, narrowly-educated, unethical, untrustworthy, callous, as well as cosmopolitan in his origins (part-Jew, part-Turk, a bit of this and a bit of that, born in New York City); Conservative Friends of Israel; a poseur and overall a fake, a £3 note who attempts to present himself as “Prime Minister in Waiting” via an am-dram reprise of Winston Churchill, but with none of the intellectual depth or personal steel; supported Remain but turned coat;
Sajid Javid: A Pakistani by origin, cosmopolitan business type by pre-political career; his earnings at time of departure from Deutsche Bank in 2009 are said to have been £3M a year; he owns 4 homes in the UK; someone whose judgment is very questionable, as witness his support for the masked “antifa” thugs (a remarkable stance for someone now posing as Home Secretary!); connected with that is Javid’s doormat-level support for Jews and indeed Zionists —and Israel—; Javid and his English wife took their honeymoon in Israel; member of Conservative Friends of Israel; supporter of American neo-con adventurism and “intervention”; an Ayn Rand devotee…it just gets worse; incompetent in office; supported Remain;
Jeremy Hunt: dark horse; smarmy snake type; possible front-runner; multi-millionaire (tens of millions); property speculator; supported Remain, but has turned coat;
Michael Gove: has a Jewish or part-Jewish wife, and is a member of Conservative Friends of Israel; one of the most egregious expenses cheats of the pre-2010 Parliament; arguably more intelligent than most of the other likely successors to Mrs May, but often wrongheaded; dishonest; supported Leave;
Amber Rudd: member of Conservative Friends of Israel; complete doormat for the Israel/Jewish/Zionist lobby; wants to pass even more repressive laws targeting British patriots etc, making even reading dissident literature online a criminal offence (!); despite her financial services background, pretty thick; incompetent and dishonest in office; personally involved with African and Old Etonian MP, Kwasi Kwarteng; Remain Queen Bee;
Philip Hammond: dull but predictable and therefore perceived as “safe”; supported Remain;
Dominic Raab: a half-Jew, Raab has worked in diplomatic activity; there have been some controversial news reports about his personal behaviour; supported Leave;
Jacob Rees-Mogg: may or may not be a candidate; multi-millionaire and Leave luminary; may not want to give up his big City of London wealth fund operation to become PM, but the lure of the highest office is powerfully magnetic.
The above seem to be the most likely candidates to vie for the succession to Theresa May, if she cannot get 158 MPs to vote for her this evening (50% of the total).
Incredibly, some even less suitable names may want to be on the ballot paper, including
sex pest and doormat-for-Israel Stephen Crabb;
Esther Mcvey (another, yawn, Conservative Friends of Israel member); an evil associate of Dunce Duncan Smith;
dull nobody Andrea Leadsom;
even Penny Mordaunt! (but this is a contest for leadership of the Conservative Party, it is not a swimsuit competition…).
It has been the lack of alternative and credible leadership candidates that has kept Theresa May from having to face a leadership challenge; that and the fact that, should she get 158+ MPs to support her, she will be safe from challenge for a year.
At present it seems that about 110 MPs have pledged to support Theresa May, but the ballot is secret, so their support cannot be confirmed or checked. The vote is a Yes/No one.
A month ago, I should have thought (and did think) that Theresa May would win any confidence vote fairly easily, though perhaps not convincingly. Now, I doubt it, though the outcome must still be seen as uncertain. Her authority as PM, let alone as Conservative Party leader, is in shreds. Her power is non-existent, now that the DUP have as good as pulled the rug from under her government. She is disrespected by the EU, the public, her own party. She must surely go. If she does not, the Conservative Party will ebb away to nothing with her.
Life After Theresa May
Life for the UK has become very uncertain. It might even be said that the British are starting to follow Nietzsche’s dictum, and are living dangerously. It seems to be not unlikely that any successor to Theresa May might want to revoke the invocation of Article 50, thereby stopping Brexit in its tracks. After that, a new Referendum could be held. Not that I favour that course of action. I myself should prefer Britain to wake up, kick out the traitors and unwanted cuckoos in our nest, and leave the EU completely, finally. However, I am not Prime Minister.
Well, as I have repeatedly written over months and years in this blog, the “glorious uncertainty” of the racecourse is replicated in British politics. I thought, only this afternoon, that the outcome of the no-confidence vote would be close, somewhere around 50-50. In the event, Theresa May won by 200-117, so 63% of Conservative Party MPs backed her or at least were unwilling to get rid of her (at present), as against 37% who voted to dump her.
I see the vote not as MPs having confidence in Theresa May, but in having no confidence in any of the likely candidates vying to replace her.
What Now?
Theresa May now cannot be challenged in any no-confidence vote of her party for a year, i.e. until December 2019.
Theresa May still has no credibility, politically. She still has no chance of any substantial revision of her EU exit “deal”; the DUP are distancing themselves from her, which may completely paralyze her legislative programme (such as it is); she now knows for sure that 117 of her MPs have no confidence in her. In reality, few have confidence in her but are not willing to eject her right now.
Theresa May should realize that, just as she became Conservative Party leader and so Prime Minister by default and not by reason of her own merit, so she has now survived the no-confidence vote for the same reason.
There is uncertainty now as to whether the Brexit “deal”, with minor EU concessions as a figleaf, will be put to the House of Commons soon (or at all). As for revoking Article 50, that seems to be not unlikely, perhaps if any revised Brexit “deal” is voted down by the Commons, whatever Theresa May now says.
We must never forget that ZOG/NWO wants the UK to either stay in the EU or to leave the EU but on a basis of effectively still being tied to it.
Afterthought, 14 December 2018
It may be thought surprising that I left out the name of David Davis from the list of possible leaders. Back in 2008, I predicted that he might return to government as Cabinet minister and even Prime Minister. I have subsequently been proven correct in the first part; as to the second, that is now unlikely though (things being what they are…) not impossible. Davis is now 69, but the main obstacle to his being elected as Conservative Party leader and notionally then Prime Minister is that he is for Leave, most MPs are for Remain. That, and his more traditional type of Conservatism.
Update, 15 December 2018
“It’s over. If Brexit happens at all – and for the first time I’m beginning to think it won’t – it will be on terms that keep the worst aspects of EU membership. Britain will be humbled in the eyes of the world, having tried to recover its independence and been faced down. The largest popular vote in our history will be disregarded, and the nation that exported representative government exposed as an oligarchy. Plus – and I know this sounds almost trivial next to those calamities, but it matters to me – the Conservative Party might never recover.” [Daniel Hannan MEP, in the Daily Telegraph]
Update, 1 April 2019
Incredibly, Liz Truss, who only became an MP on her back, is now spoken of as a potential Conservative prime minister! This is madness!
@BBCr4today Liz Truss was on Radio 4 this morning and was simply dreadful. For a cabinet minister it was embarrassing. What on earth have we become when these mediocrities are running our country? #LizTruss#brexit
— capitano coffee #NHSBlueheart 💙 (@capitanocoffee) April 1, 2019
Liz Truss: Tory leadership candidate: Just imagine; Prime Minister Liz Truss: God forbid, politics can’t foist this Tory dimwit as the country’s leader😳🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪can it?😱😱
Well, now we know that, in between 2019 and now, Britain had to endure 3 years of shambolic “Boris” Johnson, followed by 6 weeks of Liz Truss, “ably” supported by Woollyhead Trussbanger (Kwasi Kwarteng), who together managed to tip the UK into a downward economic spiral in only a few weeks.
Now we have diminutive Indian former money-juggler, Rishi Sunak, as “Prime Minister”. This is not looking good.
I have interrupted the drafting of a far more significant blog post to comment on matters arising from and matters around the resignation of Nigel Farage from UKIP, announced today.
Nigel Farage and UKIP
It is perhaps the conventional wisdom to regard Nigel Farage as a hugely–skilled politician who made UKIP into a major force in British politics. My own view is rather different.
I see Farage as an articulate, fairly intelligent fellow, not very ideological beyond an ingrained free-marketism. Certainly not a great or even wide-ranging thinker. Farage was leader of UKIP (founded 1993) from 1997 to 2016. On the one hand, Farage mobilized and organized UKIP sufficiently to gain, at peak, 24 MEPs and 2 Conservative MP defectors. On the other hand, in 25 years of operation and 19 years under Farage, UKIP never came close to having a new UKIP MP elected anywhere (mainly the fault of the British FPTP electoral system, so be it).
UKIP (as I tweeted and blogged for years) peaked in 2014. Since then it has been on the downward slope. Farage saw that and jumped ship, first giving up the leadership, then getting new and presumably lucrative work as radio talk host on LBC and as a general talking head.
Now Farage has resigned from UKIP because he says that it is becoming a single-issue party obsessed by Islam or Islamism. He also thinks that the new UKIP leader is obsessed with the idea of linking up with “Tommy Robinson” and his large band of followers. Farage’s view is mired in irony though: if there has ever been a one-issue party (or maybe two connected issues) it is UKIP, with its emphases on exit from the EU and mass immigration.
Farage’s own view seems to be that he prefers immigration (so long as notionally “high-skilled”) from India than from EU states. Despite the influx to the UK of low-wage Lithuanians and others, and also Roma Gypsy thieves and freeloaders, that is just mad, or at best very wrongheaded. After all, “race is the root, culture is the flower”.
UKIP’s Electoral Chances
As I have blogged several times, I assess UKIP’s electoral chances as close to zero. At electoral peak in 2014, UKIP might have had several MPs elected, had there been a General Election that year. As it was, the 2015 General Election saw UKIP miss the bus. Its (in round figures) nearly 4M votes (12.6% of the overall vote) were insufficient to win any individual seat, because spread evenly among English and Welsh constituencies.
Any linkage with Tommy Robinson might revivify UKIP to some extent, but in my view not enough to do well electorally. Most of Robinson’s supporters vote UKIP anyway, in all likelihood.
Down The Line
It is possible that, if Brexit either does not happen or happens in a patently false way, then UKIP might do better, but it is not the party for any radical or revolutionary new start for the UK. “Robinson’s” noisy beerswillers will contribute little to UKIP, which I think will still pretty much disappear by 2022 at latest.
Further thoughts, 8 December 2018
UKIP was a major reason why the BNP (which until 2010 often did better than UKIP in elections) failed to take off in the 2005-2010 period. The BNP, though somewhat crude, was a genuine social-national party, not (as was or is UKIP) a partly-fake conservative-nationalist party. The attitude of, eg, the BBC, made that clear. UKIP members were and still are welcome on the Daily Politics show (or whatever it is now called), Question Time etc. The BNP was only allowed on to be trashed or when law and regulation prescribed, mainly during election run-up times.
There were positive aspects to UKIP when it was a live party:
UKIP raised the profile of nationalism in the UK;
UKIP raised the subject of mass immigration into the UK and the EU, and because UKIP had a platform on msm TV, radio and Press, was able to awake some slumbering people to it and the consequential dangers of it;
UKIP may have been the catalyst for the EU Referendum. Even if Brexit is defeated or denied (overtly or not) the national debate has once more awakened many not only to the EU’s faults, but to migration-invasion etc.
Notes
UKIP membership, at one time around 40,000, now stands officially at 23,000 and is believed to be in very steep decline.
I came late to the Kate Osamor party. I had vaguely heard the name. One of the blacks that Jeremy Corbyn considers are worthy of ministerial office (though until Corbyn-Labour’s electoral success, only shadow-ministerial). The newspaper stories about “MP’s son charged with drug dealing” etc caught my eye only peripherally. In the past week, however, the trickles and leaks increased to a flood, as the dam burst.
The facts:
Kate Osamor was elected for the very safe Labour seat of Edmonton in 2015;
Kate Osamor MP employed her son, one Ish [Ishmael] Osamor, now 29, in her Parliamentary office, on a salary believed to be between £40,000 and £50,000;
“Ish” Osamor’s job is as Senior Communications Officer (get that— “Senior“…);
Kate Osamor’s total staffing costs for her office were over £145,000 in 2017-2018 (for? Unspecified. Another family member? Uncle Remus? We do not know);
Ishmael Osamor was, before sentence, a councillor in the Borough of Haringey (which is not a completely unpaid post: many councillors get generous expenses as well as an “allowance” which in some cases can be tens of thousands of pounds per year); in fact, “Ish” Osamor was a “Cabinet member” of the council, which means that he got extra money, probably a fairly generous “allowance” amounting to a salary;
Ishmael Osamor was arrested and charged with the drug supply offences in September 2017, before he was elected as a councillor! Banana republic UK! Words fail…;
Ishmael Osamor was convicted in September 2018 of possession of drugs with intent to supply and received the (to many, ludicrously lenient) sentence of 200 hours of “community service” (picking up litter etc), and £400 costs; even the sentencing judge said that 3-4 years imprisonment “would be the usual sentence”…;
Kate Osamor wrote to the trial judge in September 2018 requesting leniency for her convicted son; she claimed more recently that she had no idea until a week ago that her son was even on trial! In other words, she lied straight out;
Kate Osamor was doorstepped by a reporter from The Times; she responded by telling him that she “should have come down here with a bat and smashed your face in”, followed by “fuck off”. She then threw a bucket of water over him and made a malicious complaint of stalking against him to the local police;
Kate Osamor finally resigned as Shadow Secretary of State for International Development;
Latest news is that she intends to stay on as MP, and that her son is still en poste as “Senior Communications Officer”;
Kate Osamor repeatedly tried to edit and censor her Wikipedia page, as a result of which Wikipedia barred her from editing;
In other Osamor family news, Kate Osamor’s mother has just been elevated to the joke “peerage” as a “baroness” in the House of Lords! She was nominated by Jeremy Corbyn on behalf of the Labour Party.
The Kate Osamor Scandal: Wider Issues Arising
I have often tweeted (before Twitter expelled me at the behest of the Zionist cabal) and blogged about the poor quality of MPs (and “peers” for that matter) now. I often wonder just how low the quality-level can fall. Parliament always had on its benches (especially the green-leather ones) a few frauds, mountebanks and charlatans, from Horatio Bottomley on (before him, too). However, the bulk of MPs used to be at least decently mediocre, with a few genuine stars here and there. The Commons is now full of people who not only would find it hard to have a decent career or job outside, but in many cases have proven that!
Let us look at this case (to examine all the deadheads in the Commons —and now the Lords— would take far too long). There are also numerous MPs who have abused the expenses system, in effect defrauded the people: Nadine Dorries and Iain Dunce Duncan Smith, to name just two. Smith claimed for his wife’s “salary” for years even though she never turned up to do a day’s work! Nadine Dorries claimed for the maximum she could at all times and even made faked claims for a generous “salary” for her effectively unqualified two daughters, one of whom also lived in a rented luxury apartment paid for out of Nadine Dorries’ expenses and supposedly for the MP’s use! This blog post is, however, not the place for all that.
It appears from Wikipedia etc that Kate Osamor was born in 1968 and, after having read “Third World Studies” at West Ham Technical Institute (renamed Polytechnic of East London in 1989 and, since 1992, the University of East London), “worked for The Big Issue, a magazine sold by homeless people.[9] She then worked for 15 years in the NHS; she was a GP practice manager before becoming an MP.” [Wikipedia].
If that is true, she worked in the NHS from 2000-2015. [edited October 2019:Wikipedia now says that Kate Osamor was studying from 2003, graduating in 2006]. So she spent 11 years at the Big Issue? Or was she breeding in those years? We do not know.
[Update, 12 December 2018: a more recent edit of Kate Osamor’s Wikipedia entry says that in fact she was a practice manager for only 2 years, and some kind of “executive assistant” or clerk for 9 years, making 11, rather than 15, years in toto in the NHS. So that leaves 15 years unaccounted for…].
[The chronology of Kate Osamor’s life, and especially her work background, seems very unclear, on the face of it. Suspicious?]
Now, what about Kate Osamor’s mother, the recently-elevated “baroness”? She seems to have spent her time in the UK (having arrived, age unspecified, from her native Nigeria) agitating for what amounts to black power (eg defending those charged with the savage Broadwater Farm riots) and based in a law centre in the Haringey area. Well, not all her time: she also produced several children. Now she styles herself “Martha, Baroness Osamor, of Tottenham in the London Borough of Haringey, and of Asaba in the Republic of Nigeria.” Those whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first make mad, it is said. That is what UK society now is— mad.
Let’s not forget “Ish” Osamor. I have no idea what kind of academic or work background he may have, but I doubt that it all amounts to very much, and he has been “working” for his mother in Westminster, we are told, since 2015, when he would have been 25 or 26. £40,000 or even £50,000 p.a.: not bad for a twenty-something with, as it seems, little or no experience of any work.
We are talking about the legislature of what is still one of the most important countries of the world. It is now packed with completely unqualified, uncultured, unsuitable rubbish.
The Effect on Labour Party Electoral Chances
“Corbyn is always surrounded by a pack of black or brown women.” So I have heard here and there. That does mirror what is or has been my impression. The Jews, at least most of them, hate Corbyn because he is anti-Zionist (“they” say he is “anti-Semitic”), whereas I favour his anti-Zionism, though it is weakened by his lip-service re. the “holocaust” fable and his unwillingess to come right out against the Jewish Zionist lobby in the UK.
On the other hand, it is clear that Corbyn’s core support comes from the “blacks and browns” and also from those who could be described as “politically-correct” and/or those whose ideology could be described by the title of the 1920s pamphlet “Left-wing Communism, An Infantile Disorder” [which can also be translated as the slightly different-meaning “…a Disease of Childhood”, but no matter].
On Twitter, there have been thousands of tweets supporting Kate Osamor and many urging her return to the Shadow Cabinet! All the idiots such as faux-revolutionary Owen Jones are supporting her, because they say that a drugs offence is a minor matter, that her lies etc (not to mention nepotism) are not worthy of criticism and that she had every right to tell a reporter to “fuck off”, or to say that she should be bashing in his head with a bat, and to throw water on him. Well, I myself dislike today’s so-called “journalists”, after having been doorstepped by the Daily Mail in 2016 the day after the Jew-Zionists procured my disbarment, but I just told the little round-skulled creature to get lost. He did.
The point is that the Owen Jones’s of this world will accept almost everything that a pseudo-socialist black woman MP does, because her identity makes her immune.
I expect that the bulk of the Corbyn-Labour ranks will support Kate Osamor and the others like her around Corbyn. One thinks of Dawn Butler and, a fortiori, Diane Abbott. However, beyond right-on Twitter, beyond the Westminster bubble, beyond London, there are millions and millions of people, especially white English and Welsh and Irish people (some Scots too; as to the rest, is it something in the water? The Scots have their faux-nationalist SNP as a security blanket, I suppose) who look at these deadheads around Corbyn and think “wait a moment…I want rid of the Conservative Party, but Labour is as alien in its own way, maybe more alien…”.
The ethnic minority women (mainly women, but not entirely: Clive Lewis MP –etc– too, and he supports Kate Osamor…of course…) around Corbyn must be worth a million votes —maybe each!— to the Conservatives. They are a major millstone round the neck of Labour, electorally. True, there are others, not black or brown, who are also completely unsuitable, such as Angela Rayner. I am talking about the overall impression given to the voters. It is not good.
I still think that Labour has a good chance of becoming the major party in the Commons after a general election in 2019, though without a majority. Labour has little chance of a majority however unpopular the Conservatives are, because of the way the 650 constituencies are composed. After 2022, the cut-down Commons of 600 constituencies will make a Labour majority even less likely. Hung Parliaments may well be the norm now. That makes social nationalist growth a good possibility.
I think that, especially as white English/British people, we have to look seriously now at Parliament as it is, and those in it, and consider whether it can be reformed, or whether it needs to be removed in its present form and content.
“It can not of been easy“? I hope that no reader of this blog is so ill-educated as to require the correction (“it cannothave been easy”). What is genuinely frightening is that nonsense people such as Kate Osamor (with or without drugdealing, freeloading sons or uncles Remus) might be ruling us within a few years, or even a few months. I suppose that it is unlikely that Kate Osamor will very soon now resume her position as a member of the Shadow Cabinet, but just consider how far into the pit Labour (and we, as a nation) have fallen, that this ignorant, semi-literate, foul-mouthed, violent and drug-connected (not to mention non-European) woman was ever considered to be suitable to occupy a place in the Shadow Cabinet! Such individuals should not even be MPs!
The “useful idiots” in academia etc are still supporting Kate Osamor! Look at this one, a white woman (or “he/she”?) , a “Research Support Officer” at a UK university, but who seems not only to be obsessed by blacks and their supposed merits, but who, in her Twitter profile, describes herself as a “Black Atlanticist”!
@KateOsamor is a hero of the grandest proportions. Shame on those that would condemn her for continuing to occupy a council property (as is her right). My grandparents’ generation was able to thrive thanks to social housing. We need to build more to ensure sustainable futures.
Leave aside the social housing point, but “a hero of the greatest proportions”? I say that “those whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first make mad”…the UK?
“Idle Thoughts of An Idle Fellow”…
Is Kate Osamor on good terms with fellow black Labour MP Fiona Onasanya? Did Fiona ever buy her stuff from “Ish”?
“Ish” Osamor has now vowed to become an “anti-drugs” campaigner! Hey, clever move! That could be a “nice little earner”! It might even develop into a quango/taxpayer-funded career…What clever little [n******] “Ish” and his freeloading mama, Kate, are!
Well, we now know that the House of Commons is not going to be cut down to 600 MPs, not in time for the expected 2024 General Election anyway.
At date of writing, Kate Osamor is still a Labour Party MP, though her chances of higher office are now minimal. Corbyn is gone, and has even been deselected as Labour candidate for Islington, and Keir Starmer will not appoint Kate Osamor to anything even if Labour does triumph in 2024.
Update, 20 September 2025
Well, she is still there, still pulling it in via pay, expenses, freebies etc:
At time of writing, we cannot escape talk of “Brexit”: the May “plan” or “deal” (i.e. Brexit In Name Only), “No Deal Brexit” (real Brexit), “Citizens’ Vote” aka “Second Referendum” (no Brexit, and rubberstamped via a plebiscite of stampeded and fearful voters) etc.
We have seen a plethora of statistical analyses, forecasts, assertions, particularly from the better-funded “Remain” side, as to the economic effect of various types of Brexit. There has been less attention paid to the socio-political effects. In addition, it may be that the wood is becoming obscure, obscured by the trees.
My View
Perhaps I should proclaim my own viewpoint first of all: the UK joined the EEC (supposedly) as a way of trading freely within the bloc. EEC became EC, various add-ons came into effect, then there was Maastricht, after which the EC became the EU, all without the peoples of the various “EU” states ever having had a say, except in Ireland, Denmark and France (which held referenda). In Denmark, two referenda had to be held before the “right” result was obtained; in France, there was a 50.8% vote in favour, rather lower than the UK’s Leave majority vote (52%, or for pedants, 51.89%) in the UK’s 2016 Referendum.
The EU has become a dictatorial, oppressive and repressive bloc, largely under the control or very strong influence of the Jew-Zionist element. Its “holocaust” “denial” laws echo the laws against heresy or blasphemy in the Europe of the late Middle Ages and Renaissance. From being a bloc of European race and culture, it has gradually been subverted by transnational finance-capitalism, Zionism etc, and has attempted to continue with the Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan, in other words the destruction of European race and culture and the “Great Replacement” of Europeans (i.e. of…us) by those of backward race and culture. Thus we saw Angela Merkel inviting migration-invasion by “blacks and browns” under the cloak of being “refugees” (which few actually were or are). This was deliberate, not the “mistake” many imagined. Merkel is a Charlemagne (Coudenhove-Kalergi) Prize-winner!
In the words of Coudenhove-Kalergi himself:
“The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today’s races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian–Negroidrace of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals.”
The above would in fact spell the end of Europe as a positive evolutionary force. Europe would go the way, indeed, of the ancient Egyptians and others— become decadent, mixed-race; finally, both race and culture disappearing, leaving behind only half-understood monuments, relics and ruined buildings, and a degenerate race crawling over the ruins.
As for those who have influence and control in and over the EU, we see a bunch of freeloading hypocrites, Jew-Zionists and doormats for Zionism, including the now-dead paedophile Leon Brittan, Nick Clegg, “lord” Neil Kinnock (and let’s not forget his grasping wife “lady” Glenys…) etc etc.
The EU is not “Europe”, but a caricature of it.
For several reasons and including all of the above, I came down on the Leave side in the 2016 Referendum.
The 2016 Referendum
Whatever may be said about “lies” and “fake news” (and there was at least as much on the Remain side as on that of Leave), the vote was honestly counted and the result was, in round figures, 52% Leave, 48% Remain. Britain voted to leave the EU, and it matters not at all that a certain proportion failed to vote at all, or that 48% is “nearly” half, or that it was “so close” as to be a draw (a particularly pathetic argument in a country with Britain’s First Past The Post traditions and voting system).
The Years Since the 2016 Referendum
David Cameron-Levita had complacently assumed that Remain would win the Referendum easily. He was as out of touch on that as he was generally. Clueless. Once the Referendum produced the “wrong” result, I assumed (it turns out correctly) that the ZOG/NWO conspiracy would do what it has done in previous cases (in other countries), which is to hold another vote or to make sure that Brexit became meaningless.
The British public has now been subjected to 2-3 years of fear-propaganda to soften it up for either “Brexit In Name Only” or a so-called “final vote” (aka “people’s vote”), i.e. a Second Referendum which will, they hope, produce the right result, i.e. Remain.
Part of all that is the notion that Leave voters were idiots or at least not as educated as Remain voters (a doubtful proposition) and that they did not really understand why they were voting Leave.
My Views About That
Most people who voted Leave in 2016 did so partly because the EU has become a tyrannical octopus and/or because the UK has been flooded by low-wage labour and also riff-raff thieves and parasites such as Roma Gypsy clans from countries now in the EU such as Bulgaria, Romania etc.
Many also voted Leave as a proxy for voting against the System political parties, and in particular the Conservative Party with its evil attacks on the disabled etc and its general faux-“austerity” (for the poor only), trashing of public services etc; the LibDems too, with their craven and self-seeking support for the Conservative government 2010-2015, and their support for mass immigration. Not that the Labour Party was not a target too. Many Labour seats were heavily Leave, especially in the North of England, where the Pakistani Muslim rape gangs were humoured by Labour for so long. That may have nothing to do logically or officially with the issues in the Referendum, but in the real world, there were many reasons, valid in their own way, for voting Leave. People “wanted their country back”. The Referendum was a way to make the System listen for once.
What Might Happen if the 2016 Referendum is not Honoured…
Those voting Leave and who still want out now may number 55% of the electorate, 50% or 45%. Estimates vary and opinion polls are unreliable, though it seems unlikely that Leavers are fewer than 45% of the electorate, at lowest. Leavers were always more committed, more angry than Remainers. A vocal but small minority of Remainers have pushed the agenda for nearly 3 years now. You see them on Twitter, mostly the same sorts of people (several but not many types). Pseudo-liberalistic lawyers, “media folk” etc. As for the Jews, while some individual Jews favour Leave, most support Remain. As a group, Jews are for Remain, for the EU and its repressions, against UK national sovereignty, against the real British people.
It should be added that, while most non-UK EU citizens were barred from voting in the 2016 Referendum, Irish (and some other EU) citizens resident in the UK could vote, as could all the ethnic minorities in the UK so long as the voters concerned were resident in the UK and either UK or Commonwealth state citizens.
I leave aside consideration of why Scotland voted Remain: if Scotland thinks that “independence” means leaving the UK but becoming a province of the increasingly-repressive EU (and allowing non-European migration-invasion too) then one can only shake one/s head despairingly. However, if only votes in England in 2016 are taken into account, Leave won by about 55% to 45%. If the votes of ethnic minorities are then taken out, the figure can be estimated to be something like 60% to 40%. In short, Leave was a valid result.
If the Leave vote is dishonoured, however and whyever that happens, there will be a backlash. That backlash may not be only about leaving the EU or remaining in it, but will import other issues: mass migration-invasion, “austerity”, the trashing of public services, pay, the now-punitive “welfare”/DWP system, the crimewave by non-whites (some English too). The 2016 Referendum was about more than the EU simpliciter; the backlash will be the same.
As to what form any backlash will take, “those who live will see”…
Some reading this may also have read my previous blog posts [see Notes, below] about my rather untraditional Bar pupillage in 1992-93, and also about my early post-pupillage days in Bar practice. I thought to write about a few other stray incidents from those times. Humour was rarely entirely absent, though sometimes in the context of events which were, especially for the people advised or represented, taxing and upsetting. I was, of course, in the first six months of my pupillage not allowed to advise or represent, and so was basically a spectator and supernumerary.
Anyway, here is one event that has stuck in my recollection. It is not directly “legal”, but connected to some lawyers I knew.
Neil’s Party
At the time, in 1992, I was very friendly with a young barrister called Neil M. and his charming wife, Helen. Both had been in the same small “Practical Exercises” group at “Bar School” (the Inns of Court School of Law in Gray’s Inn, at the time the only place where aspiring barristers could study and be examined) in 1987-88. Our surnames all started with “M” (Neil and Helen had different surnames at that time, being unmarried; in fact they first met in that little group of 7 or 8 people).
I had gone to the USA (initially in 1989, but somewhat commuted UK/USA in the following few years) and had married a US citizen; I also qualified by exam (and pretty tough it was) at the New York Bar. Neil M. had started pupillage in London and, by 1992, was already a rising barrister at the criminal Bar. Helen, his wife by that time, had left the Bar for the solicitors’ profession. In 1992, when I returned to the UK after one of my sojourns in New Jersey, the country was just going to hold the General Election of that year.
I was not actively political at the time, though I of course despised the System parties. Neil M., on the other hand, was a Labour Party stalwart, a political position which originated from his upbringing in the North West of England: he was the son of an amiable “tankie” Communist (literally so, a member of the C.P.G.B.), whom I met a couple of times in later years.
Neil M. was, I suppose, somewhere in the middle of the Labour Party, ideologically, close to the outlook of John Smith, the Scottish advocate who led Labour for about 20 months until his death in 1994. I should characterize Neil’s outlook as “tribal Labour”; to me that had no greater weight than that of someone who supports this or that football team, or Oxford/Cambridge in the Boat Race. In fact, Neil M. concurred with my view up to a point, saying that I could not understand why people like him were so partisan in favour of a System party; for him it indeed was like “…supporting a football or rugby team; you don’t understand that either!”
I was invited to attend the special election night dinner at the beautifully-refurbished National Liberal Club, once the haunt of Gladstone, Lloyd George and Asquith, later (in the 1970s) the decayed and dilapidated place where the likes of Cyril Smith and Jeremy Thorpe had stayed and behaved badly. By 1992, most members were “non-political” (meaning not Liberal Democrats). Much later yet, in 2001-2002, I was myself a member.
Large TV screens had been set up in the Club dining room, in order to relay the election results from the BBC as they came in.
Older readers will recall that the opinion polls made Labour favourite to win the 1992 General Election. Neil Kinnock was widely expected to become Prime Minister, though later his triumphalist and arguably too-“Labourite” speech at Sheffield was blamed for putting off floating voters:
At any rate, Labour went into the final day and evening confident, a position echoed by many of those at the dinner I attended. In fact, I noted that many were not pro-Labour, but were quieter than the Labour partisans. At my table, I sat near Neil M. and his wife, as well as another barrister, a markedly iconoclastic (and amusing) Jew commercial barrister called Robert L. and his extremely engaging, attractive and articulate wife, a City of London banker, with whom I had an interesting and slightly barbed conversation.
All went well at the dinner until, after midnight, it started to become very obvious that Labour was not going to win the election. The scene in parts of the large Club dining room reminded me of a smarter and English (and far less sexualized) version of Don’s Party, the Australian film about a party which unravels when the expected victory of the Australian Labor Party (in 1969) fails to occur. I left the Club very late but still before most of the diners. I was told later that, after I left, scuffles and the like broke out between mocking “Conservatives” and angry, frustrated and drunken “Labour” partisans.
I myself was highly amused by the outcome of the election, mainly because, to me, it was obvious that most of the Labour MPs in the Shadow Cabinet were a bunch of fakes and/or hypocrites, led by Kinnock himself, a creeping crawling doormat for Zionists, and an apologist for mass immigration and finance-capitalism ameliorated slightly by a Welfare State already beginning to show signs of disappearance.
Neil M. was angry at me (and years later admitted to me that he had come close to hitting me! In the sacred precincts of the Club, at that!). He himself later became a local councillor in Islington and was informally offered the chance to become a Labour MP, but turned down the opportunity on the ground that as a barrister doing very good criminal work, he was making about twice an MP’s salary and needed the money. Years later he ruefully explained that he had thought that MPs lived off their salaries! He had no idea back then that not only did they have very generous expenses (and in many cases cheated badly on those!) as well as the really quite good salary (compared to most people), but also often had offers of lucrative “work” from all sorts of “consultancies” etc. Disguised near (or actual) corruption. Pity that Neil M. did not become a politician in the Westminster monkeyhouse. He would have been a good and conscientious constituency MP.
Final Word
In fact, Labour improved their position in the election, with an extra 42 MPs, though that still left the Conservatives under John Major with an overall majority of 21. It took 5 years before Labour under Tony Blair could sweep away the Conservatives and many of their MPs. Neil Kinnock ceded control of Labour to John Smith and then (after Smith died in office) to Tony Blair.
As for my friends Neil M. and Helen M. (I shall not say too much, to save them from embarrassment, now that the Zionist Jews label me in the msm and on social media as a “far right” “extremist”, “anti-Semite” and “neo-Nazi”), I maintained friendship for another 15 years, and in fact still regard them as quite close friends today, though I have not seen them now for a decade. I always send them a Christmas card (I’m like that, a bit like Jacob and the Angel: I will not let you go until you bless me…).
At time of writing, it appears that Theresa May has seen off an attempt by the “Brexiteers” under Jacob Rees-Mogg to unseat her as Leader of the Conservative Party. The 48 letters necessary (15% of Conservative MPs) have as yet not been received by the Chairman of the 1922 Committee. The present number received is unknown but thought to be somewhere around 30. To my mind, that establishes that
most Conservative MPs have the backbone of a jellyfish;
some Conservative MPs are afraid of doing anything that might precipitate a general election in which many would or might lose their seats;
some Conservative MPs are afraid that, in the absence of any credible challenger to Mrs. May, she would get over 50% of votes straight off and so not only beat off the challenge but (under applicable rules) be safe from challenge until late 2019 or early 2020 (depending on when the MPs were polled).
So we now look at the likely continuation of the Theresa May government at least into mid-2019; but will such a government be able to govern except in the formal sense?
Already (as I predicted), the Democratic Unionists [DUP] have fired warning shots by abstaining from votes and even voting against the Government. They, unsurprisingly, think that Theresa May is going to break —indeed, has already broken— the limited support agreement between the two parties. It seems clear that that inter-party agreement is running out of road. If the DUP does not support the Government, no matter that the DUP commands only 10 MPs, the Government’s legislative programme will be crippled (I am glad to note…). If, in addition to that, Conservative Brexiteers also fail to support the Government, then the Government is helpless.
Now we read that Amber Rudd, a dangerous and stupid woman just brought back into Cabinet by her friend Mrs. May, has said that, if the “deal” agreed between the EU and Mrs. May is not confirmed by the Commons, there might “have to be” a so-called “Final Referendum” on whether the UK remains in or leaves the EU.
So there we have it. It has happened before in other EU states: the people vote unexpectedly against the wishes of the EU, so the EU makes sure that there is another vote which changes the popular vote result. In the UK, there has been nonstop fear propaganda for two and a half years. Of course there may now be a popular majority for Remain! Vast sums have been spent frightening the life out of the British people and thousands of Remain whiners have spent their lives on social media backing that fear campaign.
What I take away from the above is that, for social nationalists, we are pretty close to having to say goodbye to the politics of constitutional democracy. Even when a limited measure of national sovereignty is clawed back, “they” make sure, by money, by msm and social media propaganda and by manipulation of the news agenda etc, that the popular will is over-ridden. Combine that with the high birth rate of the non-whites in the cities and you can see that traditional politics is largely a waste of time for us.
As for the present government, the chances are that, in the absence of a majority, it will soon cease to function as a legislating entity and will live out its remaining time as a purely executive one. That makes a Labour government even more likely at some point in the next few years. Apres? Le deluge…
Update, 15 December 2018
“It’s over. If Brexit happens at all – and for the first time I’m beginning to think it won’t – it will be on terms that keep the worst aspects of EU membership. Britain will be humbled in the eyes of the world, having tried to recover its independence and been faced down. The largest popular vote in our history will be disregarded, and the nation that exported representative government exposed as an oligarchy. Plus – and I know this sounds almost trivial next to those calamities, but it matters to me – the Conservative Party might never recover.” [Daniel Hannan MEP, writing in the Daily Telegraph]
Update, 22 December 2018
On 12 December 2018, the requisite number of letters having been received by the Secretary of the 1922 Committee, a No-Confidence vote was held. Theresa May was backed by 200 Conservative Party MPs; 117 voted against her. This equates to a split of 63%-37%. Theresa May is now safe from challenge until December 2019 (but may resign before that date).
I am often to be found ranting about the lack of education (in the real sense), culture or plain commonsense in the connected worlds of politics, journalism and law, as well as at the steep decline in quality in those areas and generally. Thus it was with a cynical sneer that I read the statements made by Cabinet ministers (!) this past week and in other recent weeks. Take a look at this piece from The Guardian (a pro-Remain article, but leave that aside).
“I hadn’t quite understood the full extent of this, but if you look at the UK and if you look at how we trade in goods, we are particularly reliant on the Dover-Calais crossing.” [Brexit Secretary, Dominic Raab];
“My wife would say [my Lego collection is] far too large, but I find Lego therapeutic … Everybody who does any difficult or stressful job needs a way to switch off. We all have different ways. Mine is Lego.” [Culture Secretary (!), Jeremy Wright];
“I freely admit that when I started this job, I didn’t understand some of the deep-seated and deep-rooted issues that there are in Northern Ireland. I didn’t understand things like when elections are fought, for example, in Northern Ireland, people who are nationalists don’t vote for unionist parties and vice versa.” (!)[Karen Bradley, Northern Ireland Secretary].
There are hundreds of other examples from the last 8 years of total incompetence. Iain Dunce Duncan Smith alone contributed dozens, though his metier is more in complete executive incompetence mixed with graft and outright fraud. He may never have been promoted beyond Lieutenant in the Guards, but he did manage to learn the Guards officers’ knack of sounding authoritative despite complete ignorance and despite being as thick as two short planks.
One of the more honest (perhaps— some disagree) of recent Conservative Party MPs, Johnny Mercer, not long ago called the Theresa May government-of-fools “a shitshow”! Blunt Army language, but can anyone now disagree?…
Things are really coming to a head now with this sorry excuse for a government. Either Brexit is going to be in name only, or it will happen but under conditions of chaotic incompetence, thanks to this government’s inability to do its job.
It really does say something about the Theresa May government that until his self-interested resignation recently, the “great intellectual” in it was supposed to be Boris Johnson, who has not once been able to do competently any one of the jobs given to him by reason of his privileged background. This is a man whose idea of appearing intelligent and cultured is (or was, until people generally started to laugh openly at it) quoting bits of rote-learned Latin and Greek and dog-whistling classical-history soundbites. The amazing thing is that, until very recently, Johnson’s self-publicized image as “Prime Minister in Waiting” was actually taken seriously by the msm and so the masses. Indeed, few were willing to point out that Johnson was a walking self-parody, with his classical crammer-college allusions and his pathetic am-dram reprise of Winston Churchill, right down to the gruff comments and slight stoop. He even copied Churchill’s gait sometimes!
Well, thank God for small mercies: it now seems that even Boris Johnson himself has now accepted that he will never be Conservative Party leader and so will never be PM either. Only about 20 or 30 MPs would back him and so he would not be in the top two places. About 5th-ranked, probably.
Most MPs can scarcely be called mediocre, let alone competent. That applies equally to Labour, but this Government stands or falls on its own record. Labour has every chance of being largest party in the Commons quite soon, perhaps by some date in 2019.
The situation now seems to be that the Brexit-in-name-only scenario may not pass the Commons. The Democratic Unionists [DUP] will not accept Northern Ireland being treated differently from the rest of the UK, and if forced to that will simply oppose the Government (or abstain) on all other legislation. Collapse of Government not long after.
Alternatively, if a real no-deal Brexit happens, unprepared for and resulting, in the words of Johnny Mercer MP, in “a shitshow” economically, then a situation of both economic and social turmoil might be brought about within months.
Social nationalism can only prosper from now on.
Update, 20 June 2019
Well, on rereading this for the first time since writing it, and because I noticed that it had had a few hits recently, I have to admit that I underestimated the level of stupidity of the Conservative Party MPs and membership. The exceptional (crazy) Westminster politics of the hour have brought about a crazy result (probably): Boris Johnson now looks quite likely to become Conservative leader and so, by default, Prime Minister next month.
Update, 3 December 2023
In the words of Macmillan, “Events, dear boy”… Events and “Conservative” MPs conspired to get “Boris” Johnson elected (by Con Party members) as Con Party leader, and so Prime Minister. As we now know, he then won the 2019 General Election and, on resignation in 2022, was replaced by absurd and vacant “ho”, Liz Truss, who in turn was replaced after about 6-7 weeks by Indian money-juggler Rishi Sunak.
Despite having underestimated Johnson’s chances of becoming Prime Minister, I think that the original blog post stands up quite well.
As to the others mentioned in that original post, half-Jew bully Dominic Raab is standing down as MP in 2024, after being found guilty of bullying civil servants, and after 13-14 years as MP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominic_Raab.
Jeremy Wright was sacked (by Johnson) after only a year in post as Culture Secretary, but is still an MP and fairly likely to remain one unless the swing to Labour in 2024 is huge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Wright.
Karen Bradley was dismissed from Cabinet in 2019 but remains an MP and, like Wright, has a notionally very safe seat.
Ian Robert Millard 