Category Archives: Party Politics

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.