Party Politics, Uncategorized

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

18 Comments

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

Conservatives

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Likely number of seats: from 400 to 425

UKIP

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

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

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

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

Likely number of seats: 0

Liberal Democrats

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

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

Likely number of seats: about 12

Labour

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

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

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

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

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

Likely number of seats: about 150

Other matters

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

Conclusion

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

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

Further Thoughts (written 22 July 2018)

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Woodcock, Barrow and Furness and the General Election 2017

17 Comments

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

John Woodcock

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barrow and Furness: political analysis

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion and Prediction

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

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

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

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

Update (15 July 2018)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes:

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

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

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

Further Update (18 July 2018):

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

ds3 

Further update (25 January 2019)

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

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

Note:

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

Update, 1 May 2019

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

Update, 8 May 2019

I missed this, Woodcock’s latest misadventure…

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

Update, 8 October 2019

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

Update, 28 October 2019

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

ds5

Update, 5 November 2019

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

Update, 27 April 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Update, 6 August 2020

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

Update, 20 June 2023

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

Deadhead MPs, elections, MPs, Party Politics, Uncategorized

Rochdale, Simon Danczuk and the General Election of 2017

6 Comments

Simon Danczuk

It has been announced that Simon Danczuk will not be permitted to stand again for Labour in the Rochdale constituency which he won in 2010 and retained in 2015 (with a greatly-increased majority). He has been suspended from the Labour Party since December 2015. Danczuk is said to be considering both legal action against the Labour Party and standing as Independent.

There is scarcely any point in listing in great detail the various defaults which led to that suspension. The egregious nature of the now 50-y-o Danczuk’s “private” life has been common currency for years and encompasses “sexting” to a 17-y-o girl, having sex with a recent Twitter acquaintance on the desk of Danczuk’s constituency office, several rather public affairs, numerous other activities and violent fights with his ghastly wife, Karen (failed cafe-owner, poster of Twitter and Facebook “selfies”, possibly the least-competent councillor Rochdale ever had and would-be “reality” TV “star”); also an arrest for domestic violence at his holiday home in Spain. That is before one even looks at his record for Parliamentary expenses-claiming, over-claiming and cheating:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Danczuk#Expenses_investigation

Danczuk’s overall expenses claims, though high, are, it seems, not as high as those made by the highest-claiming few dozen MPs.

It seems, also, that Danczuk’s CV, like those of so many MPs, is a work of semi-fantasy, obscuring as much as it reveals about his various unimpressive pre-political jobs and dodgy business dealings.

Despite all of the above (and rumours of yet worse private behaviour by him and his “estranged” wife, whom he employed –and is said to employ even now– as a supposed assistant, funded by more Parliamentary expenses claims), Danczuk is said to be a popular MP in his constituency. That would seem to be borne out by his election results.

Rochdale Constituency

Rochdale has been held several times by all three main System parties in the past century, though the last Conservative victory was in 1955. In more recent years, Rochdale has been held about equally by Labour and by the Liberals or Liberal Democrats.

Looking at the last two General Elections, Danczuk won the seat in 2010 from the Liberal Democrat who had achieved a narrow victory in 2005. In the 2010 contest, Danczuk’s vote was 36.4%, as against the LibDem’s 34.4%. The Conservative came third on 18.1%. The National Front (4.9%) and UKIP (4.4%) lost their deposits, as did two minor candidates.

In 2015, notwithstanding the gathering clouds of scandal, Danczuk and Labour achieved 46.1%. UKIP, represented by a Pakistani Muslim, received an 18.8% vote. The Conservative Party’s candidate, another Pakistani Muslim, received 17%. The LibDems, following the trend of their national vote-collapse, received 10.3%. The Green Party (3%), National Front (1%) and two minor candidates all lost their deposits (though “Rochdale First” beat both the Greens and the NF, receiving 3.4%).

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

Analysis

I assume that Danczuk will fail in any legal action that he may take against Labour and so will be standing as an Independent. Labour may select as candidate a Pakistani Muslim to help retain the seat. Recent polling makes plain that the only main demographic still supporting Labour is the ethnic minority one. Rochdale has a high ethnic-minority electorate.

The question is whether usual-Labour voters will stick with the Labour Party or with Danczuk, their Labour MP from 2010 through 2015. It may be that the vote will split almost equally. Danczuk may be helped by Labour’s slide in popularity nationally. On the other hand, Corbyn’s anti-Zionism may help Labour in a heavily-Muslim constituency. Another imponderable factor is how much (if at all) the scandals will affect Danczuk’s vote.

The LibDem candidate is one Andy Kelly, who stood in 2015. He will be handicapped by his party’s pro-EU stance in a constituency which voted 60-40 Leave. Under “normal” circumstances, the LibDems might expect some help from disaffected former Conservative voters, but the expected Labour/Danczuk-as-Independent split may let the Conservative through the middle and that would encourage Conservative-leaning voters to stay loyal. There again, the deflation of the UKIP bubble will inevitably help the Conservative candidate.

In 2015, the combined UKIP and Conservative vote amounted to almost 36%, about 10 points behind Labour (46.1%). However, if even half of the 2015 UKIP vote goes Conservative, the 2017 Conservative vote might amount to as much as 30%. If, again, official Labour loses half or more of its votes to an Independent Danczuk, then each of those two might end up with somewhere around 20%-30%. In other words, the Conservatives have a serious chance of winning Rochdale for the first time since 1955.

Prediction

Assuming that Simon Danczuk does stand as Independent, my prediction is:

  1. Conservative;
  2. Simon Danczuk (as Independent);
  3. Labour;
  4. LibDem

Update and thoughts (written 22 July 2018).

Well, I got my specific prediction quite wrong despite getting the analysis mainly right. In the event (see link below), Labour won easily in 2017, with 58% of the vote, up from 46% in 2015. The Conservative vote share increased even more: 17% in 2015, 28.4% in 2017. The LibDem vote share slumped again, from 10% to 8%, while UKIP crashed from 18.8% in 2015 to 3.3% in 2017.

As for Simon Danczuk, without the Labour label, he sank like a stone, doing far worse than I thought he would: 1.8% (883 votes). He lost his deposit and stalked out of the counting-hall before the official declaration. He came 5th out of 6 candidates. Since then he has become an unperson, not even using his Twitter account, though his ghastly wife Karen still tweets to those middle-aged and elderly men North of Watford who still apparently find her attractive from afar. Less intelligent by far than her ex-husband, she still seems to think of herself as a public figure of some kind. Both Danczuks are now either unemployed or doing basic work somewhere. The ex-MP has apparently been seen at his local Jobcentre…

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

Update, 19 July 2019

I understand that the disgraced ex-MP is now involved with something to do with Bangladesh, though based in the UK. I think that there is an office which finds ex-MPs paid work. Even Lembit Opik has been employed in a few places!

As for rodent-smiled Karen Danczuk, there are still apparently legions of men, mostly in the North, mostly aged 60+, who think that she looks nice, and some are now paying for her to twirl around online; I read that she strips for tips, and even sells some of those sad men her own cast-off lingerie! The funniest thing is that she still “signs” her tweets “KD”, as if she is an important figure whose staff usually tweet on her account, the “KD” indicating that the would-be “celebrity” VIP is tweeting in person, as for example Putin does at times (as “VP”). From the sublime to the ridiculous! In her case, though, “KD” is of course on every tweet (the last time I looked, anyway, a few months ago). Unemployed “slappers” don’t have “staff”…

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-6825949/Selfie-queen-Karen-Danczuk-35-says-charging-fans-racy-photos-empowering.html

Party Politics

Labour’s Slide is Social Nationalism’s Best Chance Yet in England

2 Comments

In recent weeks, the decline of established or System political parties across the “West”(together with the System mainstream media that supports them) has become common currency among commentators. One does not have have to look at the United States, France etc to see that the narrative has resonance; it is happening in the UK too.

In Britain, a General Election is about to be held, an election which has only one serious contender for the mantle of government. In England, only the Conservative Party has any chance of forming a government. The bookmakers have that chance at something like 1/30 (thirty to one on) for a majority government, whereas Labour is around 40/1 against.

Day by day, new blows hit Labour: dozens of MPs quitting or about to quit; sitting MPs openly disrespecting the party leader, Corbyn; opinion polls showing Labour between 23% and 30% (mostly about 25%) with Conservatives on 40% to 50%; other polls showing how far Labour has fallen in its previous heartlands.

The latest polls from Scotland show the Conservatives on about 30%, second to the still-dominant SNP, but with Labour at perhaps only 18% (on some showings, as low as 15%). In Wales, the figures are equally stark: Con 30%, Labour 20%. We have not seen such in our lifetimes. I was born in 1956 and for most of the years since, until very recently, Labour dominated the heavily-industrialized regions of Scotland and Wales. The heavy industry is now mostly departed, along with the industrial proletariat. The volatile “precariat” which replaced it was still willing to vote Labour in return for social security, free education and the NHS. That bought or traditional loyalty and fealty is now rapidly breaking down. We see not even the possibility, but the probability that the Conservatives will push Labour into second place in Wales and third place in Scotland.

In England, there is, as yet, no “third party” to challenge the two main System parties. UKIP is a dead duck, becoming daily more akin to the Monster Raving Loony Party or one of the smaller faux-nationalist groups such as the English Democrats which are, in effect, offshoots of provincial Conservative Party constituency associations. UKIP built up slowly to a peak in 2014. since when it has steadily deflated. It will win no MPs in the General Election of 2017 and will slowly submerge into oblivion.

The Liberal Democrats are now reprising their role as the catch-all dustbin for homeless votes and voters. They may get a few seats in the upcoming election, perhaps ending with a small bloc of about 15. However, they cannot be seen as a party going places. Their success would be merely to survive at all.

Labour will be reduced to between 100-200 seats, probably around 150 (out of 650) in the 2017 General Election. Boundary changes before 2022 will then reduce Labour further. It is not now unlikely to see Labour as a party which, within a decade, may disappear entirely or dwindle to a few dozen seats. The only demographic which now favours Labour above Conservative is that of non-whites. That seems to be Labour’s future: a smaller niche party supported mainly by non-whites and public sector workers.

Peter Oborne has said that Conservative support is “a mile wide and an inch deep”. Very true. However, its main weapon is that it has no opposition. This is where social nationalism’s chance comes in. By 2022, the world will be very different. African millions will be heading to Europe, Middle East waves of migrants and/or refugees the same. The European Union may by then have collapsed, or collapsed in effect. There may be nuclear war in the Middle East.

In the socio-economic realm, we see that robotics and automation are taking away more jobs. In the future, even before 2030, that might include jobs formerly thought immune: doctors, lawyers etc. The voices asking for Basic Income might become a clamour.

In the above-mentioned conditions, a real social national movement could and, I believe, can triumph in Europe including the UK, more specifically in England. Identity. National/cultural family. Home. Homeland. Opposition both to Jewish Zionism and to Islamism (the socio-political expression of Islam). Grail Europe not Business Europe. Genetics and robotics in service of the people and its future.

free speech, historical, Reminiscences and Musings, society, Stray memories of life at the English Bar, Uncategorized

Yevgeny Yevtushenko, Darcus Howe and the MSM: Cultural Musings

25 Comments

Introduction

The deaths of two people came to notice particularly in the past week. One person had been a significant cultural influence in the Soviet Union, was world-famous, is still oft-quoted. The other was a West Indian immigrant to the UK, best known for his support for black rioters, gangster criminals and others, as well as his assault on British cultural norms.

The first was Yevgeny Yevtushenko [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yevgeny_Yevtushenko] about whom The Guardian newspaper published this by way of obituary: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/apr/02/yevgeny-yevtushenko-obituary.

The second was one Darcus Howe: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darcus_Howe], about whom the Guardian said this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/02/darcus-howe-writer-broadcaster-and-civil-rights-campaigner-dies-aged-74.

It can surely be seen that even the Guardian was unable to make out Darcus Howe as being a greater cultural figure or a more positive one than Yevtushenko.

Comment and Personal Musing

I knew neither of the two recently deceased. I had heard of Yevtushenko vaguely, en passant, as a child and teenager, about the poet who was able to fill stadia in Russia with fans listening to his declamations. Black and white pictures from Life magazine and books. Later, in my twenties, I knew a few people who had been well-acquainted with Yevtushenko in Moscow. I even met his third wife on a couple of occasions during that time and once swam with her and her children (Yevtushenko’s) in a semi-private wooded beach area in some expensive part of Bournemouth, on England’s southern coast.

I never met Yevtushenko himself, though I heard plenty about him. His private life was messy, not always commendable, but that is hardly unusual in the biographies of poets and artistic people generally. One cannot judge a poet primarily by his private life (think of Byron etc). At a distance, he seemed to me to be a Soviet cultural windvane, able to change direction not so much with the prevailing wind but at the moment before it changed. Thus Yevtushenko was seen by some , e.g. Irina Ratushinskaya [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irina_Ratushinskaya] as an “official poet”, with all the moral compromise and material benefits which that term implied; by others, as a brave and anti-official –even a little bit anti-Soviet– quasi-dissident.

Certainly Yevtushenko was willing to argue even with such as Khrushchev on occasion. He was lucky, perhaps, to have been born in 1932 and not 1922 or 1912. He escaped Stalinism to a large extent. Also, he was born and mainly brought up in Siberia, where (ironically) the Stalinist pressure was slightly less. Having said that, he lived in Moscow from age 18, studied there, was never in political trouble. I once heard privately that his mother had been an informant (“secret co-worker”) for the KGB and went weekly to an address not far from the Lubyanka to receive her stipend, signing for it on a list which had all the other names blanked out via a kind of stencil. Perhaps. That would not imply, however, that Yevtushenko himself was implicated with such work (and as I heard it, his mother only went through the motions anyway, giving little but avoiding conflict).

Certainly, Yevtushenko lived rather well by Soviet and indeed Western material standards. Robert Conquest [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Conquest] described that as “well-rewarded collaboration”. By the 1970s, if not before, he had a house or “dacha” at Peredelkino [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peredelkino] with (I believe I was told), 4 or maybe 5 bedrooms –unheard of luxury in the Soviet Union for all but the highest-regarded citizens. He also had an apartment near the Kremlin with no less than (from memory) 14 rooms (a friend of mine was offered the chance to stay there for a week while it was unoccupied; she returned to London gushing about how wonderful it was and how she had not realized that people in the Soviet Union lived like that!); the apartment had been occupied at one time, I was told, by Beria [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavrentiy_Beria] though Beria did have a mansion in Moscow, perhaps in addition. Yevtushenko also had a house on the Black Sea, situated, I believe, at Yalta.

Yevtushenko is now known for several “soundbites”, in today’s terminology, as much as for his poems: “in Russia, a poet is more than a poet”; and the 1962 lines usually slightly changed to (and improved?) “double and triple the guard on Stalin’s tomb, lest he return….and with him, the past” [http://osaarchivum.org/files/holdings/300/8/3/text/60-4-47.shtml].

Whatever one’s view of Yevtushenko, there is no doubt that he was a significant cultural figure, who personified the changes in the Soviet Union from Stalin’s rule, through the Thaw of the 1950s and early 1960s and on to the retrenchment which led up to Gorbachev, corrupt laxity and then complete collapse. Yevtushenko himself spent his later years living partly in the USA, paid generously by the University of Tulsa (Oklahoma) and the City University of New York (CUNY). A weathervane to the last.

As to Darcus Howe, I know little of him beyond a few items recently read, though I do recall that rather menacing figure on “British” TV from time to time, always promoting the idea that the blacks in the UK had been and were oppressed by white British people and culture.

I cannot imagine that Howe ever contributed much to the UK, though others, in the mainstream media especially, seem to think otherwise. On Twitter, the death of Yevtushenko was like an express train at night, flashing quickly through a country station (Zima Junction?) without stopping. Darcus Howe’s death was trending for far longer. The mainstream TV and radio almost ignored Yevtushenko’s death (and life), while eulogizing about the life of the West Indian rioter and troublemaker. Channel 4, the tax-subsidized “independent” channel, was especially loud in its praises.

Where the msm did notice Yevtushenko’s death, the reports concentrated mainly on his poem “Babi Yar”, about the death of Jews in the Ukraine during the war with Germany. Typical.

The cultural sickness of the West can be seen in the juxtaposition of the two recent deaths and how they have been treated. The time must come when real merit is respected, when people are able to properly discriminate between what is worthwhile and what is not. Most of the existing cultural organizations and faces must be removed.

Party Politics, Uncategorized

The Labour Party’s Decline Continues

13 Comments

My analysis of the past year or more has now been taken up in all quarters of the mainstream media. Almost all now agree on the essential fact, that Labour is now pretty much an irrelevance in British political life. In Scotland, Labour has only 1 Westminster MP out of 59 and 23 Holyrood MSPs out of 129 (and is currently far below even the Conservatives in percentage support terms, around 18%). In Wales, another former stronghold, Labour has 29 out of 60 AMs in Cardiff; in the London Assembly, its most concentrated convention-place of influence, 12 out of 25 MLAs.

Labour has 230 MPs at Westminster (including 1 vacant seat and 1 suspended member –Simon Danczuk–) out of 650, but early indications are that 2020 will see another low: Labour is now around 25% in polling, which might indicate about 200 seats, possibly far fewer. The redrawing of constituency boundaries and reduction of Commons seats to 600 may well leave Labour with as few as 150 MPs. Some even predict 100.

If Labour is left with 100 or even 200 seats out of 600 after 2020, it has ceased to be an alternative government and has become almost a niche player, or one among several non-governing parties.

Should Labour have 200 seats out of 600 after 2020, then it probably cannot form even a minority government, even with SNP and other minor-party support in some form; should Labour have 150 or fewer seats, then even the long-shot of minority government recedes far out of reach. I have blogged previously about what might happen should Scotland secede from the UK: Labour would then have, arguende, 100-200 seats out of 541, a higher percentage than 100-200 out of 600 or 650, but without the 56 vital potentially-supporting SNP MP votes. Permanent Opposition, at best.

Labour’s old support base in the trade-unionized industrial and urban proletariat has dissolved along with that social demographic. The new urban and suburban “precariat” and/or “chavscum” either do not vote at all or prefer to vote elsewhere as the volatile mood takes them. Recent polling indicates that the one demographic now supporting Labour (and only just, at that) is the non-white population. Indeed, with Jeremy Corbyn’s well-known anti-Israel position highlighted, it can be said that Labour’s typical voter profile is that of a “British” Pakistani Muslim.

The recent Stoke Central by-election proves the above proposition. Stoke Central by-election had a turnout of only 38.2% (21,200), but it can be reliably surmised that the organized Labour Pakistani Muslim turnout was far higher, probably above 50%. There are at least 6,000 Pakistani Muslim voters in Stoke Central; at least 3,000 will have voted and (mostly) voted Labour. The Labour Party candidate won by about 2,500 votes. QED.

It cannot be an accident that, whenever Jeremy Corbyn is seen somewhere, visiting a constituency or whatever, he is surrounded by a small crowd of non-white women. Either Labour is playing to its one remaining strength or those are the only local supporters now willing to turn out to welcome Corbyn.

The 3 main strands that now make up Labour (traditional generational-voting people, “Corbynistas”, “Blairite”/”Brownite” pro-Zionist MPs and others) are unravelling. There is now a move to create a “centrist” (pro-Zionist) party which might include the LibDems and some Conservative Party MPs. The previous thought, that keeping “Labour” as a name or “brand” was the key to success, is fading as Labour becomes almost toxic to voters. It is certainly true that a new party of that sort might start off with many MPs: perhaps 100 from Labour, 9 LibDems and however many Conservatives want to put principle before electoral certainty.–probably not the 80 MPs that Anna Soubry has suggested! Half a dozen, perhaps. Still, even 100 MPs would make any new party a player.

A new social nationalist party might catch on like wildfire in former Labour heartlands, but (regrettably) does not as yet exist.

I see no reason to change my analyses of the past nearly two years. Labour is trying to pull in different directions, appeal to different groups of voters on contradictory bases (eg re EU and Brexit) and has no credibility on mass immigration, arguably the major issue which concerns voters. Corbyn is a problem but not the problem. Labour’s failures in 2010 and 2015 prove that.

The conclusion must be that Labour is not offering the policies or leadership that might attract voters. Even if it changed both its overall policy and its leader, Labour would still not succeed, because its credibility is shot, on immigration, on the economy, on competence generally.

Further Thoughts (16 months later, on 25 July 2018):

My analysis remains correct in essence, in my view. Since March 2017, Labour has done far better than I anticipated, but not by reason of its own merit. The more important fact has been the bursting of the bubble for the Conservative Party. Despite much evidence to the contrary, the voters seem to have decided, in the 2010-2015 period, that the Conservatives were “nasty but competent”. The second of these started to die off during 2015 -2017 and now (2018) the public seem to think that “Labour may be incompetent but the Conservatives have been proven to be so”. That is true on immigration, Brexit, crime/law and order, NHS etc. The Conservatives “talk a good game” but have failed to deliver.

I still doubt that Labour can get a Commons majority, even on the present boundaries, which will not change (reducing MP numbers to 600) until 2022. However, Labour has every chance now of forming at least a minority government before 2022, possibly as early as late 2018. I very much doubt that more than 40% of voters favour Labour or that more than about 35% will actually vote Labour. What matters is where that 35% live. Marginal seats, or Labour strongholds? If the latter, then Labour is still in trouble.

My present feeling is that neither main System party is popular and that the next general election will reflect that, but that Labour is offering more. It may be unable to deliver, but will voters prefer a party which offers much and may be unable to deliver, or one which offers little or nothing at all?

Update, 19 November 2020

The article above was written when it was expected that MP umbers would be reduced to 600. That reform will now no longer take place, certainly not during the present Parliament.

The election of 2019 gave Labour 201 MPs out of 655, leaving the party very weak. Relatively few 2017 Labour voters voted Conservative in 2019. More abstained, unable to support either major (System) party:

basic income, environment, ethnostate, society, Uncategorized, wildlife

Aspects of the New Society

3 Comments

Political and economic organization

The basic template will be taken from the guidance given by the great mind of Rudolf Steiner, in his Threefold Social Order, sometimes called the Threefold Social Organism or simply Social Threefolding: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_threefolding.

In other words, the key is finding the right relationship between the functioning of the economy (fundamentally private rather than State-run) and the rights of citizens. That does not mean that a few strategic economic areas or enterprises, or those of direct impact on the population (eg some utility companies, some railways etc) can never be State-owned or at least heavily State-regulated.

Population

An advanced society cannot be built on a backward population. The UK and other European societies of the future can only exist and advance if at least fundamentally European. The mass immigration from outside Europe has been disastrous and has greatly set back (especially Western and Central) Europe and, therefore, the world. However, we are where we are. We cannot say “10% of our population is non-European and so we cannot create a better society”. It has to be admitted that at some level, the non-European population within the general population might be so numerous that society can only decline or collapse. Tipping-points exist. The UK may not be very far from that tipping-point now. Certainly the major cities are close to it. For the purposes of this blog post, though, we must just keep in mind that there is an iron necessity for a (fundamentally) European population.

Education

According to the principles of the Threefold Social Order, education is within the spiritual-cultural sphere. It should be run neither by the State nor for private profit. That is not to say that it should not be regulated or unable to accept private monies via fees etc. It should not be taxed but accepted as having charitable or at least non-profit status.

It might be objected that, in the UK, private education tends to perpetuate social differences. There is some truth in that, but not much. The major drivers of inequality (apart from race and culture) are those of family capital and income. The education of children is rather a red herring in terms of the equality-inequality debate. There is also the point that parents (and children themselves) have the right to choose. The fact that choice may be rationed by available money does not destroy that right, but challenges both the State and society as a whole to make the means available to support educational choice.

The whole concept of the university “degree” should be looked at. This is a mediaeval concept which has probably outlived its usefulness. Bachelor, Master, Doctor, these have more in common with the Europe of Nostradamus than the Europe of 2017. In the UK, the true value of a university degree has been lowered (indeed rendered in some cases valueless) by award inflation and the mere fact that half the population now has some kind of degree.

Methods and conditions of work

The citizen must be protected from exploitation. That is a primary duty of the State. That means that maximum hours must be laid down. There might be flexibility within that, for example by laying down a weekly maximum of hours (say, 40 hours, but it might be 35 or even 30) but permitting the employer/employee to agree how those hours should be fulfilled within the working week: 5 x 8, or 4 x 10, even 3 x 13.33, or a work-week split into different hours on different days.

There is an argument to keep at least one day, traditionally of course Sunday, relatively free from work and commercial activities. There must be a rhythm to the week and a fallow day promotes that. Obviously, there are exceptions which would have to exist.

Basic Income

Robotics, computerization, automation are developments, the advantages of which are going mainly to a few within society. At the same time, they are destroying, for many, work as a way of getting even a basic living (in the UK, this was recognized years ago and led to the introduction of Working Tax Credits etc). The nexus between work and pay is dissolving.

The answer is the introduction of a measure of “basic income” not in any way dependent upon or conditional upon work done, availability for work etc. In that way, most of the expensive bureaucracy around social security or “welfare” can be eliminated: large buildings in every town, huge numbers of low-grade staff doing repetitive work processing applications, snooping  on and monitoring claimants etc. Whether a basic system should have tested aspects added for disability etc is a matter for debate. As to the amount of money given, again a matter for discussion. Perhaps £10,000 or £15,000 per person per year on present values.

In the UK, Basic State Pension is a form of Basic Income which already exists. Child Benefit is another form of Basic Income. Neither are conditional upon the income or capital earned or held by the recipient.

Contrary to what many still believe, basic income has the potential to free “entrepreneurship”, volunteering and ordinary “work more to get more” within the working-age population.

Transport

Here we are hostages to technology. It may be that driverless cars will soon exist in large numbers. It may be that lighter-than-air craft will be brought into service on a scale hitherto unknown. We do not know for sure. As matters stand, it seems clear that new initiatives are required in the field of railways (including driverless, light, ultralight and miniature), as well as wide canals for passenger and freight transport. There are trains in tubes being developed in the USA which may travel at 800 mph. All one can do is keep open to the future of transport while suggesting suitable policy for now.

Religion or spiritual belief

Religion should be (and is, in more advanced parts of the world) a question of individual choice. It is not for the State, or a dominant theocracy, to lay down what a citizen should believe or adhere to. However, that does not mean that the State cannot regulate or ban certain practices of religious groups. Thus toleration of religion as such need not import toleration of backward practices such as genital mutilation.

Conclusion

These few paragraphs are not meant to be a comprehensive manifesto but a springboard for ideas.

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

Manchester Gorton By-Election

4 Comments

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Analysis

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

Likely result:

1.Labour;

2.Liberal Democrats;

3.Conservatives;

4.Green;

5.UKIP (if standing).

Postscript, written in early 2018

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

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

Party Politics, society, Uncategorized

If Scotland Becomes “Independent”, Will England Be A One-Party State?

8 Comments

Analysis

There now seems at least a possibility (again) that Scotland might withdraw from the United Kingdom. Leaving aside what “Independence” means for Scotland in this context, let us examine what it means in practical political terms for England and the rest of the British Isles.

The present House of Commons has 650 Members (to be reduced to 600, possibly by 2020). 330 are Conservatives, 230 Labour (229+1 vacant seat last held by Labour), SNP 54, Liberal Democrats 9, Democratic Unionist 8, Sinn Fein 4 (in abstention; do not vote), Plaid Cymru 3, SDLP 3, Ulster Unionists 2, UKIP 1, Green 1, “Independent” 4 (being MPs such as Simon Danczuk who have had the whip withdrawn), Speaker 1.

It will be seen that while the present Conservative majority is notionally 11 (leaving aside the Speaker, who votes only when there is a tie), Sinn Fein do not attend or vote, so the real majority is 15.

If Scotland leaves the Union, the 650 MPs in the House of Commons will have their number reduced by 59, of which 54 are SNP, 2 SNP  MPS but who are suspended (and under police investigation) and 3 LibLabCon (1 each). It can be seen that, on the pure mathematical basis, that would mean that the Conservatives would have, on present figures, 329, with all other MPs (except Sinn Fein and the Speaker) numbering 257: Conservative majority 72.

Most of the Westminster seats presently occupied by SNP MPs were, until 2015, Labour seats, so it can be seen what a mountain Labour would have to climb to replicate its Commons strength or anything like it were Scotland to break away from England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

That, however, is not the end of Labour’s catastrophe. The reduction of Commons seats from 650 to 600 is expected to reduce Labour numbers by as much as 30 in any case and to almost wipe out the Liberal Democrats. If that were to be so and if the 59 Scottish MPs were not there, then the Commons would be 541 and might be about 310 Conservative, 200 Labour, 26 others (plus Sinn Fein -4- and the Speaker). Effective Conservative majority of 74.

Labour is at present polling at about 25%. There is no obvious reason why Labour should do markedly better any time soon and certainly none to expect a vote percentage much above 30%. That would, on the new boundaries, probably give Labour about 150 seats, possibly far fewer. It is not impossible that Labour could end up with as few as 100 seats out of 541. However, even if Labour were to have 150 seats out of 541 (effectively, out of 536), that would make Labour little more than a niche party, albeit with the title “the Opposition”.

The existence of the SNP in the House of Commons gives declining Labour the hope that the next general election might provide at least the possibility for a Labour minority government of some kind, with tacit SNP support, assuming that Labour could at least somewhat improve its position electorally. Without SNP MPs in the Commons, that slim hope is dashed and Labour broken with it.

Speculation and Hope

If, sometime around 2020, the Conservative Party has maybe 350 MPs in a 541-MP post-boundary changes, post-Scottish Independence, post-Brexit House of Commons, England (plus Wales etc) becomes a one-party state in all but name. Elected dictatorship. The only hope then for positive change will be the emergence of a new movement based on social nationalism, the only ideology which can unite England as a country and as a people, meaning at least the 85+% who are white Northern Europeans, together with those willing to accept European culture.

Update: Further Thoughts (drafted 23 July 2018)

Scotland fairly narrowly voted not to leave the UK, of course. The SNP still dominates though its cadre of Westminster MPs now numbers, after the 2017 General Election, 35 (strikingly down from 56 in 2015; the 2010 figure was 6). The opinion polls have for some time been both against a second Independence referendum and against breaking away from the UK.

Meanwhile, Labour has regrouped under Jeremy Corbyn and has at least managed to halt what I saw a couple of years ago as its possibly terminal decline. The incompetence of Theresa May and her Cabinet has weakened the Conservatives, though both large System parties are quite close in the polling as I write.

The House of Commons still has 650 MPs. The Boundary Commission report indicates that the number will be reduced to 600 by 2022, of which number 499 will be in England. While the changes favour Conservative over Labour, they will not come into effect until 2022, whereas the next General Election will probably be earlier, possibly even in 2018, though most commentators think 2019.

The SNP are still likely to be potential kingmakers after the next General Election, but that is not as likely as it looked a year or two ago. At present, the Conservatives cling on by grace of the DUP’s 10 MPs. The SNP can only snipe from the sidelines. It now seems not impossible that, in a close general election result in 2018 or 2019, Labour might emerge as the largest party in the Commons, under the present boundaries. It would then need SNP MPs’ votes in order to govern at all.

Update, 20 June 2020

Well, water under bridge etc…

The Scottish public’s view on “Independence” is now volatile, but the most recent opinion poll (June 2020) has the pro-“Independence” vote as 48% and the antis at 45% (Undecided = 7%). Without the Undecided, the result would be 52%-48%, the same margin as the UK Brexit Referendum.

As for the reduction of MP numbers, the Boris Johnson government elected in 2019 has decided to ditch the change. There will be 650 MPs in the House of Commons for the present.

The result of the 2019 General Election in Scotland: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_MPs_for_constituencies_in_Scotland_(2019%E2%80%93present)

If Scotland chooses to leave the UK, the number of MPs left at Westminster will be 591. At present there are only 6 Scottish Conservatives, 4 Scottish LibDems, and a sole Scottish Labour MP, but also 48 SNP MPs.

The Conservative Party would have 359 MPs, Labour 201, LibDems 7. The Conservatives would be one seat worse off than they now are, so the effect on their Commons majority would be minimal were it not for the absence of the (at present) 48 SNP MPs. Overall, the Conservatives would be, therefore, 47 MPs higher in terms of majority. That would, on present seats, give the Conservatives an unassailable Commons majority of 127.

elections, ethnostate, historical, Party Politics, prepping, Reminiscences and Musings, Russia and Russian relations, safe zones, society, Uncategorized, white flight

The Way Forward for Social Nationalism in the UK

4 Comments

“The talent of the strategist is to identify the decisive point and to concentrate everything on it, removing forces from secondary fronts and ignoring lesser objectives.”

Those words of Clausewitz are often taken to encapsulate the essence of strategy. How are they applied to the socio-political question in the UK (England, primarily) from the social-national point of view?

“The Decisive Point”

The “decisive point” or objective, ultimately, is the formation of a British ethnostate as an autonomous part of a Eurasian ethnostate based on the Northern European and Russian peoples. However, within the UK itself and before that, the objective must first be drawn less widely, as political power within the UK’s own borders.

The Gaining of Political Power in the UK

The sine qua non of gaining the sort of political power required is the existence of a political party. More than that, a party which is uncompromizing in its wish to entirely reform both State and society.

History is replete with examples of states which have seemed not even just powerful but actually eternal, yet which have collapsed. Ancient Rome, though perhaps not a “state” in our modern sense, is perhaps the one most embedded in the Western consciousness. More recently, the Soviet Union and its satellite states. In between those two examples (but among many others) we might cite the pre-1914 European “settlement” based on the empires and kingdoms which collapsed during and after the First World War: Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia, the Ottoman Empire.

The main point to understand is that, in situations of crisis on the large scale, it is not the political party with the most money, erudition, developed policy or even membership that comes out on top, but the party with the most will or determination. That means the most disciplined party under the leadership of the most determined leader.

It is better to have a party consisting of only 1,000 which is tightly-disciplined and self-disciplined than one of 100,000 which is a floundering mass of contradictions. When a national crisis occurs, such as 1917-1921 in Russia or 1929-1933 in Germany (to take two obvious examples), the people instinctively turn to the party perceived to be strongest, not strongest in numbers, money, intellectuality or number of members, but strongest in the will, the will to power.

The Party

A party requires leadership, members, ideology, policy and money. Everything comes from the leadership and the membership, in symbiosis. In practical terms, this means that policy is open to free discussion, up to the point where a decision is made as to what is party policy as such. Also, it has to be understood that a party requires money as a tank or armoured car requires fuel. To have endless fundraising drives, hunts for wealthy donors etc demeans and dispirits the membership. Having a “tithing” system renders such other methods unnecessary. The members sacrifice an agreed amount of their post-tax income, such as 10%. The party organizes itself and its message to the general population using that money.

As a rule of thumb in contemporary Britain, it might be said that, on average, each member will provide something like £2,000 per year to the party. A party of even 1,000 members will therefore have an annual income of £2 million, enough to buy not only propaganda and administration but real property as a base. By way of comparison, the Conservative Party in 2017 has an income of about £3.5 million.

Elections

It must be understood that elections are only one way to power, but they are indispensable in England, for historical-cultural reasons. A party which cannot win elections loses credibility rapidly once that party is large. In the initial phase, no-one expects the party to win Westminster or even local council seats, but after that, it has to win and so grow, or deflate as the BNP did and as UKIP is doing now. The problem small parties have under the English electoral system is that a Westminster seat can be won only with, at a minimum, about 30% (and usually 40% or more) of votes. The insurgent party is in danger of spreading itself too thinly, in every way. UKIP’s history illustrates the point: in 2015, about 12% of votes cast (nearly 4 million), but only the one MP with which they, in effect, started. The answer is to concentrate the vote. That is done by concentrating the members and supporters of the party geographically.

Safe Zones

I have blogged previously about the creation of safe zones and especially one primary safe zone (possibly in the South West of England). If the members and supporters of the party gradually relocate into that zone or zones, many things become easier, from protection of buildings, meetings, exhibitions etc to the election of councillors and MPs. I have also blogged about the magnetic attraction such a safe zone might exercise over people in the UK as a whole.

The Decisive Time

The “decisive time” cannot be predicted. In Russia, Lenin (at the time in foreign exile) thought that the 1905 uprising was “the revolution”. He was wrong. He also thought that the first (February, old-style) 1917 uprising was not “the” revolution. He was wrong again. It was.

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

Lenin had to hurry back to Russia (arriving belatedly in April 1917, old-style) not only to try to take control (he failed in that and had to foment his own coup d’etat in October 1917) but to avoid being sidelined and so becoming an almost irrelevant footnote to history.

In Germany after 1929, Hitler likewise was not in control of events. In the end, economic near-collapse and political turmoil gave him the chance to win enough votes (33% in 1932) to form a coalition government which led on to full power in 1933, after the NSDAP achieved a higher –though still minority– popular vote (44%).

In other words, both Lenin and Hitler were the pawns of Fate while striving to be the masters of events. They had something in common though: highly-disciplined and ideologically-motivated parties behind them.

Practical Matters

At the age of 60, the last thing which is convenient for me is to form a political party. I have no need of such an activity as a hobby or absorbing interest. I am coming to the idea out of duty, out of a realization that something has to be done and out of an understanding that something can be done, if Fate concurs. I am not willing to compromize on overall ideology or on the way things are organized within such a party. I shall only establish a political party (which may become a movement) if it can be done on a serious basis. However, there is a need for a party to speak for the British people and there is a widening political vacuum in which such a party can thrive and grow.

Update 15 April 2019

In the two years since I wrote the above blog post, my view has not changed, that is

  • a political party and movement is needed;
  • there is at present no such party;
  • such a party can only be established if done on a serious basis;
  • I myself still do not have the means with which to found such a party; but
  • a political party and movement is —still— needed…

Update, 8 March 2023

All factors mentioned in the previous update remain the same.

Proposals for a new society…