Tag Archives: Brexit

Boris Johnson, Brexit, elections, immigration, MPs, Party Politics, society, The Great Replacement, Uncategorized

We May Be On The Brink Of Political Disintegration

4 Comments

In the Notes, below this article, is the text of a Guardian piece by the well-known expert on the British Constitution, Vernon Bogdanor. Worth reading, but what struck me apart from its detail was that one possibility mooted as a way out of the Brexit impasse is a so-called “government of national unity headed by someone such as Keir Starmer or Yvette Cooper“. YVETTE COOPER?! You mean (he means) Yvette Cooper the expenses cheat and greedy careerist freeloader? Yvette Cooper the “refugees welcome” hypocrite, who thinks that British people should all have to put up with culturally-backward hordes invading their country, their neighbourhoods, even their own homes? (Needless to say, Yvette Cooper and her equally greedy, cheating, freeloading husband, Ed Balls, have somehow avoided sharing their own comfortable large home(s) with the migrant-invaders). Yvette Cooper, the total doormat for the Jewish-Zionist lobby?

That sounds to me more like a government of national disunity!

In fact, though it may be largely factually correct, the Guardian piece shows to what extent the mainly London-based chattering classes and msm milieux are out of tune and in fact completely out of touch with what I take to be the majority of the population.

A “government of national unity”? In order to deal with a crisis entirely inflicted upon the people by the political class and more particularly the Conservative Party? It is not so much about Brexit itself as about the way in which persons governing despite being unfit to govern have criminally mishandled Brexit. I myself favoured Leave and Brexit in 2016, and still do, but (in the immortal words of Johnny Mercer MP), this is “a shitshow” and most of it has been and is a Conservative Party shitshow.

I expect that many will see my view as unnecessarily apocalyptic. I disagree. Many opinion polls have shown how very disenchanted the voters really are, to the point where many are willing to vote for Brexit Party, a party which, apart from the UK leaving the EU, has no policies at all. That willingness, to vote for a new party without any real policies (even in outline) also supports my view that voters at present are voting against the parties they oppose, rather than for parties they support.

There is no social national party for people to support (obviously I do not bother to examine again the bad-joke “parties” of recent years: Britain First, For Britain, the rumps of the old NF and BNP etc). UKIP too, which —as I predicted since 2015— is now so “yesterday” that I almost forgot to include it. There is a political vacuum.

As it is, the voters are left, at present, with the LibLabCon parties, i.e. the System parties, and the Brexit Party. Anyone (meaning anyone white and English, or Welsh, the Scots having the faux-“nationalist” SNP) and discontented with the way the UK is, can only either refuse to participate or can vote Brexit Party as a protest (or vote of hate against the System parties).

How has it come to this, that instead of the UK leaving the EU in a fairly orderly fashion, the government and msm are now talking in terms of food shortages? This is unbelievable! Those responsible are mainly the ministers and MPs of the Conservative Party, who after all have been in power now for over 9 years, including of course the 3 years since the 2016 Referendum. It is they who have messed up the negotiations, they who have blithely said that everything will be all right, they who have been the Government. Not Labour, not the LibDems, not Brexit Party.

Now we come to Boris-idiot. Boris Johnson as Prime Minister is, to me, no more acceptable or believable than food shortages as a result of Brexit. To me, he is not a legitimate Prime Minister of this country. He is totally unfit to be a prime minister of anywhere. He is only there because of the flaw in the UK’s constitutional arrangements, by which flaw a prime minister can resign without that prime minister’s successor having to call an immediate general election. In the case of Boris Johnson, he is also there because spineless Conservative Party MPs thought (I doubt rightly) that Boris-idiot was or is more “electable” than any of his opponents in the Conservative Party leadership contest, and so would give all Conservative Party MPs a better chance of electoral survival.

When you see Boris-idiot, you have to factor-in to everything that he says or writes that his primary and often only purpose is his own selfish interest.

Now we are told that Johnson is set on either leaving the EU on bare WTO terms or (if he can frighten the EU enough) getting a better “deal” than did the absurd bad-joke PM, Theresa May.

Boris-idiot’s calculation is very very obvious: if the EU makes even a slightly better offer, Boris “Tribune of the People” and “Conquering Hero” presents that to the House of Commons, which then either accepts it (so anointing Idiot as “great statesman” who would probably then win a general election if held fairly soon thereafter), or rejects it (so casting Idiot as “heroic but conspired against”).

On the other hand, if the EU refuses to make a better offer, Boris The Poundland Churchill can shake his fist at Brussels, take or try to take the UK out of the EU on WTO terms, and if that is blocked in the Commons, hold a general election, casting himself again as that “Tribune of the People” against Remainer (especially Labour, LibDem and SNP) MPs and Brussels eurocrats.

Whatever happens, keep eyes focussed on the fact that Boris Johnson is doing whatever he is doing for short-term political advantage. Having supported the fake “austerity” of his fellow part-Jews David Cameron-Levita and George Osborne, Boris Johnson now flashes the cash everywhere: NHS, police, whatever. Shallow 18th Century style largesse-politics.

Is Boris-Idiot correct in his calculations? Will be be borne back to power on a wave of anti-EU anger? I doubt it.

Let us say that there are food shortages (whether caused by Brexit, hold-ups at the ports, miscalculations by the large supermarket chains or panic-buying by the urban masses in the British cities). Who will be blamed? The EU? Perhaps, partly, at first. However, I believe that the people will also and in any event before long start to blame (and with reason) the “Conservative” government.

If the UK does not leave the EU on 31 October, then government remains paralyzed by its lack of a Parliamentary majority. If an election is then held, Brexit Party will stand in 650 constituencies and so enable the slaughter of dozens and even hundreds of Conservative MPs.

Boris Johnson is probably calculating that, if he can take the UK out of the EU on 31 October 2019, the voting public will see him (however ludicrous that may be to you and me) as a strong leader (when he is neither) who has kept to his word. He can then in effect call a general election and hope to win a Commons majority because either Brexit Party will fade away or not stand candidates, or will be sidelined by the electorate.

No doubt Johnson will hope that, like Pacific salmon who die after spawning, Brexit Party will expire, having reached its goal of a UK exit from the EU. Such a calculation may be misplaced. How Brexit Party would present itself if the UK really does leave, at least on paper, on 31 October, I am unsure. Perhaps by saying that the exit is not sure, not definite or that Brexit may possibly be reversed by an incoming government.

One thing is certain: Brexit is about more than Brexit and, that being so, Brexit Party itself, should its leader Farage so decide, could morph into a party of general faux-nationalist discontent. That sounds vague, but what is more vague than a party with neither policies nor ideology?

There is more going on than Brexit, of course. All the problems the UK has will still be there on 1 November: mass immigration (which will not stop after Brexit, far from it!), NHS decline, social security and housing defects and shortages, the increase in violent crime, social decadence and decline; and so on.

The msm and TV talking heads, the metro-“liberal” journalists, lawyers, media folk etc, all insulated by affluence, mostly London-centric, were shocked by the 2016 Referendum result, by the 2017 election results, by the immediate failure of their briefly-cherished “Change UK” pro-Jewish joke party, by Trump’s election too. In a word, these people are out-of-touch. Their experience of the years 2010-2019 is not the same as that of well over half the UK population.

My view is that a coming general election might produce a big shock again. The only thing preventing a landslide for a social-nationalist party is that, quite simply, no social national party exists.

In the no doubt upcoming 2019 or possibly early 2020 General Election, I believe that neither of the main System parties will do well. I believe that both the LibDems and Brexit Party could do well, if only as a reaction against the main two.

The two main System parties have both been losing not only loyal voters but their own raisons d’etre, and their heart.

Labour will keep the votes of the blacks and browns generally, as well as those of the public service workers and those dependent on State benefits. It may not keep the votes of those it has taken for granted for a century: the British (i.e. white) poorer people as such. They are now either voting with their feet (i.e. not voting) or voting desperately elsewhere. In 2005 or so, BNP; 2010-2015, UKIP. Now they vote, some of them, Brexit Party. I put the Labour vote as likely to be around 30%.

The Conservative Party cannot now appeal to Thatcherite-style “aspiration”. That was something real back in the 1980s. I remember sitting in a branch of Wheeler’s (fish restaurant) in Blackheath in 1986 or 1987. At the next table, a young plumber (the tables were not far apart and he was a little loud) and his girlfriend talking about his income, his house-purchase plans etc. Afterwards, my then girlfriend and I mused about the social changes then in train (a young tradesman and girlfriend eating at Wheeler’s and buying a house). Could that happen now? Perhaps, but it would be unusual, I think.

The Conservative vote nationally is now mainly that of the rich and affluent (nothing new there), which would be no more than 5% to (at most) 20% of the population. There are some older but not affluent people who still vote Conservative out of long habit, even against their own interests, but they are a dwindling stock. That is why the Conservative MPs backed Boris-idiot as their leader, because they hoped that this part-Jew public entertainer could jolly along enough unthinking voters to make up the numbers. All the same, I should not put the Conservative vote now much above 30%, and that might fall back to 20% if the UK experiences significant disruption or economic dislocation soon.

The LibDems may soon be able to corner the Remain vote in the South of England.

Brexit Party might just be the recipient of any further or renewed “roar of rage” from an electorate in pain. If that happens (meaning if Brexit Party gets at least 20% of the popular vote), then the Conservatives will soon be “an ex-party”, at least so far as government is concerned.

Many might say, so you get rid of a Conservative MP and put in a small-c conservative Brexit Party MP, what’s the difference? Well, it’s not that simple anyway (because LibDems and Labour might capture more Con seats than does Brexit Party), but the good thing is that many many evil Conservative Party MPs will be out of UK politics, many for good. Connections and career paths will be ruined. I don’t much like Champagne, but if that happened, I might make an exception. If the damage were great, I might even drink Bollinger instead of mere champagne-type such as Sekt.

A similar picture might emerge in the North as regards Labour (if Conservative voters vote Brexit Party to keep Labour out), but one thing at a time! The main thing is to cull the hundreds of Conservative Friends of Israel. And it could soon happen.

The way lies open, not far away, for social nationalism on a scale never before seen in the UK.

Notes

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/06/mps-thwart-boris-johnson-no-deal

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

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/userpoll.html

Update, 23 December 2020

My analysis was right, but my prediction not right as far as the chances at an election of the Conservative Party were concerned. I failed to foresee that con-man Nigel Farage would stab his own candidates and Brexit Party members in the back, and stand down virtually all Brexit Party 2019 General Election candidates, thus gifting the Conservative Party and Boris-idiot an 80-seat Commons majority.

Alt-Right, animal welfare, Boris Johnson, Brexit, by-elections, Conservative Friends of Israel, elections, immigration, Jewish lobby in UK, Labour Friends of Israel, MPs, Party Politics, Uncategorized

After Brecon and Radnorshire, What Now For Brexit Party and the Conservatives?

1 Comment

My original blog post (with updates to 2 August 2019) about the Brecon and Radnorshire by-election

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/06/21/brecon-and-radnorshire-by-election-2019/

The result of the Brecon and Radnorshire by-election of 1 August 2019

  • LibDems 13,826 votes (43.5%)
  • Conservatives 12,401 (39%)
  • Brexit Party 3,331 (10.5%)
  • Labour Party 1,680 (5.3%)
  • Monster Raving Loony 334 (1%)
  • UKIP 242 (0.8%)

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

The LibDems won fairly decisively, but with a smaller majority than the betting might have been suggesting. I have posted several informative links below.

Why did the LibDems win, why did the Conservative Party not win?

For me, the most important aspect beyond the headline result is the fact that the Conservative ex-MP, Christopher Davies, would have won, perhaps even handsomely, were it not for the candidature of Brexit Party, which received 3,331 votes.

The LibDem majority over the Conservatives was only 1,425. In other words, had Brexit Party not been standing, the Conservatives would almost certainly have won, and probably by nearly 2,000 votes. The Brexit Party received a vote-share of only 10.5% (LibDems 43.5%, Conservatives 39%), but that was more than enough to sink the Conservative candidate.

The Labour vote has suffered a general decline in the constituency over the years (all-time high was 57.69% in 1964), but this was its lowest-ever vote-share (5.3%). I attribute that partly and perhaps mainly to tactical voting: Labour supporters voting against the Conservatives (mainly) in a situation where Labour had no real chance anyway (the Labour vote here has not exceeded 20% since 2001 (21.4%). However, the 5.3%, barely enough to retain the deposit, does tend to support my view that Labour is now the party of the blacks and browns, the public service workers and those mainly dependent on State benefits.

The Sky News Political Correspondent tweeted something interesting about the Labour vote in Brecon and Radnorshire, which had been in the 10%-18% range since 2005 and until this by-election’s collapse to 5.3%:

Brecon and Radnorshire is almost entirely white British in demographic terms (Powys, the county in which is situated the constituency, is said to be 99.3% white British). In white British areas, Labour increasingly has no chance. Labour scarcely speaks to or for white British people now. This has implications that go far beyond Brecon and Radnorshire.

The Conservatives and Brexit Party down the line

Brexit Party is one of two parties that emerged in 2019 despite having no real policies (the other being the pro-EU, pro-Remain, pro-Jewish lobby party, Change UK, which sputtered to a halt almost immediately and now scarcely exists).

There is no doubt that the early promise of Brexit Party has somewhat blunted since its great 2019 EU elections success. The recent Peterborough by-election was nearly won, but not quite, Brexit Party losing to Labour by a mere 683 votes. Now we have another, though less unexpected, disappointment. Nigel Farage and his large meetings held before both the EU elections and the Peterborough by-election built up a head of steam and a head of expectation, but so far that pressure has just tooted into the void, at least as far as Westminster is concerned.

The political landscape has just suffered an earthquake. Boris Johnson (aka, to me, “Boris-idiot”) is now, incredibly, Prime Minister (or Fool posing as “King for a Day”), having been put there by about 92,000 Conservative Party members (out of about 50 MILLION voters, in other words by about 1 out of every 500 or so eligible voters). He has “pledged” (for what little his pledges are worth) to leave the EU “deal or no deal” by 31 October 2019. If that seems about to happen, I am assuming that the anti-“no deal”/WTO MPs will block it and/or vote for a no-confidence motion. That might in turn cause Boris Johnson to trigger a general election.

Alternatively, the EU might offer Johnson a form of words that he can present to the Commons as a workable “deal” (in the now familiar vulgar terminology). The UK can then pretend to leave the EU but in reality stay in, or kick the can down the road by means of an extension, which Johnson himself seemed to find acceptable recently. The Commons might block the former, but probably not the latter.

An extension (as mooted) might last until 2021 or even 2022. In 2022, new electoral boundaries will be in place in the UK. MP numbers are set to be reduced from 650 to 600. Those changes will hit both Labour and the LibDems hard.

If the Conservatives can hang on until 2022, their chances of survival (as individual MPs and as a party of government) look better. In the meantime, Boris-idiot can go on posing as Prime Minister, and his Cabinet of Conservative Friends of Israel, enemies of the people, can (with the help of their Labour Friends of Israel accomplices) pass more repressive laws to destroy (real) “democracy” and (real) civil rights in the UK…

CZpdYWeW0AQXGc_

Bso85QHCEAA1yun

scan25

That, at least, could have been the scenario had the Conservatives a majority or at least a working majority (reduced by Brecon and Radnorshire to 1 MP vote) and so able to continue as a government. As it is, whatever happens on 31 October, it cannot be long now before Labour moves a no-confidence motion. If not in November, then surely in December or early next year.

Brexit Party has not yet proven that it can win Westminster seats, but it has proven that it can prevent the Conservative Party winning. In Peterborough, the successful Labour Party candidate got 10,484 votes (30.9%). The Brexit Party got 9,801 votes (28.9%). The Conservative got 7,243 votes (21.4%). While it may be that not all of those who voted Brexit Party would, in lieu of that, have voted Conservative, most would have done; hardly any would have voted Labour, in my opinion anyway. It is clear that, without Brexit Party, the Conservatives would have won Peterborough. The same is true in Brecon and Radnorshire.

Boris Johnson may have shot Brexit Party’s fox by going all-out (supposedly) for a “no deal”/WTO Brexit if the EU does not play ball, but he has not killed that fox, just wounded it. If the UK leaves on a “no deal”/WTO basis, then Brexit Party probably will deflate to nothing, though it may reinvent itself even then. However, it seems unlikely that the majority of MPs of all parties will not block such a departure. If that happens, then Boris Johnson, however much he tries to play the Leave “tribune of the people”, will be seen by Leavers as a waste of space, “all hat and no cattle”. In that scenario, the anger of the Leave-preferring voters will devolve upon both Remain MPs and Boris-idiot. Brexit Party will then, like Antaeus treading on his native earth, be revived and take on new strength.

What Boris Johnson and the Conservatives would like is for Brexit Party to just disappear, thus leaving the Conservatives to trample all over the hopelessly-split Labour Party and the LibDems. What is more likely is that the UK will not leave the EU on any real basis by the beginning of November. Brexit Party will thus put up 650 MPs and the Conservative Party will be slaughtered. Most hard-core Leavers will vote Brexit Party, most hard-core Remainers (especially in the South) will switch to the LibDems. For Boris Johnson and the Conservatives, a two-front war. Apart from Brexit issues, anyone who believes in the Welfare State, in decent public services, in animal welfare, will not vote Conservative. Anyone hostile to Jewish Zionism, likewise.

The Brexit Party may only get 10%-20%, so say 15%, nationwide, but that alone all but destroys any hope for a majority Conservative government. My own efforts at working it out using Electoral Calculus [see Notes, below] indicate Conservative Party as largest party in Commons, but without a majority and quite possibly worse off than now.

Much depends on the LibDem vote. At present, the opinion polls show intended LibDem vote somewhere in the 15%-25% range, with latest educated guess (via Ipsos/MORI) at 20%.

That might give a Conservative majority of as much as 74. However, even if that poll is accurate, it is unlikely that the Conservatives will actually maintain a lead of 10 points over Labour. If Labour were able to achieve 30% instead of 24%, which is well within the parameters of reasonable possibility, then the Conservative Party would be 20 MPs short of a majority, i.e. worse off than now.

There again, even if Labour were still on 24%, but if Brexit Party could reach to 15% at the expense of the Conservatives on 29%, the Conservatives would be no less than 57 MPs short of a majority.

On the other hand, If Brexit Party can get 20%, LibDems 20%, Labour 25% and Conservatives 30%, the Conservatives would be about 35 MPs short of a majority.

It is a game one can play for hours.

Conclusions

The LibDems are back in the game, if only by default. They have much of the Remain vote, they have a (notionally) fresh and energetic leader, they have the votes of those disliking the other two main System parties as well as those of persons wishing to vote tactically. They have at least the possibility of a 50-seat bloc (again) in the Commons.

Brexit Party is not looking good as a potential party of government but it is looking effective as a way of blocking Conservative Party ambitions. A general election resulting in 30% Con, 30% Lab, 20% LibDem, 15% Brexit Party and 5% Green comes out with Labour as largest party, but 46 MPs short of majority, the Conservatives not far behind and the LibDems with perhaps about 50 MPs. On that basis, the LibDems could, as in 2010, be once again the kingmakers. Plus ca change…

Notes

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

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

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-49200636

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/voters-head-to-the-polls-for-brecon-and-radnorshire-byelection-live-a4202956.html

https://news.sky.com/story/liberal-democrats-win-brecon-and-radnorshire-by-election-as-johnson-suffers-first-defeat-as-pm-11775356

https://www.greekmythology.com/Myths/Gigantes/Antaeus/antaeus.html

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/userpoll.html

Update, 4 August 2019

Worth reading:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/04/boris-johnson-armageddon-clock-what-is-it-counting-down-to

Andrew Rawnsley predicting the demise, quite soon, of both Boris-idiot and the Conservative government (and party):

“As he [Boris-idiot] points the country at the cliff edge and depresses the accelerator, does prime minister Johnson have any idea where this will end? It is a mistake to think that he does. No one knows what he is really up to, including himself. In one breath, he tells us that this is “do or die”; in another, he sets the odds on a no-deal Brexit at “a million to one”;

“He [Boris-idiot] has to know that there is a strong possibility that it will mean an autumn general election. The least credible message from Number 10 is that it is not contemplating this outcome”;

“Tory strategy for winning an election makes some very big and risky assumptions. One is that the gains harvested by the Conservatives at the expense of Labour among Leave-supporting voters will outweigh Tory losses in Remain-supporting constituencies. Nearly every top Lib Dem target is a Conservative seat, while Scottish Nationalists are hoping to scalp Tory MPs north of the border. The other perilous assumption is that Nigel Farage’s party will fade away or fold up. The leader of the Brexit party is enjoying being the object of renewed attention and displays no signs of wanting to retire again. He declares that he does not trust the prime minister and he has a bitter history of mutual loathing with Number 10’s chief strategist, Dominic Cummings.”

“One lesson from the Brecon & Radnorshire by-election is that the Brexit party doesn’t have to do all that well – it polled barely a double-digit share on Thursday – to hurt the Tories. If the Conservatives could have added the Brexit party vote and that of Ukip to their tally, they would have held the seat with just over half the vote, rather than narrowly lose it to the Lib Dems. They’d hope to put a harder squeeze on the Brexit party in a general election, but couldn’t be absolutely confident. All the hazards of this strategy will be multiplied many times over if an election takes place after 31 October. In one scenario, we would still be in the EU, breaking the Tory leader’s “absolute commitment” to his party that Britain will be out “under any circumstances” and hugely boosting the Faragists.”

“In the alternative scenario, Britain has tumbled out of the EU without an agreement. That is no longer a threat or a promise. The countdown has reached zero and no deal is a reality. Even in the less chilling versions of a crash-out Brexit – the ones that don’t involve supermarket shelves being stripped bare by panic-buying and children dying for lack of life-critical medicines – I wouldn’t want to be a prime minister trying to make a case for his re-election when the country has just suffered a big economic shock and the currency is collapsing.”

“My suspicion is that the Armageddon Clock isn’t really there to count down the seconds to Brexit day. It is there to remind Boris Johnson how long he has left before it becomes too late to avoid his own doomsday.“

Of course, I myself have made, in the above and previous blog posts, similar points to those now made by Andrew Rawnsley. He, however, has the inside contacts (and public profile) which I do not have. I, perforce, have to use simply my own knowledge and powers of reason (also, I am doing this unpaid, pro bono publico!)

I should say that there is little incentive for the Brexit Party to form a pact with the Conservatives unless the Conservatives in effect gift Brexit Party at least 50 winnable seats in return for Brexit Party standing down in the other 600. Such a pact might backfire for the Conservatives in that it would

  1. deprive the Conservatives of a number of seats which, even with Brexit Party standing, the Conservatives themselves might win; and
  2. create a bloc of up to 50 “fourth party” Westminster MPs for the first time, so
  3. making Brexit Party far more electorally credible in subsequent elections.

Meanwhile…

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mps-beg-brexit-party-candidates-not-to-stand-in-their-constituencies-amid-fears-of-split-vote-a4205031.html

If Brexit Party candidates give up their candidature in seats where the Conservative candidates might lose if there is a Brexit Party candidate, then not only has the Brexit Party given up what might be good chances of winning in those seats, but it has restricted itself to standing only in seats where it has, arguably, little chance of winning.

In other words, a one-way electoral pact with the Conservatives almost wipes out Brexit Party’s reason for existing. It might confirm as MPs a few Conservative Eurosceptics, but no political earthquake is going to happen just because of that. The better strategy is to fight all 650 seats and see what happens. If it should be that 200+ Conservative MPs lose their seats, then good.

Update, 23 June 2020

My analysis was not too bad (as good that of Andrew Rawnsley, anyway), but nexpected events happened, as they often do: as we now know, duing the General Election campaign of December 2019, Nigel Farage, for whatever reason, decided to stand down all his Brexit Party candidates standing in Conservative-held seats. That killed Brexit Party stone dead and ensured a Conservative Party victory by default. 2017 Labour voters did not, most of them, vote Conservative, but some did, in some seats. A relative few defected to the LibDems or what was left of Brexit Party, but almost as many as all of those simply decided not to vote.

Result: a Conservative Party majority of about 80.

Boris Johnson, Brexit, by-elections, Campaign Against AntiSemitism, elections, Jewish lobby in UK, MPs, Party Politics, society, Uncategorized

Could the LibDems Win A General Election in 2019-2020?

2 Comments

Background

Nearly eight years ago, when I still had a Twitter account (read “before the Jew-Zionists prevailed upon Twitter to expel me”), I tweeted that the LibDems were finished. At that time, around 2011, the height of the Con Coalition, the LibDem careerists were signing up to pretty much everything required of them by the misnamed “Conservatives”. In fact, even now in 2019, new tales come to light about how totally supine the LibDems in coalition were: recently, for example, it was revealed that the LibDems agreed to screw down harder on the sick and disabled in return for a 5p tax on plastic shopping bags.

The public were so disgusted by the LibDems 2010-2015 that the LibDem support and vote in the country hit almost rock-bottom in 2015. The 2010 general election had seen so-called “Cleggmania” and a popular vote of 23%, resulting in 57 House of Commons seats. In fact, that 23% was only 1 point above the level achieved in 2005 under the LibDems’ former (1999-2006) leader, Charles Kennedy; the LibDems in 2010 had 5 fewer seats than they had in 2005.

Naturally, the UK’s unfair First Past The Post [FPTP] political system left the LibDems with far fewer Commons seats than they “deserved” by reference to their popular vote. 23% of the 2010 popular vote “should” have given the LibDems about 150 MPs, not 57.

The 2010 hung Parliament result gave the LibDems their chance to demand proportional representation, instead of which their leadership (Nick Clegg, Danny Alexander and David Laws, mainly) accepted from the Conservative Party leader, David Cameron-Levita, the mere promise of a referendum on Alternative Vote [AV], a halfway house between FPTP voting and proportional representation [PR].

Gordon Brown, on behalf of Labour, the then Prime Minister, was willing to offer the LibDems immediate AV, via a new law to be passed by Labour and LibDem MPs, but the LibDems instead (and to my mind inexplicably) chose the Conservative offer of a mere referendum on AV over the Labour offer of immediate AV. When they did that, it was already clear that the LibDems (so called “Orange Book” LibDems, meaning pro-finance capitalist LibDems) much preferred to make common cause with the Conservatives.

This “Orange Book” “liberalism” underpinned what the LibDems did in coalition with the Conservatives from 2010 to 2015. The “Orange Book” itself took the LibDems far from the positions of the old Liberal Party and even from those of the LibDem party itself during the time when it was in the hands of Paddy Ashdown and Charles Kennedy.

The authors of the Orange Book favoured socio-political positions not far from those of leading members of the Conservative Party post-2000: effectively anti-Welfare State, pro-business, socially-judgmental, favouring so-called “choice” etc.

It is striking how many of the Orange Book authors have, in the years since its publication, been hit by scandal:

  • David Laws: found to have cheated on his Parliamentary expenses to the tune of about £40,000; many thought him fortunate not to have been prosecuted for fraud;
  • Chris Huhne: prosecuted and imprisoned for the very silly crime of perversion of the course of justice relating to a speeding offence [cf. Fiona Onasanya];
  • Mark Oaten, exposed as a coprophiliac and user of “rent boys”; since when Oaten has represented the International Fur Trade Federation, a largely Jewish body despised by animal-lovers worldwide. Oaten was also a supporter of fox-hunting.

“Only” three, but three out of only nine LibDems who wrote the Orange Book (Oaten admitted that in fact his research assistant had written his, Oaten’s, designated chapter, and that he, Oaten, had not even read that chapter, let alone the rest of the book). Of the other LibDems involved, Danny Alexander and Nick Clegg both lost their Commons seats in 2015 and 2017 respectively, gratefully then accepting lucrative directorships from transnational finance-capitalist companies.

The LibDem fortunes since the days of the Con Coalition

The LibDem popular vote crashed in 2015, sliding from its 2010 level of 23% to only 7.9%. MP numbers were slashed from 57 to 8.

In 2017, the LibDem popular vote slumped further, to 7.4%, though by the quirk of the FPTP voting system combined with the way boundaries are drawn, the LibDems actually managed to increase the number of LibDem MPs from 8 in 2015 to 12 in 2017.

The present situation

Nick Clegg took the Zuckerberg shilling (or should that be million?) and became an apologist for Facebook. He was replaced by Tim Farron, someone who was from an earlier, Nonconformist tradition within the LibDems and their ancestor-party, the Liberals. For example, “Farron was one of only two Liberal Democrat MPs to vote against the under-occupancy penalty (also known as the bedroom tax) in 2012.” [Wikipedia]. Farron was in the anti-Orange Book Beveridge Group [see Notes, below].

In 2017, Farron in turn was replaced by another Orange Book author, Vince Cable. Then, in 2019, Jo Swinson took the reins. She, though very much of the Orange Book persuasion, is more identified publicly with “socially liberal” than with “fiscally conservative” positions. Jo Swinson held the positions of PPS, and then Business Minister, during the Con Coalition period, but has managed to escape too great an identification with the social policies of the Coalition. Surprising, really, in that she

  • “Almost always voted for reducing housing benefit for social tenants deemed to have excess bedrooms (which Labour describe as the “bedroom tax”)”;
  • “Consistently voted against raising welfare benefits at least in line with prices”;
  • “Consistently voted against paying higher benefits over longer periods for those unable to work due to illness or disability”;
  • “Consistently voted for making local councils responsible for helping those in financial need afford their council tax and reducing the amount spent on such support”;
  • “Almost always voted for a reduction in spending on welfare benefits“;
  • “Almost always voted for reducing the rate of corporation tax“

[see: https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/11971/jo_swinson/east_dunbartonshire/votes]

I have to say that I have always seen Jo Swinson as a ghastly bitch, who, like her husband (Duncan Hames, also a LibDem MP from, in his case only, 2010 to 2015) has been mainly a careerist type in politics; in Jo Swinson’s case, her brief period in provincial commerce before 2005 can only be seen as underwhelming, at best.

My view of Jo Swinson is, admittedly, mainly a personal impression based on what I have seen on TV etc. Her voting record on domestic UK issues must give pause, though, to those who see her as enlightened, socially compassionate etc.

Jo Swinson is a LibDem leader who does not frighten the Conservative horses. That could be key. In 2017, there were, if memory serves, 35 seats where the LibDems were in close 2nd place; there were many others where the LibDem was in close 3rd place. Most of those are Conservative-held seats. The implication is clear: if Brexit Party weakens an already-flagging Conservative vote, scores of (mainly) Conservative seats could fall, many to the LibDems. The Brexit Party is a major factor here.

Then we have the Remain vote. About 48% of the UK, famously, voted Remain. All three System parties were split in the 2016 Referendum, but the LibDems less so than the other two. As a party, the Conservative Party is now seen as basically Leave; the Labour Party is seen as sitting on the fence. That leaves the LibDems as the sole unalloyed Remain party. How that translates into votes and then into seats is another question. For one thing, people are likely to vote in any 2019/2020 general election on various issues, not only Brexit. However, Brexit is probably the one leading issue at time of writing.

The British electoral system is a bad joke. We know that a simple matter such as how the boundaries are drawn can alter everything:

c64bh5xw0aiwygy

In 2022, new boundaries will come into effect, along with the reduction of MP numbers to 600 (from the present 650). The Conservatives will be far less affected than Labour and the LibDems. It has been suggested that the LibDems will be all but wiped out by those changes. Perhaps, but any 2022 or later general election is still at least 2-3 years away. We are looking at the very strong likelihood of a general election within maybe only 2-3 months or so. The Conservatives would like to wait longer, but how can they, when they have a majority of one or none?

Boundaries and other factors make the popular vote indeterminative. In 2005, Labour’s popular vote was 35.2%, and the Conservative vote was not far behind (32.4%), yet Labour ended up with 355 MPs, while the Conservatives won only 198!

If the LibDems can gather to their banner the bulk of the votes of those for whom the number one issue is Brexit and for whom Remain is the only way to go, and then add those votes to the LibDem core support (which may be as low as 7%), then it is not impossible to conceive of the idea of the LibDems under Jo Swinson getting a vote at least as high as Charles Kennedy’s 22% or Nick Clegg’s 23%, and possibly even higher. As against that, many voters will not support the LibDems under any circumstances, either because the party is pro-EU Remain, or because it is seen as weak on immigration (but are the other two System parties any better?) or because most voters remember the LibDems as doormats for the Conservatives during 2010-2015.

In order to form the largest bloc in the House of Commons, the LibDems would have to get a popular vote in the region of 35% or 34%, both Lab and Con getting below 30%. Even then, the LibDems would be or might be at least 100 seats short of a majority.

As I have blogged previously, I do not think in terms of a LibDem surge, but more a concatenation of circumstances —LibDems as sole Remain party, weakening of Conservative vote because of Brexit Party, disenchantment with Labour— drawing votes away from the other parties and so to the LibDems. LibDems as largest Commons bloc? Unlikely but, now, not totally impossible.

Notes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_United_Kingdom_general_election

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_Kingdom_general_election

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Orange_Book:_Reclaiming_Liberalism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Oaten#Scandal_and_resignation

https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Susan_Kramer

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/8508098/David-Laws-broke-the-rules-and-must-pay-a-price.html

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Huhne#Expenses_claims

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Huhne#Criminal_conviction

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

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

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

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

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=195941

Update, 13 September 2019

Well…

So there it is: Jo Swinson could never work with (be in coalition with? proffer “confidence and supply” to?) Jeremy Corbyn and Labour under Jeremy Corbyn.

It’s against her “principles” to support any criticism of Jews or Israel, it seems. Pity that her principles did not extend to refusing to work with evil part-Jew manipulators such as George Osborne and David Cameron-Levita. She and most of the LibDem MPs voted for all or most of the measures which for a decade have demonized, impoverished and actually killed sick, disabled and poor people in the UK via the “welfare” “reforms” of evil part-Jap Iain Dunce Duncan Smith and the Jew “lord” Freud (etc).

I was right about Jo Swinson. My instinct told me that she is an evil bitch. I was right.

https://twitter.com/misslucyp/status/1172941119287648256?s=20

Update, 17 September 2019

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/09/16/lib-dems-would-need-gargantuan-swing-hit-200-seat-target/?li_source=LI&li_medium=li-recommendation-widget

Some LibDems are actually saying that the LDs could get hundreds of MPs in the upcoming general election! Proof positive of their disconnection from reality. People are mostly going to vote LibDem (if at all) only as a way of hitting out at the more major parties. There is no “LibDem surge” as such, but (as I have repeatedly blogged) there is a desire on the part of many Remain partisans to vote against the Conservative Party (mainly).

We have been here before, as when pathetic David Steel urged his rank and file to “prepare for government” (in 1981): http://www.britishpoliticalspeech.org/speech-archive.htm?speech=42

I imagine that the LibDems will pick up some seats, maybe even 50, but what will prevent Jo Swinson getting 200 or becoming PM is that no-one really wants a LibDem government (well, about a tenth of the voters might…), but many more will vote LibDem negatively, to block other parties or to signal pro-EU Remain support.

Update, 8 October 2019

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=195941

Update, 24 October 2019

https://twitter.com/jameshirst91/status/1187268475477213185?s=20

Update, 27 October 2019

Well, my prediction that the LibDems want another “Con Coalition” becomes firmer daily; the Labour reaction is scalding (or should that be “scalded?):

https://twitter.com/TheMendozaWoman/status/1188389011917852674?s=20

https://twitter.com/MikeH_PR/status/1188347126352437248?s=20

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/10/27/bid-libdems-snp-december-9-election-rejected-stunt-tories-labour/

Update, 20 March 2020

Well, my analysis in the above article was right, but the basic facts changed in that Brexit Party candidates standing in Conservative Party-held seats were ordered by their duplicitous leader, Farage, to stand down. That order applied to all Conservative-held seats, even those held by the most committed pro-EU MPs!

That decision by Farage, which betrayed his own candidates and supporters, meant that dozens of pre-election Conservative Party MPs kept their seats when, had Brexit Party stood candidates, they would have lost them to the LibDems.

The LibDems were on track to win several dozen MPs until Brexit Party self-destructed.

Jo Swinson’s decision to push for a General Election, and Corbyn’s silly willingness to be shamed into going along with that, led directly to the victory of the Conservative Party at the 2019 General Election. It led directly to Boris Johnson, a part-Jew, part-Turk public entertainer, as Prime Minister. Disastrous.

My more recent pre-General Election blogging guessed the LibDem result almost exactly. I predicted that the LibDems would get fewer than 10 seats. They got 11. So nearly right, anyway.

As for Jo Swinson, her doormatting for the Jewish lobby paid off, in that she was made a fake “baroness” and elevated to the House of Lords once she lost her Commons seat.

Alt-Right, Boris Johnson, Brexit, elections, historical, MPs, Party Politics, Uncategorized

Can The Conservatives Win A General Election? (or are they doomed?)

1 Comment

We are where we are, in the now-ubiquitous phrase. The prime-ministerial chair once occupied by the likes of Pitt, the 1st Duke of Wellington, Gladstone, Lloyd George, Churchill, Attlee, Harold Wilson, Margaret Thatcher etc is now occupied by a public entertainer of mixed ethnic and cultural origins, born in New York City, brought up partly in the USA and Belgium, and until recently a dual passport-holder. A rootless cosmopolitan playing out a performance as an “upper-class” “Englishman” caricature. Am-dram Churchill. Poundland Churchill.

Boris Johnson, Boris-idiot, Boris the clown. More to the immediate point, Boris without a majority, soon. As a child of eight years, Boris Johnson wanted to be “world king” and has for decades schemed and cheated and lied in order to get to the nearest position (outside the monarch’s own ambit) that England allows: the rank of Prime Minister. However, he has not become “King of the World”, but “King for a Day”, the traditional role, in the Revels, of the Jester or Fool (“…for who but a Fool would be King for a Day?”).

The Conservative Party elected Boris Johnson its leader. Conservative MPs voted to reduce the field to two. Conservative Party members, some 140,000 of them, voted and 66% of them, about 92,000, preferred Boris Johnson. It is not my purpose of this article to rail more than en passant against the absurdity that allows a prime minister to resign and for her successor to be, in effect, elected by 92,000 (mostly very elderly, mostly rather well-off financially) Conservative Party members (out of about 50 million voters generally). This article is for the purpose of examining electoral chances.

First of all, we have the Brexit chaos. I favoured Leave. I still favour Brexit. However, the whole process was criminally mishandled by the Conservative government of Theresa May.

How will Brexit affect a general election? I assume that the House of Commons will not allow a WTO or “no deal” Brexit, and so any general election that is then called will see Boris Johnson parking his tanks on the lawn of Brexit Party and trying to go all out for, effectively, the Leave vote of 2016. There are dangers for the Conservative Party in that.

Brexit is not the only issue in a general election. Some more affluent voters may vote Conservative for tax or other reasons even if they oppose Brexit. Also, many in the population will never vote Conservative even if they favour Brexit. Many despise Boris Johnson and will never vote Conservative as long as he is the leader. This is, if chess, three-dimensional chess.

However, now that the Conservatives under Johnson present themselves as the “Leave”/Brexit party, it can be assumed that a sizeable number of former Conservative voters who favour staying in the EU will migrate, at least temporarily, to the only significant Remain-supporting party, the LibDems. Where else can they go? It might be argued that many Conservative MPs favour Remain, and that those MPs will receive a special vote based on that. Don’t count on it. The label is the primary motor, and if Conservative means Leave, many Remain voters will leave…the Conservative Party.

If the next general election is called without the UK having left the EU, or having left on terms dictated by the EU (Brexit In Name Only), then Brexit Party will be waiting to snap up the hard-core Brexit vote.

Brexit Party intends, at present, to contest all 650 seats. Its mere presence ensures that dozens, maybe even beyond a hundred, Conservative MPs will lose their seats, in some cases to Brexit Party, but in more cases to the LibDems or Labour.

There has been talk of a Conservative/Brexit Party electoral pact, but that carries the danger of gifting the Brexit Party a bloc of seats. which might challenge the Conservative Party more strongly later.

Labour, though now called by msm commentators a Remain party, is more nuanced. Corbyn’s fence-sitting tactic, though much criticized, is all that he can do in a circumstance where Labour-held seats were more often (about 60%) Leave-voting, though most Labour voters voted Remain (because, as I blogged recently, Labour votes are increasingly concentrated in fewer and fewer seats).

It may be, anyway, that Labour voters have concerns other than, or as well as, Brexit: low pay, the Conservative attacks on the social welfare and benefits system, the burgeoning crime and disorder problem etc.

The composition of the Boris-idiot Cabinet and government will not attract many former Labour, LibDem or floating voters.

My conclusion is that the Boris Johnson government may struggle to attract the votes of more than 30% nationwide. Recent opinion polls have put the Conservatives at anywhere between 23% and 30%. Labour has been between 18% and 28%. LibDems around 16%-20% and Brexit Party 14%-20%.

If the Conservatives continue to lean towards Brexit strongly, they risk losing many of their pro-EU voters to the LibDems, but if they try to fence-sit or move more towards Remain, many of their previous voters will vote for Brexit Party or stay at home.

There is also the Boris Factor, but we see that, even though there has been a “Boris Bounce”, its effect has been slight. The Conservatives are still polling at or below 30% (as is Labour). Indeed, it could be argued that, for many former Conservative voters, especially in marginal seats, Boris-idiot is not an attraction but a turn-off. I concede that that is a guess, but it is at least an educated one.

I have fed various recent opinion poll results into the Electoral Calculus calculator [see Notes, below], and it is quite hard to come up with a Conservative majority in the Commons. Most results show a hung Parliament with either Lab or Con as largest party. Only one showed a Conservative majority (of one vote). In several cases, both main System parties were as many as 80 MPs short of a majority.

Now we all know that the “glorious uncertainty” of the Turf is carried over to the field of battle of British elections. It is hard to predict elections in Britain and “a week is a long time in British politics”, as Harold Wilson said. Also, Electoral Calculus is a fairly rough guide. Having said that, it seems clear that, at least in the short term, the Conservatives are on the back foot here. Any gamble to increase the Conservative majority in the Commons may well backfire, as in 2017. That would mean the end of The Clown as Prime Minister, but would also mean something of a political and even Constitutional crisis.

These should be fertile days for social nationalism, but we are as yet not even in the game…

Notes

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/userpoll.html

Afterthought, 29 July 2019

David Cameron-Levita as Prime Minister always made sure that the interests of pensioners were prioritized, in particular by introducing the “Triple Lock” on State pensions. Pensions have been one of several issues taking greater prominence over the years by reason of the increasing average age of the population of the UK.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Pension_(United_Kingdom)#Pensions_Act_2007

There were clear practical political reasons for this policy. Support for the Labour Party at elections is fairly even across the half-dozen usual age groups, whereas support for the Conservative Party is concentrated among the old and middle-aged: just under 50% of all Conservative votes are those of persons aged over 65 years. Hardly any young people intend to vote Conservative (in the 18-24 age group, below 4%).

The loyalty of the over 65s has been reinforced by pensioner-friendly policies. There are signs now that the Conservatives intend to, in the oft-seen phrase, “throw the pensioners under a bus”. In 2017 Phillip Hammond wanted to remove part of the Triple Lock, but the DUP insisted on its retention in part-payment for DUP “confidence and supply” support in the Commons.

The Conservative Party is already getting some flak from the elderly for the BBC’s announcement that free TV licences will be withdrawn for those of 75+ years. There are rumblings about bus passes for pensioners. Overall, it is clear that the free market crazies now in the ascendant under Boris-idiot want to target the elderly as they have already done the disabled, sick, unemployed etc.

The Labour Party is now the party of the blacks and browns, those dependent on State benefits, and of the public service workers. The Conservative Party is now the party of the rich, the affluent, the buy-to-let parasites and the like, and (many of) the elderly. If the elderly who are not particularly well-off desert the Conservatives, the Conservative Party is in big trouble, because only about 10%-15% of UK voters can really be described as rich or even affluent, certainly no more than 20%. In 2017, the Conservative vote amounted to 42.4% of votes cast. If half or more of those votes suddenly disappear, the Conservative Party is quite likely to disappear with them.

Further Notes

https://www.ipe.com/countries/uk/peers-call-for-removal-of-triple-lock-on-uk-state-pension/www.ipe.com/countries/uk/peers-call-for-removal-of-triple-lock-on-uk-state-pension/10030786.fullarticle

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/apr/27/pensions-triple-lock-questions-answered

https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2019/04/james-kanagasooriam-the-left-right-age-gap-is-even-worse-for-the-conservatives-than-you-think.html

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/bbc-over-75s-licence-fee-18335538

Update, 3 February 2023

Well, we all now know that, in December 2019, Boris Johnson and the Conservative Party won a supposed “landslide” at the General Election. In fact, the Conservative Party vote was only 43.6% of votes cast, but Labour’s vote fell to 32.1%, and that decided the matter.

Key was the decision of Nigel Farage to stab in the back his own candidates and supporters by withdrawing Brexit Party from serious contention. That was the key act that ensured a Johnson/Conservative win.

Brexit Party ended up with 2% of the vote nationwide. Had Farage and Brexit Party gone all out to win from the start, Brexit Party might have got 15%, which though giving Brexit Party few if any seats, would have tipped the balance back to hung Parliament territory.

Other factors were the elderly and late middle-age voters sticking with the Conservative Party, and the relentless and mainly Jewish anti-Corbyn campaign in the msm, which helped to crush Labour’s chances.

Brexit, elections, MPs, Party Politics, Uncategorized

The LibDems Elect A Leader

93 Comments

Introduction

I suppose that I should write a brief piece about the LibDems, now that they have elected a new leader. Somehow an underwhelming topic. First of all, the new leader.

Background

Jo Swinson MP was born in Scotland in 1980, went to a local state school and then to the LSE, graduating, it seems, aged only 20, and with a degree in management. She then worked briefly for a small enterprise in Yorkshire before becoming marketing manager with public relations duties for a local radio station in Hull, called Viking Radio.

Elected as MP in 2005 [LibDem, East Dunbartonshire], she was PPS to Nick Clegg, then a PUS, then a junior minister, all during the time of the “Con Coalition” of 2010-2015.

Jo Swinson voted for all or almost all of the Con Coalition policies, and has endorsed both zero hours contracts and “flexible working”. I am not a LibDem, but I have to say that Jo Swinson is really rather far from the LibDem traditional stance on such matters. She comes across as almost “libertarian” as far as worker rights are concerned.

The other candidate, Ed Davey, is not far from Jo Swinson, ideologically, though I should say that Davey was the more intelligent candidate of the two, so it makes sense for the LibDems to go for the less-intelligent and less-educated Jo Swinson…Davey was also the more experienced candidate, being about 15 years older and having been in Parliament for longer (since 1997, compared to Swinson’s 2005); Davey was also the only one to have served in the Cabinet.

Both Swinson and Davey lost their seats in 2015 (Davey to a Conservative, Swinson to the SNP), but were re-elected in the same constituencies in 2017. Both are “doing rather well” financially outside politics too: Davey is director or consultant to a number of companies, while Jo Swinson’s husband, Duncan Hames, an accountant (and also a LibDem MP from 2010 until 2015), now works for Transparency International, a well-funded NGO.

The LibDems’ situation and chances

2010 was surely the high point of LibDemmery. 57 MPs (out of 650) and a share in government: the Con Coalition. In 2005, under the egregious Charles Kennedy, the LibDems had won 62 seats out of 646, but were not in government.

The LibDems got 23% of the popular vote in 2010, but only about 9% of the MPs.

I believe that the LibDems could have demanded electoral reform from the Conservatives. They did not. They sold their chance for a few ministerial places, for official cars, red boxes, rank and flummery. In return they (Ed Davey and Jo Swinson among them) voted for every misconceived “Conservative” measure: the appalling regime of hounding of and cruelty to the poor disabled, sick and unemployed; the whole nonsense of “austerity”, which left the UK economy almost alone in advanced states in being mired in recession and/or low growth for years; the near-destruction of the armed services as an active and effective global force. For all that and more, for being doormats for the Conservatives, the LibDems were punished by the electorate.

In 2015, the LibDem vote slumped to 7.9% (8 MPs), then slumped again in 2017, to 7.4% (but, by the vagaries of the British electoral system, the LibDems ended up with 12 MPs).

In the 2019 UK European elections, the LibDems came second. I blogged about them then:

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/05/29/eu-elections-2019-in-review-the-libdems/

but they failed fairly miserably at the Peterborough by-election a week or so later:

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/06/07/peterborough-by-election-post-poll-analysis-and-thoughts/

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/06/08/a-few-peterborough-afterthoughts-about-the-libdems/

I do not think that I have a lot to add to what I then wrote. My view is that there is and will be no “LibDem surge”, but what there might be is a LibDem gain from the decline of both of the other main System parties, as well as an electoral benefit arising from the Brexit Party surge —if it happens— in the South of England, mainly, where the LibDems are not infrequently in 2nd or close 3rd place.

If the Conservative Party is hit badly in the South, its voters split between Con and BP, the main beneficiary is likely to be not the Brexit Party, and not Labour (in most cases) but the LibDems. In those circumstances (and “Change UK” having died shortly after birth), it is not now impossible to imagine the LibDems again having a bloc of 50 MPs, something that I admit I thought, until very recently, would be impossible. The LibDems may not deserve it, but might in any event get it. In fact, thinking of —inter alia— Boris Johnson, that might just be the epitaph of our present age.

Notes

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Democrats_(UK)#General_elections

Update, 12 December 2022

We now know that there was the 2019 General Election only 5 months after I wrote the above assessment. At that election, my initial judgment, rather than my later speculation, was vindicated: the LibDem vote increased from 7.4% to 11.55%, but the FPTP system resulted in the LibDems losing 1 MP. That MP was Jo Swinson, who exited political life, having led her party for less than 5 months (144 days).

After the departure of Jo Swinson, Ed Davey was elected leader.

The LibDems had 12 MPs after the 2017 General Election, which reduced to 11 after the 2019 General Election. However, since then the LibDems have had three by-election successes, taking their number to 14.

Boris Johnson, Brexit, Conservative Friends of Israel, elections, Jewish lobby in UK, Labour Friends of Israel, MPs, Party Politics, society, Uncategorized

After a 2019 General Election, What?

24 Comments

I just read a typically unsatisfying yet not completely uninteresting article in the New Statesman [below].

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/07/boris-johnson-all-roads-likely-lead-general-election

The conclusion of that article is that Boris Johnson will be forced to a general election before very long. Unlike msm talking heads, we have no need to say “whoever is the next Prime Minister”: the system is broken, the 100,000 elderly people actually given a vote love “Boris”, and so we, the other 65 million, are having imposed upon us the least honest, least competent, least loyal, least decent, least worthy, least genuinely British Prime Minister in living memory, perhaps ever.

The crunch is coming, but Boris Johnson has never kept to any “pledge” or promise, whether political or personal, so will not be bound by his “Leave EU by 31 October 2019” one either, in my view.

As I have blogged previously, Boris Johnson likes to be presented as a strong maverick character, whereas in fact he is actually rather weak: weak in logic, weak in general knowledge, weak in resolve, weak in ethical standards, weak politically.

Philip Hammond puts it more diplomatically: ” “He is actually a more complex personality than it sometimes seems,” Hammond said of Johnson in his interview. “He is a mainstream conservative on all topics except Brexit. I very much regret his attitude to Brexit. His own story, which is multicultural, multinational and liberal, speaks for itself.” [The Guardian].

Hammond’s words of course are two-edged and allude to Johnson’s part-Jew, part-Muslim, born-in-USA (and brought up largely in USA and Belgium) background, as well as his loose and indeed louche morality.

I may be overthinking this, because I do not see Boris Johnson as a determined —or indeed any sort of— planner (except in terms of trying to become Prime Minister for the past 20+ years), but I wonder whether Johnson foresaw that the Commons would block fulfilment of his “Brexit on WTO terms by 31 October” so-called “pledge”? After all, it would hardly require clairvoyance. The House of Commons has a large Remain majority.

If Boris Johnson “pledges” to leave on WTO terms on 31 October 2019 and if that is then blocked by the Remain majority in the Commons, Johnson can then sigh loudly in public and say “I did my best, but have been stabbed in the back by all those pro-EU MPs…”, thus absolving him from blame for not “delivering Brexit” (the EU will very likely grant further “extensons” etc…). Johnson can then present himself as the Tribune of the People, fighting the corrupt Remain MPs. A hero to fools…

From Johnson’s point of view, perfect. No need to actually negotiate with people who are more intelligent, more knowledgeable, better prepared than Johnson himself ever is, no need to put in much effort and, finally, also parking tanks on the lawn of Farage and Brexit Party (that less certain, though).

What if it goes wrong for Boris-Idiot and there is a no-confidence vote? I am wondering whether the prospect of this stupid clown as Prime Minister, even leaving aside Brexit, might not be enough to make some Conservative Party MPs abstain in a no-confidence vote. I would not bet against it.

If Labour put forward a no-confidence vote, and if that succeeds, it might not mean an immediate general election. The Conservatives can put forward another, less obviously clownish MP as their prime ministerial choice. If all the Conservatives and all the DUP support that person, then that freezes out Corbyn and Labour for a while.

What if there is a general election? If Brexit Party put up a fairly full slate of candidates in England, and if at least some form of Brexit has not happened by then, there might well be an explosion of rage from the half of the country (more than half) that voted Leave in 2016. That explosion might well not spare the Conservatives who have so badly handled the Brexit negotiations for the past 3 years. After all, that inept performance calls to mind the other stupidities of the past decade.

Scotland seems likely to vote at least 40% SNP in a general election, creating (maintaining) a bloc of about 40-50 Westminster MPs. As for England and Wales, if you take out the blacks and browns (etc), and you take out London (and Gibraltar, which has no votes in Westminster elections), the Leave vote was around 70%. What does this mean?

First of all, Brexit is not the only issue. The socio-economic problems of the country play more to Labour’s advantage. What is letting down Labour electorally now is that it is seen to be largely the party of the blacks and browns, the immigrants and their offspring, as well as public service workers, and those reliant on State benefits. I speak in broad-brush terms of course.

The people who are voting Labour now and might vote Labour in any 2019 general election are concentrated in quite few seats, about 200-250, but some polls are saying that only 40% of 2017 Labour voters will vote Labour if there is a general election this year. Translating that into seats is not easy, but it could mean a substantial reduction from the position now.

The above is however affected by the effect Brexit Party might have on the Conservative vote, bearing in mind that, as with Labour, as high as 60% of 2017 Conservative voters say that they will not be voting Con next time.

If Brexit Party puts up candidates all over England and Wales, and scores at least 15% nationwide, the present 312 Conservative seats will reduce to about 250 and possibly fewer. Most will fall to the LibDems or Labour, but no doubt Brexit Party could win a few too. If Brexit Party can score 20%+ nationwide, then there might be only 150 Conservative MPs left.

We are in minority, possibly coalition, territory. Either

  • Labour + SNP or
  • Labour + LibDems; or
  • Conservative + Brexit Party or
  • Conservative + LibDems

One intriguing fact is that Boris Johnson is apparently marginally more popular with Brexit Party members than he is with Conservative Party members.

My guess today (in this volatile climate, one alters perceptions almost daily) is that it is a race between Labour’s vote (especially in the North) collapsing and the Conservative vote collapsing in much of the country, and weakened further by the existence of Brexit Party (even if Brexit Party itself scarcely wins a seat).

I cannot see Boris-Idiot lasting for long as Prime Minister— he is completely unsuited for such a position; but having said that, the country has already gone half-mad…

Postscript

I had scarcely published the above when, about an hour after that, the Guardian published the report below:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/19/brussels-to-offer-boris-johnson-extension-on-no-deal-brexit

“Brussels to offer Boris Johnson extension”… Quelle surprise…

There is also this now:

 

Update, 10 April 2021

Nearly two years later from when I wrote the above blog post, we look back at the December 2019 General Election and see that most of the analysis was correct. What made the prediction of Conservative Party electoral collapse misfire was the event few —if any— predicted, meaning that Nigel Farage, snake oil salesman, stabbed his own party in the back, and withdrawing from active participation the majority of Brexit Party candidates, all of whom had actually paid for their own deposits (and more)!

All or almost all Conservative Party candidates were given a clear run by Brexit Party. Brexit Party candidates in some formerly Labour seats where the Conservative Party was always unlikely to win, were allowed to stand, as in Hartlepool, where the Brexit Party 2-i-c, Richard Tice, came a very close third and, had the party not been killed by its own leader, might have pulled off an historic coup in a seat Labour-held since it was created. Farage’s actions destroyed Brexit Party credibility during the campaign.

The net result was that, with most intended Brexit Party votes going to Conservative candidates, the Con Party achieved a huge 80-seat overall majority. Many Conservative candidates, especially in the North, won by fewer than 2,000 votes. Had Brexit Party put up more than a token fight, the Conservative Party might well not have achieved a majority at all.

As for Nigel Farage, after his treachery in 2019, he had the gall to wind up Brexit Party (literally, since it was set up as a private company) and start yet another party, Reform Party or Reform UK, which he then abandoned when offered a great deal of money in business. An out and out, controlled-opposition, con-man.

Brexit, elections, Party Politics, society, The Great Replacement, Uncategorized

The Day The Labour Party Committed Suicide

11 Comments

Introduction and background

Today, the Labour Party committed suicide. It decided both that it is going to back a “second Referendum” or “people’s vote”, and that it will be supporting Remain in that vote. In other words, the 2016 EU Referendum result will be dishonoured and quite possibly overturned if Labour has its way.

I have been predicting this System move for a long time; in fact, my first opinion published after the EU Referendum itself was that the Remain side, which is basically the System’s preferred side, would try every method to overturn the Referendum result. After all, the EU has “form” in this regard, making numerous countries re-take referenda which came up with the “wrong” result, even refusing to deal with governments which contained the “wrong” type of elected politician (in Portugal and Austria etc in the past).

The idea (held by most Remain whiners) that the EU is some kind of “democratic” and “liberal” entity is completely naive. The EU was set up by or under the influence of the sinister Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_von_Coudenhove-Kalergi

and it forms part of the world conspiracy-domination matrix that also includes the USA-centred “New World Order” or NWO.

BhFozwVCQAAjLNT

http://www.westernspring.co.uk/the-coudenhove-kalergi-plan-the-genocide-of-the-peoples-of-europe/

Part of that is the so-called “Great Replacement”, effectively the replacement of the white Northern European peoples by those of other race (blacks and browns etc) and those, in the future, of mixed-race, the outcome of mass immigration into Europe.

My view, published numerous times in these blog pages, has been that the System in the UK and EU would delay Brexit, try to keep Britain in the EU by means of various strategems, or if necessary, to give the UK a “deal” which would effectively be “Brexit In Name Only” (BRINO). Ideally, remaining or BRINO would then be falsely validated by a “second Referendum” under such name as “People’s Vote” or “confirmatory” referendum. So it seems to be happening. I did wonder how long Corbyn himself could sit on the fence.

The possibly deliberate mishandling of the post-2016 Brexit process by the Conservative Party government has now led to the position in which the pro-Remain majority in the House of Commons is determined that the UK will not leave the EU on a “no-deal” (WTO) basis.

I despise Boris Johnson as a politician: he is a charlatan and mountebank, to use old terms, and I have very little faith that he will honour his “pledge” to take the UK out of the EU on 31 October 2019 “if necessary”. However, it is possible that, to save his own skin, if he cannot persuade the Commons to accept a “deal” similar to that the EU offered Theresa May, that Boris Johnson will either cave in to the demand for a second referendum or will appeal over the heads of the parties to the electorate, and hold a general election in an effort to strengthen his hand. A gambler’s gamble.

Alternatively, Johnson may be sidelined quite soon by a no-confidence vote, which will either mean a general election or even his replacement without general election by someone else, presumably Jeremy Hunt. The British Constitution is so vague, relying as it does on a few sentences in Bagehot etc, that that would not, stricto sensu, be unconstitutional.

Labour in a general election

Labour received nearly 13 million votes at the 2017 General Election, 40% of the votes cast. In terms of percentage, that was Labour’s best since Tony Blair in both 2001 and 1997, and before that, Harold Wilson in 1970 (Labour scored over 40% in every general election from 1945 to 1970).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(UK)#UK_General_Elections

When it comes to House of Commons seats, however, it is a different story. In 2017, Corbyn-Labour won 262 seats with its 40% vote, not much better than the 258 seats won by Gordon Brown’s Labour in 2010, when the Labour vote-share was only 29.1%. In 2001, Tony Blair-Labour won 413 seats on a vote-share of 40.7%.

I think that something more is going on here than just the “glorious uncertainty” and illogicality of the UK First Past The Post and eccentric boundaries electoral system. It is clear that the Labour vote is becoming ever-more concentrated in fewer and fewer constituencies.

Harold Wilson in 1974 (twice), James Callaghan in 1979, and Neil Kinnock in 1987 and 1992, all scored well below 40% in general elections, yet ended up with more seats, considerably more, than Labour won in 2017.

As stated above, it is believed that, out of Labour’s nearly 13M voters in 2017, perhaps 3.5M, though perhaps as high as 4M, had voted Leave in 2016. In other words, about or around 70% of Labour voters voted Remain.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48039984

However, about 61% of Labour constituencies voted Leave.

https://fullfact.org/europe/did-majority-conservative-and-labour-constituencies-vote-leave-eu-referendum/

The inference is plain: not only are most Labour voters generally clustered in a relatively small number of constituencies, but the number of 2017 majority Labour-voting constituencies that also had a majority for Remain is even smaller, somewhere around 100.

Labour as a party has been growing distant from its roots, from its core vote, for decades. The industrial proletariat is virtually non-existent, replaced by the “precariat”, economically insecure, politically both apathetic and volatile. The trade unions, though often still linked to Labour, are likewise almost without importance now, all but powerless to help employed persons much, and focussed on “diversity”, “equality”, anti-racism” etc and on ever-more convoluted codes of conduct, politically-correct nonsense, and on support for mass immigration.

As I have commented previously, the Labour “core vote” is now not really the English and Welsh (or Scottish) “working classes”, but the post-1945 immigrants and their offspring and, after them, the public service workers generally, as well as most of the unemployed and/or disabled persons reliant on State benefits.

There are many many seats in the North of England particularly which were rock-solid Labour but which are now less-solid Labour, or are marginal. These are areas which voted Leave, where the English majority (in some cases now, minority) are sick of mass immigration, of cultural decay, of crime and lawlessness, of the patronizing callousness of the self-regarding and self-described “elite” in the msm and Westminster and in the City of London.

A recent opinion poll put Labour on only 18%. Critics said that that was an “outlier” and (perfectly true) that another poll the same week put Labour on 25%. My feeling and view is that Labour will struggle to get even 30% in any general election, i.e. where Labour was in 2017. The big question is where that 30% will be.

Labour’s new unambiguous Remain stance will alienate anyone who regards Brexit (not just Brexit, but the bundle of issues around Brexit) as important. That could be a third of 2015/2017 Labour voters, and particularly in the more marginal seats.

Fortunately for Labour, it looks as though Brexit Party will cripple the Conservative vote nationally. However, Labour too is on thin ice. There is every chance that the new Remain policy will rob Labour of the formerly solid seats in the North.

The Conservatives will fight the next general election against three enemies, but Labour will also be fighting against at least two (Brexit Party being one) in formerly safe seats.

Labour may gain votes in its new core areas, among the blacks, browns, public service people and millennials of London and elsewhere, but at the cost of traditional Labour areas of the North etc. They will not vote Conservative, but might vote Brexit Party out of pure anger. Beware.

If Labour’s new voters are fickle or volatile (as I think that many are), Labour will have lost formerly solid support in exchange for what could be fair-weather votes, leaving Labour, somewhere down the line, with next to nothing.

At present, I still think that Labour might be the largest party after a general election, if held this year or next (the Conservatives are all but on their knees) but I have the feeling that, looking at the medium term (from 2022), Labour has just committed suicide.

Update, 21 September 2019

…from the Independent, “reporting” on beach patrols at Dover; all too typical of the sort of persons now prominent in “Labour” and what is left of the trade unions:

“Riccardo La Torre, firefighter and Eastern Region Secretary of the Fire Brigade Union, branded the coast patrol “despicable” and said: “These have-a-go, racist vigilantes have no place in any kind of enforcement or emergency activities and will only serve to make conditions and tensions worse.”

“These groups claim to be the voice of the working class, but now they want to act as an arm of the authorities by patrolling beaches to apprehend struggling working-class people desperately trying to get to safety.”
[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/far-right-britain-first-beach-patrols-calais-dover-anti-migrant-a9113471.html]

So “Riccardo La Torre” (que?), a regional secretary of the Fire Brigade Union, thinks that migrant invaders from Africa and the Middle East are “working class people”, who are “trying to get to safety”?!

Safety from, er, France? There you have in a nutshell, the craziness that is much of “Labour” now. Alien migrant-invaders are “working class people”, who should be allowed to occupy the UK at will (and be subsidized too)! Note the fag-end “Marxism”, trying to shoehorn the facts into some 1980s polytechnic back-of-postcard Marxism-Leninism.

 

Boris Johnson, Brexit, Deadhead MPs, elections, free speech, Ian Millard, MPs, Party Politics, society, Uncategorized

Boris, A Story for Our Times…

9 Comments

The time has come for me to write about the most incredible charlatan and mountebank the UK has seen since the days of Horatio Bottomley.

The background we all know (though when I say “we”, of course I diplomatically pretend to mean “all British people” but in fact mean “the tiny minority who take a serious interest in how the country and society they themselves live in is run”).

In outline, therefore: the UK has a combined political and electoral system that no longer really works. Part of that is the sclerosis of the major political parties of the System.

The LibDems, heirs to the great late 19th and early 20th Century Liberal Party, failed in 2010 to demand (as they had the power to do) some form of proportional electoral system. They are flagging, though may benefit from not being Conservative or Labour, if Brexit Party grows stronger.

Labour is doing well within its boundaries, as the party of the public services and of the “blacks and browns”. In terms of MP numbers, Labour under Corbyn is doing about as well as it has generally done in the past, if one excludes the Tony Blair years:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(UK)#UK_General_Elections

though it may struggle to get a popular vote much above 30% in future.

Then we have the Conservatives, for long considered “the natural party of government”, but which now struggles to attract votes from anyone much under pensionable age, or from those not in the most affluent 10%-20% strata of the population. Its MPs are mediocre or worse, and its ministers no better. The leading contender to take Theresa May’s purple is now Boris Johnson. He is the leading contender because the Conservative Party is terminally sick. In its healthier days, someone like Boris Johnson would not even be an MP, let alone promoted (briefly, disastrously) to Foreign Secretary; the idea of someone like him becoming Prime Minister would be a joke, rather like that of The Simpsons, c. 1993, casting Donald Trump as a future President of the USA. Jokes are dangerous!

A serious point from Lewis Goodall. It has been a long time since the Conservative Party had anything like a solid majority in the House of Commons (1992; arguably, 1987). 27 or even 32 years:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK)#UK_general_elections

So we now consider the candidate considered most likely to lead the Conservative Party after July-August 2019.

I have in fact already blogged about Boris Johnson and some of the other would-be Conservative Party leaders:

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/06/09/the-conservative-party-leadership-contenders-in-outline/

Boris Johnson: a few tweets from journalists, commentators etc

https://twitter.com/bexin2d/status/1138401617248698369

[Below, Boris Johnson, the part-Jew public entertainer, clowning and posing as the great patriot…]

https://twitter.com/ajimmydixon/status/1129019292601769984

“After the briefest of honeymoons,” he wrote, “the voters would quickly start to wonder how this spectacularly incompetent braggart, with a Churchill complex but no Commons majority, had ended up in Downing Street in the first place.”

There was a Mafia leader in New York once, John Gotti, who at one time enjoyed the newspaper-invented title “The Teflon Don”, because he was always being arrested and even charged with serious crimes, but who always seemed to get away with whatever. No charges stuck. There is something of that in Boris Johnson.

“Matthew Engel in The Guardian notes [Bottomley’s] ability to charm the public even while swindling them; one victim, cheated of £40,000, apparently insisted: “I am not sorry I lent him the money, and I would do it again”. If London had had a mayor in those days, says Engel, Bottomley would have won in a landslide.”

A transparent reference to the (one-time) Mayor of London, Boris Johnson. Johnson seems able to shrug off, not so much allegations against him, but allegations proven beyond all doubt and repeatedly, against him.

Boris Johnson, journalist trainee (sacked), journalist (sacked), Spectator editor (hopeless, largely absent), MP twice, Shadow minister (sacked), Foreign Secretary (“resigned”), Mayor of London (useless). That’s before we even look at detail, or about his personal failings (easily available elsewhere, so no need to again detail them here).

One of the most risible aspects of Boris Johnson is his am-dram reprise of Churchill. Johnson affects not only the voice (slightly) at times, but (also occasionally) the solid buffalo-like massed body posture, hunched, looking down etc. I may have my trenchant criticisms of Churchill’s historical role, but the man was a titan compared to Boris Johnson!

There is something sick here about the Conservative Party, the UK, and the UK’s political system. The Conservative Party consists now of between 50,000 and 120,000 mostly elderly, mostly affluent persons, who are going to vote on a leader. The majority will vote and a majority of those will elect the leader. In other words, about 40,000 or so of those elderly people will, in effect, elect the next Prime Minister of the UK, a position which the “elected” candidate may hold for nearly three years, until 2022!

What kind of fake “democracy” is that?!

What will happen if Boris Johnson wins this contest?

Either Boris Johnson will take the UK out of the EU without a trade “deal” with the EU in place (I am sanguine on that score), in which case there is every chance of his losing a House of Commons confidence vote either immediately or not very long afterward, or Johnson will renege on his meaningless “pledge”, in which case he will be giving Brexit Party a gift worth rubies. Either way, the Conservative Party will be toast. Any loss of a confidence vote will result in a general election in which the Conservative Party might well be wiped out.

The Daily Express (meaning the Jew who owns the Daily Express) has been pushing an opinion poll which says that a Boris Johnson Conservative Party might win a landslide 140-seat House of Commons majority. That is very unlikely, for several reasons.

What Britain needs is a powerful social-national movement. So far, there have been mere straws in the wind only. No movement, no party exists, as yet. An inevitably-disastrous Boris Johnson government might create the socio-political conditions for one to emerge.

Notes

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gotti#%22The_Teflon_Don%22

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/12/boris-johnson-is-every-bit-as-dull-and-evasive-as-his-minders-hoped

(“It’s quite something when Liz Truss, Gavin Williamson and Chris Grayling are three of the brightest people in the room.“)

(“No, he didn’t want to talk about his record at the Foreign Office. Probably because his tenure had been an unmitigated disaster. Rather, he wanted to claim other people’s achievements during his time as London mayor as his own.”)

(“Just as the event threatened to unravel, Johnson remembered his instructions and dashed for the exit. Some journalists shouted that the whole event had been a total disgrace, but for Boris it had done the business. He had got through the day more or less unexamined. Onwards and downwards, further into the cesspit of Tory party politics.”)

https://metro.co.uk/2019/06/16/boris-johnson-said-f-families-7-7-terror-attacks-9970567/?ito=article.desktop.share.top.twitter?ito=cbshare

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/boris-johnson-tory-leadership-contest-brexit-steve-baker-conservatives-a8955631.html

(“This was the Tory party in survival mode, reduced to its basest instinct. Things were serious now. The Tory party had decided it must live, and so everything else must die.”)

(“All dignity dispensed with. All integrity gone. Survival is everything.”)

(“The most telling fact of the speech was how bad it was. Boris Johnson is on his best behaviour, but bad behaviour is all he is.“)

(“What was he offering exactly? There was something or other on “investing in the infrastructure this country so badly needs”. His current record on infrastructure is an utterly pointless cable car in east London that recent TfL research showed is used by precisely six actual commuters. ​It now serves alcohol in the evenings to try and stay afloat.

Then there are the rolling windowless sauna buses, and his decision to make himself chief executive of the London Legacy Development Corporation, and personally see through the execrable Olympic Stadium deal with West Ham United – the only aspect of London 2012 over which he had any executive control, and the only aspect considered to be an utter failure.”)

https://twitter.com/ToryFibs/status/877583434184609796

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/06/why-conservatives-deserve-face-extinction-if-they-make-boris-johnson-prime

We keep hearing that “Boris Johnson has the ability to be Prime Minister, but does he have the necessary character?”

My response is “where has Boris Johnson proven that he has the ability?”; on the contrary, he has, if anything, proven that he has not the ability.

Afterthought, 20 June 2019

It occurs to me that some readers, on reading my assertion that Boris Johnson is the most egregious charlatan and mountebank since Horatio Bottomley, may object “what about Robert Maxwell?”, and it is true that Johnson does invite comparison with “Maxwell”.

However, Maxwell was a far more organized and intelligent figure, and in some respects far more sinister (he is supposed to have been Israel’s chief secret operative in Europe). Also, though “Maxwell” was indeed an MP (in the UK) for 6 years (1964-1970), Britain in those days was still decently “anti-Semitic” and (rightly) somewhat “prejudiced” against “Maxwell” (though Britain still allowed him to become an MP, defraud pensioners etc). No-one would ever have even thought of “Maxwell” as a potential Prime Minister.

It is true that Maxwell was every bit as much of a charlatan as Boris Johnson is, but there was an element of seriousness or even tragedy in Maxwell that does not exist in Boris-Idiot. I don’t suppose that anyone would entrust Boris with millions to invest, neither would he know what to do with it, though his incompetence in every sphere would still ensure that every penny was lost! One could ask, “then why is Boris being entrusted with the fate of the whole country?” God knows. I don’t.

Update, 21 June 2019
Seems that Boris-Idiot and his girlfriend/fiancee (?) had what the police used to call “a domestic”, the neighbours then calling the police emergency line 999. “Our” next Prime Minister”… He is as fit for that position as I might be to take Olympic gold (in any sport).
Update, 22 June 2019
Surprise! (not)
Update, 25 June 2019
Update, 30 June 2019
Johnson may never become Prime Minister even if he wins the absurd contest with Jeremy Hunt:
Update, 24 July 2019
Well, the idiot has been appointed Prime Minister, most of the Cabinet of Theresa May has resigned, others have been sacked. I shall blog separately about this disastrous new Cabinet of “kings and queens for a day” when it is complete. I just note now that Boris-Idiot has appointed, as Home Secretary, one of the traditional “Great Offices of State”, Priti Patel, who is non-European, thick as two short planks, and a proven Israeli agent. We no longer have freedom of speech in the UK; otherwise I would express what I think should happen to her. I therefore content myself with observing that, had it not been for Idi Amin, she would now be serving customers from behind the counter of a Kampala grocery shop.
Britain is now officially in big trouble.
Ctdcka4WAAApkQ6
Campaign Against AntiSemitism, Defence, ethnostate, free speech, Party Politics, prepping, safe zones, society, Uncategorized, white flight

How Long Before UK Society Breaks Down?

Leave a comment

I happened to see comments of General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith, the Chief of the General Staff [see Daily Telegraph link, below]:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/06/04/british-military-risks-irrelevance-doesnt-adapt-future-army/

“The British military risks becoming irrelevant if it continues to focus on “missiles and tanks” as the main threats to the UK, the head of the Army has warned.”

“The army must “update and change the rules of war” according to the Chief of the General Staff, to be able to tackle new threats like cyber attacks, whilst also deterring countries that rely on heavy firepower.”

“General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith said a focus on high-tech weapons that are no use against low-level threats like fake news and subversion “leaves us close to a position of dominant irrelevance”.”

“The main threat is not missiles and tanks, it is the weaponisation of globalisation, and those elements of globalization that have hitherto made us prosperous and secure: the mobility of goods, people, data and ideas.”

“Secure borders, or living on an island, are no guarantees against the corrosive and intrusive effect of disinformation, subversion and cyber.”

“The Army head suggested that traditional concepts of warfare were “increasingly redundant”.”

General Carleton-Smith fails to mention, at least specifically, mass immigration (and the subsequent and consequent births) as a factor impacting the very survival of the UK as a state, a country, a society.

Of course, if he did mention it in that context, he would be sacked.

At one time, the UK was a fairly cohesive society. Now it is not. It is a seething volcanic caldera, disguised only by a thin and disintegrating crust.

Look at what happened just today (4 June 2019):

A baying mob of anti-Trump “protesters” bait and then attack what seems to be a lone middleaged man. A porcine woman leads the abusive and violent multi-ethnic pack, shouting “nazi scum!” repeatedly into his face. I suppose that he was brought up not to punch a woman in the face, even one like her.

Look at the policewoman (or PCSO) who not only does not attempt to arrest the milkshake-thrower but looks terrified, before she is pushed aside by the crowd as an irrelevance. The police are just useless these days. That “officer” made no attempt to protect a citizen standing in the street outside Parliament itself. Well, in the end, she is just one woman in a clown outfit.

Incidentally, I am not exactly a Trump fan myself; that is another issue.

We often think that the UK is becoming a police state. How is that reconciled with the imminent social breakdown I am predicting? In fact, the two go together, and both are linked to the now-fragmented UK society.

As society becomes fragmented, the easy-going policing of the past has to change to try to contain the chaos just below the surface. In addition, anything which disturbs the surface calm, or relative calm, has to be criminalized. So we see that, as the foreign invading hordes and their offspring have multiplied in number, so have the penalties increased for anyone who suggests that they should not be in the UK, or should be removed one way or another.

This started in the 1960s with the first Race Relations Act (1965), and became increasingly more oppressive with subsequent Acts (1968, 1976, 1985, 2000, 2003). It is clear why: the threat of public order upheaval, as more and more “blacks and browns” (and others) arrived in the UK and started to breed.

Free speech, freedom of expression generally, freedom of choice (eg in offering employment, or housing or whatever) “had” to be curtailed for reasons of “preserving the Peace” and in order to keep up the pretence that the multi-ethnic/multicultural society can work, albeit at the expense of a certain loss of civic freedom.

There was also the realization that, as the non-British and indeed non-European populations expanded in size, they had to be pandered to, not “offended” etc, not because the reverse would be impolite or undiplomatic, but because those increasingly huge populations might rise up against the white British people who “allowed” them to come to the UK (though most of the British opposed mass immigration; it was always the System and its politicians etc that caused the influx and its problems).

It was and still is the Jewish Zionist element that was and still is behind much of the legal repression and the “ethnic” influx itself (“The Great Replacement”).

Over the years, the censorship of speech and restriction of actions has expanded from races and “ethnicities” to other parts of the general population: religions, sexual orientations etc.

You can now say, or post online, relatively innocuous views, only to find that you are not only faced with a virtual (online) mob baying for your blood, but also quite likely with a policeman at your door or on the telephone. My own experiences include this:

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

If you say something that offends the general orthodoxy, you may lose your job, your professional status, your liberty.

The satirical singer-songwriter Alison Chabloz lost her job —singing for a cruise line— simply because her views supposedly offended some Jews, even though her views had nothing to do with that job. Later, she sang satirical songs about some of the hundreds (if not thousands) of “holocaust” fake stories. That resulted in a farcical cycle of police persecution, prosecutions, eventual trial, conviction, sentence, appeal and now (at time of writing) further appeal.

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/04/18/alison-chabloz-the-show-goes-on/

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/02/13/alison-chabloz-the-fight-for-freedom-of-expression-goes-on/

Jez Turner set up the London Forum discussion group. He also made a speech in Whitehall in 2015, recalling how the Jews had been expelled from England more than once (and hoping that they might yet be removed again). Put on trial in 2018. Convicted. His punishment? A year in prison (he served 6 months).

I too was subject to action (by the same Jew-Zionist element): see above, and also

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

The Zionist campaign against free speech and free historical enquiry is being resisted, but the mere fact that such repression of free speech exists is very significant.

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/01/12/the-campaign-against-antisemitism-caa-takes-a-serious-hit/

In the last few years, the privatization of public space has led to the abuse of power by the main online platforms (Twitter, Facebook, YouTube etc), and even the organizations behind or around such platforms: paypal, patreon, and so on.

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/05/03/the-knives-are-out-for-freedom-of-expression-and-more/

When Twitter started to remove “unwanted” opinion from its pages, many turned to GAB, only to find that there was a strong and focussed attempt by the ZOG powers to destroy GAB. So far, it has survived. However, the campaign against free speech continues, and shows no sign of abating:

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/02/26/tommy-robinson-banned-on-facebook-the-repression-of-free-speech-online/

Indeed, even a joke made (and posted online) about a Guy Fawkes event in a suburban garden can result in a police raid, evidence “bagged up” as for a murder case etc. Am I making this up to prove my point? No.

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2018/11/06/a-country-gone-mad/

Measures against free speech and freedom of expression are just, overall, a symptom of what is happening. By that I mean the fragility of civil society generally. We see that, as the police “crack down” on social media posts or stickers put up on university campuses (incredibly, some young people got 4 years in prison for the latter, quite recently), comments made in blogs etc, in the real world of the UK, crime and especially violent crime is getting out of control: London infested by mainly black and brown “moped raiders” and “scooter raiders” and muggers, “road rage” incidents, brawls etc. The courts are far more lenient, usually, on those real crimes than they are on the fake crimes or notional crimes of pretended offence.

I have seen over the years how thin the veneer of society is in the UK. As long ago as the petrol protests of 2000, I noticed that that veneer was already very very thin indeed. Fights breaking out over the fuel pumps etc.

The police cover has been reduced, and while the police seem to be enthusiastically noting and acting upon reports of anyone seriously (or even unseriously, thinking of the dog taught to do a “Hitler” salute! The owner got a heavy fine…) criticizing the failing multikulti society (or the Jews that are mainly behind it), they seem far less interested in the traditional role of the police, i.e. investigating real crime and keeping safe the citizenry.

As for the armed services, they seem to be going the same way. Reduced in numbers, and with their focus on the approved shibboleths of the “multi-everything” society: multi-ethnic, multicultural, LGBT-whatever friendly, with confused aims, ever-lowering standards and little ability to counter either conventional threats or new dangers.

There again, what are the armed forces actually defending? We are now at the 75th anniversary of the Normandy Landings. There may be disputes about whether the Second World War ever need have happened, about whether an honourable armistice between the British Empire and the German Reich might have been concluded in 1940, but leaving all that aside, the British servicemen and civilians of that era (albeit bamboozled by Churchill and his cabal, so be it…) knew, at least in their own minds, what their own society was! Something like the picture given in the popular song There’ll Always Be An England:

Is there a British society at all now? There are bits and pieces still operative, but the society as a whole is now a jigsaw. There are fissures and rifts and splits everywhere. Racial, ethnic, religious, ideological, sexual, economic etc. Some always existed, but not to this extent.

So we see a situation where, at the very time when the society itself is not a coherent whole, the forces which might compel civic obedience and discipline are not numerous or powerful enough to do so, despite theoretically strict laws relating to various areas.

What will happen in a situation (which might come sooner than many imagine) in which the population is without luxuries or even necessities? Who will control those seething and uncontrolled masses? Not the depleted Army. Not the very depleted police.

A social national movement does not exist in the UK. It may be that the only way for one to exist will be for its existence to become the only way for the whole society to exist.

Notes

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/may/06/strange-death-europe-immigration-xenophobia

https://gab.com/ianrmillard/posts/47468129

https://gab.com/LionoftheNorth/posts/47563842

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

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/9831912/I-feel-like-a-stranger-where-I-live.html

 

 

Brexit, by-elections, elections, Party Politics, Uncategorized

EU Elections 2019 in Review: Brexit Party

11 Comments

Cl3KWpkWQAAP-lJ

So we come finally to the summit: laurels and oak leaves to the victor. Brexit Party rode its tank over the prostrate bodies of the other parties.

In the EU Elections 2019, Brexit Party was in 1st place, received 5,248,533 votes, a vote-share of 30.7%, resulting in 29 new MEPs. A party which scarcely existed a month or so before the poll.

The Brexit Party vote numbered over one and a half times the vote of the second-placed party, the LibDems, far more than double that of the Labour Party (which was 3rd), about 3x the vote of the Greens, and between 3x and 4x the vote of the Conservatives. As for UKIP and Change UK, which scraped in together in 6th/7th place (excluding SNP, Plaid Cymru and Northern Irish parties), the Brexit Party vote was 10x higher than that of either of them.

Brexit Party was 1st in 9 of the 11 (ex-Northern Ireland) EU constituencies. In Scotland and London it came in 2nd and 3rd respectively.

Brexit Party emerged, apparently from nowhere (perhaps not entirely so, though) and was soon holding rallies where thousands of people turned up to hear Nigel Farage (mainly). They even paid to hear him.

Here is Farage talking in Peterborough, where the vital by-election will be held this Thursday 6 June 2019:

I find it amusing that the Peterborough by-election will be held on 6 June 2019, 75 years to the day after the Normandy Landings of 1944. I have not seen Brexit Party making much of that, but it may have at least a limited effect.

Brexit Party has somehow managed to run an incredibly professional campaign including social media campaign, as with this ad for the EU Elections:

https://twitter.com/brexitparty_uk/status/1129054384069980161

There is no doubt about it, though: Brexit Party must win the Peterborough by-election to keep its momentum going. So far, its campaign has gone well, resulting in Brexit Party, which started as 5/4 second favourite (after Labour), now quoted by bookmakers and on the betting exchanges as not only favourite but very heavily odds-on, (this morning at 1/5, but now, as I write, already yet firmer at 1/6!). https://www.betfair.com/sport/politics for updates.

I am updating my own [first written 9 May 2019] look at the by-election on a daily basis:

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/05/09/notes-from-the-peterborough-by-election/

So what is the future for Brexit Party and what is its effect on other parties?

Well, as I write, an opinion poll has Brexit Party as the most popular party for voters intending to vote in the next UK general election:

According to Electoral Calculus [https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/userpoll.html ] , the approximate result of that, if applied in the real next general election, would be Brexit Party 322 seats, Labour 129 seats, Conservatives 93 seats, LibDems 26 seats (I have assessed the main Scottish votes as SNP 40%, Con 20%, Lab and LibDem 15% each).

In the above scenario, Brexit Party would be only 4 seats short of a Commons majority.

Another poll  (they are both very recent) comes to slightly different results in the poll but hugely different results in the Commons! Indicative of the volatility creeping or seeping into UK politics.

On the immediately-above scenario, Brexit Party would still be largest party in the Commons (Brexit Party 219 seats, Lab 177, Con 156, LibDems 47) but would be 107 seats short of a majority.

Many may say that all either of the above polls would mean in practice (apart from Nigel Farage as Prime Minister!) would be a quasi-Conservative (real Conservative) minority or coalition government and no big change politically in the end. I disagree. The Conservative Party has nearly 200 years of history (some would say more, including its informal origins long before the 1830s). Brexit Party has no history, no traditions, no roots. A shallow plant. Labour too has long tradition and history.

Once those corrupted old parties are mainly uprooted, once people see that there is a world beyond utterly corrupt LibLabCon and its mirages, the way becomes a lot easier for near-future social nationalism and for pan-European real co-operation of free nations for a new world and a new Europe. For race and culture!

Notes, musings and updates

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2019_European_Parliament_election_in_the_United_Kingdom

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/05/12/what-is-brexit-party-why-does-it-exist-what-are-its-chances/

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/european-election-results-tories-brexit-party-farage-no-deal-eu-a8931561.html

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jun/02/peterborough-prepares-for-byelection-that-could-see-first-brexit-party-mp

Brexit Party is certainly not social-national, even if it is a way-station on that journey.

Brexit Party is planning a large rally on 4 June 2019, two days before the actual by-election at Peterborough. The last one they held in the city attracted 2,000 people who actually paid to attend! This one? We shall see. This one is free, so who knows, though the auditorium which seems to be the largest space at the chosen location (The Cresset, Bretton) only has 850 seats: https://www.cresset.co.uk/functions-and-events/conferences/

It may be that the exhibition space at the same place is larger.

The Remain whiners are still desperately tweeting against Brexit Party. See, for example (below) a tweet by angry lesbian scribbler and msm “celebrity” Emma Kennedy, who tweets endlessly on things she thinks she knows about (she used to get angry at me on Twitter until I muted the silly woman). Her “Brexit supporters are ignorant knuckledraggers” viewpoint is very very typical of Remain whiners, who so often imagine themselves to be well educated and intelligent and Leave partisans to be the reverse. She has evidently not considered the alternative view, i.e. “anyone who keeps voting for the LibLabCon parties, who have detailed policies sometimes but rarely carry them out, is a fucking idiot”! Discuss.

In fact, in that regard, stand up, Emma Kennedy! She now supports the LibDems, who fooled millions in 2010 with a lot of talk about human rights, helping the disadvantaged, having a fairer voting system. They betrayed every single one of their manifesto promises!

https://twitter.com/EmmaKennedy/status/1134176961193009153

Someone answers the same tweet of Emma Kennedy, who evidently has time on her hands…(but she herself does not deign to answer the tweeter; of course not— he disagreed with her kneejerk flawed view and lack of logic…)

Actually, Emma Kennedy never replies to those who contradict her nonsense, as here, where she had tweeted that some black Remain nonentity should have stood at Peterborough (I agree. He should have: when he lost, it would have provided a laugh, and in the unlikely event that he won, he would at long last have a job!)

https://twitter.com/neverheardofher/status/1134177136980500480

https://twitter.com/EmmaKennedy/status/1134180501206556672

https://twitter.com/CotswoldsBloke/status/1134512220036042752

Oh, dear. Seems that most people disagree with Emma…

and

https://twitter.com/k69tie/status/1134506412497940480

Seems that some people do not give angry scribbler Emma the respect that she thinks that her “ideas” (derivative, flawed) deserve. Don’t they know that she is a “celebrity“?! I mean, she was on Celebrity Masterchef only, er, 7 years ago (in 2012)…and was writing children’s books from 2007 to, it seems, 2011…Ah, well, time can be cruel…

I really should not waste too much time on someone unknown to most people, but it seems to me that Emma Kennedy is rather typical of the Remain whiners: abusive, unable to see that the EU is no guarantor of human rights or civil rights (in reality), sure that she and her Remainiac colleagues are both right and far far more intelligent and better-educated than the Leave/Brexit “fucking idiots”.

What would she make of me? Well, in fact I already know, because (before Twitter expelled me in 2018) she tweeted to the effect that I am a “Nazi” etc (and even if so, does that mean that I am always wrong??). She of course has no idea that I once had my IQ tested at 156, and was (like her) a lawyer (a practising barrister as well as an expat international lawyer; she was a failed solicitor in the 1990s: she did 3 years in the City of London but admits that she was “no bloody good”).

Likewise, Emma Kennedy of course has no idea that I have visited (and even lived in) countries all over the world, from Kazakhstan to the USA, and Egypt to Australia, from the Caribbean to Southern Africa, from the Arabian Gulf to Russia, Poland etc etc (to name but a few places). That would not fit her constipated Hampstead/msm world-view, in which the typical Leave/Brexit supporter is someone of low IQ, poorly-educated, who has never travelled beyond his home in a “left behind” town such as Clacton or Margate, and has of course never met any persons of other race or culture.

By the way, this (below) is the African loudmouth that Emma Kennedy and various other idiotic Remain whiners, pro-immigration whiners etc wanted to see stand as a candidate at the Peterborough by-election:

His name is Femi Oluwole (from the name, I presume Nigerian origin). Who/what is he? Until the EU elections, I had never heard of him. His Twitter account (@Femi_Sorry) says that he is a “law grad”. That seems to be the sum total of his life achievement to date. Age? 20-something; maybe 30. He does not appear to have a job, as such, or a profession. He works for “Our Future Our Choice” [https://www.ofoc.co.uk/], which says (in small print and buried in its website) that “OFOC is powered by: Best for Britain, Open Britain, and The European Movement”.

“Powered by”? In other words, “funded by”. The EU is funding “OFOC” (and him), in other words. It has several people working full-time for it, and its office is in very expensive Millbank Tower, where the Labour Party, Conservative Party, EU and UN organizations etc have or have had offices.

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

http://www.millbanktower.co.uk/

This Femi person may pretend to be some kind of semi-amateur social media activist, but the big guns of the EU propaganda machine are behind him, broadcasting to his 177,000 apparently rather silly Twitter followers. Ironic that here we have a directly-involved organization, paid ultimately by the EU, and involving itself in a by-election (not for a party but against a party —Brexit Party), yet the Femi person and others make much of the supposed foreign funding for that party!

Below, a tweet from “Femi”, which to me shows that logic is not his strong point.

Another? It seems that “Femi” does not understand the UK political system or the British Constitution:

I wonder whether this Femi will ever get a real job? Doubtful. Another example of the wonderful multikulti “diverse” UK. He does not seem to have understood that Peterborough (where black Africans are “only” 1.4% of the population) had an African MP until quite recently. It was not a successful experiment.

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2018/12/21/deadhead-mps-an-occasional-series-the-fiona-onasanya-story/

Still, there it is. “Femi” is going around Peterborough, loudly talking mostly at (and insulting) the locals, filming himself and unwittingly causing even more voters to vote Brexit Party on 6 June…I suppose that he assumes that he will be offered a political position by a System party, or even become an MP at some point. Ha ha. Don’t count on it.

 

Proposals for a new society…