Tag Archives: Danny Alexander

Conservative Friends of Israel, daily blog, Defence, diary blog, elections, free speech, Ian Millard, immigration, Jewish lobby in UK, Labour Friends of Israel, MPs, Rishi Sunak, Russia and Russian relations, society, Starmer, The Great Replacement, the Great Reset, Uncategorized

Diary Blog, 3 December 2023, with a few thoughts about Labour and Starmer

8 Comments

Morning music

From the newspapers

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/dec/02/keir-starmer-praises-margaret-thatcher-for-bringing-meaningful-change-to-uk

“Keir Starmer praises Margaret Thatcher for bringing ‘meaningful change’ to UK.

Labour leader says former PM ‘set loose our natural entrepreneurialism’ in appeal to Tory voters to back him.

Labour leader says former PM ‘set loose our natural entrepreneurialism’ in appeal to Tory voters to back him.

Writing in the Sunday Telegraph, the Labour leader said Thatcher had “set loose our natural entrepreneurialism” during her time as prime minister.“

[Mail on Sunday]

Hard to believe (for those who imagine that Labour is still in some way “socialist” or even “social-democratic”). Starmer praising not only Mrs Thatcher but also global finance-capitalism, and in the Sunday Telegraph to boot!

Britain in the late 1970s had its problems, but the Thatcher government went far too far the other way, though in most respects not as far as have all UK governments since 1997.

“Labour” and “Conservative” have both become just almost-meaningless labels, rather like the kind of parties seen in Latin America which call themselves simple names to bamboozle simple electorates— “blanco”, “colorado” etc. The same as in Russia under Yeltsin; a major party (theoretically or mostly in opposition during the 1990s, but really not) was called “yabloko” (Apple), and its symbol was an apple. Simple, meaningless, deceptive.

Starmer, thanks to the utter collapse of the Conservative Party, is riding high by default. He has no need to even pretend that Labour is the “party for the working man”, as in decades past.

Also:

“The Labour leader touted the party’s “iron-clad fiscal rules” in an effort to portray Labour as trustworthy on the economy.

“There will be many on my own side who will feel frustrated by the difficult choices we will have to make,” he added. “This is non-negotiable: every penny must be accounted for. The public finances must be fixed so we can get Britain growing and make people feel better off.”

[Mail on Sunday, citing the Sunday Telegraph].

Just look at that. “Difficult choices“, “the public finances must be fixed” etc— the very words so often used by Cameron-Levita, Osborne, and their gophers, Clegg and Danny Alexander, in the early days of the Con Coalition of 2010-2015.

The only slight surprise is that Starmer still refers to his “own side“. What side is that? He pretends that there is still a Labour and ‘Tory’ divide. In reality, the ruling members of both System parties are following the same agenda: globalized finance-capitalism, “Friends of Israel”, and the Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan (funnelling blacks, browns etc into the UK in order to create over time a mixed-race and easily-ruled subject population).

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/dec/02/therese-coffey-says-she-came-close-to-dying-from-brain-abscess

So is that her excuse for her behaviour? See https://ianrobertmillard.org/2019/09/16/deadhead-mps-an-occasional-series-the-therese-coffey-story/.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/02/as-the-ceasefire-ends-a-question-from-history-lingers-will-israel-win-the-battle-but-lose-the-war-against-hamas

[The Guardian].

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12799029/Putin-use-NUCLEAR-weapons-Ukraine-Zelensky-retakes-Crimea-Military-expert-warns-Vladimir-dismiss-consequences-exploding-nuke-faces-humiliation.html

“Vladimir Putin could resort to deploying nuclear weapons in his war against Ukraine if the Russian despot feels his forces face defeat on the battlefield, a retired US Army Brigadier General has warned.

Kevin Ryan, who served as Chief of Staff for the Army’s Space and Missile Defence Command, said nuclear war is an ‘entirely feasible’ option for Putin if Ukrainian forces make gains on the battlefield and even retake captured territory like Crimea.

Ryan, who also served as the Defence Attaché to Russia, said Moscow is not just at war with Ukraine, but with the West too – and it’s for this reason Putin is much more likely to see the use of tactical nuclear weapons as ‘prudent deterrence’.

‘The exploding of a nuclear weapon inside Ukraine may seem like “overkill” in a war against Ukraine, but in a war against the West, it could be seen as prudent deterrence,’ Ryan tells MailOnline.”

[Mail on Sunday]

Well, the flaw in the retired officer’s above argument lies in “nuclear war is an ‘entirely feasible’ option for Putin if Ukrainian forces make gains on the battlefield and even retake captured territory like Crimea.“

As someone once said, “that dirty little word if“..

“If” Ukrainian forces make gains on the battlefield (they are not making gains), and “if” the Kiev-regime forces “retake” Crimea (that will never happen).

Putin has no need to remind the USA, UK etc (NWO) what power he has. NATO knows what will happen if it goes too far.

Tweets seen

Whatever people may tell “their” MPs, the reality is that “their” MPs are (in another sense) “their” MPs (Labour Friends of Israel, and Conservative Friends of Israel)…

Telling MPs this or that changes little or nothing.

Iain Dale, “I think Labour’s position on immigration is an absolute disgrace.. The three of us on this panel have all explained what the benefits of immigration are.. Do you ever hear a politician, from right or left, extolling the virtues of immigration?” “And you have the leader of @UKLabour probably our future Prime Minister, basically saying: the Tories haven’t gone far enough. I mean the world’s gone mad on this issue”

Iain Dale is typical of the UK msm— completely under the influence of the Jewish lobby/Israel lobby, completely pro-immigration, and hostile to the idea that the poorer 90% of the country should have any real rights.

Incredibly, Jewish-lobby puppet Iain Dale received only a mild police caution for attacking that elderly dissenter or protester in the street.

If only life were that simple. I recall being an involved observer of something similar once or twice back in 2011 and 2012, in other words not so long after Labour had been in power for 13 years.

Hard to judge whether Iain Dale is one of the conspirators wanting to import 20,000 blacks and browns (mainly) per week, or whether he is just a bit thick. Maybe a bit of both.

As someone tweeted, Dale lives in an area where average house prices well exceed £600,000, and where the impact on him personally will not be felt for decades, even if he is still alive by then. Rory Stewart is another one, his main property being a listed country house in the England/Scotland border country.

At the present rate, Britain, which had about 56M inhabitants (99% real British) when I was a small child, and which now has about 65M officially and 70M unofficially, will have 77M+ in 2030, 87M+ in 2040, and maybe 100M in 2050, by which time (if this madness is not stopped) the country will have become a soulless, largely urbanized and suburbanized dystopia, where hardly anything works properly and where the population is mainly black, brown, or “mixed-race”.

I am 67 already, so —thank God!— I myself will or would not be here to experience the hell that may be not very far down the line in the UK.

I am doing what little I can to stop that disaster happening, but the forces of the State (suborned by the Jew-Zionist cabals) have already prosecuted me for blogging the truth.

[That book was written in 1973 as fiction! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Camp_of_the_Saints]
[Mad Merkel]

There is still time, but not much time…

More from the newspapers

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12819735/The-migrant-delivery-driver-making-mockery-Britains-asylum-Sudanese-national-posed-photos-Eiffel-Tower-boasts-illegally-earning-cash-UK-brazenly-spraying-10-20-notes-taxpayer-paid-hotel-room.html

“Those whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first make mad“. As in…crime going through the roof, and migrant-invaders make money illicitly while laughing at the British people, and while, at the same time, people like me are prosecuted at the behest of a pack of Jew-Zionists for something as trivial as having allegedly posted justified remarks and the odd cartoon about society and politics…

The “readers’ comments” are interesting, with many saying —all too rightly— that this country is no longer a democracy, and that they will vote Reform UK. Well, I have no time for Farage, Tice etc, but if Reform UK can break up the present binary stitch-up, good…

The “Conservative” Party has relied on sheep-voting for a long long time, just like “Labour” did in Scotland (and is now doing in England). Both parties have MPs, “lords”, and activists who want the very opposite of what the vast majority of British people want.

More tweets

Indian money-juggler Sunak is himself, in effect, a migrant invader, so why bother to tell him anything other than “Raus!“?

Late tweets

Stoltenberg is a twit, basically: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jens_Stoltenberg. Still, looks as though he is about to actually tell the truth— that the Kiev regime has lost, strategically.

Escalation? What next? What happens after that?

Talking point

Late music

[Threatening skies over the Black Sea at Odessa]

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.