I would be very glad to see Gove “scrapped” (that’s putting it politely); one of the merely five tweets which resulted in my 2016 disbarment (at the instigation of a pack of Jews calling themselves “UK Lawyers for Israel”) was that referring to Gove, entirely accurately, as a Jewish-lobby puppet and expenses cheat.
Truth is no defence, it seems, in such a case. Gove has always been in the pocket of the Jew-Zionist lobby, and as for his being an expenses cheat, the only reason he was not prosecuted in 2009 was that the rules on MP expenses were too-loosely drafted and executed. Parliament cannot even run its own affairs properly, yet purports to be able to run the country effectively.
Gove is, of course, also a drunk and a cocaine abuser, facts of which both I and the public were unaware in 2016.
Look at that photo: careerist Gove, the Jew Miliband, and mentally-unstable part-Palestinian atheist, “pansexual” and LibDem MP, Layla Moran [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Layla_Moran#Personal_life], all pretending to applaud Greta Thunberg, the mentally-afflicted Swedish autistic, who has nothing to say that can help anyone or anything . Of course, that was years ago, and Greta Nut is of little interest to the public now (thankfully).
More tweets
David Bellamy cancelled for questioning. Truth doesn't mind being questioned. https://t.co/2jdUpZMJmg
“Truth doesn’t mind being questioned“? Very true, but tell that to the Jew-Zionist lobby re. the “holocaust” farrago…
The Russian army released a video of the destruction of the command post of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in the direction of Zaporozhye pic.twitter.com/iBqeCn4mbR
As a result of the catastrophic failure to repel the hypersonic missiles, the Russian defense announced the destruction of mercenary gatherings and drone manufacturing sites in Odessa.
I saw an assessment by some British ex-officer that, were the Russian forces to use nuclear weapons (I presume he means tactical ones) in Ukraine, US and UK forces would respond, directly, by wiping out the Russian forces in Ukraine in 2-3 days! Really? What if Putin decided to raze all major Ukrainian cities, especially Kiev, to the ground, using larger, strategic, nuclear missiles? Would US/UK forces still enter Ukraine (presumably only by air power)?
What if the Russians were to take the “Devil’s alternative” and decided to destroy London and a few key airfields, strategic telecoms centres, and ports? At that point, there is no British Army, navy, or air force to speak of, the UK Government would no longer exist, there would be social chaos in Britain, and it would be all but irrelevant that Russian cities and military facilities would also be eliminated.
If the above were to happen, we would be in world war, “Dr. Strangelove” territory, and the USA would be involved both as target and as nuclear attacker.
This is becoming truly dangerous for avoidance of a real nuclear war, both in Europe and beyond. Are the British ruling circles, for example, really willing to risk a nuclear attack on the UK itself just because they want to deny victory to the Russian forces in eastern Ukraine?
Madness.
The Razor’s Edge
I just wasted 2 hours watching the 1984 remake of the fine 1946 film, The Razor’s Edge, which was based on a novel by Somerset Maugham.
The remake expunged entirely the character of Somerset Maugham himself, who in the 1946 version was both the unseen narrator and also seen in several scenes throughout the film (Somerset Maugham was played by Herbert Marshall: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Marshall).
Several changes were made, I think not very successfully, in the 1984 version: the film starts at a kind of charity fete, rather than a country club by one of the Great Lakes. The main character, Larry Darrell (played by Bill Murray in the 1984 film, but —far better— by Tyrone Power in the 1946 one) is, in the 1984 version, a former ambulance orderly home from American involvement in WW1 (in the 1946 film, he is a former WW1 American pilot).
The 1984 film leaves out, entirely, the 1946 version’s final parts set on the Cote d’Azur, and resets those scenes in Paris.
The Himalayan scenes, where Larry Darrell seeks and finds enlightenment after consulting with an Indian holy man and “abbot” of an ashram, were much more powerful in the 1946 version; the 1984 film makes the ashram a Tibetan Buddhist monastery, and the scene in which Larry Darrell is enlightened on a mountain is just not at all convincing.
I have never read the novel, but I see now from Wikipedia that Darrell’s enlightenment in the book came after encounter with a Hindu spiritual master. The 1946 film leaves it vague as to the religion of the “abbot”, but the “abbey” is described as an ashram.
Even the drink which causes the character, Sophie, to fall back into alcohol abuse, is changed from Pertsovka (pepper-and-honey vodka, called —in the French way— “persovka”, in the film) to Zubrovka (bison-grass vodka). I can only assume that that that is because Zubrovka had become well-known, whereas few people in the USA had or have heard of Pertsovka.
Personally, I would give the 1946 version 8/10 as a film, but the 1984 version 2/10.
Incidentally, the 1984 film was both a critical and commercial flop, making back only half of its production budget, whereas the original 1946 version was nominated for four Academy Awards, and won one (Anne Baxter, playing Sophie); it also won two Golden Globes. The 1946 film was not a huge success commercially, but still made back 4-5 times its production cost.
Sometimes, remakes surpass earlier versions, but rarely. In this case, the 1946 version outdoes the 1984 remake in every way: storyline, acting, music, cinematography (despite the 38-year gap). The script in particular is very crisp in the 1946 film.
Late tweets
Departure of Tu-22M3 strategic bombers from Mozdok airfield
The UAF member tells how he sees what is happening inside Ukraine, how the Kyiv authorities spit on the lives of soldiers and how corruption eats up the budget from the inside.He comes to the conclusion that he does not feel any patriotism for this country. pic.twitter.com/3MUtlNVT2G
Every 100 meters cost us 4-5 people”: the Armed Forces of Ukraine admitted huge losses in manpower
Medics of the Armed Forces of Ukraine complain to The Kiev Post that the Ukrainian command advertised its counteroffensive so much that the Russian army foresaw all the steps of… pic.twitter.com/0oloVHxZOy
According to the night strike in Odessa and Nikolaev, you need to understand the following. 1. The Armed Forces of Ukraine have long placed and stored weapons and ammunition in ports and, most likely, were confident that these stocks were safe due to the grain deal. 2. Night…
French company Pazzi has opened its second fully robotic pizzeria in Paris.
A pizzeria where there is not a single living soul in the kitchen has opened in the Beaubourg district of Paris. Each robot is responsible for its part of the work – the first prepares the dough, the… pic.twitter.com/LEF7BX9EqW
Ancient civilizations may be gone, but some of them are still all around us – if you know where to look. These artifacts open a window to worlds that no longer exist.
The General Election continues to supply interesting facts.
The “experts” are still working on General Election 2019 statistics. One that I saw today was that, because Brexit Party was standing in Labour-held seats, the Conservative Party was deprived of another 20 seats.
I have already blogged about how Labour got (in rough figures) about 37% of the vote in Hartlepool (its lowest-ever share), while Brexit Party got about 25% and the Cons 28%. Had Brexit Party not stood, the Cons would have won Hartlepool! The same is true the other way round too, of course. In fact, I wonder whether Brexit Party might not have won Hartlepool anyway had Farage not stood down his candidates in Conservative-held seats. His action in doing that destroyed Brexit Party’s credibility and totally exposed it as a fake and as basically a shield for the Con Party.
The other piece of election-related news I saw was that, if the proposed boundary changes go ahead, as well as the reduction of MP numbers to 600, the Conservative Party would have a majority of 104 on the GE 2019 voting figures. The Cons would have fewer seats, 352, than the 365 they now have, but Labour would have only 179 compared to the present 208. SNP would have almost the same number as at present (47), maybe minus one or two. The LibDems would have 7 MPs instead of 11.
I do not know how the absence of Brexit Party (which must surely just fold soon) would affect those figures. If it meant that the Cons would get 20 or even 10 seats more, then that would give the Cons an unassailable advantage, about 360 or 370 seats out of 600. With Labour on maybe 169 or even 159 out of 600, the changes would reduce Labour to near irrelevance and the LibDems to near-zero.
It occurred to me that, in the (admittedly very unlikely) contingency that Scotland became “independent” (of the UK, though not from the EU, IMF, NATO etc…that’s another story), its (presently) 59 (or reduced figure) MPs would be removed, leaving the Westminster Parliament with about 540. That would, notionally, entrench Conservative rule in England and Wales even more. Without the SNP, Labour would be a small niche party with no possibility even of minority government.
but…
We have seen (noted in previous blogs) that relatively few young people voted Conservative at GE 2019:
18-24s only 23% (Labour 56%)
25-29s 23% (Labour 54%)
30-39s 30% (Labour 46%).
Only the over-40s gave Conservative a plurality of votes (41%, with Labour on 35%)
and only the over-60s and over-70s gave the Cons a majority (57% and 67% as against Labour’s 22% and 14%).
LibDem support was consistent at all ages at 11%-12% (with a slight increase among 30-y-o people: 14%).
If you were to take out the over-70s and introduce a notional new 18-24 wave, that would change the overall picture entirely. The Conservative majority might well disappear, perhaps to be replaced by a Labour majority.
If only life were that simple!
The bias of Radio 4 Today Programme
Here is an example of how BBC word choice highlights bias. Govt target of 5000 extra GPs has been "missed", says @BBCr4today. What do you think from that? Govt missed it by 500? 1000? 2000? No. They failed to add a SINGLE GP. There are now FEWER GPs than when the target was set.
I rarely listen to the Today Programme for more than a few minutes these days. It was never much to my taste, but now it is basically a Jewish-lobby-oriented multikulti-favouring, finance-capitalist-favouring propaganda outlet.
When Justin Webb (one of the presenters) finished his time in the USA and joined the Today Programme, he was asked about the difference between the UK and USA. His answer? (and remember this was after eight years in the US)…He told the old old apocryphal story about how, in each country, a poor man sees a rich man driving a Rolls-Royce or Cadillac. In the UK, the poor man says “I have nothing; he has too much” but in the USA, the poor man says “I have nothing, but one day I too shall have such a car“…
Is that the sort of “insight” we get when drones such as Justin Webb get paid £200,000-£300,000 a year out of the BBC’s “licence fees” (a tax imposed on the viewing public, on pain of imprisonment if unpaid)? Sadly, yes, that is exactly the sort of “insight” that those on the Today Programme provide…
Another aspect of the Today Programme is the religio-philosophical platitude-slot, sub nom “Thought For The Day“. About one day out of five, a Jew (usually some “rabbi”) does it. It seems to be about 1 out of 5 (20%), it may be (but no, I think not) as infrequently as 1 out of 10 (10%). Yet Jews in the UK number 250,000-300,000, so perhaps about 1 out of 280 (perhaps fewer), which is a fraction of one percent; in rough figures about 0.25%. Look at the disproportion. 1 out of about 280 of the whole population, but 1 out of 5 or so on Thought For The Day!
Here’s a “Thought For The Day”
Jeff Bezos alone has $110 billion.
That’s 110 thousand million dollars.
If Warren’s wealth tax had been in effect since 1982, Bezos would today be worth $86.8 billion.
He’d still be doing quite well, thank you for asking.
There must be a curb (i.e. a tax) on the huge concentrations of economic power (capital wealth) in the hands of so very few. That applies to the USA, the UK, Russia and elsewhere.
NHS
Nurses in Northern Ireland found it heartbreaking to strike. But things are desperate | Donna Kinnair https://t.co/PPLzbNg5vI
As I have been saying for several years in blogs and (before the Jews had me expelled from Twitter) in tweets, Labour declined parallel to the decline of the society and conditions and people that created and sustained it.
Lisa Nandy
Just read her recent tweets. The odd spelling mistake. As to content, not an airhead, neither in the obvious Jess Phillips way, nor in the less obvious Caroline Flint way.
I of course disagree with quite a lot of what Lisa Nandy says, eg re. “refugees” and other migrant-invaders, but she seems politically-effective. Obviously a System politician but of a higher calibre than the average MP (including most of Corbyn’s Shadow Cabinet).
Stray thought
Mao said that the guerrilla was like a fish, swimming in the water (the people). Looking at tweets from the most fervent Corbyn supporters, there is plenty of water but (so far) no fish.
Labour’s problem
Labour’s problem is that the more “socialist” leaders of recent decades (Corbyn, Miliband, Kinnock) failed to “win” elections under the existing electoral system and so some Labour people say “return to good old Tony” because Blair won three successive elections. However, what really happened was that Blair-Labour won in 1997 against a tired fag-end of a Conservative government, after 18 years of Con government, but then struggled to win in 2001 and 2005.
The figures:
1997: 43.2%, 419 seats; Blair
2001: 40.7%, 413 seats; Blair
2005: 35.3%, 356 seats; Blair
2010: 29.1%, 258 seats; Brown
2015: 30.5%, 232 seats; Miliband
2017: 40.0%, 262 seats; Corbyn
2019: 32.2%, 202 seats; Corbyn
The anomalies caused by Britain’s crazy FPTP voting system and the carefully-“managed” boundaries account for some inconsistencies; also, the total number of MPs in Parliament has varied from 646 to 659 even in the past 25 years.
You can see from the above timeline that, in the sense of national vote-percentage, Corbyn in 2017 did about as well as Blair did in 2001, nearly as well as Blair did in 1997 (!) and far better than Blair and Labour did in 2005. Corbyn also, both in 2017 and 2019, did as well as or better than both Brown and Miliband did in 2010 and 2015.
In 2019, Corbyn-Labour slumped, but still got 32.2% of the national vote, which was as good in rough figures as Miliband in 2015, and better than Brown in 2010. In fact, it was only 3 points off Blair’s 2005 performance.
The national vote percentage of Labour declined steadily from 1997 right through to Corbyn’s leadership! The 2010 and 2015 results were similar in terms of percentage. Corbyn did better than his two most recent predecessors and almost as well as Blair!
I say the above not to praise Corbyn, but to bury Labour. It can be seen that both the Tony Blair 43.2% in 1997 and the Corbyn 40% in 2015 were anomalous in a picture otherwise of decline, or at best stagnation, that started around 1970.
My main point in practical terms is that returning to some mythical “Centrism” will not help Labour. “Centrism” seems to be somewhere between “Con-lite” and social democracy; pro Israel; anti-socialist; anti-national; globalist. Finance capitalism but with some crumbs thrown to the pigeons. You have seen what has happened to the LibDems who espouse similar ideas. Smashed. 11 MPs, which will, after boundary changes and another election, probably be 3 or 4. Or none.
Of course, Labour’s poor recent performance was to a large extent the result of truly relentless Jew-Zionist propaganda since 2015 and especially since the 2017 result (which showed that Labour might actually be able to win a majority or at least become the largest party in the Commons). Labour, especially Corbyn, has been trashed daily in the msm as well as on social media. That was not the only factor, but it was very significant.
The idea that Labour will suddenly become “electable” if it bows the knee to the Jews and abandons any “socialist” ideas is ridiculous. In fact, Corbyn and McDonnell should have stopped parrotting the Zionist “holocaust” nonsense (and stopped recounting 1930s Communist/Jewish propaganda around “Cable Street” etc as well); they should have fought back. Idiots.
Corbyn supporters write…
Jess Philips. Caroline Flint. Tom Watson. Stephen Kinnock. Lucretia Berger, Margaret Hodge, John Mann, Ruth Smeeth, Kate Hoey, Wes Streeting, Let’s make a list of the duplicitous bastards who delivered 5 + years of toxic Johnson government. We will not forgive or forget.
The BBC news describes Jess Philips as charismatic!!!! What the actual fuck? Jesus Christ had charisma from where the term comes. Phillips is to charisma what a stinking turd is to our green & pleasant land. Phillips seeks to make a virtue of her ignorance. She needs to fuck-off.
This is the real Jess Philips. She's been waiting to pounce ever since Corbyn was elected. BTW she left Labour Friends of Palestine to join Labour Friends of Israel. https://t.co/F1DdEZxrHS
Perhaps that tweet should read “Why is Jess Phillips, who always doormats for the Jew-Zionists, is a member of Labour Friends of Israel, parrots “holocaust” propaganda, and who trashed her own party and leader during the recent General Election campaign, getting so much airtime?“…
Look at this Daily Mirror article by a former Labour adviser. Not a word about suffering British people: unemployed, poor, disabled, sick, young people without hope of their own homes or even decently-paid work, just two or three paragraphs about Jews Jews Jews. Typical. System-Labour:
Seems that Mary Creagh cannot quite bring herself to accept that her well-paid position, with its decent salary, very generous expenses and plenty of opportunity for both “donations” from here and there and also outside income possibilities such as “consultancies”, has been taken away by the voters of Wakefield. She still calls herself “MP” on Twitter. As rather sarcastic people tend to say on Twitter, “bless”.
Mary Creagh is a member of Labour Friends of Israel, and a frequent and fervent critic of “anti-Semitism”. All the same, the Jewish lobby could not save her and she will not be an MP again. I expect that “they” —you know, (((they)))— will find her “a nice little earner”, but her eviction from Westminster must give those “Friends of Israel” still in Parliament pause, nicht wahr?
Note the final sentence at the foot of that Independent profile of Wakefield, Yorkshire, a few weeks before the General Election: “Personally,” he says, “I think a lot of people here just won’t vote. I think they’ve had enough of it all.”
Was that not the truth of the GE 2019 result? Conservative vote up just 1.2% nationally, but Labour vote down, and by 8%. Labour may have lost, but this was not a Conservative victory, as such. People were not voting Labour, maybe not voting at all, or were in a few cases voting Con to spite Lab. They were not voting Con for “positive” reasons.
Blink and you would miss it
Ah, nearly missed it: a small news story about the winding-down or winding-up of the “Independent Group for Change”, briefly known as “Change UK”, the party whose meetings tended to attract a crowd of about 5 (literally), once or twice actually getting into double figures, and where the audience was always outnumbered by the Press and sometimes by the few on stage.
Americans like a bit of drama. When I lived in the central/shore area of New Jersey, local TV (based in New York City) would sometimes report on an expected storm, sending a reporter out onto the New Jersey beaches dressed in raincoat and scarf. Often enough, the waves were disappointingly languid, resulting in a non-event.
That is how I see the “Trump impeachment”— lots of noise, but no result that means anything. Trump is sent for trial by the Democrat-controlled lower house, sent for trial to a Senate where the Republican majority will secure his acquittal. Over there, they regard that sort of waste of time and effort as “democracy”. I just call it “farce”.
Meanwhile, in another fake democracy…
Boris Johnson to 'stop tens of thousands voting' by making photo ID mandatory by law at polling stations, Queen's Speech reveals https://t.co/AVIPSISQSn
The 2019 General Election has been called, enabled partly by the LibDems and SNP, as John Rentoul, the only System journalist-commentator usually worth listening to, has written.
I was surprised that Labour did not block the vote, but I suppose that, with the Government ready to repeal, in effect, the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011, using a one-page bill, Labour had little choice but to appear unafraid to address the electorate.
So what now?
It it has been axiomatic, since Harold Wilson pronounced his famous dictum, that “a week is a long time in British politics”.
[Harold Wilson as Prime Minister, pictured in 1967 on the quayside at Hugh Town on the island of St. Mary’s, Isles of Scilly; the young Millard, 9-10 years old, at left]
Harold Wilson was sceptical of opinion polls. When he was in discussion with Lyndon Johnson about the Vietnam War, the U.S. President asked “what are the polls saying?” Wilson later recalled that he had thought that Johnson was referring to the Poles, and that he, Wilson, had tried to recall recent speeches by Gomulka!
That was then. Since then, British politics has given up the realms of commonsense thinking and has taken refuge in ideological spiderswebs and in the reading of electoral tea-leaves.
The opinion polls at present seem to be predicting a Conservative Party victory of as great as a 150-seat majority. Even mainstream commentators are talking in terms of a 70-seat Conservative majority. To me, that would be disastrous. Nothing to do with Brexit (which I favour). For me, to allow the present ZOG/NWO Cabinet of idiots, traitors, aliens and Israeli agents real power would be a calamity for the people of the UK. I have previously blogged about this: see Notes, below.
I am talking about domestic policy and, to some extent, foreign policy. I am talking about the imposition of an elected dictatorship on the British people. I am talking about rule by a concealed Jewish-Zionist lobby. I am talking about worse pay, pensions, State benefits, working conditions, living conditions etc. I am talking about destruction of free speech, too.
Is a Boris-Idiot government (with real power) inevitable? I do not know. Maybe not, but things are looking black.
The first thing to note is that polls usually narrow towards Election Day. At present they point to a Conservative majority of maybe 60. However, if Labour can pull itself up by a few points, that majority might shrink to single figures. Then there are the other parties (in England, mainly) to consider: LibDems and Brexit Party.
Labour
The Jewish lobby has weakened Corbyn and Labour via incessant attacks over four years. Some of the poison has seeped into public perception. The attacks continue. Only today, the “MP for Barrow and Furness —and Tel Aviv”, John Woodcock, was again attacking Corbyn and Labour, under the banner of which he scraped back into the Commons in 2017, though he has now left Labour amid charges of sex pest behaviour, and will soon no longer be an MP (no doubt “they” will find him a well-paid position). Again, I happened to see “former Labour Party adviser” John McTernan today on Sky News All Out Politics. Sky’s Adam Boulton was too polite to point out that McTernan’s advice proved disastrous for Labour in the past, and also for the Australian Labor Party. McTernan on Sky again derided Corbyn. With “friends” like those, Labour needs no enemies!
Labour’s more serious problems are, firstly, that it is unclear about what it stands for. Not just on Brexit. No overarching narrative. In the past, Labour’s position was a given: the voice of the “workers”, meaning the industrial proletariat, other manual and low-paid workers, renters rather than “owners” of freehold or leasehold property.
In those days, meaning until the 1970s, there was no serious racial aspect. Though there had been an influx (ultimately calamitous, by reason of breeding) of blacks and browns since the 1950s but mainly in the 1970s (and of course later), the percentage of blacks and browns and other non-Europeans was small until the 1980s; there was no constant wave of immigration in the hundreds of thousands, as there now is.
In the 1980s, Labour lost its way. The industrial proletariat started to disappear along with its industries. Immigration and births to immigrants started to create raceless and cultureless “communities”, including huge numbers of mixed-race individuals. British culture on TV and radio started to be overtaken by the Americanized cultural takeover that started in or immediately after WW2. The stalwarts of traditional Labour in the Commons and in constituencies started to be replaced by those who were influenced by the anti-white politics of post-Marxism, by the feminist and/or lesbian “sexual politics” movements, by persons who were unaware of the fight that Britain had with Jewish extremists in Palestine in the 1940s.
Such Labour activists were brought up in the 1960s and 1970s and had been indoctrinated by “holocaust” hoaxes and nonsense, such as the films of the faked “diary” of Anne Frank, of Schindler’s List (many people now think, quite mistakenly, that it is a “true story”, unaware that it was an adaptation of a novel, Schindler’s Ark, which was written in 1982 by an Australian who was only a child during WW2, having been born in 1935; he was brought up in New South Wales).
Gradually, Labour became the bastion both of the politically-correct ideologues and of the careerist “centrists” such as Tony Blair and his wife, both affluent barristers with no connection to Labour’s history (Blair’s father was a Scottish professor; Cherie’s father was a dissolute Liverpudlian TV actor). Labour went from being led by elderly Marxist hypocrite Michael Foot to, at first, a middling position under, in turn, Neil Kinnock and John Smith, then to Blair’s neoliberalism, with the Jewish-Zionist element firmly in control.
Labour lost connection with the “working class”, first because the old monolithic, unionized industrial proletariat had gone, and because the new concerns of former Labour areas (mass immigration, race and culture, poor conditions of non-unionized and precarious employment, sexual abuse of English girls by, mainly, Pakistanis, drug abuse) were simply ignored and, indeed, denied by the Labour Party.
Labour, in short, was becoming, under Blair, what it now is: the party of non-Europeans (the “blacks and browns” etc), of those dependent on public funds (public service workers, council employees, NHS people, those living on State benefits). These Labour voters were ruled over by a dictatorial pro-multikulti Common Purpose stratum, above which sat the Labour Friends of Israel MPs and above all the Jewish-Zionist “fixers” of the Lord Levy sort, who arranged the funding, doled out peerages and other “honours” to the compliant and “liaised” with Blair and his courtiers.
Meanwhile, Labour’s leadership became a cosmopolitan and finance-capitalist clique, “intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich” as one of its degenerate creatures, the Jew “lord” Mandelson put it. By 2010, it seemed to many that there was little difference in substance (as distinct from style) between Labour and Conservative. Labour lost to the Conservatives led by David Cameron-Levita.
Corbyn, though poorly-educated and no sort of leader, gave hope to the “children of the proletariat” (speaking ideologically: many are from rather comfortable backgrounds). His almost miraculous accession to leadership seemed to be a return to old Labour values: community, nationalization, State funding, workers’ rights. I have blogged about the “Hand of God” aspects to Corbyn’s election, eg his getting exactly the number of nominations required, some of which were from MPs who had no intention of even voting for him!
Labour now is a house divided. The Jewish-Zionist lobby may have attacked Corbyn-Labour, but that is only part of the story. Most Labour MPs date from the pre-Corbyn era, most from the pre-2010 era. Some MPs are volubly anti-Corbyn and closer to a careerist “Blairite” or “Brownite” position, such as Jess Phillips (ironically, only elected in 2015).
Labour gives an impression of being split two or three ways, and that is even before Brexit is mixed into the equation. This plays badly, electorally.
A normally loyal Labour MP on Corbyn and prospects for #GE19:
‘We’re led by a lunatic. He’s a nice but dim man who is being controlled by truly evil people.’
So are Labour’s prospects dead? Maybe not. Firstly, it has the support of the non-whites, to a large extent, though that tends to be concentrated in relatively few constituencies. Then it has most of the public service people. Finally, it has the young. Very few under-25s vote Conservative now, only about 4%. Only about 15% of under-35s vote Conservative. The rub is that younger eligible voters tend not to vote. So far.
Corbyn’s policies on utilities, transport and fares, rights for tenants etc may play well for him, if Labour can get them heard amid the Brexit noise and the Boris-The-Idiot-Star clowning and posturing.
Where Labour is undermined is in its disconnect, in visceral terms, from its former core communities: eg in the black-brown MPs Labour has, some of whom seem almost half-witted. Diane Abbott would be Home Secretary under a Corbyn government…
Corbyn’s lack of leadership is also a factor, as is his asinine support for Roma Gypsy thieves and scavengers and for the horrible “tinker”/”traveller” element. That must alienate millions.
In the end, Labour now has no real reason to exist in its present form. It is somewhat neo-socialist, but not at all “national”. It divides rather than unifies, because it prefers non-Europeans to the white British people among whom and for whom it was founded.
“I am a socialist, but a white man first.” [Jack London]
The above parody tweet was sent to me by a blog reader. It does rather set the scene for the past decade, the “austerity” (inflicted by part-Jews David Cameron-Levita and George Osborne and continued by Theresa May and now —so far— by Boris Johnson, again both part-Jew…) upon the poorer half or more of the UK, while the more affluent half and especially tenth of the population have been “doing rather well”
I have blogged rather extensively about the Conservative Party and about its leading members, particularly Boris Johnson aka “Boris-Idiot”.
The Conservative Party, like Labour, has travelled far from its roots, even far from where it was in the 1970s. The old country Conservatives scarcely exist in MP terms now. Like Labour, the Conservative Party is now packed with pretty mediocre MPs, most in it for the money. In fact, many would be flattered to be as good as mediocre. Like Labour, the Conservative Party has ceased to be representative, not only of the country as a whole but even of its traditional supporters. In the 1950s, nearly 5 million people were members of the Conservative Party. Now? About 140,000. Boris Johnson was elected by about two-thirds of those. 92,000 people in a UK which now holds some 70 million. Only 1 in about 500 adult inhabitants of the UK is a member of the Conservative Party.
The trump card of the Conservative Party in this election is that it is not the Labour Party. It has little else to offer, except the Brexit “deal” that Boris-Idiot fluffed and which is worse than that offered to Mrs May 18 months ago. It is only the clown-image, of Boris the Clown, which, bizarrely, is keeping the Cons high in the polls. That, and Corbyn’s rock-bottom ratings.
So Johnson has once again gambled. The gamble is that he can win more Leave-supporting seats than he loses Remain-supporting seats.
Stress points for the Conservatives? Privatization, by the back door, of the NHS; Johnson’s character; the wealthy getting wealthier, the rest getting poorer; privatized rail and utilities; poor pay; the cruelty of the post-2010 benefits system.
LibDems
Ironically, the key to the LibDems taking seats might be Brexit Party taking away Con votes in the South of England, and so letting the LibDems in. That might happen even more if Labour voters in strongly Con areas vote tactically. I do not have much time for Jo Swinson, a pro-finance capitalist and Orange Book LibDem who pays lip service to the Jew-Zionist lobby, but I have to concede that she has put in a couple of stellar performances in the Commons recently.
The LibDems are pro-EU, pro-Remain, anti-Brexit. They are the only party unequivocally Remain. That clarity has to help them. How much it will help them is unclear. They need to get an across the board 20%+ even to regain the number of seats they had in 2010 and 2005. They are presently polling around 18%, but the night is young.
Brexit Party
Brexit Party has lost its mojo somehow. Its stellar start, with the rallies and speeches and huge enthusiasm, seems a long time ago already. I think that the reason is that Brexit is really its only policy, though others will no doubt appear soon. It is largely “the Conservative Party at Leave”, and people do have concerns other than Brexit. I doubt that it can poll much above 10%. It might manage 15% across the board. Chance of gaining more than one or two stray seats seems minimal at present. However, that may change, but BP needs to start attacking the Conservatives, not forever saying how much they want to play ball with them.
UKIP; Change UK
Both washed up, as I have long predicted. Polling at statistical zero. Dustbin of history zone.
Thoughts
There are 6 weeks to go. In 2017, turnout was below 69%. In 2015, turnout was 66% and in 2010, 65%. 2005: 61%. 2001: 59%. Since the 1990s, turnout slumped in 2001 and has gradually increased again but is still several points below the 1990s figures. If there were an unexpectedly high turnout, particularly among the younger voters who generally favour Labour or the LibDems, that could change the picture completely.
At present, the smart money is on the Conservatives. The smart money was on Remain in 2016, on Hillary Clinton to beat Trump, on anyone but Corbyn to replace Ed Miliband. You get the picture. I do not think that Labour can do well on its own merits, but devotees of the Turf will know that frontrunners rarely win. The election is Boris’s to lose, and he may yet do just that, counter-intuitive though that now appears.
This is an example of where Britain went wrong during the 1980s, 1990s and particularly under the 1997-2010 Blair-Brown era, and which continued on into the 2010-2019 years:
News heard on the early Today Programme on BBC Radio 4:
Farage has been reported as possibly going to direct Brexit Party to stand in as few as 20 seats, all Labour-held, 2016 Leave-voting seats;
Could it be any clearer that Brexit Party is not a serious party, not even a semi-serious protest party? I think that Brexit Party can probably be written off at this point.
The news, if accurate, does reinforce my previously-blogged point that Farage, despite his people skills, speaking skills and public profile, is not really very knowledgeable or effective politically. After all, UKIP was in the end a big Westminster zero after 25 years of operation and, so far, Brexit Party has underwhelmed. No by-election successes, and its polling for Westminster has dropped from 20% at one point to 12% now. My feeling is that Brexit Party could have gone the distance, but missed its moment to morph into a real party.
The other piece of news so far today is polling that, incredibly, shows
Boris Johnson “more trusted on NHS” than Corbyn!
Whatever one thinks of Corbyn, this is just mad and bolsters my view that the UK has gone mad, socio-politically. Already, we have had polling, from a month ago, to the effect that part-Jew, part-Muslim origined Johnson, whose father was a part-Jew who worked for the World Bank and was an MP, Boris Johnson who had a U.S. passport until recently, who was born in New York City, was brought up in USA and Belgium before attending Eton and Oxford, and who even belonged to the wealth-saturated and degenerate Bullingdon Club, “has the common touch” more than Corbyn!
On the campaign trail
Soon-to-be-ex-PM Johnson 'booed out of Addenbrooke's Hospital' during Cambridge visit.https://t.co/aIBA8I7Uud
The latest Ipsos MORI poll gives Conservatives 41%, Labour 24%, LibDems 20%, Brexit Party 7%, Greens 3%.
“Ratings for the Government as a whole are low, with just 19 per cent of voters happy with how it is running the country, including only a third of Conservatives, while 74 per cent are dissatisfied. Gideon Skinner, head of political research at Ipsos MORI, cautioned: “As Theresa May knows, a poll lead can be lost during a campaign and this puts the Conservatives at the upper margins compared with other polls. Nevertheless it confirms the Conservatives are starting in a strong position.” [Evening Standard]
If the above poll is accurate, we are staring down the barrel of a Conservative majority of 196, according to my use of Electoral Calculus (I gave Scottish results as likely SNP 50% and LibLabCon 15% each). That 196-seat majority would be disastrous for the UK.
Still, the starting gates have only just opened. All the same, Labour needs to hit hard now. For example, instead of weakly accepting that “antisemitism must be addressed” etc, Labour should start defending the British people; point out that many exploiters and parasites in the UK—by no means all, of course– are Zionists. Take the fight to the enemy and Labour might well find that many many British people want the Zionists taken down, their influence and power reduced greatly.
The opinion polls are proving to me that what so many British people want and need is social nationalism of the right sort.
Below, “Conservative” and, quelle surprise, not entirely English (part-Indian?), judging by photos found elsewhere than on her Twitter profile, freelance scribbler seems to have been living under a rock (or under the protection of a trust fund or affluent family) for the past 10+ years.
"Understandable, but will lead to economic armageddon"
The <40s are already living with "economic armageddon", stagnating wages, insecure jobs, spiralling housing costs. All under the watch of the #Selfservative party of 'fiscal responsibility'#GE2019#VoteLabour2019#JC4PM
Ms. Gill does seem to understand that there is the possibility of radical change inherent in the dispossessed UK young (and, indeed, the not so young). She does not want such change and does not exactly identify what change it might be (“economic armageddon” sounds to me suspiciously like socio-political illiteracy), but the change in question could as easily be social national as post-Marxist.
Strange. Perhaps I was too critical. She seems to take a different and more sympathetic view here (or is it just that she is more concerned about things when they affect her own and personal life?): *click on it and read entire thread…
These are FAQs if you complain about the housing crisis.
1. Why don't you move outside the South?
Yes that's a good idea as there are more houses, but one in three jobs are created in London. From a personal perspective, I need to be near newspaper offices + Westminster
Below, a very accurate though totally obvious view of what has been happening over the past decade in the UK. Though I would not want any Jew to be Prime Minister, I did like the way in which Ed Miliband had time for ideas, for policy, and for the results of applied policy; a holistic view. That used to be the norm in UK politics, before the rise of socio-political idiocy in or around 2005-2010, the Iain Dunce Duncan Smith-type of nonsense.
Lots of objections to class war appearing. Totally agree. Assault on welfare state, slashing top rate and corporate tax while imposing cuts on everyone else, driving people to food banks, Universal Credit, pay freezes, growth in zero hours. Where will it end? FFS.
Ian Robert Millard 