Tag Archives: Fiona Onasanya

Diary Blog, 10 September 2021

Morning music

Tweets seen

An ex-soldier lays it on the line about the many years of Western “intervention” in Afghanistan.

Tweets seen

Similar threats are coming from Trudeau, Macron, the new Australian police state etc. Americans, with their history, should know how to take care of their end…

Greta Nut, flanked by a Jew and a half-Jew, a lesbian half-Palestinian, and the Green Party would-be dictator, Caroline Lucas. Has Britain reached rock bottom? Surprisingly, probably not.

Notes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Layla_Moran; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Layla_Moran#Personal_life; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bercow#Early_life_and_education; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_Lucas; https://ianrobertmillard.org/2019/09/29/greta-thunberg-system-approved-wunderkind/.

Parliament, both Commons and (ludicrous) “Lords”, is now full of trash; a situation which has steadily worsened since 1989. We are, incredibly, in a crazy world where the likes of Jess Phillips and Lisa Nandy are spoken of as potential Labour leaders, and where a part-Jew, part-Levantine chancer and self-promoter has somehow become leader of the misnamed “Conservative” Party.

Further down the food chain we have seen, on the Labour side, such as Claudia Webbe and now-binned Fiona Onasanya: see https://ianrobertmillard.org/2018/12/21/deadhead-mps-an-occasional-series-the-fiona-onasanya-story/.

What about the Lords? Well, so many examples…

The mother of the murdered black boy, Stephen Lawrence, and by reason of that, now sits in our upper legislative chamber, as does Michelle Mone, a woman who, off the back of an eventually-insolvent bra company, presented herself to cretinous David Cameron-Levita as a great success story. Now “Baroness Mone”. Just a couple of examples. There are many others, such as half-Jew, half-black ignoramus, “Baroness” Oona King, one-time MP, whose autobiography is truly cringeworthy. Sadly, my review on Amazon (along with all my other reviews) is no longer available by reason of Jewish-lobby whining against me.

Parliament is now, like much of Britain, a dustbin.

More tweets

Incredible. Hard to believe how a part of a simple straw basket, maybe 1,500 or so years old, can bring the past to life.

Well, either my brain is wired differently from those of the majority, or that theory does not work, because I came up with “potato”, which is not the expected answer…

He might have been at home in the Britain of 2021. Still, I should not be too harsh in judging the Cardinal. After all, he shares his “Sun sign” (Virgo) with me, and is thus —as far as I know— one of the relatively few Virgoan rulers (he was, in effect, a ruler) in history, Elizabeth I of England being another.

More tweets

On a superficial look, extreme, but then look again at what is actually happening, not only in Greek (South) Cyprus but in Australia, France, Canada etc. An attempt by the State to deny the most basic services to those who refuse the vaccine(s). Even in the UK, there are now difficulties in accessing medical (NHS) services if the patient is not vaccinated. Travel? Worse.

This could be an early “dry run” of what will later appear in world history as the wraparound “mark of the Beast” state, as foretold in Revelation.


More tweets seen

Late afternoon music



Hitler’s voice: documentary

Late tweets seen

London. Zoo.

Late music

Diary Blog, 4-5 August 2021

4 August 2021

A very truncated blog post today (by reason of a computer connection problem), so I shall write a little tonight, then add more tomorrow.

Facemask nonsense

While running a few errands yesterday (in the American phrase), I saw quite a few silly people still wearing masks even outdoors, including several people wearing them while walking on a clifftop overlooking the Channel! In a strong breeze of at least 15 mph, at that! I saw one family, a man, woman and two small children, all masked on the clifftop! They must have noticed my gaze, or realized the absurdity of their behaviour, because I noticed that when they walked back 10 minutes later, only the woman was still wearing the mask.

Admittedly, most people were not wearing the masks outdoors, but in a Tesco supermarket about 6 miles from my home, more wearing masks than not. However, no-one looked oddly at unmasked me, let alone said some, or any, virtue-signalling nonsense.

I get the impression that, now, the facemasks are less about any perceived (wrongly imagined) health benefits and more about saying “look, I am a member of the virtue-signallers’ tribe”…

Oddly, in view of the fact that most Jews (at least on Twitter) seem to be facemask zealots, I saw a horrible-looking Jewish woman unmasked; not at that supermarket, but in a large village somewhat inland; she was with not only three small children (one actually wearing one of those skullcaps…a yarmulka?), but also two even younger ones, pushed in a double pushchair. None were masked, in fact. An unpleasant sight all the same. An unusual thing to see in this part of the world.

Tweets seen

Idiots abounding…

Never believe anything “they” say…

Having said that, I wonder whether Israel can be eliminated within the next, say, 10 years? If so, the centre of the worldwide web would be gone. That would certainly be strategically-good news.

Society is moving towards the individual becoming totally dependent on centralized control.

Late music

5 August 2021

Tweets seen

Now that Fiona Onasanya is no longer an MP, Claudia Webbe may be the flag-carrier for thick-as-two-short-planks non-white female MPs in the Commons. Painfully thick.

Those three cities have a combined population of over 13 million, over half of the entire population of Australia.

…and her finger on the trigger…

I was blogging about this 2 years ago, when the first Boris Johnson Cabinet was announced.

Imagine what might be getting injected into the populations of the Western world by 2022, 2023, and later…

When the country is under occupation and alien rule, rebellion is a duty.

Ha. Quite. Seems that the holes in cloth masks are 500,000x the size of “Covid-19” particles. In other words, facemasks are all but pointless. The main reason millions of “rabbits” are still wearing them (many even outside!) is because those deluded people want to proclaim that they are members of the tribe and/or good compliant citizen-serfs.

A couple of days ago, I saw two teenage girls, maybe 16-17, talking on the high street of a small town. Strong sunshine, a fairly strong breeze, no people anywhere near them either, and they were both wearing facemasks! One black mask and one polka dot mask. The masks did not match their outer clothing, anyway! Why were they behaving like that? God knows. Social conditioning. MSM conditioning. Such people are beyond reach. I drove on, shaking my head…

The illicit purported “laws” are now in place. Should the government of clowns want to mandate facemasks again, say in November, or December, 2021, and on some spurious biosecurity ground, they will be able to do so, and millions of citizen-serfs will obey, at once.

More tweets

Bronco Bullfrog@BroncoBullfrog_·Replying to @jackscht and @MaierVivThis is the tiny memorial to honour the British men and women killed by Zionist terrorists in Palestine. It was funded by the families of those killed because the British government refused to pay for it.”


Jewish terrorism.

That Jewess at bottom right is now the Israeli Ambassador in London!

[note: the tweet seems to have been removed]

Late tweets

I think that we know that, almost certainly, what is now starting can only end one way…

Alok Sharma MP, born in Agra (India). Went to my own former school (Reading Blue Coat School, Sonning, Berkshire) but a decade or so after me.

I agree…(the American phrase, though, is “don’t get mad— get even”…)

In the end, only a synthesis of old-style National Socialism with new social nationalism, the better aspects of old-style socialism, and the less raw aspects of private enterprise, all combined in a new way, can save Europe now.

Late music

[“Russia has no borders; it is wherever there are Russians”]

14 words.

Diary Blog, 18 June 2021

Chesham and Amersham by-election result


I called it wrong. My view, up to the morning of the by-election, was that the Conservative Party would hang on, though probably with a smallish majority. After all, even in the Labour landslide (perceived landslide, at least) of 1997, the Con vote in the constituency topped 50%, and the expenses-blodging of the Con MP made no difference at all in 2010 (60.4%).

Yesterday, during the day of the by-election, I saw from news and tweets that the LibDems were showing strongly, but I still did not think that, on balance, they could dislodge the Conservatives, who had held the seat with ease since its creation in 1974.

I was not alone in guessing at a likely successful Con defence. Here was the Chief Political Correspondent of the Financial Times, tweeting only yesterday afternoon…

…and that tweet was retweeted by Britain Elects [@BritainElects].

Now we know. The LibDem vote-share more than doubled to 56.7%. The Con vote slumped to 35.5% (from 55.4% in 2019).

The Green Party candidate managed third place, though losing her deposit; she scored 3.9%, poor compared to 2019’s 5.5%.

The Labour Party lost its deposit for the first time in the history of the constituency, scoring only 1.6% (compared to 12.9% in 2019). Only 622 votes, on a turnout of over 38,000.

Of the remaining four candidates, only Reform Party, the lame-duck successor to Brexit Party, scored above 1% (1.1%). Breakthrough Party 0.5%; Freedom Alliance 0.4% and, very much “tail-end Charlie”, Rejoin EU (0.3%). The last’s candidate, one-time Foreign Office man (and 1990s Con MEP) Brendan Donnelly, had made what must surely have been the least-convincing argument to the voters, i.e. that nothing could be done to help Chesham and Amersham people until the UK rejoined the EU!

My thoughts on the by-election, now that the results are known? First, of course, that this was the convergence of several factors such as, most importantly, the prevalence of tactical voting.

Former or otherwise Labour and Green voters seem to have taken the view that their preferred candidate was not going to win, and so they voted LibDem as the least-worse of the two main options.

Local factors (the usual LibDem strong suit) played a part: the trashing of the Green Belt by the present “Borshch Belt” government; the subservience of the “Conservative” government to the big housebuilding companies and their featureless tracts of expensive but unaesthetic housing; the continuing of the pointless and vandalistic HS2 rail project.

Turnout was low, about 52% (two-thirds of that of the 2019 General Election). Many former Conservative voters, perhaps angry at the HS2 situation, and/or the Con plans to build on the local Green Belt, seem to have stayed home.

My main interest in the by-election was to see how far Labour would slump. I correctly predicted from the start that Labour would lose its deposit, but I had envisaged a vote-share of just below 5%, not one well below 2%!

I suppose that Labour officials will be saying that Labour voters simply “lent their votes” to the LibDems, tactically. Some truth in that, of course, but for me the story is that Labour is very much on the way out now, and is perceived as a niche party rather than as an alternative government.

The Labour lost deposit in Chesham and Amersham will quicken interest in how Labour will do in the other by-election, at Batley and Spen, which is set down for 1 July 2021 (Thursday week). I have already blogged about that contest: https://ianrobertmillard.org/2021/06/04/the-batley-and-spen-by-election-2021/.

The result at Chesham and Amersham certainly reinforces the view that Labour has nothing at all to offer most English people, and that most English people are alert to that fact.

I have blogged fairly prolifically about Labour’s loss of a role and a purpose in the post-1989 space. What is extraordinary is that Labour’s remaining supporters do not see what is in front of their eyes. For them, there are two main System parties, and Labour is one of them, and all they need to do is wait until the pendulum swings back their way.

In reality, Labour has lost Scotland forever, and any “Independence” (however defined) will mean that Labour would not even be able to form a UK coalition or minority government with SNP support. The 59 Scottish seats are vital.

The breakdown of the old Labour-voting industrial communities in the North and Midlands, and in Wales, leaves Labour like a spare guest at a festivity.

One could imagine that a charismatic Labour leader with real ideas might be able to reinvent Labour, perhaps along the lines of Blue Labour [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Labour], a kind of very watered-down “national socialism” in an English context.

There is no sign at present that Labour can do that. Jewish-lobby puppet Keir Starmer is as dull as ditchwater, and has no interesting ideas at all politically or socially, like most barristers. Corbyn got halfway there, despite being not too intelligent and being almost uneducated.

Corbyn was too weak on the Jewish Question or “JQ”, while Starmer is just a complete puppet. Both also subscribe to the pathetic “Black Lives Matter” nonsense. Starmer was photographed on his knee, with Angela Rayner, displaying fealty to the nonsense. At least Boris-idiot has not done that!

Labour is now basically a party for some ethnic minorities, for some NHS and other public service employees, and for the sort of unthinking pseudo-“socialists” found on Twitter.

Of course, the LibDems will claim that this is the moment for their next big upsurge. Doubtful. The LibDems are currently polling, with the Greens, somewhere around 7%. The LibDems, and before them their ancestor-party, the Liberals, did this: have a big by-election success, followed by nothing very much. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1962_Orpington_by-election; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1958_Torrington_by-election; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990_Eastbourne_by-election.

Could there be similar upsets? I suppose so, if there is dissatisfaction with the Conservatives, a by-election, and a seat where there is a strong LibDem presence but also where Labour and others have no real chance of success. However, I doubt that the LibDems are really reviving across the board.

Tweets seen

Ha ha! The sort of unthinking nonsense one would expect from that sort of creature. She managed to get to the age of about 30 without ever having had a job, after which she got in on the old “anti-racism” and local councillor freebie system. She is presently awaiting trial on a serious charge…”Vote Labour!”(if you are an idiot!)… [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudia_Webbe].

Incidentally, people might like to look at other deadhead MPs I have highlighted. Here is one (now removed from Parliament and living on the dole): https://ianrobertmillard.org/2018/12/21/deadhead-mps-an-occasional-series-the-fiona-onasanya-story/.

Before the 2017 and 2019 general elections, several people (not markedly “extreme”) remarked to me that Corbyn seemed to be “surrounded everywhere he goes by a gaggle of black women”.

What is missing from the comments is that only those with documentary proof of recent vaccination etc can attend this year: https://www.ascot.co.uk/royal-ascot/plan-your-day-2021.

…and those masks take up to 450 years to break down into their constituent elements.

Refer to my comments made above in the blog today…

Labour Is The Party of…? Labour Is The Party For…?

The most recent opinion polls [see below] must make sobering reading for Keir Starmer and his colleagues.

Now, we all know how flawed opinion polls are, how they only broadly reflect public opinion, how they cannot be exactly aligned to the likely outcome of British general elections because of the First Past The Post [FPTP] elctoral system and because of the way that boundaries are drawn:


Yes, all that is true. However, no party supported by 1% of the electorate in an  opinion poll has ever gone on to get 50% of the popular vote; likewise, no party has ever been valued at 50% of the popular vote, but then crashed to 1% at election time. A leas, as ar as I know. The opinion polls are not that inaccurate. I suppose that the nearest to such a situation was in 2019, when, at one point, Brexit Party was estimated to have a popular support in the region of 25%, but crashed to 2% in the actual election.

Having said the above, the 25%+ scored in the opinion polls by Brexit Party was well ahead of the actual election result. The polls taken nearer to polling day were fairly accurate, all putting Farage’s instant “party” at under 5%.

In other words, looking at the most recent opinion polls, Labour is now in really serious trouble. Some of the Jews who wanted rid of Corbyn are now half-heartedly praising Keir Starmer, as are msm scribblers, saying that there is now a real Opposition (etc). Well, Keir Starmer is married to a Jewish woman, and his children are being brought up in a Jewish milieu. The “support” for Starmer from “them” is therefore unsurprising.

To continue the theme, we all know that “a week is a long time in British politics”, as Harold Wilson said in the 1960s. All one can say is that, at present, in May 2020, Labour is on the ropes. Somewhere around 30% to 33%. Its 2019 General Election result was 32.1% of the popular vote. My conclusion? Getting rid of Corbyn has not helped Labour as a party at all. Not that the Jews as a group care. They, as a group, vote “Conservative” anyway. Only about 5% of Jews vote Labour these days. Their only interest is that Corbyn has gone and that, along with that, the Jewish-Zionist element has regained control of Labour.

Clinton once said that he could (and did) reduce “welfare” benefits to the bare bones because the poorer part of American society will still vote Democrat. As he said, “where else will they go?“. Until they did (go). First to the Republicans under George W. Bush, then to Obama, the, er, Great White Hope (or whatever), and then, in desperation, to Donald Trump (under Republican banner).

Look at the UK. NWO/ZOG political superstar Tony Blair and his advisers said, of what some call the UK “white working class”, “where can they go?“. Well, now we know (so far). The Scots working classes left first, favouring the faux-“nationalist” SNP.

Back in 1997, Scottish Labour held or won 56 out of the then 72 Scottish seats at Westminster. Vote-share 45.6%. Since the 2019 General Election, Scottish Labour has had 1 seat at Westminster (out of 59) on a vote-share of 18.6%. For the first time since 1918, Scottish Labour is only the 4th party in Scotland, in terms of seats. 1959-2015, it was always the 1st party. It slipped to 2nd in 2015, 3rd in 2017 and 4th in 2019.


True, Scottish Labour still received a vote-share of 18.6% in 2019, but that counts for little in FPTP voting. That share was, in any case, the lowest Labour vote in Scotland since 1910.

The SNP supremacy since 2015 means that Labour, as a UK national party, has effectively no chance of a majority at Westminster, and that the best it can hope for is an arrangement with the SNP, which after all, is a kind of social-democratic party. That’s assuming that Labour in England and in Wales can improve its position. Any such uplift in Labour fortunes is very doubtful.

In 2019, as I predicted, former Labour voters voted with their feet. Look at the very cleverly-conceived graphic below:


As can be seen, almost as many former Labour voters abstained as voted for all the other parties put together.

The anti-Corbyn element in Labour and the msm (basically a Jewish claque) said that Corbyn was the reason voters were unwilling to vote Labour. That was partly true, though mainly because the Judenpresse had been hitting at him for 4 years. There were other factors, some connected with Corbyn, some not.

The deadhead MPs in Labour were (and remain) part of the problem: Diane Abbott, Fiona Onasanya (now an “unperson”, expelled from Labour and imprisoned), Kate Osamor, Dawn Butler etc. I blogged about a few of them:



That black/brown group was very much tied-in with Corbyn who, notoriously, had had, as a young man, a fling with Diane Abbott:


As a matter of fact, the Labour performance under Corbyn, in popular-vote terms, was better than under both Miliband and Brown. The seats gained or retained by Labour in 2019 were far fewer, though; in 2017, Corbyn did better than his two predecessors in terms of seats too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(UK)#UK_general_elections

Under Keir Starmer, the Shadow Cabinet is full of Labour Friends of Israel members, Corbyn and his cronies have gone and Labour is now rising in the polls and looking more credible every day that passes. Oh, no…wait. Belay the last couple of points…

In fact, Labour is in every way stagnant. Stagnant in the polls. Almost invisible in the news. Supporting pretty much everything the Boris-idiot “Conservative” joke-government is doing re. Coronavirus, and only mildly criticizing bits and pieces. Pathetic.

The problem Labour has is firstly ideological, in that socialism in the old sense died in and around 1989. In the early 1990s, Labour finally admitted to itself that it had stopped being “socialist”. It became “social-democratic” and then, under Blair, outright finance-capitalist with “socialist” and “social-democratic” fig leaves.

Now, Labour is just a label, which loudmouth Friends of Israel MP, Jess Phillips, said (with her customary grace) is “just a f****** rose


What does a symbol mean? If nothing, then the party whose symbol it is, is nothing.

We have seen that the Scottish “working classes” etc have largely deserted Labour. In fact, now that Corbyn is gone, it may be that Labour’s 18.6% vote in 2019 will become closer to 10% or lower whenever the next general election is held.

We have also seen that the English “working classes” have been deserting Labour. That is especially the case in the North and Midlands, the so-called “red wall” of the past. The scandal of the Muslim Pakistani rape gangs killed Labour for many, as Labour’s Common Purpose placemen and women in politics, local government, the police and (inevitably) social services ignored the widespread abuse of white English girls by (mainly) Pakistanis.

Likewise on the wider immigration point. The “Conservatives” have been hopeless on mass immigration (aka “migration-invasion”) and basically just “talk a good game”, but Labour actually and deliberately encouraged the migration invasion, in order to destroy Britain’s race and culture. That fact was leaked by Labour insiders. The Jews Phil Woolas and Barbara Roche were behind much of it. They became so toxic that neither was able to find other seats for which to stand.


The cartoonists picked up on it, both at the time and then later, when Corbyn was leader:



The UK electoral system, as it applies in England at least, is binary. At present, the two parties supposedly opposed to each other are not in equal positions. The Conservative Party, having fluked a large majority, is in government for the moment, and probably until 2024, certainly until 2022. The Labour Party has become a total irrelevance.

As I have previously blogged (and, before the Jews had me expelled from Twitter, tweeted), Labour is now the party of the public service employees, of the blacks and other ethnic minorities (except the Jews) and of the mostly urban, maybe young or young-ish supporters of failed “multiculturalism” and pseudo-socialism. About 25% of the population. There are some old Labour loyalists around, too. In toto, maybe 30% of the population. Which is where Labour is in the polls. I cannot see Labour getting much beyond that now. Keir Starmer may be without scandal (as far as we know) but he is as dull as ditchwater. New ideas for society? None.

When you take away old-style socialism, when the old Labour communities in the industrial heartland of England no longer exist, when Labour no longer represents Britain’s history, race and culture, what is left? Nothing.

The same or similar, mutatis mutandis, could be said about the Conservative Party, up to a point, but the misnamed “Conservatives” still have a southern England voting bloc which, though ageing and fraying, is still there.

To return to those words of Clinton and Blair, “where will they go?”. Well, not to Labour (from other parties). To apathy, but only so long as doing nothing is less painful than doing something.

Labour’s slow death has left the Conservative Party in the ascendant. When that star starts to fall, Labour will not benefit. A new party might.


Peterborough By-Election: post-poll analysis and thoughts

Well, I got it wrong vis a vis the headline result. I thought that the Brexit Party would win and indeed enjoy a near-walkover. In the event, Brexit Party had to accept a close 2nd place. As the Americans are supposed to say, “close but no cigar”.

The result of the Peterborough by-election

The result was:

  • Labour 10,484 votes, a vote share of 31% (down from 48% in 2017);
  • Brexit Party 9,801 (29%);
  • Conservative Party 7,243 (21%, down from 46% in 2017);
  • LibDems 4,159;
  • Green 1,035;
  • UKIP 400.

All others, nine in number, received fewer than 200 votes each, most below 100.

In retrospect, my own prediction was badly misled by the betting (which even on the day showed Brexit Party as very heavily odds-on) and by the large and impressive meetings Farage held in the city (one with 2,000 in the auditorium).

I was right about the Conservatives coming third and the LibDems in fourth etc. Still, irritating to have misread the main contest, close as it was. No cigar for me, either.

Why did Brexit Party lose at Peterborough?

In my previous blogging on the specific subject of this by-election, and on other topics, I have made the point that the UK now has cities (including London) where the white population (let alone the British white population) is less than 50%. Peterborough still has, supposedly, about 80% white population, but at least 10% are from other parts of Europe. The white British part of the population is below 70% of the whole, possibly as low as 60%.

There is also the point that the city and constituency are not delineated the same; part of the city is not within the constituency.

When a city has more than a token non-white presence, a nationalist party of any kind will struggle to win elections there, and that applies even if (as is the case with Brexit Party) the party is not social-national, has no racial or ethnic principles or policies, and even if (as with Brexit Party) some of its actual candidates are black or brown.

It is not only that, in general, the “blacks and browns” will not vote for even a mildly (and notionally) “patriotic” party such as Brexit Party (let alone a social-national party) because they fear that party. The point is that the vast majority of ethnic minority voters have little or no real connection with Britain, its society, its history, its culture etc. They are, in a word, alien to Britain. Look at how even those adhering to the far-longer-standing Jewish community are always “threatening” (“promising”?) to flee from the UK if their demands are not met. They are not really rooted here; the roots of the “blacks and browns” are shallower yet.

Thus, in Peterborough, one can surmise that few blacks, Muslims etc voted Brexit Party. Why should they? Why would they? Brexit Party is hardly the British National Party. It offers no implied threat to the minorities, but it is broadly conservative-nationalist in ethos, and that is enough for the ethnic minorities to vote elsewhere, mainly for Labour.

I have been blogging and tweeting for several years about how the UK part of the “Great Replacement” (of whites by non-whites) means that elections become a no-win situation in much of the UK. That was true, for example, in the Stoke-on-Trent Central constituency in 2017. In the by-election of that year, Gareth Snell, a spotty unpleasant Twitter troll, was the Labour candidate. Paul Nuttall stood for UKIP. Snell beat Nuttall, Labour beat UKIP, by only 2,620 votes. The Pakistani Muslim community locally, numbering over 6,000,  almost all (always) vote Labour, a cohesion enforced by dodgy postal ballots and “community” exhortations (eg in local mosques) to vote Labour. Local Muslims 6,000+, Labour majority 2,620…

In other words, without those 6,000 or more Muslims (and others), Nuttall and UKIP would have won Stoke-on-Trent Central easily. As it was, UKIP faded and, at the General Election of 2017, Labour won again, against the Conservatives in 2nd place. Labour won by 3,897 votes. Point made, I think.

Now look at Peterborough. The postal votes were very high (who knows who really fills in the forms?) but even leaving that aside, we see that Brexit Party lost to Labour by 683, in a constituency where the non-European ethnic minorities number perhaps as many as 20,000. “It was the w**s wot won it!”, to paraphrase the famous Sun headline of 1992.

Non-white ethnic minority population in the constituency—10,000-20,000. Votes for Labour in the by-election—10,484

In fact, Labour only won Peterborough by 607 votes at the 2017 General Election, thus propelling useless African ex-“solicitor” Fiona Onasanya into Parliament.

The Future

Labour is, as I have often noted before, now the party, in terms of core vote, of the ethnic minorities (excluding Jews), of the metropolitan “socially liberal” types, of public service workers or officials. The real hard core is mainly the blacks and browns, and the public service people. Labour struggles to win votes wider than that core. Labour won Peterborough in the by-election on a vote-share of only 31%.

Brexit Party has suffered a bad blow. Had it won at Peterborough, its momentum would have carried on. Now, its future seems unclear. It may continue and may yet win seats, but Peterborough was a very good chance despite the ethnic minority vote, and Brexit Party fluffed it.

The LibDems almost quadrupled their 2017 3.3% vote to about 12%, but are still well behind the 2010 days of “Cleggmania”, in which they scored nearly 20% at Peterborough. My opinion? There will be no LibDem revival, at least not on a big scale. Most voters are getting angry. “Centrism” is not the flavour of the times.

The Conservatives were the big losers, as in the EU elections. They achieved what might be regarded as, had it been elsewhere, a respectable 3rd place on a vote-share of 21%, 7,243 votes, only 3,000 or so behind the Labour victor; but Peterborough has mainly been a Conservative seat since 1945. It had a Conservative MP as recently as 2 years ago.

If this result were to be replicated nationwide, there would be little left of the Conservative bloc in the House of Commons. Seats would fall either to Brexit Party, or to Labour (or in a few cases, to LibDems).

Final words

Strategically, a Brexit Party win would have been my preference, in that, down the line, it would expedite the break-up of the “LibLabCon” “three main parties” scam. Having said that, the Conservatives were rightly cast down, while at least the Labour MP elected seems to be to some extent against the Jewish Zionists (though pretty invertebrate when “challenged” on that).

Tweets etc

Below, illustrating my point that Labour’s core vote is now “the blacks and browns”









EU Elections 2019 in Review: Conservative Party

The Conservatives were the big losers of the 2019 EU Elections in the UK: 1,512,809 votes, a vote-share of 8.8%, 4 MEPs (down from 19), 5th-placed after Brexit Party, LibDems, Labour and Greens.

The Conservatives were in 5th place in most of the 11 EU constituencies. Their best results were in Scotland, East of England, South East England and South West England, in all of which they were placed 4th, the largest vote-share being in Scotland (11.6%).

This was the worst nationwide result for the Conservatives since the party was officially formed in or about 1832, the year of the first Reform Act (some date its foundation by reference to the publication of the Tamworth Manifesto by Sir Robert Peel in 1834; no matter).

Since the 2019 EU elections (last week), much has happened: Theresa May staying on temporarily as a ghost PM, but having resigned as Conservative leader in advance (effective 7 June 2019); between one and two dozen candidates scrabbling for her purple, with Boris Johnson (“Boris Idiot”) in the lead. More significantly, only 40% of 2017 Conservative voters aver that they will vote Conservative at the next general election, and a YouGov poll taken a week after the EU elections resulted thus:

(UKIP and CHUKUP both on 1%; I have taken SNP support in Scotland as 40%, Con 20%).

If that poll reflects the next general election, the House of Commons would be hung: largest party would be Labour (186 seats), then Brexit Party (184 seats), then LibDem (116 seats). The Conservatives would have 86 seats, only 30 ahead of the SNP.

Note that, though: 86 seats! That would be the smallest MP contingent ever for the Conservatives, easily beating the smallest so far, following the General Election of 1997, at which the Conservatives scored 165 seats on a vote-share of 30.7%: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK)#UK_general_elections

Many cannot forgive the Conservatives the cruel “welfare” policies of 2010-present. I am at one with that. The “Conservative” ministers responsible should be put on trial at some future point.

However, the uncaring policies of the Con-Coalition and of the Theresa May government did not directly affect the majority of the population. What has affected the majority has been the starvation of large areas of other public spending: police (albeit that I think that much police effort is misdirected), NHS, justice system etc.

Then there is the sheer ineptitude of so many Conservative ministers. Chris Grayling alone! How many times does that obvious sociopath have to mess up before he is sacked and booted back onto the backbenches? God knows. He is still a Cabinet minister today, despite having messed up at Transport, Justice and Employment, as well as in other roles! The Labour Party has alleged that Grayling alone has mis-spent nearly £3 BILLION in public funds, the Probation Service fiasco merely being his latest failure. “Failing Grayling”.

Grayling is not alone. One only has to think of Esther McVey, dishonest and thick as two short planks. Others abound. Iain Dunce Duncan Smith comes to mind…

Again, the UK (ie the Conservatives) adopted the wrongheaded “austerity” policies of 2010-present, which have not only made the country so much more threadbare but are in in contrast to those of other EU countries (except Greece), which have recovered, and grown so much faster, in recent years.

Now, as Theresa May is banished to the land of the political shades, a mass of idiots (mainly) is scrabbling to tear off her purple. The eventual field may number as many as 20.

The dilemma the Conservatives have is that they can

  • elect a leader who is Remain or “Soft-Brexit” (Brexit In Name Only), and then very likely get slaughtered when they eventually find the courage to hold a general election (perhaps not until 2022 or until Brexit Party deflates, which latter may never happen); or
  • elect as leader a Brexiteer (or, like Boris Johnson, a fake Brexiteer), which will mean that his/her attempt to exit the EU on WTO terms will trigger a vote against in the Commons and then a confidence vote, which, with a number of Remain Conservatives abstaining, or even voting against the Government, will mean that the Government must fall and a general election held, at which the Conservatives will probably be slaughtered. Catch-22.

The Conservatives really are in trouble, and it could be terminal. The newspapers (look at the Daily Telegraph) are full of articles saying how the Conservatives have no decent leadership candidates, no ideas, no overarching “story” or ideology etc.

Who now votes Conservative? According to opinion polls, only 4% of under-25s, and only 16% of under-35s. The bulk of Conservative voters are retired people, often in their 70s, 80s, 90s. A rapidly-depleting contingent.

Then we have income and capital demographics. The Conservatives are desperately trying to appeal to renters, students etc, by bringing in “helpful” measures to match Labour promises. I doubt that these late ploys will be very effective.

As to “culture wars” aspects, the Conservatives have failed to prevent the continuing migration invasion, are very much identified with the Jewish Zionist and City of London speculator element, and have lost their traditional supporters by supporting “socially liberal” policies such as gay marriage and all the “multikulti” stuff. One MP personifies all that, though he is not alone (far from it): Nick Boles MP, Bilderberg attendee, Remainer, expenses cheat and blodger (he even claimed on expenses to have Hebrew lessons so that he could communicate with his Israeli boyfriend!); he wants to continue with mass immigration, building millions of rabbithutches on the countryside for the influx and their offspring. Goodbye England!

On 6 June, there will be held the very important Peterborough by-election. Peterborough is or was a Con-Lab marginal.


In 2017, a black African woman, Fiona Onasanya, was foisted on the people of Peterborough by the Labour Party machine in London. It turned out that she was not only yet another MP whose CV was partly a fake, but that she was totally incompetent and useless (5,000 unanswered emails from constituents were found by the assistant she then hired, which lady is now suing Onasanya in the Employment Tribunal).

Onasanya was only removed as MP following a petition triggered by her conviction for perverting the course of justice; she spent 28 days of a lenient 3-month sentence in prison. That did not stop her from not only getting her pay, free London flat, bills paid etc until she was kicked out, but she even voted maliciously against Brexit in the Commons, while still wearing her electronic tag!


Labour has a lot to live down in Leave-supporting Peterborough. However, their present candidate, Lisa Forbes, a trade union woman, is 2nd favourite (after the odds-on Brexit Party candidate) to win the by-election. At time of writing, 4/1. At the start of the campaign, Labour was Evens favourite with the bookmakers, so is struggling.


As to the Conservatives, who only lost to Labour in 2017 by 607 votes, their stock has fallen, or should I write “plunged”? 25/1 today with the bookmakers. My analysis is that Brexit Party is being supported on its merits as anti-System but also supported as the best way to keep Labour out. That is, even Conservative voters who prefer their usual party to Brexit Party are going to vote Brexit Party to keep Labour out. At the same time, Remain voters (including former Con Remainers) are clustering round the LibDems (whose odds have fallen from 70/1 a week ago to 12/1 today). The Conservatives are therefore being deserted both by Brexit-favouring voters and Remain-favouring voters.

If Brexit Party wins at Peterborough, that will confirm that 2019 is the beginning of the end for the Conservative Party. If Brexit Party can get 10% at the next general election (assuming before 2022), the Conservative Party is unlikely to get a majority. If Brexit Party gets 20%, then the Commons will have, probably, three or even four English parties with substantial blocs of MPs (and also the SNP). Above 20%, and the Brexit Party effectively replaces the Conservatives (and maybe Labour, to a lesser extent) in the Commons.

Both Labour and Conservatives are fading from relevance, partly for the same reasons, partly for different reasons. The Conservatives face the immediate threat of near-extinction. They now look as if their days are numbered.











Afterthought, 4 June 2019

I watched “63-Up”, the latest in the TV experiment that follows a group of people born, as chance would have it, the same year as me (1956), a film about them being made every 7 years. The sort of original-thinking TV project that is rarely if ever attempted today.


The subjects are now all 62 (like me) or 63. One of those featured today was a young London East-Ender, Tony Walker [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_(film_series)#Tony] who had been a jockey and a taxi driver. Politically, what interested me is that the subject said that, as an adult, i.e. since the late 1970s, he had always voted Conservative, but now would never do so again. Why? Not for economic reasons: he had done well in aspirational terms, had moved from East London proper to relatively leafy South Woodford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Woodford,


and even had a holiday home in Spain.

The subject, Tony, was never going to vote Conservative again because he wanted the UK to be free of EU control but also because he evidently has woken up to the fact that globalist puppet-masters are pulling the strings. I do not know what other issues were or are of importance to him, and in a sense it hardly matters. What does matter, as we look at events politically, is that Tony and a million other Tonys are not voting Conservative in the next UK general election. People like him do not vote Labour these days, so where? In the film, he even said that the Greens might get his vote (to me, surprisingly). The film would have been made a few months ago, before the advent of Brexit Party and its rise to pre-eminence, but I think that I can guess where Tony’s vote is going next time…

The Conservatives are now revealed by events and their own actions as a bunch of clowns, who have failed on Brexit, failed on everything. They cannot even run the election for their own leader effectively! I really believe that the Conservatives, even more than Labour and the LibDems, are heading for the scrap-heap, rapidly.

Notes from the Peterborough By-Election


Fiona Onasanya has drunk her last draught from the taxpayers’ trough and has now been removed as MP, the Peterborough seat having been declared vacant on 1 May 2019. We therefore move to the question of who will replace her.


The constituency covers the majority of the city of Peterborough and some rural areas to the East. I myself have visited the city but once, in 1975, and the city I saw in a few hours and 44 years ago is a very different place now. The population increased about 50% in the years 1971-1991 alone, since when it has increased again hugely. The city of 1971 had about 100,000 inhabitants but now has about 200,000 and still increasing. Even that does not tell the full story.

A few years ago, Peterborough was said to have the second-fastest population growth of any city in the UK. In 2007, the Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire noted that, as recently as 2003, 95% of the teenagers in the county had been white (ie English), whereas the figure in 2007 was radically different and the population “diverse”. What is that figure now, I wonder? 50%? Probably far below that.

The true scale of the change is probably covered up. The city’s inhabitants are now 82% white (officially), but many of the white inhabitants are of recent Eastern European origin.

Peterborough constituency and by-election candidates

15 candidates are declared at close of list:


Conservative Party

The constituency has been a Con/Lab marginal for decades, with the two parties usually but not always within a few points of each other. The Liberal Democrats have come third in every election for decades, except in 2015 when the LibDems came fourth after UKIP (there was no UKIP candidate in 2017).

Stewart Jackson was the Conservative MP from 2005 until 2017, his vote share gradually declining from 42.1% in 2005 to 39.7% in 2015 before, ironically, peaking at 46.8% in 2017, in which year he was replaced by Labour’s Fiona Onasanya (she got 48.1%).

I have blogged previously about Fiona Onasanya, who has wisely decided not to bother standing again (Labour has another candidate, but Fiona Onasanya could, in theory, have stood as an Independent, despite her conviction and brief imprisonment).


The Conservative candidate for the by-election, Paul Bristow, is a local businessman who says that “I run my own public affairs and PR business centred around the medical device industry.” I dare say that Bristow, though one of the most likely to succeed candidates, will have an uphill struggle, the way things are with a Conservative Party in meltdown; I also wonder whether voters will want a “multikulti” public relations man (see Bristow’s website in the Notes, below) as their MP. We shall see.

Labour Party

The Labour candidate is Lisa Forbes. A trade union official, she was Labour candidate for Peterborough in 2015, at which election she apparently fought a fairly strong campaign, finishing second with 35.6% of the vote (the Con vote was 39.6%). For the by-election, she beat one other woman in a contest held using a women-only shortlist.

Liberal Democrats, Greens, Change UK

The LibDem candidate is Beki Sellick, about whom a local newspaper reports:

The Liberal Democrats have selected Beki Sellick as their Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for Peterborough. The engineer fought the seat in the 2017 election, finishing third with 1,597 votes. She said: “I’m an ordinary person who’s had a variety of jobs – nationalised and privatised, shop floor and management, full-time and part-time, redundant. And then I started my own business in Peterborough two years ago. I chair our residents association where we run a monthly community café.”

The LibDems (same candidate) got a vote share of only 3.3% in the General Election of 2017, which result was even below the 3.8% they scored in 2015 (cf. 2010—19.6%, and 2005— 14.5%). I cannot see the LibDems winning. They are probably fighting for fourth or fifth place.

One interesting aspect is that Change UK, the new pro-EU and pro-Israel party, is not putting up a candidate. I read somewhere that the very strongly pro-EU and anti-Brexit parties (LibDems, Greens, Change UK) were going to not stand against each other in Peterborough and elsewhere, so as not to split the Remainer vote. Well, it looks like someone forgot to tell the Greens, who are standing, their candidate being one Joseph Wells, about whom nothing much is known.

The Green Party website says about their by-election candidate: “Candidate for Peterborough. Joseph Wells. No Candidate [sic] information at this time. Please check back.”

What a joke the Green Party is! Here we have a by-election held after a scandal. The ideal place for a small party to get some publicity and maybe save its deposit, yet on the day the nominations close, the useless creatures cannot even put out a few basic facts about the poor sap they have chosen as their doomed candidate! Not that it makes much difference: the Greens got 1.8% in Peterborough in 2017. Like the pro-Remain and pro-immigration LibDems, the Greens are unlikely to do well in an area which was over 60% Leave and where many of the English people feel (and have been) swamped by mass migration or “migration-invasion”.

The list closed at 1600 hrs. It is now 1611 as I write. At 1555, 5 minutes before closure of the list, Mark Pack, who does LibDem publicity, was tweeting this!

The LibDems are as useless as the Greens and the new joke party, Change UK!

What is more significant is that Change UK have effectively chickened-out of this contest. Either that or they are just too incompetent even to register a candidate for the only by-election being held! Either way (and as I have previously blogged), they are a total waste of space.

Below, two of the wastes of space of “Change UK”:

So there it is: Change UK are too frightened or too incompetent to put up a candidate at Peterborough (voters might like to remember that at the 23 May EU election too…and at the next general election).

This means that, at the by-election, the Remain or pro-EU vote, which at best is probably no more than 40% of the electorate anyway, will be split between Greens and LibDems (and Labour). Bearing in mind that, in 2017, the combined vote for the LibDems and Greens was only 5.1%, it may be that most Remainers in Peterborough will vote Labour; neither of the two smaller parties has any real chance.

Minor candidates

UKIP is standing, thus splitting the hardcore Brexit vote, but is running at only about 3% in nationwide opinion polling. The candidate is John Whitby, a former UKIP councillor, who came last out of 5 candidates in the recent local election for Fletton and Stanground ward, Peterborough (he got 320 votes out of about 2,000):

Hard to predict UKIP’s vote share at the by-election, except that it will be below 5%. I am guessing that it will be around 2%.

The former journalist and UKIP MEP, Patrick O’Flynn, who now fights for the (post-1990) Social Democratic Party (SDP), is standing, but I would be surprised if he were to get above 1% of the vote. In a way, he was a loss to UKIP, in that he was probably one of UKIP’s more intelligent leaders, particularly on economic issues.

Why O’Flynn has chosen to ally himself with the SDP dead parrot party, God knows. Maybe because he did not want to be an Independent. He, in himself, is not a bad candidate, but the SDP is just silly: in 1992, it put up 10 candidates at the General Election. Total vote was over 35,000 or 0.1%, but individually they did not do badly at average 3,500 votes each. However, since then, their few candidates have registered not thousands, not even hundreds, of votes (at the General Election 2017, 6 SDP candidates stood, and got a total of 469 votes, about 75 votes each; in national terms, statistical zero).

Now we come to the bottom of the barrel: the Christian People’s Alliance (not to be confused with the Christian Party Alliance; yes I know…Judean Popular Front etc…) is standing a Dr. Rogers (not I think a medical doctor, but someone with a Ph.D who is a local teacher). I sometimes puzzle over why people even bother standing for silly no-account organizations like this. Still there it is. He may get 50 or 100 votes, who knows?

There are 2 Independents.

One Goldspink is standing for the faux-“nationalist” English Democrats.

There are candidates for “Common Good” and “UK European Union Party”.

There is a “Renew” candidate. There was one in the recent Newport West by-election: that candidate got nearly 4% of the vote there.

“Howling Lord Hope” of the Official Monster Raving Loony Party needs no introduction: the fat little man wearing a white or yellow suit is a veteran of dozens of elections and in fact was actually elected (unopposed) in a local council election at Ashburton, Devon, many years ago. I imagine that he will beat some of the Peterborough candidates who take themselves more seriously.

Brexit Party

Brexit Party has burst upon the political scene (or should that be “swamp”) and may change everything just by existing. Needless to say (to regular or frequent readers of this blog), I would never “support” a party which is not fully social-national, let alone one that has a “Friends of Israel” section already…Having said that, anything that helps to fragment the “three party” or “two party” FPTP scam, that is conventional politics in the UK, has my blessing.

Brexit Party is mushrooming and now has somewhere around 100,000 “supporters” (by any other name, members) who have, apparently, each donated between £5 and £200,000 (the average is about £30, giving Brexit Party somewhere in the region of £5 million in battle funds).

Below, Nigel Farage, the leader of Brexit Party, arriving in Newport, Wales, to a rapturous and almost ecstatic reception:

and here is a comment about both Brexit Party and Change UK rallies (well, Brexit Party’s 2,000-strong Peterborough rally and Change UK’s pathetic almost empty London meeting…)

another tweeter:

I have blogged recently about the effect of Brexit Party on UK elections from now on:



These were the results of the 2 May 2019 local elections in Peterborough:

Brexit Party of course not standing.

The bookmakers have Brexit Party favourite to win the by-election: just odds-on, but closely followed at 11/10 by Labour. The Conservatives are on 20/1, the LibDems 50/1, Change UK 66/1 (rather ungenerous since they now seem not to be standing!), 100/1 bar. So Greens and UKIP are both 100/1. William Hill are similar but more generous. They have SDP at 125/1 and Green at 150/1.

A week ago, Labour were the favourites. That though was before Nigel Farage and Brexit Party had 2,000 people attend a rally in Peterborough for which, it seems, tickets were sold at £10 a pop. This is not British politics as we know it…most System candidates would struggle to get 200 (or, in some cases, 20) voters to turn out for a meeting where entrance is free!

Britain Elects has, a minute ago, tweeted the following polling for the EU elections:

Those figures might inform us re. the Peterborough by-election, except that Change UK is not, it seems, a factor.

The Brexit Party candidate is Mike Greene, a multi-millionaire businessman and considerable local philanthropist, who supports 40 local charities and good causes. He comes from modest origins and is a local resident who was brought up in or near the city. He was a Conservative until recently.

Conclusion and forecast

Unless something absolutely stunning happens in the next 4 weeks, this is a straight fight between Brexit Party and Labour. The Conservatives seem to be toast. In fact, now that that is plainly the case, I should expect many more Conservative voters to vote tactically for Brexit Party, in order to keep out Labour.

The Remain vote will probably gravitate to the LibDems, but the Greens will take quite a few Remain votes. Other parties can be more or less disregarded.

There is also the point that, on 23 May, halfway between now and the by-election, the EU elections are expected to be a triumph for Farage and the Brexit Party. The Conservatives are forecast to come 3rd or even 4th.

It looks as though this will be the Westminster victory that might launch the —as yet, policy-free— Brexit Party. Second place will go to Labour. Third? Either LibDems or Conservatives. Quite possibly the LibDems.






















Update, 21 May 2019

Current betting as of today (21 May) is: Brexit Party as odds-on favourites (8/13), though challenged fairly closely by Labour on 5/4. The rest of the field is comprised of also-rans, it appears: Conservatives 20/1, LibDems 50/1, and 125/1 bar those four.

Update, 23 May 2019

There has been movement in the betting market for the by-election: Brexit Party hardening and now at 8/15; Labour less firm and out to 7/4; Conservatives at 9/1 (from 20/1 only two days ago); LibDems sliding to 70/1; 125/1 bar those four.


Update, 24 May 2019

Just saw the clip below from BBC News. It exemplifies the BBC way of doing bias in political coverage. The whole clip lasts well over 2 minutes (2:16), out of which Mike Greene, the candidate for Brexit Party, was given 5 or 6 seconds! Brexit Party is way ahead in the betting and polling for the by-election, but the BBC chose to present the three System party candidates as the “serious” ones, each of whom got a number of short slots within the clip. Even the lady standing for the LibDems got two or three slots, despite the fact that the LibDems have no chance, are 70/1 to win, and when the same lady stood in Peterborough for the LibDems at the 2017 General Election, she only got 3.3% of votes cast!


I am not a “supporter” of Brexit Party, as such, but the BBC’s bias against it is really showing now.

Update, 26 May 2019

By-election betting now shows Brexit Party hardening to 2/5, and now strong odds-on favourite; Labour slightly out at 15/8; Conservatives, who went from 20/1 to 9/1, are now again sliding and are at 12/1; LibDems in from 70/1 to 50/1; still 125/1 bar those four.

Update, 27 May 2019

After the stellar victory of Brexit Party in the EU elections, the odds on Brexit Party smashing the Peterborough by-election have hardened again, now to 4/11. Labour’s dispiriting results in the EU elections have lengthened its odds to 5/2. The Conservatives’ odds have slid back to 16/1, whereas the LibDems’ odds, also at 16/1, are hugely shorter now (they were 50/1 only yesterday!); 125/1 bar those four.

As my blog, written 9 May, said, this is a contest between Brexit Party and Labour, but now the LibDems are complicating the issue. If all anti-Brexit voters gathered behind one candidate, the Brexit Party could not win. The question arises: which one party and candidate? The Remain-oriented side is split, and there are other issues. It may well be that many Con voters and others will switch to LibDem for the by-election, but many Labour voters will recall the LibDems’ dreadful and dishonest support for the Con Coalition 2010-2015. My prediction is that the Brexit Party is going to win this by a goodly margin in the end.

Update, 29 May 2019

The betting continues to firm for Brexit Party. Now 1/5 odds-on (from 4/11). Labour has weakened to 4/1 (from 5/2). The LibDems are still at 16/1, but the Conservatives are still sliding, now at 20/1 again (from 16/1). As far as the bookmakers are concerned, it’s all over.

As my initial blog post speculated, Conservative voters are now flocking to Brexit Party, either out of conviction or because it is the best way to deny Labour the prize. It may be that, after the Fiona Onasanya fiasco, Labour is badly damaged. The candidate for Labour seems to be not very intelligent, which hardly helps (though I understand that she is at least anti-Zionist. On can rarely have everything.



Update, 30 May 2019

Latest betting: Brexit Party still strong odds-on favourite at 1/5, Labour still 4/1 (both unchanged from yesterday), but LibDems and Cons have now both slid to 25/1. 125/1 bar those four.

Update, 31 May 2019

Brexit Party still at 1/5, Labour still at 4/1. LibDems have recovered to 12/1 after opinion polling suggesting that, nationwide, the LibDems are now, suddenly, the most popular party in England and Wales! Conservatives are available at 25/1 for the by-election. 125/1 bar those four.

Meanwhile, the newspapers converge on Peterborough to seek opinions…


A disillusioned Tory, his message is clear that the Lib Dems ‘may sneak in here’. He says Peterborough is ‘an absolute dump’ with poverty rife. People are so poor they think twice about buying even a multi-pack of crisps.” [Daily Mail]

Back in Lincoln Road, at a cafe bar, I talk to Janet Tobolik, who is 65 and half Polish. A devout Eurosceptic, she says only one party cares about Peterborough’s problems. She is voting UKIP. ‘There is rubbish on the streets. This is my country and you suddenly find a settee in the middle of the road. Peterborough is a slum. They drop everything these immigrants.’” [Daily Mail]

Down the street, a 73-year-old man who called himself Mr Dhillon, said: ‘I have lived here since 1967. I always supported Labour. But they and the Tories have done no good for Peterborough. I think we should leave the EU and then we can start again.’”

“Yes, as it stands, it is Farage who is on a roll. He is hoping to bury his opponents in Peterborough, just like Catherine of Aragon, and the odds are hugely on his Brexit Party’s side. Next Thursday we’ll discover if the people of this city will change the future of British politics.” [Daily Mail]

Update, 2 June 2019

The betting market has moved as far as Labour and the LibDems are concerned. Brexit Party is still strong odds-on favourite at 1/5, but Labour is now closer at 10/3 and the LibDems , who were 12/1 yesterday and 70/1 only a week ago, now move to 9/1. The Conservatives are still on 25/1; and 125/1 bar those four.

As I commented earlier elsewhere, the battle for second place at Peterborough is intensifying. The Brexit Party seems unchallenged now for 1st place. The only way for Brexit Party to lose would be if those opposed to Farage all clustered round one other party standing. That is obviously not happening. Labour is fighting hard for the seat, but the LibDems are “playing a blinder” bearing in mind that they only got 3.3% in 2017 and 3,8% in 2015. Even at the height of 2010 Cleggmania, they only managed (just under) 20%.

The Conservatives are toast and have no chance. Labour is battling not to be toast. A 2nd place at Peterborough would keep Labour in the game nationally. If Labour drops to 3rd at Peterborough, heads may roll.

Brexit Party tweets cleverly: their tweet (below) is in fact correct, but from the purely electoral point of view helps Brexit Party, because Labour is still the main enemy of Brexit Party in this Peterborough by-election. Tactically, Brexit Party very much knows how to run a campaign.

Update, 3 June 2019

Three days before polling day.

The Guardian reports from Peterborough [link below]. Well worth reading.


“…many Peterborians feel life is getting worse; nothing catastrophic, but a noticeable unravelling. Stagnation of living standards and diminishing prospects, as much as Brexit and migration, are likely to shape how they vote.

“…people also sense deeper changes to the social fabric, caused in part by the march of buy-to-let property investors, the retreat of the state from providing housing for the working class and ever-shrinking funding for maintaining the fabric of neighbourhoods. With Brexit dominating the byelection, there is little room to debate much of that.

The BBC has also posted a not very illuminating analysis:


As for the betting market, Brexit Party is now even more firmly odds-on, prohibitively priced at 1/6. Labour has gone out again, returning to 4/1. The LibDems are now also further out at 10/1, while the Conservatives have all but given up the ghost at 33/1 (out from 25/1).

The LibDems were always going to be on the back foot in Leave-friendly Peterborough (in the 2016 Referendum, 61% voted Leave, on a high turnout of over 72%), but their apparent lack of success is a warning light about taking their 2019 EU elections performance and more recent opinion polling too seriously (particularly now that it seems that pollsters have been deliberately suppressing Brexit Party in some polling).

When push comes to shove, can the LibDems hack it? Their performance electorally over many years and in government from 2010-2015 would suggest not.

As to the Conservatives, I suggest that my initial analysis was right: former Conservative voters are backing Brexit Party both for itself and because they have lost confidence in the Conservatives as a potentially-winning party. A Conservative vote in Peterborough is now a wasted vote. The tactical option to keep Labour out is therefore to vote Brexit Party. They are obviously deserting the Conservatives in droves; incredible when you consider that Peterborough has had a Conservative MP for most of the years 1945-2019. A symptom of the general and possible terminal decline of the Conservative Party.

Labour is the only party now likely to come close to Brexit Party in the by-election. The “blacks and browns” (etc), comprising a fifth of the inhabitants, will vote Labour if they vote at all. Remain voters are more likely to vote LibDem now. The non-Brexit-Party vote is thus split. Brexit Party may get 50% of the vote, it may get only 40%, but it does seem likely to win.

Note: in the few hours since I wrote the above update for 3 June, the betting market has moved again. Now Brexit Party is in at 1/7, Labour has gone out to 5/1, the LibDems have slumped to 14/1 and the Conservatives are still in outer darkness at 33/1 (125/1 bar those four).

It is pretty clear that the punters and bookmakers have decided that Brexit Party is unassailable at Peterborough. I think that Brexit Party will be elected, and maybe on as much as 50% of the vote.

The Labour candidate has been (supposedly) damaged by her (again, supposedly) “anti-Semitic” online statements of some time ago (my problem with her is that she has recanted, and cravenly “apologized” to the Jew-Zionist lobby). She will probably get 2nd place, and on a vote of about 25%.

The LibDems have no realistic chance now. They will be looking to get the bulk of the Remain vote in a city where most people (61%) voted Leave in 2016, and where the LibDem core vote has been between 3% and 4% for several years (and even in 2010 was only 19% or so). I shall be surprised if the LibDems can get to 2nd place in this by-election. My guess as to their vote share would be somewhere around 20%.

Conservatives? They are just going through the motions. If their vote exceeds 10%, I shall be surprised.

…and the msm “journalists” are still making assumptions based on their belief that the System parties (LibLabCon) are eternal and immortal. Those parties will all be dead soon. “Protest vote” does not begin to cover what is happening.


Update, 4 June 2019

Early in the morning. The betting is now 1/9 Brexit Party, 6/1 Labour, 14/1 LibDems, 33/1 Conservatives. It is already over.

ps. this tweeter makes a good overall point:

Update, 5 June 2019

So here we are, the day before polling day. The betting has moved in a little. Brexit Party still heavily odds-on but a little out from yesterday (1/7 from 1/9); Labour has come in to 9/2 (from 6/1); the LibDems are at 14/1 (from 16/1), Conservatives still 33/1 (125/1 bar those four).

There was a late attempt in the Guardian to connect Mike Greene, the Brexit Party candidate, with the retention-of-freehold-rights scam/scandal, but it seems to have had little impact for various reasons, not least that 99% of Peterborough voters never read the Guardian.

Brexit Party looks, on the face of it, as if it is going to walk this one.

Update, 6 June 2019

The moment of truth. The polls are open. Brexit Party is still at 1/7 in the betting odds, with Labour again firmer at 4/1; the LibDems and Conservatives have settled together at 20/1.

and at 1330 on polling day…

The betting has altered “in play”, so to speak: Brexit Party still at 1/7 and looking on the face of it like a shoo-in to win; Labour firmed today, to 7/2; as to the others, both the LibDems and the Conservatives have been sliding, the LibDems to 25/1, the Cons to 50/1. (125/1 bar those four).

If the current betting reflects what will be announced tonight or tomorrow, this is disastrous for the Conservatives, who not only provided the MP for the constituency for most of the past 80 years but also had the tactical advantage of the recent history of Labour in Peterborough: Fiona Onasanya etc: https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2018/12/21/deadhead-mps-an-occasional-series-the-fiona-onasanya-story/

It is clear that the Conservatives are going to go down very badly. How badly, we wait to see. This may prove to be the most significant by-election since 1945.

(as a light ending, until the result, I reproduce—see below—the most stupid, also the funniest tweet I saw today!)

Update at 1615 hrs on polling day:

Betting: 1/6 Brexit Party, 11/4 (from 7/2) Labour.

As I predicted weeks ago, it is between these two now. Labour struggling hard not to be too badly beaten. Many of the Remain votes will go Labour, and almost all of the votes of the blacks, browns etc, and those of any immigrants eligible to vote.

The LibDems are only 40/1 in the by-election betting now. Cons 50/1, others 125/1 or more. As usual, the LibDems talk a good game but rarely follow through. They wasted their chance of getting proportional representation in 2010. That sank their party and many of Britain’s people.

Just saw this, illustrating my point that Labour’s core vote is now “the blacks and browns”:

Aftermath, 7 June 2019

Labour won, unexpectedly (and because of the organized ethnic minority vote, including postal vote), and on 31% of the votes cast (Brexit Party got 29%).

My post-poll thoughts are here:


Deadhead MPs, An Occasional Series: The Fiona Onasanya Story


I have, in the recent and fairly recent past, blogged about various MPs in a House of Commons where, increasingly, to be mediocre is a standard few can reach. See Notes, below. I have now decided to blog from time to time about a few more deadhead MPs, starting with recently-convicted Fiona Onasanya.

Now let us be clear: people in the UK, especially in the mainstream media [msm] tend to bend over backwards to be fair to ethnic minorities and especially blacks. You see it on quiz shows and in TV interviews and elsewhere. You see it even more in that echo-chamber of the pathetic “me too” “socially-liberal” multikultis, Twitter.

Some of the deadhead MPs (indeed, most) are white; however, the black ones can rely on getting a fairly easy ride from the msm until they really push the boat out in terms of stupidity, aggression or general uselessness. See, for example, Diane Abbott, Dawn Butler, Kate Osamor and now Fiona Onasanya.

Fiona Onasanya

Fiona Onasanya, a black African (Nigerian origin) but born in Cambridgeshire, and now 35 years old, is usually described as having been “a commercial property solicitor” prior to having been selected as a Labour PPC (prospective Parliamentary candidate) then elected as MP. I suppose that most people merely accept that bland potted bio, but in fact it is only superficially true.

Fiona Onasanya was Admitted to the ranks of solicitors in November 2015, at the age of 32. Prior to that (but exactly when, I do not know) she attended the University of Hertfordshire on an LL.B course, and then the University of Law (former College of Law) in order to qualify as a solicitor.

So what did Fiona Onasanya do between the ages of 18 and 32? A first degree and then Solicitors’ course together add up to about 4 years. That leaves 10 years outstanding. Her constituency website is not at all illuminating. Her Wikipedia entry states that she was a County Councillor in Cambridgeshire from 2013. That of course pays an allowance these days, as well as expenses (such as fuel for a car). Fiona Onasanya was also Deputy Leader of the Labour Group on that council, which pays extra (exactly how much, I do not know, but there are councillors with “extra responsibilities” that make a modestly good living out of it). At any rate, there seem to be 8-10 “missing years”, for which there may or may not be a good explanation.

Fiona Onasanya’s (self-drafted?) Wikipedia entry states that “She worked as a solicitor at Eversheds, Howes Percival, Nockolds and DC Law, specialising in commercial property law”, but she can have been little more than an office gopher. She worked for 4 different law firms in only 18 months! Probably no good and did little more than make coffee and read up on “diversity” regulations etc…

As for her selection as Parliamentary candidate, it seems to me that to have selected Fiona Onasanya, especially for somewhere like Peterborough, was almost an insult to the people of that city, 82.5% of whom are white, while only 2.3% are black (and little more than half of those are black African).

It now appears that there was no proper selection process. Here are tweets from the Political Correspondent of Channel Four News, Michael Crick, on the subject:

Fiona Onasanya was prosecuted for perversion of the course of justice, a charge which has brought a number of MPs to a prison cell, among them Jonathan Aitken and Chris Huhne (the latter on very similar facts to the present case).

Fiona Onasanya was lucky in her first jury, when the jury could not agree, even on the required 10-1 majority basis (one juror became unwell during trial). There must have been blacks and/or Labour Party partisans on that jury! Its prolonged deliberations and weekend adjournment brought hundreds of mocking tweets (heedless of “contempt of Court”), such as one which suggested that the jury would be sequestered for the weekend “in the local mental hospital”, so open-and-shut was Onasanya’s case. In fact, the second jury did not take long to find her guilty.

Since then, Fiona Onasanya has compared herself to Biblical figures who faced courts, such as Jesus Christ and Daniel, and to others who (apparently unknown to avid Nigerian church-goer Fiona) never faced courts at all (Moses, Joseph etc).


Future Developments

Fiona Onasanya faces a prison sentence. Though perversion of the course of justice carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, the relevant judicial guidelines indicate between 4 months and 36 months, with 12 months not uncommon in cases where the defendant lied about the identity of a car driver. Chris Huhne got 8 months, and that was on a guilty plea and far simpler facts (a simpler conspiracy). Jonathan Aitken got 18 months, also on guilty pleas, but his offence, in fact 2 offences, were intrinsically more serious, arguende.

If Fiona Onasanya is sentenced to a year or more in prison, she will be forced to vacate her seat (though in theory an MP so forced out can re-enter if again elected). The judge’s sentence will therefore either trigger a by-election, or keep Fiona Onasanya in her seat (at least until the next General Election). Jeremy Corbyn has given a broad hint that she faces deselection before that election anyway. Without the Labour label, she would probably get only a handful of votes.

My guess, albeit an educated guess, is that Fiona Onasanya will get a year or more of imprisonment. Why? Apart from the bare offence, she not only pleaded Not Guilty in both trials but also made up a complicated story with her brother (guilty of several similar offences), part of which was to blame an entirely innocent young Russian of whom they knew. He was saved from possible (indeed probable, arguably) prosecution only because he was visiting his family in Russia at the material time. The failure of the first jury to agree was plainly perverse and flew in the face of a plethora of convincing circumstantial and other evidence.

As to Fiona Onasanya’s future outside politics, it looks bleak: if imprisoned, she will undoubtedly be struck off the solicitors’ roll (that is a likelihood in any case). She is now 35. If imprisoned, she could be 37 when released. It looks as if the dole queue beckons. Either that or digging up potato from the heavy soil of Cambridgeshire.


















Update, 5 January 2019


Update, 29 January 2019

On today’s date, Fiona Onasanya MP was sentenced to 3 months’ imprisonment, which means that she will actually be in prison for about 6 weeks minus days in court and in police custody, so probably about a month in the end, if that. Her brother got 10 months.

I am surprised at the leniency of the sentence, in that she deliberately set out on a course of deception, tried to blame someone else for the offence and pleaded Not Guilty despite overwhelming circumstantial evidence, thus necessitating two expensive trials (the first jury being unable to agree on a verdict).

In his very similar trial a few years ago, Chris Huhne got 8 months on a Guilty plea! As a former practising barrister who has (long ago, in the early/mid 1990s) conducted Crown Court criminal trials (though I was always more civil and commercial), I am aware that every sentencing is different because every defendant is different, but the anomaly here is stark. Fiona Onasanya gets about a third of Huhne’s sentence despite her crime being worse on the facts, despite having pleaded Not Guilty (twice). Is it because she is black? Or because she is a black woman? Vicky Pryce (see below) was a woman, after all, and she got 8 months, not 3, and for less. I read much about “white privilege”. Hardy ha ha.

Vicky Pryce got 8 months for having done less than either her husband or Fiona Onasanya. Vicky Pryce and Chris Huhne both actually served 9 weeks in prison before being released early, not the strict 4 months as might have been expected.

Reading the judge’s remarks in the Onasanya case (see tweet below), it is clear that he was floundering in trying to find a reason to suspend the sentence, but in the end could not, so made the sentence as lenient as he felt was possible.

Except that an ordinary citizen might have got a sentence of anything up to a year (maybe more) on similar facts.

On a side point, look at her brother’s “previous” (aka “form”)! Why do we allow such creatures to exist in our British society?

The lenient sentence means that, until removed by the electors of Peterborough, Fiona Onasanya will continue to collect about £1,000 a week after tax, whether in prison or not. She will also continue to get her flat rent, utilities etc paid for via Parliamentary expenses!

The only way to remove her early would be for 10% of Peterborough electors to demand that via a Petition of Recall, which would trigger a by-election. She has been expelled by Labour, which supports such a petition. However, it will take months both to organize the petition and then for a by-election to be held.

In fact, latest news is that the Recall Petition cannot even be started until Fiona Onasanya has finished her appeal process, which might be months or even (potentially) years. For all that time she will be dragging down £1,000 a week after tax, despite the fact that her assistant has said (to a newspaper) that she did no work as an MP whatsoever, and had 5,000 emails unanswered until she employed said assistant (via expenses, of course).

I suppose that there will be a General Election soon anyway and that, if this waste of space stands, she will get only about 10 votes, or at least only a few hundred (depending on how many Africans in Peterborough are totally stupid).

The Onasanya case proves yet again what a load of useless trash many MPs are now. In this case, her only known jobs are 18 months working as trainee (making the tea?) at a few law firms. At the age of 35. We should find some island somewhere and start deporting. Tristan da Cunha? Target number? In the millions.

Further Notes




Update, 31 January 2019

Well, I had no idea that the Attorney-General reads and takes account of my blogging! Only joking…but it seems that the A-G is considering whether to refer Fiona Onasanya’s sentence to the Court of Appeal as “unduly lenient”.



Update, 26 February 2019


Fiona Onasanya, still an MP and likely to remain one until the next general election, was released after only 28 days in prison. I guessed right on that.

Update, 5 March 2019

Fiona Onasanya lost her appeal, in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) against conviction. In theory, she might appeal to the Supreme Court, but it is unlikely that that would be allowed, there not being (as it seems) grounds for such appeal. It is doubtful too whether legal aid would be forthcoming for it, and Fiona Onasanya has no means with which to pursue a privately-paid appeal, though it occurs to me that it is in her financial interest, possibly, at least to make application to appeal, in that, as noted here above, she is getting (net of tax) about £1,000 (in pay) and a similar amount for her London rent, utilities etc paid to her (on Parliamentary expenses) for every week in which she still sits as MP, despite disgrace, despite conviction, despite imprisonment, despite the fact that “her assistant has said (to a newspaper) that she did no work as an MP whatsoever, and had 5,000 emails unanswered until she employed said assistant (via expenses, of course)“. Typical. Most of Africa is in near-chaos for the same reasons, because most blacks are incapable of organization…

So far, there have been no active moves made to start the procedure of recall, because the criminal appeal process is still active, even if only notionally. I expect that Fiona Onasanya will be able to hang on as MP until the Summer, if not until the end of the year. To stop her clinging on until the next general election, there has to be the political equivalent of stamping on her fingers, meaning

  • an end to the appeals process;
  • a Recall Petition in proper form;
  • a petition signed by at least 7,000 people in Peterborough;
  • a by-election.


Update, 18 March 2019

The deadhead has now made a video appealing to Peterborough voters to keep her as MP. She really must think that the people of Peterborough are as thick as she is! My guess? If there is a recall petition before a General Election, then I think that it will be voted for overwhelmingly, and that, in the subsequent by-election, she will get a vote of somewhere around 2%. Of course, in the meantime, because she is appealing her conviction, she is still receiving her over £77,000 p.a. salary, plus expenses such as a paid-for London flat (with all utilities, Council Tax etc also paid for).


ps. I liked the bit where she says that, if kept on as MP, she will use “all her veracity”! I thought that Pinocchio was Italian, not Nigerian!

Update, 4 April 2019


The creature (Fiona Onasanya) could not pronounce “eligible” or “ineligible”, saying “illegible” (i.e. did not know the difference!).

She is still on Twitter, and still tweeting as if the axe will not soon fall on her whole life and lifestyle!

Update, 30 April 2019

It seems all but inevitable that tomorrow a recall petition will approve the sacking of Fiona Onasanya and the calling of a by-election which might result in Brexit Party scoring a hit:


Update, 1 May 2019

It would be incredible if Farage stood for the seat and captured it (despite the fact that “Brexit Party” is obviously rather far from my position ideologically).

Update, 7 May 2019

The by-election will be held on 6 June 2019 (the anniversary of the Normandy Landings of 1944! You couldn’t make it up!) and, while Nigel Farage will not be standing, the Brexit Party will be putting up a candidate. Nominations close on 9 May. Look at the rally below. According to local newspapers, nearly 2,000 people. In a provincial city. In England.

(In fact, the photo there may not be of Brexit Party’s meeting)

As for Fiona Onasanya, she has now been removed as MP, and will almost certainly be expelled (struck off) from the solicitors’ profession (in which she only practised for about a year anyway). She is already effectively forgotten and will soon be back on the dole.

Update, 8 August 2019

Fiona Onasanya has, as expected, now been struck off the solicitors’ roll.


Update, 16 June 2020


Update, 19 June 2021

A few people have looked at these pages today, so I decided to look at the Twitter output of Fiona Onasanya. I found that she still tweets:

The fact that creatures like Fiona Onasanya were and still are selected as Labour candidates was one major reason why Labour started to slide from being a major party to becoming a niche party appealing to blacks, browns, public service workers and a few other groups.