Tag Archives: Hartlepool

Diary Blog, 6 April 2021

Hartlepool by-election

There will be, on 6 May 2021, a by-election for the Westminster seat of Hartlepool. My initial assessment, published today: https://ianrobertmillard.org/2021/04/06/hartlepool-by-election-2021-preliminary-look/

UFO news

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9439137/Former-CIA-chief-says-hopes-friendly-dealing-creatures-exist.html

Interesting, if the new disclosures have any truth.

Tweets seen

Blair was one of the most fervent members of Labour Friends of Israel when he was an MP. Corbyn, though weak, was relatively anti-Zionist. Starmer is another Labour “Friend of Israel”, and is married to a Jewish woman who is a lawyer; their children are being brought up as Jewish; Starmer and his wife celebrate Jewish tribal holidays.

The Jewish lobby wanted to regain control of the Labour Party. They have. Corbyn is now an “unperson”, but Starmer seems to be doing worse, as Labour leader, even than Corbyn (a result which I predicted in these blog pages).

Aaron Bastani and Jew-Zionist solicitor Mark Lewis are “discussing”, in the tweets above, the new Northern Independence Party, which is standing a candidate —a former Labour MP— at the Hartlepool by-election. As to Lewis himself, I have blogged quite extensively about him in the past: https://ianrobertmillard.org/2019/01/11/update-re-mark-lewis-lawyer-questions-are-raised/.

Morning music

More tweets

I have seen and heard nothing as to whether Alison Chabloz’s trial Counsel (who, on her behalf, will be appealing her conviction and sentence), has as yet lodged that appeal and/or applied for bail pending that appeal. I apprehend that such application(s) will be lodged and made as soon as possible, possibly today.

[Update, 7 April 2021: It now appears that Alison Chabloz’s prisoner number is in fact slightly different from that quoted in the above tweet, and is A6478EK]

Foreign news

https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/the-last-known-jew-in-afghanistan-is-leaving/

I should never have guessed that there might one day be any reason at all to envy Afghanistan!

Afternoon music

More tweets

Good advice from the Fire Brigade:

Europ erwache!

Late music

Hartlepool By-Election 2021— preliminary look

A by-election is to be held on 6 May 2021 at Hartlepool. The by-election is being seen as a barometer measuring support for the Labour Party, as well as that for the Conservative Party government. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9438925/Keir-Starmer-course-humiliating-defeat-Hartlepool-election.html.

The by-election is seen as an important one, and that fact has already resulted in Wikipedia giving it a dedicated article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Hartlepool_by-election.

Polling seems to show that this is essentially a straight fight between Con and Lab:

A poll - commissioned by the Communication Workers Union (CWU) and conducted over the phone - suggests North Yorkshire farmer Ms Mortimer will walk away with a 20 percentage point increase on the votes won by the Tories in December 2019. Pictured: The predicted split in votes

There are likely to be at least 10 candidates in all, possibly 11 or 12.

Hartlepool has been held by the Labour Party since its creation in 1974. The Labour vote peaked, perhaps surprisingly, when Peter Mandelson was the candidate in 1997. Over 60%. The lowest trough was in 2015, when Labour scored 35.6% (UKIP second with 28%). Labour recovered to 52.5% in 2017, but crashed back to 37.7% in 2019.

The Conservative Party vote peaked early, in the first election of 1974 (45.7%). The Con trough was in 2001 (20.9%).

Brexit Party, represented by its deputy leader, Richard Tice, might have succeeded in 2019 had Nigel Farage not stabbed his own party in the back in order to help the Conservatives win the General Election. Even so, Tice managed a 25.8% third placing, not far behind the Conservative candidate. Reform Party is the forlorn reincarnation of Brexit Party, but already seems doomed. Even Farage, its “leader” until recently, has jumped ship.

Hartlepool vote share graph.png

Labour’s national problems have been intensified in Hartlepool by its candidates of recent years. Mike Hill, the MP since 2017, stepped down because he was facing sex pest allegations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Hill_(British_politician). A pretty dull Labour Party drone, who worked in trade unions and public libraries before becoming an MP.

Now Labour is facing further problems, this time with its new candidate, Paul Williams [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Williams_(Labour_politician)], an NHS medic: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56460823, though it can probably be said that the story (about old tweets by Williams) is overblown.

Official portrait of Dr Paul Williams crop 2.jpg
[Paul Williams, Labour Party candidate at the 2021 Hartlepool by-election]

Williams is obviously a careerist, and was the MP for Stockton South 2015-2017, when he lost to the Conservative candidate. He has also tried to become a Police and Crime Commissioner.

On paper, Williams looks like a solid candidate, with a solid background in healthcare as a GP etc, but is said to have been not very liked when MP for Stockton South. He is pro-EU in a very anti-EU part of the UK.

Labour’s national profile at present is not encouraging. The Jewish lobby managed, after a four-year struggle, to bin Jeremy Corbyn, replacing him with Keir Starmer, married to a woman who is a Jewish lawyer, and whose children are being brought up as Jewish.

Starmer is doing no better than Corbyn did in gaining public trust or popularity.

The Conservative candidate is Jill Mortimer, a farmer from North Yorkshire: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-hartlepool-candidate-admits-doesnt-23821830. She looks like a pain in the neck but, as she says in that Mirror report, a place like Hartlepool might benefit from an active MP.

An interesting intervener is Northern Independence Party [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Independence_Party], which is disliked by the Jew claque on Twitter— a good sign. Its candidate is Thelma Walker, who was a Labour MP from 2015-2017: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thelma_Walker. Her candidature may stop Labour from winning, in what looks like being a fairly close contest.

I do not feel inclined to call the result, as yet, though obviously Labour is on the back foot. If the Conservative Party wins, it will not be because there is sudden enthusiasm for it, or for Boris-idiot, but because Labour is sliding to oblivion. If Labour loses, Hartlepool may go down in British political history as the beginning of the end for the Labour Party.

Diary Blog, 19 December 2019

First, some music:

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%).

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election

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

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”

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

Boris-idiot’s days are already numbered

Stray read

Saw this. Worth a look.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/19/i-didnt-buy-any-food-for-a-year-and-im-healthier-than-ive-ever-been

Probably a great deal easier in the Floridian climate than it would be in Northern Europe, though.

A few more thoughts about Labour

I read this:

and this:

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

“Cosmic Landmine” used to follow my Twitter account (before the Jews had me expelled). Good to see that he is still trucking.

Below, a despairing Labour supporter tweets…

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:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/i-ran-jeremy-corbyns-leadership-21103136

It’s rubbish. That’s machine-“Labour”, Mirror “Labour”, Kevin Maguire tribal “Labour”. Failed Labour.

…and here is Matthew d’Ancona, another System mouthpiece and Conservative Party partisan, pushing bad joke MP Jess Phillips for Labour leader:

https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/talented-strong-and-relatable-jess-phillips-is-labour-s-best-asset-a4316766.html

Mary Creagh

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.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/independent-group-for-change-uk-election-results-mps-anna-soubry-chuka-umunna-a9254166.html

Anna Soubry is now off to swim in a vat of gin.

Trump impeachment

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…

Something more to think about

Final words

General Election 2019 Daily Updated Blog (no.3)

Once again I restart my General Election blog because the previous two are now both long and inconvenient to read. Starting in the evening of 11 November 2019.

Previous blogs:

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/11/01/general-election-2019-daily-updated-blog/

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/11/06/general-election-2019-daily-updated-blog-no-2/

This translates (using Electoral Calculus) to a Conservative Party majority somewhere around 14. Is this just an outlier, or the first poll showing a break in the wave of opinion poll predictions of massive Conservative majorities (some of 150 or more)? We shall see.

The latest round fired in the Brexit Party war was this, in The Independent, from Labour MP Phil Wilson:

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-party-nigel-farage-general-election-north-east-sedgefield-phil-wilson-a9198241.html

A hard-hitting polemic. Gritty Northern lad turned MP, Phil, against effete Southern carpetbagger Nigel. Except, as so often in UK politics, the details get in the way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Wilson_(British_politician)

True, Phil Wilson was born the son of a miner in Co. Durham. He has lived in the constituency he represents for much of his life. However, “Wilson later worked as a gambling lobbyist for the Gala Coral Group in the lead up to the passing of the 2005 Gambling Act, and as a director at London based public affairs consultancy Fellows’ Associates.” [Wikipedia].

A lobbyist for a giant bookmaker? A director of a public relations firm based in London? That’s not very gritty and Northern…Almost like working for “the man, the very fat man, that waters the workers’ beer”…

Wilson is known for being one of the “Famous Five”, a group of local Labour

Party members who helped a young Tony Blair get selected as the Labour candidate for Sedgefield for the 1983 election.[3] He subsequently worked for Tony Blair in his constituency office, the Labour Party and a PR company.” [Wikipedia]

It gets worse:

In his 2017 general election voter leaflet, Wilson stated he was not a supporter of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, and suggested Labour would not win the election.[11] He had supported Owen Smith in the failed attempt to replace Jeremy Corbyn in the 2016 Labour Party (UK) leadership election

[Wikipedia]

Phil Wilson supports remaining in the EU, wants to ignore the 2016 Referendum by holding another one, and is (quelle surprise) a member of Labour Friends of Israel

I have heard nothing from Phil Wilson against either the Jewish lobby or the migration-invasion of Britain by blacks, browns and others.

Of course, he is right about Farage, but Wilson and his MP cronies (and those in his public relations/Blairite circles) should muse on why it is that people in places like Sedgefield turn to snake-oil salesmen like Farage? Might it be that they are sick of “Labour” MPs who are all tied up with Jewish and/or London public relations and gambling interests yet pretend to be hardy Northern proletarians at election time? “Labour” MPs who turned a blind eye to the invasion of the UK by racially and culturally inferior peoples? Who turned a deaf ear to the many girl victims of Pakistani Muslim “grooming” etc?

Voters in places like Sedgefield (and the rest of the country) have no social-national party to support, so some of them turn to obvious fakes like Farage and Brexit Party, because those voters are sick of fakes like Blair, his (((enablers))) and fake “Labour”.

From the Sky News politics juju man, Lewis Goodall:

A good example of reasoning which may or may not be correct, but which is not logically inevitably so. There may be other motivators. All the same, it is remarkable that Farage is willing to take the word of the biggest fraud seen in UK politics for decades, Boris-Idiot. A con-man conned?

Interesting shot across the bows by Remain partisan and ex-Con and ex-Cabinet minister, Nick Boles

and Katie Hopkins, who was at first ecstatic at the Brexit Party “pact” (unilateral surrender), now rows back a bit, while still loving it. I don’t rate her political nous very highly but she is cunning.

Other tweets:

Tactical voting, the pathetic, inadequate but only alternative for voters when the electoral system and political milieu is as broken as it is…

“Wolfie”, who used to retweet me before the Jews had me expelled from Twitter:

and it seems that Farage is operating a political Ponzi scheme:

As I blogged earlier today, when I heard about Farage’s extraordinary U-turn, this finishes Brexit Party. Right here and now. Finished. Killed stone dead.

In other news, “the times they are a’changin’…”

https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/somerset-news/people-who-started-caravan-fires-3515159

and continuing with the real Britain outside the Brexit bubble(s):

Will this, below, be in the Sun “newspaper”? I doubt it.

Update, 12 November 2019

For me, there are two main stories today, both of which can be seen via the latest opinion polls. The most recent (but still taken before the latest Farage/Brexit Party shambles):

  • Labour starting to catch up with the Conservative Party;
  • Brexit Party sinking

In fact, those figures would still give the “Conservatives” (they really should get a more honest label) a Commons majority of about 56, because 39% is high anyway, and because the LibDems and Brexit Party look like taking fewer Con votes. However, the direction of travel of Labour is clearly upward.

I really think that Farage’s latest slippery tactic, standing down 317 candidates to help the “Conservatives”, has mortally wounded Brexit Party. In fact, I think that it has killed it stone dead. The same may be true of the reputation of Nigel Farage.

Brexit Party was at 8% in the latest poll, taken before the latest Farage action. I doubt whether, across the board, Brexit Party will get a vote share of more than 5% on 12 December, polling day, and very much doubt that it can get even 1 MP, though Tice might have a chance as a protest candidate in Hartlepool.

I think that most Brexit Party candidates are going to lose their deposits. It now appears that all potential Brexit Party candidates, 3,000 of them, had to stump up £100 each to apply. After Farage’s unilateral surrender to the “Conservatives”, this money will not be refunded! As far as I know, the electoral deposits payable to the electoral authorities by Brexit Party candidates have not been paid yet, so Farage (who is the major shareholder in the private company that owns Brexit Party) has just decided to keep those monies, amounting to £300,000 (minus the £150,000 in deposits —£500 each— which will be paid to allow the remaining 300+ candidates to stand). Unless I have missed something, that means that Farage and Brexit Party have in effect just “stolen” £150,000 from their own most fervent supporters!

As to Labour, its policies may now be working through to public consciousness. Some are popular in principle, such as those to do with rail, water, other utilities. The “Conservatives” may say that they are “unaffordable”, but many of their own policies, such as the “welfare” “reforms” of Dunce Duncan Smith have cost unbelievable amounts of money (instead of saving money), all so that the poor can be terrorized.

Corbyn is never going to be flavour of the month with the public, but the screams of the msm (the Jewish press, really) are becoming so shrill and absurd that few take them seriously. Corbyn as Stalin (per Boris-Idiot)? No-one believes that. Corbyn as Trotsky or Lenin? Just ridiculous. I think that that card has now been played and has little more traction in it.

We may be looking at a narrowing of the gap between Conservative and Labour, with Brexit Party all but dropping out and the LibDems either losing support or concentrating it in a relatively small number of seats in the South where they have a good chance against the Conservatives.

I may be wrong, but at present feel that the “Conservatives” are about to be squeezed on two fronts. As we know, a two-front war is hard to win! Who said that?…

YouGov has now come out with a poll taken since Farage threw his party under a bus:

It rather proves my blog point of, originally, some months ago, to the effect that Farage is not a very good politician despite his gifts of oratory etc. That does not preclude the possibility that Farage is doing what I call a Mikhail Tal.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Tal#Notable_games: “Tal vs. Vasily Smyslov, Yugoslavia Candidates’ Tournament 1959, Caro–Kann Defence (B10), 1–0.[29] A daring piece sacrifice to win a brilliancy prize.”

Tal was a Soviet chess grandmaster and World Champion. One of his famous games showed him sacrifice almost all his pieces in order to place the few remaining ones in a winning position, having of course plotted it all out in advance. The question then would be: what, for Farage, *is* a winning position? Not for “Brexit Party”, which, like all pawns, “exists to be sacrificed” (in the words of Wilhelm Steinitz), but for Farage?

Those figures would give the “Conservatives” a Commons majority of perhaps 156…which would be an “elected” dictatorship. We might be in “V for Vengeance” territory. If the General Election itself mirrored that opinion poll, Labour would be left with only 155 MPs, a loss of 107.

“[Farage] told ITV’s Good Morning Britain: “I made a big, generous offer to the Conservative Party yesterday [Monday]. I gifted them a couple of dozen seats.”

Mr Farage later criticised the Tories for not reciprocating his move by standing aside in some Labour areas where the Brexit Party could challenge the incumbent.

He told the BBC: “I would have expected, having put country before party, to perhaps have got something back from the Conservatives.

“But no, nothing is good enough for them.”

He added: “It is clear to me it is not a Leave majority they want in Parliament, it is just a Tory one.”

[BBC News https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50387254]

Is Farage really that naive? Why should the Cons stand down anywhere, now that Brexit Party has unilaterally stood down 317 candidates?!

Has Boris just driven his steamroller through Farage’s croquet game?

In fact, under electoral law, Farage/Brexit Party still have about 50 hours (until 1600 hrs, 14 November 2019) in which to officially declare or withdraw candidates. Why does Farage not belay his last order and allow the 317 stood-down candidates to stand anyway, to spite Boris-Idiot? Farage now knows that Boris has no intention of playing the game. Boris is carrying a machine-gun onto the grouse moor.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/parliament-and-elections/elections-elections/what-is-the-timetable-of-general-election-2019/

Commentary on the election betting market:

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/boris-johnson-general-election-odds-labour-conservatives-betting-prediction-a9200241.html

Update, 13 November 2019

Perhaps not directly an election story, but not irrelevant either: Jew business leech presently polluting the air of the UK tells struggling nurse that she should get a second job or start an online business!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7678301/Apprentices-Claude-Littner-tells-nurses-need-work-struggling-make-ends-meet.html

Nurses and all NHS staff must be paid reasonably well. While we are on the subject of the NHS, we must change this absurd system that has been allowed to grow up, whereby parking has to be paid for. When you visit a hospital in most countries, you do not pay to park! Hospitals should be funded out of taxation (if public, as most are in the UK). That should be even more the case when the hospital staff park! Plan hospitals properly, with adequate and free parking!

Another opinion poll:

Out of sync with most other recent polls. An outlier, if you like. However, this is the second poll (from 2 polling companies) which goes against the orthodoxy of the past weeks (that the Conservatives are about to win hugely). On this Survation polling, the Conservative Party would actually be 1 MP short of a majority, so better off than a month or two ago, but far from trampling over all other parties.

My sense is that this General Election is not yet cut and dried.

The George Monbiot article, below, is a good example of how out of touch so many Guardian-reading chattering-class twitterati are. Everyone with any sense knows that there is a serious problem in the UK, especially in England, with both Roma-type Gypsies and the faux-Gypsies also referred to as Irish “tinkers” or, in today’s politically-correct nonsense-term, “travellers”. To ignore that fact, or, worse, to actually support these anti-social elements, plays into the hands of would-be dictators like Priti Patel.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/13/priti-patel-demonisation-gypsies-prejudice-bigotry

When politicians such as Corbyn (living in Islington) “support” thieves, scavengers and despoilers of the green and pleasant land (what little is left of it), they place themselves against the British people. The British people notice, and vote accordingly.

George Monbiot himself lives rather comfortably, mostly in Oxford…

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Monbiot]

Boris-Idiot went to the flood-affected areas with a mop, in a typically ham-fisted attempt to entertain the people. Now he orders 100 soldiers to go (to be filmed for TV news). Someone who merely poses as PM.

Talking of floods, the Mayor of Venice seems to be another political idiot, saying that the bad flooding there is “obviously a result of climate change”. Poor sap obviously cannot think. The flooding is the worst for 50+ years, i.e. there was flooding as bad or worse back in 1966…In fact, St, Mark’s Basilica has been flooded, as it now is again, 6 times in 1,200 years, so there was such flooding as bad in Venice hundreds of years ago, even 1,000 years ago!

There is a danger that we as a society retreat to a “belief”-society which ignores facts, eschews logic as well as intellectual freedom, and prefers “belief”, officially-approved “belief”, officially-enforced “belief”:

“Climate change” caused by human “emissions”, “holocaust” a-history involving “gas chambers” gassing millions of Jews from 1942-1944, and so on. The Aral Sea, in a film by Al Gore, gone by reason of “global warming” (in reality, because Soviet authorities diverted its feeder streams and rivers to cotton production) etc. There are innumerable other examples. Fake history, fake news, fake science. Our times…

Farage now says that he might vote “Conservative”!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7681309/300-Brexit-Party-candidates-stand-election-vows-Nigel-Farage.html

Boris Johnson offers Farage a pact that the Cons will put up paper candidates only in 40 Labour-held seats, if Brexit Party stand down their remaining candidates (about 250). So far refused, with (as I write) only 17 hours to go before the deadline (1600 hrs, 14 November 2019).

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/11/13/tories-offer-nigel-farage-eleventh-hour-deal/

Farage has pretty much killed Brexit Party by standing down 317 candidates for no reciprocation by the Conservative Party. It’s pathetic.

Update, 14 November 2019

Farage seems (on the face of it) to have only now woken up to what I have been blogging about for months: that Boris Johnson and his cronies are not really interested in Brexit but want a Commons majority for other and very sinister ends. They weaponized Brexit in the attempt to maximize a Commons majority, but Brexit is not the end for them, merely the means to get a higher number of votes in the General Election, and so a greater number of MPs.

Nigel Farage has ruled out standing down more Brexit Party candidates as the deadline day for nominations arrives.

It comes after Mr Farage was warned that votes for his party would hand the keys of Number 10 to Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, with Boris Johnson claiming that a Conservative government is the only way to “get Brexit done”.

Speaking on Radio 4’s Today Programme, the Brexit Party [leader] said: “What I’ve realised is that the Conservatives want a Conservative majority in Parliament, not a Brexit majority in Parliament.”” [Evening Standard https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/general-election-2019-live-nigel-farage-urged-to-pull-more-brexit-party-candidates-as-deadline-day-a4286751.html]

Farage still has time, in theory, to re-stand the 317 candidates he stood down recently. As I write, there remain just under 4 hours before the deadline. However, many of his betrayed candidates now despise him and his pop-up “party” and would probably not agree anyway.

It may be that Brexit Party standing in Labour-held seats will now redound to Labour’s benefit, in that even if Brexit Party only gets a few percent, the votes will be from voters who would otherwise vote Conservative. It might save Labour’s bacon in many Northern seats.

Labour’s election messages so far are mixed, ineffective and not grabbing the voters (is my sense, anyway), and the wall-to-wall anti-Corbyn bias of the Jewish-influenced UK msm just intensifies that.

Labour’s immigration policy is turning voters off, but it may be that most people already were turned off by it, and so cannot be turned off “double”, so to speak. In any case, people know that the Conservatives themselves have been pathetic on the migration-invasion question.

Having said the above, I sense that Brexit is perhaps just beginning to take a back seat as domestic policy issues come to the fore: the floods in Northern England, the emergency services, the NHS etc. Labour’s strong suits.

Meanwhile, Jo Swinson, doormatting (as usual) for the Jewish-Zionist lobby:

Jo Swinson is pathetic:

  • The “IHRA” is basically a Jewish-Zionist front; Blair was one of its early supporters;
  • The “International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance” only has 31 states (out of about 200) as members;
  • only 6 out of those 31 states have formally endorsed or adopted the “definition” referred to by Jo Swinson;
  • On 1 January 2015, Professor David Feldman stated in a Sub-Report for the Parliamentary Committee Against Antisemitism that the definition had “largely has fallen out of favour” due to criticisms received.[45][46]” [Wikipedia]
  • In the UK, only extremist Zionist organizations, and doormats such as Jo Swinson, Eric Pickles and that little pissant Robert Jenrick, have promoted the so-called “definition”;
  • In October 2019, University College London required speakers at a book launch to agree to additional guidelines relating to discussing antisemitism, even though that was not the subject of the book“…in other words, the “definition” is merely a tool via which Jewish-Zionist extremists attempt to close down the freedom of expression of host peoples.
  • Jo Swinson is no more than semi-literate. A “definition” is “of” something, not “on” something; and “which all candidates are being asked to sign this Election“? Ha ha!

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Definition_of_Antisemitism

Another reason never to vote LibDem!

Here’s another: Jo Swinson is longing to get into another Con-LibDem coalition. She loved the 2010-2015 Con Coalition, in which she was a PUS (junior Government appointee) and voted for all of the terrible measures against the poorer people of the UK.

Jo Swinson, the Liberal Democrat leader, has said she would sooner push the UK into another general election than put Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn into Downing Street in the event of a hung parliament. Ms Swinson, who could hold the balance of power if no party wins a House of Commons majority in the December 12 election, rejected the possibility of the anti-Brexit Lib Dems entering a parliamentary pact with Mr Corbyn.” [Financial Times]

https://www.ft.com/content/454c1ed0-060b-11ea-9afa-d9e2401fa7ca

There it is: vote LibDem, get Con

And, quelle surprise…Robert Largan, the “Conservative” candidate at High Peak, Derbyshire (who lives, it seems, in Fulham, London, and works as an accountant for Marks & Spencer), has signed that same fake “definition”! Wouldn’t you know it?!

Largan seems to specialize in negative attacks on the present Labour MP for High Peak, Ruth George, as well as on anyone who tweets support for her. See below.

—and notice Largan’s supporter there, “Happy”/”@lcfcsingh”, presumably an Indian and Conservative Party member, from Leicester (Largan seems to have to bus-in supporters, he seems to have very few locally), who plays the (more usually) Jew-Zionist card, trying to intimidate the anti-Conservative tweeter, “David”, by threatening him with the UK police acting as a Poundland KGB : “just reported your tweet. Expect a knock at the door.” Ha ha! Yeah, right…A sign of the times, though.

(though “David” is misinformed if he imagines that “denying” a so-called “holocaust” “is a crime”. It is not, not in the UK).

Some locals appear to despise Largan, who would no doubt be more at home in some chi-chi Fulham (or Soho?…) bar.

A reader of this blog just sent me this:

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

Back to the General Election mainstream

Taking a step back, and looking at the big picture, where is Labour, meaning in general, beyond this General Election? Where is the Conservative Party? Where are the LibDems? I leave out “Brexit Party”, which has just been sacrificed by its progenitor.

I have often blogged about how Labour is now the party, almost exclusively, of the ethnic minorities (except Jews and now perhaps the wealthier Indians) and/or those who directly benefit from public funds (public service workers, NHS employees, State benefit recipients). There are of course other groups and individuals, but those are the core voters, added to which may be the minority of younger voters (under 35s) who actually bother to vote.

The Labour core vote is no more than 30% of the whole, nationally. That, with Labour’s connected propensity to stack up votes in a relatively small number of safe seats, makes it hard for Labour to get a Commons majority. Ever.

The “Centrists” (non-socialist, pro-Israel) in Labour look back wistfully at the 1997-2010 Blair “appeal to all demographics” years of huge Labour majorities in the Commons (crazed Gordon Brown being a tacked-on afterthought). That was then. Times have changed. The Labour Party’s deliberate encouragement of mass immigration (migration-invasion), blind eye turned to the mass rape of young English, Welsh and Scottish girls by (mainly) Pakistani Muslims, not to mention Labour’s sycophancy towards the ultra-wealthy and its toleration of zero-hours contracts, PFI scams etc, have over years alienated the voters.

It is worth remembering that the voters rejected “Centrist” Brown and then Ed Miliband, after which the (Jewish-controlled/influenced) newspapers and TV kept saying, in effect “Labour elected the wrong Jew brother” (i.e. not David Miliband). The UK msm is pathetic.

I just noticed that there have been a few hits today on this, that I wrote about 2.5 years ago: https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2017/06/08/general-election-day-2017/

Corbyn is not Labour’s only problem, though his image is one problem. Labour’s main problem (with apologies to those who have read my words time and again) is one of identity. The industrial proletariat no longer exists, replaced (alongside much of the “middle class”) by the “precariat“, volatile and angry but also disorganized and unfocussed.

Those scribblers like Owen Jones who try to label that “precariat” as “working class” are just wilfully missing the point. The “working class” of Owen Jones is a conflation of (a relatively small) “new proletariat”, a “lumpenproletariat wearing sports gear” and the “precariat”. That is why most people just laugh when post-Marxists like Jones try to call these surging, uncontrolled, msm-brainwashed masses, with their adulation of 15-minutes-of-fame “celebrity” (and that covers the waterfront from The Only Way Is Essex, Premier League footballers, pop music, even Harry and the Royal Mulatta) , “working class”.

…and Labour (whose MPs are very different from their voters) not only has little to say to those masses but in many instances has proven to have been their enemy, certainly since 1997, arguably since the 1980s and the days of that old humbug Michael Foot.

Below: I thought that Labour activists were all young now? Not in Edinburgh, it seems. It looks like a convention for Age UK!

One has to ask where Labour support is going to come from. The “blacks and browns”?Labour is not “national”(ist), and until Corbyn took over had also thrown away its “socialist” credentials. Its time may be running out. Which brings us to the Conservative Party.

The problem that the now-misnamed Conservative Party has is one of demographics. The average Conservative Party voter is a person of about 60-80 years of age, with many well beyond that. There are few young or even 35/50 y-o voters. The core Conservative vote consists of fairly affluent or wealthy persons of middle age or old age. Racial questions are not key, though most Conservative voters are white. The wealthy of non-white populations are believed to favour the Conservative Party, and 90%+ of Jews vote Conservative now, but the numbers are small in absolute terms.

The core Conservative vote is no more, as with Labour, than 25%-30% nationally. The battleground is for the remaining voters and particularly the extra 10%-15% and in swing or marginal seats, which are the only ones that usually matter.

The best argument that the Conservative Party now has is the exact reverse of Labour’s best argument: Con is not Lab; Lab is not Con. We are talking negatives. Voters are really voting negatively, against the party they hate the most.

Other Conservative Party policies are not likely to inspire: the Cons have been in charge for nearly 10 years, have talked a semi-good game on immigration but have failed miserably. As for Brexit, the pathetic lack of real progress has not changed. We are still in the throes of trying to leave (but not really leave).

When it comes to the economy, too, while the Cons sold their pathetic “austerity” nonsense to the masses via the msm from 2010, somehow persuading them that the unemployed, disabled and others on State benefits were responsible for the UK’s poor performance, the reality is —slowly— dawning: “austerity” (suffered only by the poor and fairly poor) actually held back the UK economy. Other countries (except semi-banana states like Greece) have done better by boosting their economies, not paring back everywhere. Well, if you will trust a stupid part-Jew trustafarian cokehead like George Osborne with the economy, what do you expect?

b-cisxdiqaa7qj_-jpg-large

The Conservatives are doomed, but not quite yet. It is hard to see them forming the government in, say, 2025 or 2030. As far as this general election is concerned, though, they are riding high because of the near-collapse of Labour. All the same, as we enter the last 4 weeks of this short election campaign, there is still all to play for. I do not yet regard the predicted massive Conservative victory (predicted by most, still) as inevitable, though it is clear that Labour is in serious trouble.

The LibDems have what the marketers call a “unique selling point” in that they are the sole hard-Remain party. Will that be enough? The withdrawal of Brexit Party from contesting Con-held seats will deprive the LibDems of a number of potential wins. The LibDems are languishing on around 15% nationally.

I begin to wonder whether the LibDems are going to slump. They may take a certain number, a small number, of seats, but I see no large breakthrough. At present, thanks to defections, they have (or had until the campaign started) 21 MPs; 12 from 2017, 9 defectors. I cannot see them having more than 20 after 12 December. They may even drop back to below a dozen. I may be wrong, but that is my feeling.

So with Con, Lab and LibDem all losing traction, what next? No country can be without a future, unless it is destroyed totally. It may have an unpleasant future, though, if the right choices are not made. Importation of inferior peoples— wrong choice. Maladministration to save money or kow-tow to special interest groups— wrong choice. Prioritization of quantity over quality in education— wrong choice. And so on.

Britain needs a social-national party and movement.

Update, 15 November 2019

The System parties now vie with each other in offering the voters “goodies”. For my money, the eyecatching offer today was that from Labour: free broadband for everyone. The other parties may say that it is “unaffordable” but that is just negative white noise. This is a potential gamechanger. In fact, I myself suggested this years ago. My idea was Basic Income, free local transport, free internet and utilities (all to a predetermined set maximum amount). Labour is catching up with me now; 5-10 years late, but better late than never.

The Conservatives are offering to reinstitute a few of the rail lines closed in the 1960s. Not a bad idea, but some mentioned (eg the Varsity Line

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varsity_Line) are already in train (so to speak).

[Flanders and Swann, The Slow Train]

Brexit Party: well and truly washed-up. You heard it here first. The Guardian (like Labour) has taken its time in catching up with me, but here it is:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/14/campaign-genius-nigel-farage-has-totally-self-partnered-himself

Brutal.

Returning to the parties that are really playing in this election, my sense, this cold morning, is that a new phase of the election campaign has started, a new front has opened up. Perhaps several new fronts.

The election campaign has so far been almost entirely about Brexit. I speculated, weeks ago, that there were other issues important to people. Now the narrative has (again) caught up with me. Whether it was the flooding in the North, the news about stresses on the NHS, or just that all three System parties are now talking about those other issues in society, there is a palpable change of atmosphere. Brexit is taking a back seat. That has to play more to Labour’s advantage.

The Conservatives and the Jewish-influenced msm are talking much about Labour’s supposed “anti-Semitism”, but I feel that that is “caviar to the general” and will not resonate much with most voters.

I shall be interested to see whether Labour makes up any ground in the next few opinion polls. My guess is that it will. If it does not, Labour really is facing a crisis bigger than any in recent history.

LibDems. Brexit.

The assumption has been made by many msm commentators and also by me to some extent, that the LibDems will get a boost by being the only unalloyed Remain party of any significance in this election. I still think that that is so, but the effect may well be limited.

As we know, less than 50% of UK voters voted Remain in 2016. If you leave out Northern Ireland and Scotland, the proportion was smaller in England and Wales. The figure now seems not much changed. Recent polls said that about 40% of the voters say that Brexit is the most important issue in this election. So, it is arguable that those

  • favouring Remain,
  • who also think that Brexit is the most important issue

might add up to around a fifth to a quarter of the electorate. Probably no more than a fifth. That might give the LibDems 20% of votes, as a maximum. Not enough for a breakthrough, but respectable, especially looking at the 4.9% the LibDems scored in 2015 and the 3.9% they received in 2017.

However, that 40%, the”most important issue” figure, comes from a poll taken some weeks ago. If that is now 30%, the LibDems may have a ceiling of 15%. For the LibDems everything now depends on getting in a large hard-core Remain vote. Failing that, the LibDems will slip below 10%, possibly below 5%, and the 2015-2017 decline will continue to LibDem oblivion.

Blind spot?

System scribbler Dan Hodges waxes indignant about supposed Russian interference in UK elections. Should he not cast his eyes toward the proven interference in UK elections and politics by Israel and its agents?

Newspaper comment:

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/boris-johnson-brexit-bus-election-vote-leave-campaign-jeremy-corbyn-a9204591.html

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/general-election-brexit-party-candidates-20890815

Polling:

The UK Local Elections Have Been Held: My View

Introduction

The 2019 local elections are at an end and the results collated and endlessly analyzed in the msm. I had predicted a seat loss for the Conservatives of well beyond 1,000 seats, somewhere between there and 1,500. In that, my prediction was correct. Where I went wrong was in thinking that Labour would do well.

What I got right was the disgust and despair voters generally now feel in respect of the Conservative Party. What I got wrong, mainly, was in assuming that voters in the North and Midlands would vote Labour to spite the Conservatives, even if only as a choice between evils and not much supporting Labour as such.

The facts

The system of voting for local councillors etc in the UK is as antiquated and convoluted as one might resignedly expect: not all councils are elected in the same year, and some councils only elect a third of their councillors in any one election. Absurd.

The actual result of the election nationwide, where 8,798 seats (between a third and a half of all the 20,712 local government seats in the UK) were being contested was:

  • Con 3,562 (loss of 1,334) seats;
  • Lab 2,023 (loss of 82) seats;
  • LibDems 1,350 (gain of 703) seats;
  • Others 1,310 (mostly Independents). The Greens did well and now have 265 councillors (a gain of 194). UKIP did badly, and now have only 31 councillors (a loss of 145).

Analysis

The two major System parties are now widely despised. More than that, the political/electoral system is now despised; people have little or no trust in it or in those who are making their living from it. Those facts are reflected not only in the votes cast, but in those not cast. Turnout varies depending on the type of body being elected, but seems overall to have been only about 30%, if that. In addition, unprecedentedly huge numbers of ballot papers were spoiled, some being endorsed with the words “Brexit” or “Brexit Party” or a drawn Swastika. Unsurprising, when one considers that, in many local council seats, there was no real choice.

In many areas of Southern England, the Conservatives were not opposed by even System party opponents from Labour or the LibDems. That explains the way in which disgusted voters voted for anyone not tainted by System connections: Independents (despite most being completely unknown to most of those who voted for them; complete wild cards); Residents’ Association candidates, Greens. How though to explain the relative success of the LibDems (a System party)? How to explain the collapse of UKIP (a non-System party)? In fact, there is no difficulty in understanding those apparent anomalies.

The LibDems were obviously voted for by voters who liked the LibDems’ focus on local affairs, those who are Remain supporters voting for the LibDems as an anti-Brexit protest vote, and by those former Conservative voters who wanted to punish the Conservatives generally, but who were unwilling to vote for Labour, Greens or for complete wild cards. For those people, I suspect mainly in the South of England, the LibDems were an acceptable compromise “dustbin” vote.

The Greens were probably mostly voted for as a pure protest vote, as well as an environmentally-oriented protest vote.

UKIP lost out badly and now, out of a possible nearly 21,000 councillors, has only 31. I think that one can see why that has happened. I have been tweeting/blogging for years that UKIP peaked in 2014. Since then, UKIP has been sliding. The good, but not good enough, 2015 General Election result led to a precipitous plunge in UKIP’s fortunes. Its new leader, Batten, has slowed the plunge, but not stopped it.

UKIP had insufficient troops and funds to fight these local elections hard. It did not contest the vast majority of seats anyway. Apart from that, it is clear that the connection with the “alt-Right” wastes of space (“Sargon of Akkad” Benjamin, “Prison Planet” Watson, “Count Dankula” Meechan) has damaged UKIP badly. Benjamin’s spat with ghastly “Labour” (Labour label) MP Jess Phillips was probably a huge turn-off for many voters. This is the end of the road for UKIP, even re. the EU elections (if any are held in the UK), because defections to Brexit Party have already left UKIP with only 3 MEPs, and BP is running at 30% or more in the opinion polls, while UKIP is now down to about 3%.

Conclusion

These were elections in which voters clutched at straws, weakly trying to damage the main parties of the System. In most seats, there was no non-System candidate standing. The aftermath has been that Con and Lab are now trying to cobble together a faked-up “deal” (“Brexit In Name Only”) so that both parties can avoid having to hold EU elections at all on the 23rd of this month..

We are coming to the end of even the pretence of representative democracy in the UK. Any means will soon be entirely justified in replacing the present corrupt, decadent and totally incompetent system with a better one. The present political system is just not working.

Notes

https://www.itv.com/news/2019-05-03/why-tories-and-labour-should-be-petrified-by-local-elections/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_United_Kingdom_local_elections

http://www.heritageanddestiny.com/early-ukip-gains-as-voters-turn-against-main-parties/

Update and afterthoughts, 4 May 2019

There were almost no candidates ostensibly “nationalist”, still less social-national. A few did well where they stood, here and there. The standouts were Karen King and Julian Leppert, both of whom were For Britain Movement candidates..

Julian Leppert was elected for the “For Britain” party in Waltham Abbey, Paternoster ward, in Epping Forest, Essex. The one-time BNP councillor received 40.7% of the vote, 321 votes; the Con in second place got 227. Turnout was only 23%. About 808 votes were cast in toto.

Karen King, in Hartlepool, de Bruce ward, won with an even more striking 49.5% vote. “The turnout for the elections was 27.18% with 19,284 verified votes from an electorate of 70,943” [Northern Echo]. That of course relates to all Hartlepool and not simply the ward picked out, where Karen King/For Britain Movement got 694 votes, Labour 527, Con 180.

Hartlepool Borough Council councillors now consist of 13 Labour, 8 Independent Union, 5 Independent, 3 Conservatives, 1 UKIP, 1 Veterans’ and People’s Party, 1 For Britain Movement and 1 Socialist Labour Party. Such fragmentation is interesting. The old “three party” or “two party” System stitch-up is just not working any more.

Of course, readers of this blog will know that I have little time for “For Britain Movement”, and 2 councillors is a very small contingent out of the nearly 21,000 in the UK, but looking at those results in isolation, one can only congratulate the candidates.

I shall blog separately about the prospects for the main System parties.