Morning music
Labour mandate (lack of)
As I blogged previously, in relation to both the USA election and Labour’s present situation in the UK.
The difference lies in the fact that the people of the UK had 14 years of inept “Conservative” misgovernment 2010-2024, and the voters wanted the Cons out, at almost any price.
Having said that, and as previously noted several times on the blog, out of every 20 eligible voters in the UK at GE 2024, and in rough figures, about 8 were so disenchanted with the whole political process, with society, and with the political choices available, that they voted with their feet (did not vote at all).
Of the remaining 12 out of 20, again in very rough figures, 4 voted Labour, 3 voted Conservative, 2 voted Reform UK, 2 voted LibDem, and 1 voted Green. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_Kingdom_general_election#Full_results.
For me, the most significant figures would be the 8 out of 20 who did not vote, and the 2 that voted Reform UK.
Obviously, Labour, Starmer-Labour, has little real popular mandate, particularly in view of the fact that Labour’s “4 out of 20” or “4 out of 12” would have included those who, faced with a Lab-Con fight in many constituencies, voted Lab to do down the Cons; the same, in reverse, may also be true, though to a lesser extent; those who voted Con to prevent Lab from winning. Negative voting.
There is at present, or as yet, no sign of a real social-national party emerging in the UK.
I think that Matt Goodwin may be right, i.e. that Reform UK will emerge as the real opposition to Labour in the public mind.
Reform UK now has 5 MPs, though all are rather underwhelming. Reform should of course (were the electoral system not both illogical and unfair) have had about 93 MPs, not the mere 5 awarded to them under FPTP.
It is ridiculous that a party, Reform UK, can get 14.29% of the popular vote and end up with 5 MPs, and that another party, the LibDems, can be voted for by only 12.22%, yet end up with 72 MPs! That does offend the still quite strong sense of fairness and fair play in this country.
Come to that, Labour itself captured only 33.7% of the popular vote, not greatly more than double the vote of Reform UK, yet now has 411 MPs.
A pure proportional-voting system would have given Labour 219 MPs, the Conservative Party 154, Reform UK 93, LibDems 79, and Green Party 42.
In other words, under pure proportional voting, on GE 2024 vote figures, the UK would still be under a Labour Party government, but it would be a minority one.
In practice, 320 MPs give a UK government a Commons majority. Under the proportional-voting scenario, and in order to get over the line, Labour would have been required to compact with either the Conservative Party, or with Reform UK, or with both the LibDems and Greens. I suppose that that last choice would have been the most likely— Labour with LibDem and Green support.
Having said that, were there a fairer and more proportional voting system in the UK, voters would be able to cast their votes knowing that, unless they were to vote Monster Raving Loony Party or the like, their votes would almost certainly result in at least one MP of their preference getting elected. On GE 2024 figures, even George Galloway’s party, Workers’ Party, would have had 4 or 5 MPs in the Commons (0.73% of the popular vote, 210,194 actual votes).
There is little doubt in my mind that, were the UK voting system fairer, most UK voters would not be voting for the System or “legacy” parties. Not only would Reform UK surge forward, but a real social national party might be able to capture both the imagination and the votes of the British people. That, of course, is why System politicians want to retain the present voting set-up.
Tweets seen
As said on previous similar occasions, a one-sided and rose-tinted view, but still largely correct, taken in the round.
That is about Simon Myerson, Leeds-based barrister and one of the “CAA” and “UKLFI” Jew-Zionist crowd, who was sacked as a Recorder (p/t judge) several months ago as a consequence of his extremely unpleasant and persistent social media trolling.
According to Myerson, the terrible slaughter visited upon the people of Gaza is, “legally”, not “genocide”, presumably because not all Gazans have been killed or wounded (“only” 150,000+, i.e. about a tenth of the population), and because the Israelis at least claim not to intend eliminating all Gazans or other Palestinian Arabs from Israel/Palestine.
Well, could not a similar claim, mutatis mutandis, be made by Germany about the Europe-resident Jews of the early 1940s?
Not my area of law (when I had “areas of law”). In any case, my own view of the Gaza slaughter is not based on some “dancing on a pin” legal sophistry. I say, just look at what the Israelis have been doing, and what they continue to do. Whether it is called “genocide” or not is irrelevant, really.
I have noticed that some of the non-Jews (who are pro-Jew-Zionist or, maybe better said, pro-Israel), and some of those who are part-Jew (what the Reich termed Mischlingen) but Zionist, are actually more fanatical than many of those who are fully-Jewish. Strange. That phenomenon has been covered on the blog, on this very popular page: https://ianrobertmillard.org/2019/07/18/theyre-coming-to-take-me-away-ha-ha/.
Migration-invasion— the madness gets worse
“A public meeting descended into chaos after locals were told hundreds of illegal migrants staying at a hotel could soon be getting access to ‘free private healthcare’.
The bombshell accusation was made during a fiery debate led by members of Trafford Council, in Greater Manchester, sparking an outcry of anger from local residents.”
[Daily Mail]
Late tweet
The deliberate destruction of society as we know it, aka “the management of decline”. Only social nationalism can save Britain and all Europe.
Late music
Ian Robert Millard 