Tag Archives: Labour leadership

Brexit, daily blog, diary blog, elections, MPs, Party Politics, society, Uncategorized

Diary Blog, 16 January 2020

18 Comments

Ha ha!

harryandmeghan

News from the “broken society”

I suspect that the judge, in the case reported below, had some sympathy for the defendant. So do I. There is far too much anti-social behaviour around, and the police are usually not very useful. I think that the lady in question was quite right, in the circumstances.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mum-mowed-down-teens-threatened-21291400

News from Labour

The newspapers in a flurry because Rebecca Long-Bailey seems to be in the lead, ahead of ex-DPP Keir Starmer. As already blogged, I have little time for any of the candidates, but the two I most want binned and humiliated are Jess Phillips and Lisa Nandy. Overall, Rebecca Long-Bailey is probably the best from a policy point of view at least, but in a terribly poor field.

Voter migration 2017-2019

That is an interesting graphic. From it can be seen Labour’s haemorrhage of support quite clearly.

The Conservatives stood firm, gaining few new voters but still more than they lost; more Brexit Leavers migrating Lab to Con than Brexit Remainers migrating Con to LibDem.

The 4-point upswing in the LibDem popular vote is seen to be entirely Remainer dissidents from both Lab and Con, together with some 2017-non-voting Remainers.

While Labour did lose former (2017) voters, i.e. Leave supporters, to both Conservative Party and Brexit Party, and almost as many Remain supporters to the LibDems, almost as many former Labour voters as all of those defectors simply did not vote at all in 2019. What is especially interesting is that those former Labour voters who did not vote at all in 2019 were split about 50-50 between Remain and Leave.

What that means, to me, is that a very great number of people who used to vote Labour found it unsuitable in 2019 not because it was pro or anti the EU, but for other reasons. We are talking about somewhere in the region of a million people who voted Labour in 2017 but who did not vote at all in 2019. About 2.7 million fewer people voted Labour in 2019 as compared to 2017. Almost half of of those did not vote at all in 2019. So at least a million, maybe nearly 1,250,000.

What do these dynamics mean for the short or medium term? One problem is that we do not know all of the facts. Some former Labour voters defected to the Con Party or Brexit Party because those voters supported Brexit, but others obviously could not support Con Party or Brexit Party for other reasons. They at least could perhaps be called “social national” voters without a home. 500,000-600,000 people.

Brexit, even if probably in a messed-up, disorganized way, is going ahead. Remain is a dead duck politically. Brexit will not be a factor in the next general election, except in residual ways. That means that, inter alia, the LibDems are toast.

About a third of the new 2019 LibDem voters were Remainers who were previously Con, Lab or non-voting. Now that Brexit is set to leave the political agenda, at least as an In/Out question, those voters will ebb away. At the same time, the concentrations of LibDem support in a small number of constituencies are diffusing, but the LibDems have no real national narrative to tell, while the paucity of MPs (11 at present) means that the pool of potential leaders is a mere puddle. Finally, the proposed boundary changes and reduction of MP numbers from 650 to 600 will kill off at least half a dozen LibDem seats anyway. Result— misery and probable annihilation.

I admit that I have been predicting LibDem annihilation for 9+ years, but in my defence I can only plead that I underestimated the stupidity of the electorate or some of it. I also underestimated the effect of the UK’s effectively rigged political system. Where else but to the LibDems could the voters go if unwilling to vote Con or Lab? Only to UKIP or Brexit Party. Controlled opposition. I do think, now, that the fateful hour is approaching for LibDemmery. Their vague “centrism” and “let’s all be nice in society” messaging rang very hollow after the terrible things done by the Con Coalition, in which now-binned Jo Swinson was a junior minister.

The Con Coalition killed the LibDems, or rather mortally-wounded them. The LibDems are slowly dying from the effects of 2010-2015.

The frontrunner for next LibDem leader is Ed Davey, who was a Cabinet minister in the Con Coalition. Not really likely to revive the LibDems, though a more substantial figure than Jo Swinson (whose recent elevation to the Lords, after having been chucked out by the voters of her Commons constituency, has probably irritated voters generally even more). Looking at the other LibDem MPs, one sees the problem in finding even a halfway-suitable leader!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Democrats_(UK)#Current_MPs

Another point to remember is that the turnout in 2019 was about 67%. Nearly 33% of eligible voters (in round figures, about 16 million people) did not vote. There are yet others who are eligible but who are not registered. Could there be a political position that would attract the allegiance of that 16M-strong or maybe 20M-strong bloc?

Interesting to see that the Greens, though basically a joke-party, managed to attract Brexit-unaligned voters who had not voted in 2017. Seems to me that, in part, that was a protest vote against the lack of choice.

Labour is hopeless at present, with no decent leader in sight and policies which are partly-popular but also partly deeply unpopular (eg mass immigration laxity). Its traditional base is ebbing away and its new foundations in the black and South Asian “communities” are not so solid.

Labour seems not to want to turn to the truths that everyone else, pretty much, sees: such as that mass immigration has destroyed decent pay, benefits, and has crowded schools, NHS, prisons etc. Labour wants to say that “unions are the answer” when they were not even the answer 30 years ago!

What about the Conservatives? Their new seats are not theirs by tradition or custom. The roots are very shallow. They are a government by default, who won the recent General Election by default. Labour might have had a chance were it not for the Jew-dominated hate barrage put up over 4 years and intensified during the campaign. However, that was only part of the story. The other part was Labour as it actually is. Diane Abbott as proposed Home Secretary? A West Indian woman who scarcely knows what day it is, who cannot put the right shoe on the right foot, who cannot add up…it just goes on! Oh, and who has made plain her hatred for the British people again and again.

Labour just did not look like a credible government. Even compared to Boris-idiot’s “Conservatives”. It did not hit hard enough against the Israel lobby that was behind the anti-Labour msm barrage either. Since the campaign and election, one of the sinister “Campaign Against Antisemitism” bastards, one Joe Glasman, even posted a triumphalist clip (he looked drugged or drunken) on Twitter (it is deleted now, I read) in which he admitted that the Jews beat Labour through msm links, “spies and intel” and a relentless focus on negative attacks on Corbyn especially. Indeed, he revelled in “his” victory.

The Conservative victory was won without having had to oppose a credible opponent (made still less credible by the Jewish-lobby publicity campaign and by its own flaws). Another factor was the weaponization of Brexit. 52% wanted Brexit in 2016 and even if the mismanagement etc had reduced that to perhaps 45% or 50% by December 2019, that 45%-50% was still more than the Conservative voting intention of earlier in the year, that stood in the 35%-40% range. It was that Brexit factor that augmented the Conservative lead.

2022/2024? Completely open. If a social national party exists by then, it might gain huge support. True, the political system is rigged via FPTP voting, carefully-drawn constituency boundaries etc, not to mention the msm, but if such a party has elections as a stratagem, not an end, such a party might still triumph eventually via other roads to glory…

An enemy of the truly European future

The Coudenhove-Kalergi idea again. How anyone could believe that a white Northern European population is less creative and has fewer evolutionary possibilities than, say, the populations of Nigeria, Congo, Brazil etc is hard to understand except in terms of multikulti brainwashing. Judge the trees by their fruits.

It would also be good if scientists who tweet could use “too” and not “to” when they mean “too”…

Ah, mystery solved. Our “scientist” is a former lifeguard and waiter, who later worked in IT and is now a lecturer at a couple of former polytechnics:

http://scienceontheedge.com/about/

*for those unaware of Coudenhove-Kalergi:

https://www.westernspring.co.uk/the-coudenhove-kalergi-plan-the-genocide-of-the-peoples-of-europe/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_von_Coudenhove-Kalergi

Harry and the Royal Mulatta

A tweet or two.

That last tweet hits the nail on the head. “He who would be first must be the servant of all”. The Queen understands that, at least in principle, but the younger royals feel only the entitlement, not the obligation. Some were always like that, of course. Princess Margaret. Prince Andrew. Edward Fag-End (as the Anglo-Saxons might have named him). Now we have this pair of msm “celebrities”.

An older sort of monarchy would have loaded their camels with gold (if they were lucky) and then banished them forever to a far kingdom. I suppose that, in a sense, that is what was done with Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson after 1936.

This marriage has tarnished the whole concept of British Royalty in a way never done before, certainly not so openly.

Update, 8 February 2021

Looking at the above blog post a year on in time, I think that it has held up well. Even the fact that the idea to reduce MP numbers from 650 to 600 in time for the next General Election has been binned changes little. The LibDems are still a dead duck, in my view.

Boris Johnson, Brexit, Conservative Friends of Israel, daily blog, diary blog, elections, Jewish lobby in UK, Labour Friends of Israel, Party Politics, society, The Great Replacement, Uncategorized

Diary Blog, 20 December 2019

26 Comments

I suppose that the headline for me would be that Boris-idiot has already shown signs of weaselling on some of his empty promises, though covering up that with lots of noisy hullabaloo. The part-Jew public entertainer again, this time in his most challenging comedy-drama role, as Prime Minister of the UK. His mistakes as Mayor of London were on a correspondingly smaller scale.

He has to call upon more serious noise to disguise his deficiencies this time, not just a cable-car over the Thames or a garden bridge over the river, promoted by a charming actress who, however, really should steer clear of government policy.

Joanna Lumley’s previous policy disaster was when she “shamed” the then Labour government into allowing not only retired Gurkha soldiers into the UK but their entire extended families. The result? Aldershot is now a Nepalese town (the inhabitants mostly living off State benefits). It is not now an Army town as it once was.

Ironically, the Gurkha retirees (whose pensions were previously upgraded to the British Army norm) would have been far better off living in Nepal, a very poor country where such pension monies go a long way.

Boris-idiot was not responsible for the Gurkha mistake, but he was responsible for the cable-car and the Garden Bridge, which —like “Boris Island” Airport— were not necessary and were unworkable as planned. I have nothing against either cable-cars or garden bridges in principle though. Also, what is the Boris obsession with the Thames?

Boris-idiot, we are told, “does not do detail”. Meaning that his mind is on the lofty outlines of grand strategy. I suppose some poor saps believe that nonsense. The greatest leaders of the 20thC were interested, at least up to a point, in detail. That lack of interest was what sank all three projects noted above.

The cable-car was built partly at public expense but carries only a few regular passengers per day (it was planned for commuter use but in fact is now just a tourist attraction). “There has also been criticism of the project’s £24 million-plus cost to taxpayers, caused by a budget overrun. Boris Johnson, the former Mayor of London, had said the cost of the scheme would not be underwritten by taxpayers.”[Wikipedia]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emirates_Air_Line_(cable_car)

As for the Garden Bridge, it was a lovely idea but was poorly-planned (the Boris leitmotiv). Wrong place, arguably, for one thing.

“On 14 August 2017 after months of uncertainty the Garden Bridge Trust entirely abandoned the project. The BBC London transport correspondent Tom Edwards described the situation as a shambles which was “an embarrassing mess for the capital … already descend[ing] into finger pointing and a blame game over who is culpable for wasting £46.4m of public money”.[75] In February 2019 it was revealed that the total public cost had been £43m.”

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

Boris Island. Never got far beyond the cartoon brain of Boris-idiot. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35855676

We can add to the above the water-cannon “Boris” ordered after his panicky (lack of) performance during the 2011 black riots in London. Scrapped and sold for peanuts. Another Boris disaster, though on a smaller scale; this time “only” £300,000 was lost. Still, the water-cannon did their job: not dealing with rioters, but getting Boris-idiot publicity as the man who wants to “get things done” (a completely mistaken view, of course).

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/nov/19/boris-johnson-unused-water-cannon-sold-for-scrap-at-300000-loss

Then there were the Boris-buses:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Routemaster#Criticism

https://www.cityam.com/a-brief-history-of-boris-and-buses/

You get the picture: Boris cannot plan anything, his ideas are rubbish, just schoolboy nonsense, he has no executive ability to get anything done properly, and he leaves the public with a headache and a bill.

A musical interlude:

and now to the Labour leadership contest

I shall blog separately about this once all the runners and riders have been listed.

In the meantime, a few tweets seen:

https://twitter.com/JackRussellsMom/status/1207880411155750913?s=20

System drone Stephen Kinnock. An atheist. Shooed into a safe Welsh Labour seat, his wife a former Prime Minister of Denmark, he himself given, inter alia, a nice little sinecure at the British Council in St. Petersburg (via his father, ex-Labour leader and EU Commissioner Neil “We’re All Right!” Kinnock). Completely System, completely NWO/ZOG. A nasty little freeloader.

Clive Lewis is standing for the position of Labour leader. I saw this tweet by the Novara Media person Aaron Bastani:

Well, I have just read that piece. I cannot see anything of substance in what Clive Lewis says. Soundbite stuff about “democratizing the party” and about how “climate change” and “technological change” will define the next UK general election.

Underwhelming, like Lewis himself. His record is not inspiring. A “half-caste”, he read Economics at Bradford, but has never worked in that field. He spent time as a security guard before getting work as a local and regional journalist. He also held (2006-2009) commissioned rank in the Territorial Army, presumably as 2nd Lieutenant (unconfirmed; his eventual rank may have been higher). He was in Afghanistan for three months in 2009, but returned to the UK suffering from depression.

Lewis is MP for the relatively safe Labour seat of South Norwich.

There have been accusations of Lewis shouting inappropriate sexual jokes when drunk, and also of him groping at least one woman. He has also made other inappropriate remarks, usually of a sexual nature (e.g. one involving Ed Miliband and a goat).

My provisional view: underwhelming. Clive Lewis is not fully British for a start. Apart from that, his character seems weak to me. A loose cannon, not very trustworthy. On the face of it, could not hack Afghanistan for long and had a kind of breakdown. Whether that means that he could not fulfil a Labour leadership or, potentially, prime ministerial role, I do not know, but I doubt it and think that others might have similar doubts. Ideologically shallow. Unsuitable.

Having said the above, Clive Lewis’s pitch to the Labour rank and file (who will elect the leader in the end) is clever. It offers those rank and file members more —and more direct— power. That might be persuasive. Revolution in the revolution?

Another musical interlude…

Labour again…

I can see why many people are just laughing at the Labour leadership contest, after the recent election fiasco. However, the fact is that more than three-quarters of the 2017 Labour vote stayed with Labour: 32.2% as against 40%. Also, the demographics favour Labour in the medium term. As mentioned in previous blogs, had only under-25s voted, there would not be a single Conservative Party MP now. In fact, had only under-40s voted, most seats would be Labour, and even if only under-60s had voted, there might now be a Labour government.

Whoever wins the Labour leadership contest now may well head a Labour government in 2024, 2023 or even 2022.

Stray thoughts

Driving around the semi-flooded coastal part of Southern England in the dark this evening, it was incredible to experience how bad the roads are. Huge potholes, a feeling of disrepair. My car is fairly large, with large tyres, but these days it becomes necessary to drive something like a Range Rover just to smooth the ride! Thank God that I do not have false teeth!

Now it seems that this miserable new regime will press ahead with the HS2 white elephant, when the North of England needs regional railways and the South needs repair of the roads, which are degenerating into a 17thC condition. An exaggeration, but not a complete one.

The more I think about the state of the UK, the more I think that it will be fortunate to avoid either a repressive dystopia (following on perhaps from a chaotic one) or (and/or) some kind of civil war somewhere down the line.