On this day a year ago
Serious problem. So many people having to work purely to pay rent to some parasite for (often) a wholly-unsatisfactory dwelling. Not a new problem, but now getting even worse.
The cost of rentals devalues the more basic kinds of work, unjustly rewards rentier parasites, and damages society in a number of ways.
There is another point, looking at that Times report: the sheer pointlessness (from the purely practical perspective) of bothering to get a “degree”, a “master’s degree”, even a “doctorate”, when every other idiot also has one.
The political implications are stark. The average age of outright owners of real property in the UK is now 68. Not so long ago, say 20-40 years, it would have been 50 or even 45.
Those property owners in their sixties, seventies, eighties often own two or more properties (second homes, holiday homes, rented-out homes— sometimes all three in one).
The tiny proportion of people (about 1 in every 200 citizens) about to choose the next Conservative Party leader and so, by default, Prime Minister, are mostly persons over 50, usually over 60, who are (again, not always but often) outright property-owners and, not infrequently buy-to-let or other rentier parasites.
This has real results: last time, that tiny electorate chose Boris-idiot as Prime Minister. This time, either Liz Truss or Rishi Sunak.
Talking of Liz Truss, I have seen the clip of her filmed as the TV debate presenter collapsed. A panicked reaction at first. Is this the person to be in command, overall, of Britain’s nuclear deterrent? Is this the person to decide whether Britain gets into a war with Russia? I hope not, though I don’t want a non-European as Prime Minister either.
The [NWO/ZOG] System is getting desperate to advance their latest 33-year cycle agenda, 2022-2055, therefore we see the “blacks with everything” agenda, the “I stand with Ukraine” silliness, facemask nonsense (and all the other Covid-related stuff), the “trans” nonsense, and much of the “climate change” reportage. All part of an agenda of evil.
Regular readers of the blog will already have read of my own experiences, eg https://ianrobertmillard.org/2017/07/09/the-slide-of-the-english-bar-and-uk-society-continues-and-accelerates/.
All well and good, but Toby Young and the Free Speech Union have never said a word in defence of my free speech rights, nor those of Alison Chabloz and those of Jez Turner (Jeremy Bedford Turner) etc. All attacked by the same pack of (Zionist) Jews.
Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of the rail industry dispute, what we see here is an example of what I have been blogging about for years around the Labour Party, that being that, if you like, the Labour Party has lost its former overall constituency, and has not found a credible role.
The industrial proletariat —the massed ranks of miners, dockers, railwaymen, steelworkers, factory workers, later expanded to include shopworkers etc— has pretty much ceased to exist in the UK.
Whole industries were shut down from, especially, 1980-2000, by reason of changing economic and social landscapes, accelerated by withdrawal of government subsidies.
The former “proletarians” either went into other activities where there existed no tradition of “working class” solidarity, or joined the unemployed, existing on State benefits and, in areas such as the South Wales valleys, on top-ups from disability income given out (in the 1980s) almost unchecked.
The former Labour Party stalwarts had become either Marx’s “lumpenproletariat”, or members of a new group, or perhaps a group with a new label, the “precariat”.
The latter implied a group whose lifestyle and very existence was uncertain from week to week, the polar opposite of those comfortably-off smug core Conservative Party members and voters, who had always been (and often their parents as well) well-paid, perhaps with family money, who had properties owned outright or with easily-paid-off mortgages. People whose lives were —unlike those of the “precariat”— not at all precarious.
Increasingly, the Labour Party ditched anything connecting it to “socialism” (in the UK’s more “social-democratic” form): Clause IV of the Labour Party Constitution was removed, opening the way for Tony Blair and his group to make Labour more “electable” in areas normally voting Conservative. Links with trade unions were loosened.
The strategy worked: in 1997, Labour had what many still call a “landslide” victory, though it still garnered only 43.2% of the popular vote (Conservatives 30.7%; LibDems 16.8%).
The absurd First Past The Post system gave Labour its “landslide” in MP numbers, despite the Labour popular vote having risen by only a modest amount. The same effect helped the LibDems, whose MP numbers almost tripled (to 46 from 18), despite the LibDem popular vote having fallen by one point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_United_Kingdom_general_election.
In 1997, the old industrial regions and cities still voted Labour. South Wales, the Midlands and Northern conurbations, the industrial parts of the North-East, much of Scotland (especially the industrialized Central Belt), and some parts of the London area.
Compare the graphic above with that showing the result of the 2019 election, below:
Labour, as an entrenched “one-party” political monopoly (in its core areas), has only remained entrenched in parts of London, parts of South Wales, parts of the North, North-East, North-West, and a few parts of the Birmingham/West Midlands area. Scotland is gone, most of Wales is gone, almost all of southern and central England outside London has gone.
Corbyn tried to appeal to the old Labour heartlands, as well as reaching out to the new “identity politics” of, mainly, London— the blacks, the other non-whites, the precariat generally, and the “useful idiots” of white pseudo-intellectual “wokedom”.
Corbyn failed, but not as badly as many have said. What sank Corbyn-Labour was that many voters outside London would not accept his clunky 1970s pseudo-socialism, or his infatuation with the “blacks and browns”.
That perception was intensified by the basically Jewish attacks on Corbyn (since he became leader). In the Press, on TV, on radio. Many Labour MPs were completely in the Jew-Zionist pocket, and made pronouncements against Labour even during the 2017 and 2019 elections.
Keir Starmer, despite his first name and Labour-voting parents, is someone with quite shallow roots in Labour (born in London, brought up in affluent Oxted, Surrey, and attended Reigate Grammar (which became private/independent while he was there); he became a barrister, married a Jewish woman, and their children have been brought up as if full-Jew).
Starmer’s response to Labour’s decreasing relevance has been the opposite of that of Corbyn. Starmer wants to appeal to what is left of the old Labour heartlands, while also making Labour “electable” for the rest of the country. No “socialism” to frighten the horses, just (supposedly) competent managerial semi-social-democracy. Basically, a (less convincing?) Tony Blair/Gordon Brown strategy.
Part of Starmer’s plan is to present Labour as a party which disapproves of industrial action, and which does not want to return to (what is perceived as) the bad old 1970s.
The “workers” of the old type (as in the rail industry) are rather unwanted remote relatives now, unwanted guests at Labour’s party.
Frankly, I doubt that Starmer’s strategy will work much. It may work up to a point, Labour may regain a relatively few seats, enough to prevent whichever then idiot leads the Conservative Party from getting a majority in (as it may be) 2023 or 2024 but, in the end, Labour’s time has come and gone.
Like the Conservative Party (and LibDems), the Labour Party is little more than a name.
Humouring of deluded idiots. Is that what the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists now advises?