“Nightingale emergency coronavirus hospital may not be needed as urgently as expected”
“London’s intensive care units were expected to be overflowing at this point but are only three-quarters full”
“But while the emergency capacity had been expected to be required as soon as last Wednesday, the first patients are now likely to arrive early next week – a tentative sign that the coronavirus outbreak in the capital may not be as bad as expected.” [The Guardian]
Maybe I was right in my guess that the virus crisis is both less serious than at first thought and perhaps also already at or even past its peak, though the Government evidently thinks not and is talking about 1,000 Coronavirus deaths daily by Easter (14 April).
The truth is that, the longer this “lockdown” goes on, the worse will be the economic damage and the less likely it will be that the police will be able to enforce what amounts to —for quite understandable reasons— the house arrest of most of the population.
As I have blogged previously, the “lockdown” is mostly holding, so far, because most people have accepted that it is necessary. As soon as people start to doubt that necessity, and so stop fearing that they and their own families might both get the virus and need hospital treatment for it (or even die from the virus, though that is happening to only about one person in every 20,000 or 30,000), that will be the end of the “lockdown”, because the police simply do not have the numbers to stop people en masse from doing anything.
Labour Party leadership election and deputy leadership election
A few tweets seen today:
It's a much better look than the existing shadow Front bench has been, but Angela Rayner should not be an MP, let alone a member of the shadow cabinet. She has the IQ of a gnat.
To my mind, the problem Labour has is not really one of personalities or personality, but of inherent purpose. Labour came into being to represent a class of people —the industrial working class— and, later, the working classes generally, that had been frozen out of the political process.
That “working class”, or “proletariat”, to use Marxist terminology, no longer exists in any large quantity, though faux-revolutionary “thinkers” (scribblers) such as Owen Jones try to turn the urban and suburban “precariat” and/or “lumpenproletariat” into a kind of 21stC “proletariat”; and so the flat-capped, booted steel workers or miners of the past are replaced by “chavscum” people wearing pseudo-sports clothing and footwear and driving hatchback cars (probably uninsured). It doesn’t work.
The “precariat”, lower-paid people, unemployed etc on minimum wage and/or State benefits mostly take no direct interest in politics and do not join political parties, certainly not System ones. They probably do not even vote, most of them. The days when fully-unionized mass meetings of “workers” all voted and moved as one, as in 1926, or even 1980, are gone. Finished. History.
We should not forget that, in 2019, only about 67% of those (even) registered to vote, voted. A third and possibly more of the potential electorate turned their collective back on the whole process.
I have said this before, but few in the msm want to accept that the “old parties” (to use a Mosley-ite term) or System parties are all on their last legs. The misnamed “Conservatives” are riding high (54% in the polls this week) purely because Labour and the LibDems look even less credible.
Actually, it’s quite funny that, on Twitter, the Labour Party activists’ echo-chamber of choice, people are earnestly debating which doormat for the Jewish lobby would make the best “leader” or deputy, when Labour is around 26% in the opinion polls.
Labour will get the votes of, in broad-brush terms, most public service people, most NHS employees, most of the blacks and browns that bother to vote, most of those dependent on State benefits that bother to vote. Fine, but all of those add up to only about 25%-30% of the electorate. What was Labour’s vote-share in 2019? 32.2%.
Britain’s FPTP voting system and oddly-delineated constituency boundaries provide built-in uncertainty, but Labour needs to get more than 35% to be in with a chance of forming even a minority government. Its problem there is that the white people of the UK are voting with their feet, not so much toward the Conservatives as away from Labour (as I have predicted for months and even years). In Scotland to the SNP, in England to Conservative Party (to some extent) and to protest and alternative parties such as UKIP in 2015, Brexit Party in 2019 (except that its own leader stabbed it and its members in the back), and in both countries to apathy and non-voting:
Coronavirus levels off in mainland Europe
“Fall in daily deaths in Spain”
“Spain’s death toll from the coronavirus rose to 11,744 on Saturday from 10,935 the previous day, the health ministry said.
However, it marks the second straight day in which the number of new deaths has fallen.” [The Guardian]
“Germany’s confirmed coronavirus cases have risen by 6,082 in the past 24 hours, a slight decrease from the day before, according to data from the government’s Robert Koch Institute (RKI). The reported reduction, which were down from 6,174 new cases a day earlier, could be a sign that the rate of infection is beginning to level off.” [Guardian]
A few thoughts
Coronavirus is being presented in the same way that AIDS was about 30 or so years ago, i.e. “anyone can get it” etc; technically correct but in practice not correct, because almost all cases (of HIV/AIDS) involved gay sex and/or sub-Saharan Africans, or contaminated blood supplies.
Just as, decades ago, no-one in the msm or NHS wanted to say that persons of European race engaging in (only) heterosexual sex with others of European race were very unlikely to become infected with HIV, now the rare cases of children and young persons dying of Coronavirus are being presented to the public as if everyone has an almost-equal chance of dying from this virus, which is just not true.
It is of a piece with the fake communitarianism seen in certain organizations: the police, the NHS, the Labour Party. The Labour leadership drones always come out with phrases that are all but meaningless, such as “our communities”.
708 more #coronavirus deaths in UK recorded in past 24hrs – the deadliest day so far. Total death toll now 4,313. Please, please may we be approaching the peak. Quickly.
Good grief! If this [see below] really is a snapshot of the mind of Dominic Cummings, then the government really is in the hands not only of idiots (eg Boris-idiot, Priti Patel etc) but of lunatics.
It also reminds us that lunacy is not really so hard to distinguish from genius, in most cases.
Say what you like about Dominic Cummings but this part of the blog is *spot-on* about the sort of people the civil service needs to start attracting. pic.twitter.com/0cfCatmSLr
[Update, 23 January 2020: the full lunacy of Cummings’ blog post, some of which was in the deleted tweet above, seems to have been expunged from the Internet, though maybe one of his “weirdos and misfits” would be able to find it]
[Update, 12 May 2024: the tweet appears to have been reinstated on Twitter/X and so is now visible here too]
The above (apparently from a blog penned by Cummings) is an inward-gazing stream of consciousness (though purporting to be to the point) worthy of someone whose residential address ends with the word “Hospital”, or similar.
What makes it alarming is that Cummings is not just a stray “Conservative” (and the word seems ever-less useful as a descriptor) who is on the periphery of power (in the way that the Monday Club or the Bow Group used to be), but someone right at the centre of what could be (perhaps inaccurately) called the Johnson Project. Indeed, “Cummings Project” might be more accurate. Boris Johnson himself has few ideas beyond schoolboy fantasies such as building bridges from Scotland to Ireland, creating artificial islands with Metropolis airports on them etc.
There was talk before the recent General Election that in Cabinet (effectively in Cabinet; I suppose technically, Cabinet committee), Cummings actually overruled the Prime Minister several times. Not just spoke over him, but overruled him on decisions! Now, OK, the person posing as Prime Minister is Boris-idiot, a bad joke PM who is a proven serial —indeed constant— liar, incompetent and fantasist, but there is still such a thing as respect for the office itself…
Dominic Cummings seems to me (admittedly only from what I have read…I have never met him or anyone who has met him) to be like a person who is somewhere between a guest and a gatecrasher at a dinner party, someone who has no idea how to behave and who has no respect for the hosts, the guests, the staff or the event.
Is there anything correct about his views re. government and civil service? Yes, the gene pool is shallow or narrow; in politics now even more so than in the administration proper (Civil Service), but the answer to that is to carefully reform recruitment and training, as well as overall structure, not to let off hand grenades all over Westminster.
I think that we have to remind ourselves that governing the UK is not some kind of pathetic country house weekend game in the drawing room or Hall. This impacts on real people, in their millions, all over this country. It is not a matter of scribbling some clever little half-baked idea that can be run up the flagpole at the Oxford Union or (taking on board the Cummings dislike of Oxbridge) a Spectator drinks party.
It may seem lazy to say “it is easier to destroy than create”, but the thing about truisms is that they contain truth. The machinery of administration and government in the UK was created over centuries, and particularly in the century or so since the mid-Victorian era. Once you tear it to pieces, you may find that groups of supposedly terribly clever little people, weirdos and misfits, sitting in groups around Whitehall, cannot in fact replace what presently exists.
Britain today has already suffered a number of shocks to its postwar (post-1945) stability: Thatcherism, mass immigration (accelerated since 1997), Blair-Brown “reforms”, the financial crisis of 2008, the fake “austerity” of the evil 2010-2019 “Conservative” governments (particularly the half-baked idiocies of Dunce Duncan Smith and his underlings). Now this.
Dominic Cummings is a History graduate, for what that is now worth. He will know, I presume, what happens to societies when everything that underpins their stability is knocked away. I presume that he also knows that revolutions usually consume their own children…
Update, 6 January 2020
Can't believe we got outmaneuvered twice by a man who's barely mastered keeping his anus on the inside of his trousershttps://t.co/E9hciVrV8j
It may be that the most significant fact about the General Election result is that the Conservative Party vote increased by only 1.2 points vis a vis 2017, from 42.4% to 43.6%.
The Labour vote decreased from about 40% to 32.2%. So about 8 points.
It follows that this was not some kind of “Conservative” surge, but a function of the relative collapse of the Labour vote. It also means that Boris-idiot in 2019 is scarcely more popular than was Theresa May in 2017.
Logically, it is unlikely that the economic and social situation in the UK will improve much, if at all, between now and 2022, let alone December 2024, the maximum term of this Boris-idiot government.
We know that, as far as members go, the Con Party has, or had earlier this year, 140,000 members, a quarter of the size of Labour; of which 90,000+ voted for Boris Johnson to lead them. Members, though, are less important than voters.
The membership of the Conservative Party increased greatly in late-2018 to early-2019. 36,000 new members. There were speculations about “entryism”, maybe by former UKIP members:
It is a fair inference that those new 36,000+ members were almost all Boris partisans. Without them, he might even not have been elected leader.
The Conservative Party is now in charge of a government built on shifting sands.
The average Conservative member is over 60 now (though all major System parties now have averages over 50). About half are over 70 years of age.
The typical Conservative voter is at least middleaged, and in fact usually an elderly person. Only in those over about 60 years of age is there a majority in favour of the Conservative Party.
The above-cited Guardian article now adds this rider:
“•This article was amended on 24 June 2019 because an earlier version referred to a supposed “geriatric membership”. Geriatric refers to a branch of medicine; octogenarian was meant. This has been corrected.”
An “octogenarian” membership?!
The obvious if ghoulish corollary to the above is that very many Conservative Party members and many Con voters will not see the next general election (assuming that there is one…).
Shifting sands
The new Conservative MPs from the North and Midlands represent areas traditionally not Conservative. The roots are shallow.
One sees that the constituencies where the Labour Party was not so much affected by the mainly white voter-defection to the Conservative Party were those areas largely inhabited by non-whites. See, for example, Liz Kendall’s seat at Leicester West:
The msm-applauded “surge” to the Conservatives (in fact only 1.2 points) nationally, which was really an 8-point withdrawal from Labour, has scarcely touched those and similar seats. That supports my view that Labour, in terms of votes, is now largely (not entirely) the party of the “blacks and browns”.
It also supports my view that what the people really want, subconsciously, is a less militarized, less German, more “British” form of National Socialism, but brought into the contemporary arena as social-nationalism or the like.
If the economy tanks for whatever reason (mishandled Brexit, a continuation of the “austerity” nonsense of Osborne and Cameron-Levita, world events), then the brief “popularity” of Boris-idiot and the misnamed “Conservatives” (which in any case is not so: Con Party up only 1.2 points; though Labour is unpopular) will soak away into the desert sand. Will the people then look to “Labour”? Or elsewhere?
One thing is sure: the people cannot vote for a party that does not exist.
So far, since the demise of the BNP, the only alternatives —indeed one alternative under two successive names— to System parties have been UKIP and Brexit Party, effectively the same or under the same control when significant. Controlled opposition. Fakes. Parties posing as conservative “nationalist” while having candidates who were black, brown, Jew, you name it. Even a couple of ex-Marxist “revolutionary” lesbians. And the rabbits all accepted it. Even the “antifa” idiot-mob made those parties a major target of their bile, taking them as they assumed that those parties were, not as they really were.
A few quite random tweets I saw today, which seem to be symptomatic of the craziness of the general election farce that the UK’s degenerate political milieu has just held:
People in Scunthorpe (!) so desperate for a better life and a better UK that they will vote Conservative! My take? “Labour is mostly trash, the Conservative Party is 99% trash, and so people clutch at straws as they drown.”
And what about this one (below)? Jew ex-Labour Party types happy that (of all “people”…I call the bastard “devil”) Iain Duncan Smith kept his seat! For the Jews, it really is always “all about them”, whether it be the 2019 General Election, the evil Con regimes of 2010-2019, or the Second World War.
Who is “gnasher jew”? Appropriately enough, they are not one Jew but legion, but here is one, anyway:
Anyone coming to this thread and is wondering who the hell Gnasher Jew is well see below…..he is no friend of the Labour party for sure. pic.twitter.com/OMXLSPDtD9
“Gnasher Jew” (one of that cabal of several Jews…) tweeted a semi-literate tweet a few months ago to the effect that I am “a convicted anti-Semite”. No, not convicted of “antisemitism” (which would in fact be impossible anyway, because “antisemitism” is not a criminal offence in the UK) or anything else.
Labour news
I see that Laura Pidcock, now 32, lost her seat at North West Durham. She is all too typical of young Labour MPs (many of whom are now ex-MPs): sole non-political job a few weeks or months as a “mental health support worker” (in her case): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Pidcock
Laura Pidcock is so very typical: “anti-racist” “activist”, a kind of post-Marxist; probably solid on grass-roots problems such as poverty, but I doubt that I am guessing too wildly if I say that she probably thinks that mass immigration is great for the people of the UK. And so on. Well, that’s her binned politically.
Now we move on to a Labour MP who, unfortunately, is still in place: Jess Phillips. This ignorant horrible woman was the subject of one of my “Deadhead MPs” blog articles:
There is now a push from the Jewish lobby and msm to make this ignorant creature Labour leader! Labour, the party of Attlee, Wilson, Blair (whatever their flaws and whatever my own criticism of their policies and direction)…
Jess Phillips is pushing herself forward, despite her lack of culture and education:
Her article, in that stronghold of “working-class” life, The Observer, says that “disappointed” ex-Labour voters voted Conservative; but we have seen that the Conservative vote only went up, nationally, by 1.2 points, so not many former Labour voters did vote Con. Probably more in the North. Generally, they may well have stayed home and not voted, though.
There is also the point that only two-thirds (67.3%) of those eligible turned out to vote.
As one might expect, Jess Phillips’s article does not identify what Labour might do to regain its position, just says that the swing would have to be on the scale of 1997. I am scarcely a fan of Blair, Brown etc, but we have descended into farce if their positions or roles will be taken by Jess Phillips and…who? Yvette Cooper? (shudders…)
The accompanying photograph certainly makes my point about Labour being now largely the party of the “blacks and browns”! Hardly a white face…
Here (below) we see someone who is evidently not one of the world’s great thinkers:
Mr Corbyn has just won more votes than Blair, Brown or Miliband despite having the Labour vote sabotaged by remain fanatics in the party.
Ever heard of mass immigration? Also known as “migration-invasion”. 13 million since 1997, plus births, plus illegals. Those eligible to vote and who do vote, all vote Labour.
…and look at this arrogance!
Absolutely agree with this. Serious current affairs shows must stop giving time to extremists on the left & right, or from any mad fringe group, just to get a viral moment or cos they demand to be on. Big twitter followings & being mad/ranty doesn’t make you a legitimate voice. https://t.co/kFnDja1pbt
Oh, right….”serious current affairs shows” (there are few, if any, anyway) should not give time to “extremists“….Of course, giving time to Indian “Scottish” women who apparently do stand-up comedy and a bit of msm talking-head droning about politics (mainly about how there is supposedly too much “antisemitism”) is OK… of course….oh, no, wait…
What the hell is wrong with Ayesha? When did saving the NHS or ending Austerity become so radical?! Is she that right wing?!
— Muse/Vent 🕯️#CeaseFireNOW #DeZionise (@MuseAndVent) December 14, 2019
Update, 15 December 2019
As expected, the msm are going mad about the “crushing victory” of Boris-idiot and the Con Party, despite the fact that the Conservative vote-share only increased by 1.2 points over what it was in 2017.
I missed this:
In Hartlepool, where Labour has always won, usually with over 50% of the vote and sometimes with over 60%, Labour won again, but on its lowest vote-share ever, only 37.7%. The stunning fact is that the Conservative candidate, in second place, got 28.9% and the Brexit Party candidate (Tice, Farage’s 2-i-c), got 25.8%. In other words, had either the Conservative Party or Brexit Party not stood, Labour would have lost that once very safe Labour seat, and by some margin.
Back on the Jewish front…
The Jewish actress and anti-Corbyn tweeter, Frances Barber (who was rather rude about me a few times when I had a Twitter account), now suggests (see below) that some Corbyn supporters be shot! Will the police be interested? No. However, were anyone to suggest that Con-supporting or Jewish-lobby-supporting persons should be shot, M. le Commissaire Plod would be on the case immediately.
Now we have Frances Barber *at best* suggesting that Corbyn and his top team should be ‘shot’ and *at worst* suggesting that leftists more broadly should be shot. She’s literally just tweeted advocating the shooting of politicians and political activists who are leftist pic.twitter.com/fq5dVTrtqn
and note how totally irrelevant New York-based loonie and former/one-time/briefly/disgraced ex-MP Louse —I mean Louise— Mensch, tries to seem relevant to British political life, even now!
[above, Louise Mensch, who admitted that hard drugs “messed with” her brain…]
The febrile atmosphere today
A chilling threat was made against Jeremy Corbyn – by gin-sodden hasbeen Frances Barber. Everybody needs to stand up to this. https://t.co/CSxdm3KcmS
1) Deindustrialisation and its effect on union membership. 2) Scottish nationalism and devolution 3) The loss of older voters 4) The concentration of voters in urban centres 5) National identity and regional inequalities
Partly because they now have a low-tax government packed with Jews, pro-Jews, pro-Israel Zionists, even Israeli agents. Mainly, though, because they have got rid of Corbyn. He and his people may still be there, but they are there in the manner of El Cid in the film with Charlton Heston. The Cid is dead, but is put back on his horse and rides out. In the case of the Cid, to victory, but in the case of Corbyn, over the field of defeat. The Jews have “won”, but only over Corbyn-Labour. “Their” victory may prove to be Pyrrhic and/or short-lived.
Of course, I should have preferred to see a weak, minority government headed by Corbyn, but for me the General Election result also has its good aspects (already blogged about), such as the “Labour Friends of Israel” MPs getting the order of the boot: Ruth Smeeth, Anna Turley, Mary Creagh, Emma Reynolds etc. Luciana Berger also failed. Others too. Parliament has been purged, albeit in limited fashion. John Woodcock, John Mann, Ian Austin— all gone. Jo Swinson too, who was almost creepily pro-Zionist.
[Get down there, you devil, where you wanted me to go!]
Now?
Despite the election result being very much not to my taste, I scent prey here. Now that Labour has been badly wounded, the present evil ZOG regime does not have any real Opposition in Parliament or outside Parliament. The few hundred protesters in Whitehall were easily contained and were little more than an almost-peaceful sideshow.
This should be the moment when a social-national party or movement should arise, with the horns of a lamb and the words of a dragon.
More from Labour
Interesting:
“It turns out that the British working-class was not, in the end, willing to throw its weight behind a London-centric, youth-obsessed, middle-class party that preached the gospels of liberal cosmopolitanism and class war.” https://t.co/nEUB1w8lpF
“We are witnessing the beginnings of a fundamental realignment in British politics. The old tribalisms are crashing down around us. How Labour responds to this will determine whether it remains a serious political force or is instead destined to become a party of permanent protest.” [Unherd/Blue Labour]
Also:
“The world is changing and it is not going the liberal progressive way. The future will be economically radical and socially more conservative.”
This is an excellent piece on how to build a new postliberal alternative politics: “the discredited consensus of economic and social liberalism is failing to reproduce itself in either domain. Its progressive teleology is looking increasingly untenable.” https://t.co/Jq0WrhGpwM
A brilliant, sympathetic piece on the class insecurity of young cultural Remainers. “Millions of young Everywheres are on their way to realising they are not counted among the elite any more.” @moveincircles writes for @unherdhttps://t.co/dqcTA4IcEB
"Centrists seem to think power will be won via return to pre-2016, while Corbynistas think all we have to do is hammer on about elitism & economic injustice.
We’re back! (see below). “Economically-radical” —and national— “socialism”…
Welcome to the hundreds of new followers that have followed in the past 48 hours. A socialism which is economically radical and culturally conservative is the future of the Labour Party.
New essays and analysis will be published over the next few weeks. Glad to have you with us.
Quite a lot of sense in there, but you cannot put new wine in old bottles. Both Labour and Conservative parties are dying. The election hullabaloo should not disguise that. Labour is going straight down now.
“Centrism”, i.e. returning to Blair-Brown times, the Zionist-Labour controllers monitoring the British people and destroying their race and culture (as well as their rights) will not wash now.
Likewise, multikulti Corbyn-Labourism, with its “anti-racism” and “antifascism”, and its tired, hackneyed references to “No Pasaran!”, “Cable Street”, “kick racism out of…blah blah blah”, and the lip-service paid to (dear God…) WW2 “holocaust” fakery and hoaxes, not to mention support for Cuban “socialism”, 1980s Nicaragua or the disastrous Venezuelan regime, is a very dead duck.
McDonnell, the worst thug “antifascist” (and IRA acolyte) of the lot at senior level in Labour (and who played a double game, sucking up to the Jews at every opportunity), was pictured on TV, in his garden, looking like a bemused “grandad” who has just been tipped out of his wheelchair and mugged. He’s gone, finished.
The “parties” of con-man Farage (UKIP, Brexit Party, any new one he may start) are dead too, as are the LibDems.
Only a new social-national party and movement can save the people of Britain.
Even elements of Labour, as seen above, are starting to recognize the correct direction of travel. What matters are the fundamentals:
the foundation for a better society and a better world can only now be that of European race, nation and culture;
there must be a cultural revolution to “drain” (or drown) the swamp(s): msm, politics, law, academia.
Britain’s mass media 2019:
Unsuccessful Parliamentary candidate Fazia Shaheen (Labour), who came fairly close to beating evil Iain Dunce Duncan Smith at Chingford, questioned by presenter Emma Barnett (who describes herself as “a Jew in disguise“) and part-Jew ex-MP Jack Straw.
Jack Straw is not having ANY of this "it was the media's fault" nonsense.
"It wasn't the media who made up the antisemitism"
"It wasn't the press who made up that Jeremy Corbyn had played footsie with terrorist orgs like Hamas or Hezbollah"
I was sent interesting information this evening, a map showing what the Parliamentary map of the UK would look like had only those aged 18-24 voted last Thursday (ignore the comment appended by the named “alt-Right/alt-Lite” British-resident ex-Muslim. That comment is absurdly simplistic, ignoring the real reasons why the young favour Labour, i.e. student debt, degrees that are often worthless in all ways, high rent, impossibility of buying a house or even getting a mortgage, low pay, exploitation etc). The map itself is stunning.
You see the result, above. All seats Labour, except for about (?) 20 SNP, about 20 LibDem, and 1 Plaid Cymru. No Conservative Party seats at all, not even in the most affluent parts of the South of England.
That is the train the Conservative Party has coming down the track at it. It may well be that the 18-24 y o voters of today may be less “anti-Conservative”, less pro-Labour in say 2024, when they are 23-29, but even if that map only shows a 75% picture, indeed if it displays even a 50% picture, the future for the Conservative Party is bleak. That bleakness can be intensified by looking at the present Conservative voters aged 65+. That is the hard core of the Conservative vote, and much of it will not exist in 2024.
So, demographically, the Conservative Party vote will have (literally) died by 2024. Not entirely, but to a great extent. The non-Conservative vote will have greatly increased. The only question is, will that new vote be for Labour, or something else, something completely new?
Update, 16 December 2019
Interesting fact. Had Labour received a total of only 2,227 more votes over 7 constituencies in 2017, i.e. about 320 votes extra, averaged, in each of those 7 constituencies, it could then have formed a minority/coalition government with smaller parties:
Corbyn would then have been Prime Minister and Boris-idiot would probably never even have become Conservative leader; at any rate, Labour might have ruled until 2022. Another example of the madness of Britain’s electoral system, whichever way you look at it.
LibDems
Seems that Jo Swinson is likely to get a fake “peerage” soon. A reward for failure? A reward for doormatting for the Jewish lobby, for sure.
Meanwhile, the 11 remaining LibDem MPs will be voting for a leader. Seems that a woman just elected as MP may get the job.
Boundary changes soon to be implemented will probably reduce the LibDem MP cadre to about 3, assuming that any survive the next general election anyway. Is there really any purpose to the LibDems now? The Con Coalition of 2010-2019 destroyed LibDem credibility, then since 2017 Jo Swinson’s behaviour killed any remaining respect that the voters may have retained for this joke party.
The House of Lords is a bad joke too. There are “peers” such as (soon) Jo Swinson, i.e. failed, old or mediocre ex-MPs. There are peers who were “ennobled” because they were cronies of Prime Ministers or other party leaders.
That particular one picked up a very wealthy boyfriend later, and is actually at the Lords rarely if at all. At least that saves the State and people the taxfree £310+ per day “peers” are paid if they sign in for 10 minutes! Her company ceased trading in 2018.
Then we have the odds and sods in the Lords, elevated to make a good headline, such as the instant West Indian “baroness” who is in the Lords because her son was killed by white youths in a bus shelter in the 1990s. You really could not make it up!
Jew wants Labour to die
Well, what now seems to consist of Left wing voices – "moderate" & non-moderate – working out what they need to do to make Labour electable again. And then expecting me and my family to help them in this or at least to be interested. Well, we are interested. We want Labour to die
You may be right. But the penny will begin to drop fairly soon and the fear begin. Which personally I cannot wait for. I will almost certainly be launching a case against exec members of my former CLP and I know many, many others will do the same. We’re going to come for them.
[by the way, that photo is not him but an actor; the Jew looks very different and not at all “heroic”!][Update, 23 August 2020: the “avatar” photo has gone, replaced by that cartoon. I believe that I once saw “Nuddering”, then on Twitter as “The Nuddering Nudnik” (it means something in Yiddish), on TV: a thin bearded Jew, and possibly with mental problems, in my opinion].
Labour leadership contest (not yet —officially— going)
The System is pushing for Lisa Nandy to replace Corbyn. Below, Kay Burley, Sky News talking head:
Great news that @lisanandy is considering running for Labour leader. A no nonsense northern woman is exactly what Labour needs at the helm. You go girl.#marr
I sympathize with Labour members and supporters if the choice is going to be between Lisa Nandy and Jess Phillips. Good grief!
Lisa Nandy is the kind of person the System would love to have as “Labour” leader: half-Indian, grandfather a Liberal Party MP and, in later life, a Liberal peer, and (despite her rhetoric about getting close to “our communities”) has never worked outside politics, unless you include some politicized charity work (researcher etc). Pro-migration-invasion. Anti-Corbyn so probably pro-Jew. Has a child but is not married to the father, who is a “public relations consultant”. She even has a link to one of the renamed and all-but-toothless (and politically-correct) trade unions:
While Lisa Nandy is not my idea of a politician for Britain, and for several reasons, she is a serious figure, whereas Jess Phillips is just a vulgar bad joke.
Phillips literally laughed at her party losing, & the country being plunged into 5 years or misery; she genuinely is friends with Rees Mogg.
But I keep being told that objecting to to that is childish.
If collaboration with capitalism is your idea of adult, I’ll stay immature! https://t.co/hrSmUWvxFP
Jews try to repress free speech in the UK even more now
Wonder how long before anti zionism is classed as AS here, not long I expect as we've got BJ as PM now – here goes our freedom of speech, just like Americans have lost theirs now
We're all going to be told that we must all love apartheid Israel, I say they can get stuffed
— All tories out-blue/red & yellow (@Tinkerbell32112) December 15, 2019
The “Campaign Against Antisemitism” [CAA] is raising money in order to wage “lawfare” against anyone they label “antisemitic”. In a day or so, the “CAA” has already raised nearly £70,000 from about 30 Jews. About £2,500 average apiece. Of course, to suggest that Jews are more affluent than native/real British people would be “antisemitic”, so they would say…
Meanwhile, the Boris-idiot ZOG (Zionist Occupation Government) and the Zionists “behind the arras” are quickening plans to destroy free speech and dissent:
They are wasting no time at all. For anyone concerned about Palestinian rights, this is chilling
'The new law will not allow public bodies to work with those who boycott, divest from or sanction Israel in any way'https://t.co/d7NOyAZLts
The Boris Johnson/”Conservative” Party ZOG victory in the general election was procured via Jewish money and mass media influence. “It was the Jews wot won it”, to adapt the famous Sun headline of 1992. See below:
Just been to a party of British Jews celebrating the @uklabour defeat. It was truly a unique experience. Dozens of Jews, joyful – thankful to their fellow British citizens for voting against the hate + a palpable sense of relief in the air – as if a real weight had been lifted.
The Golan Heights Chardonnay must have flowed like water.
Now the Zionists are, as noted already, preparing to attack free speech in even more ambitious and evil ways, by using large amounts of Jewish money to misuse the British legal system:
Now is not the time to rest on our laurels — we are preparing ambitious plans for 2020 and need your helphttps://t.co/DzNvGy0vRM
Emily Thornberry threatens to sue ex-MP Caroline Flint! “I’m lovin’ it…”!
Caroline Flint says that Emily Thornberry (aka Lady Nugee— her husband is a half-Jewish High Court judge; see photograph below) said that those in the North etc who voted Conservative instead of voting Labour in their “ancestral”/traditional habit, are or were “stupid”. Well, motivations for voting are complex sometimes, but if Emily Thornberry said that, I can see her point!
[above, Emily Thornberry, her husband (on right of picture) and the Israeli Ambassador, Mark Regev, at a Zionist banquet in London]
Well, that did not take long. 3-4 days into the Boris-idiot ZOG regime and the lying “promises” are already being broken…
Anything is now justifiable to remove “Boris”, his ZOG Cabinet and this whole (misnamed) “Conservative” regime procured by lies and huge amounts of money.
Remember the poll tax?
BBC and other msm bias?
"How much do you trust BBC News journalists to tell the truth?"
A great deal: 8% (-1) A fair amount: 36% (-6) Not much: 28% (+1) Not at all: 20% (+6)
Which is why non-msm news and comment websites have become so popular. Popular with the public, though not with the System.
Now I read that The Canary [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Canary_(website)] is going to be “investigated” by ex-Labour ex-MP and doormat for Zionist Jewry, John Mann. The political and social milieu in the UK is now almost Stalinist, albeit well-disguised. People, whole parties (Labour now) and news outlets placed “under investigation” by pro-Jew, pro-Israel apostates like Mann and John Woodcock. Ironically, the editor of The Canary is herself a Jewish lesbian.
I suppose that “lord” Mann would approve of the incitement to violence by an ersatz “Jewess” called Charlotte Nichols, who (just) managed to get elected at Warrington North:
In fact this woman, about whom there is not a great deal of information in the public domain, is a convert to Judaism, apparently. The traditional Jews do not even allow that. She made an amusingly bullshit statement to the TV to the effect that “as a Jewish woman” (which she is not, really) “whose grandfather fought in WW2” (so what? So did mine— BEF France, Dunkirk, later Burma— it’s usually Jews who make a big thing of that now, 75-80 years later, to try to sound somehow “credible” on such topics…she has learned from them, it seems…).
Is Charlotte Nichols aware of the terrorism that Jew-Zionist extremists unleashed against British soldiers (soldiers just like her grandfather) in Palestine after (and indeed before) 1945 (and against civilians too)? Bombs, bullets, the Jews even hanged some British soldiers.
“What goes around comes around”… [an American saying]
In fact, I feel that the country is turning away from civilities. The Zionist Jews are intensifying their well-funded abuse of the legal system for political purposes, and here is a “Jewish” woman (ersatz or “self-identifying”, so be it) saying that “Nazis” “should get their heads kicked in“.
In fact this Charlotte Nichols is not a known political quantity. “Brought up in the North West” but “living in London”, according to Wikipedia, which contains little else about her, not even her age or parentage. She has apparently been a trade union office-bod for several years.
In her TV interview, she mentioned that her opponents “made use of” her “medical history” or some such. Are we talking mental health “issues”? I wonder…
She says that she was born in Romford, East London, but brought up in Reading:
Having woken up unwillingly, thanks to a gardener using a very noisy leafblower, my thoughts about what is left of the Labour Party are not very kind, especially having yesterday also noticed the comments of that Warrington North loonie (see above).
The prevailing wind at present comes from the wishful thinking direction. Labour is not the only example. However, it is a good example.
I saw it during the internal election that brought Corbyn to power. One instance was a Labour rally/meeting in York, which was in all the newspapers. Labour sources were ecstatic. Corbyn attracted about 2,000 or more listeners, maybe it was even 5,000. Yet the York area, as I tweeted at the time (the Jews, those benefactors of humanity, had not yet managed to have me expelled from Twitter), has about 210,000 people. You see my point. The crowd may have looked huge but was only 1%-2% of the population.
Nigel Farage was getting crowds of 2,000 recently, but in the end, the net result was almost zero.
Wishful thinking…Yes, Boris-idiot has plenty too, and his supporters more, but I am talking about Labour now.
When I used to hear Corbyn talking about politics, it was often like wandering into the Collet’s London Bookshop in Charing Cross Road c.1976. Militant, Tribune, the Morning Star, posters about anti-apartheid rallies, the socialist struggle in Latin America, Fascism, “No Pasaran!“, Cable Street etc.
Many many years ago, maybe 35-40 years ago, when I was learning Russian, I was always struck by the masthead of the newspaper Izvestia, which showed, inter alia, a picture of the cruiser Aurora, whose single (and blank) shot was a key event in the Bolshevik takeover of late 1917. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_cruiser_Aurora#October_Revolution_mutiny. It always seemed to me a symptom of a state political system preserved in jelly, or ossified. A state stuck in the battles of 60 years before.
The self-described “Left” in Britain is also like that (though I myself always avoid the use of “Right”, “Left” etc as unhelpful and undescriptive). So we get Labour MPs still, in 2019, talking about “Cable Street” (which they evidently do not know much about anyway), and which took place 83 years ago, as if it means something today. No. It does not. https://www.oswaldmosley.com/battle-of-cable-street/
Another myth is that trade unions still mean something. They don’t. Anyone listening to the last few Secretaries-General of the TUC could understand easily that the old powerful (sometimes too powerful) British trade unions of the 1970s and 1980s, destroyed by the outcome of a few large strikes (notably the Miners’ Strike) and by other factors (Conservative government legislation, but more importantly the gradual closure of heavy industry and then almost all manufacturing and extractive industry, and above all by immigration on a vast scale), have become toothless, politically-correct bodies not even much good as “workers’ advice” centres.
Mass immigration has destroyed much in the UK. One victim has been effective trade unions. Big business loves mass immigration: more consumers, lower unit wage costs etc.
For the typical Labour MP, member, supporter, what I have just written is unacceptable. For those people, “Cable Street” still means something, trade unions are still a major fact, mass immigration is something not only not bad but very good, something to be (in their sickening bastard language) “celebrated”.
House of “Lords”
The tweet below does not say everything that could and should be said about the House of Lords, but it does say a lot.
The tweeter was kind enough not to overload his tweet with “inherited £300 million, or £500 million, pounds“.
In a way, though, that tweet, by that tweeter, is symptomatic of the whole of the self-describing “Left” or “socialist” side of UK politics generally (and indeed of most of what the System and “antifascists” call “the far Right”, too). The response to manifest injustice and to political chicanery is not the “aux armes, citoyens!” of French history, not the Germanenorden of German history, neither the disciplined ranks of SS and SA nor even the barricades of 1968 Paris. It is the bleat of the tweet, the bleat of people whose idea of being radical, and even edgily so, is to post a comment (being careful not to infringe the ever-more-repressive laws around what is lawful to say or not, as free speech is eroded).
Interesting to see that three-quarters of Labour supporters now back PR. The “Conservatives” see no need now that they have a large majority in the Commons, but their spell as top dogs may be both short and lead to a different outcome. Still, I detect seismic movement at last, deep under the surface. This may happen, at last, but not for the life of this Parliament.
Valete
Time to say goodbye (from this blog post). I think that I shall start a daily comments blog soon.
Update, 23 August 2020
Since I wrote the blog post above, a very good explanatory graphic was created to show where 2017 voters went in 2019:
Note that almost as many previous Labour voters failed to vote (at all) as went to all other parties combined.
Update, 12 March 2023
Noticing today that the article has had a few recent hits, a few updates:
Jo Swinson never did get a peerage, though the System did chuck the silly cow a CBE.
At various times since 2019, the Jew-lobby MPs John Mann, John Woodcock and Ruth Smeeth all got “peerages”.
Corbyn has been deselected and chucked out of Labour, so may fight his seat as Independent.
Keir Starmer, of course, backed by the Jew lobby, became Labour leader and now has every chance of becoming Prime Minister by late 2024, now that, after the chaos and nonsense of the “Covid” “panicdemic” and “scamdemic”, and the disastrous governments of Johnson, Liz Truss (now that could never have been predicted in 2019, not even by me!), and now Indian money-juggler Rishi Sunak, Labour is running at over 50% in the polls, with Conservative Party at 25%, a level of support which (with Reform UK at over 5%) might mean a Commons coterie of only 20-30 Con Party MPs.
The 2019 General Election has been called, enabled partly by the LibDems and SNP, as John Rentoul, the only System journalist-commentator usually worth listening to, has written.
I was surprised that Labour did not block the vote, but I suppose that, with the Government ready to repeal, in effect, the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011, using a one-page bill, Labour had little choice but to appear unafraid to address the electorate.
So what now?
It it has been axiomatic, since Harold Wilson pronounced his famous dictum, that “a week is a long time in British politics”.
[Harold Wilson as Prime Minister, pictured in 1967 on the quayside at Hugh Town on the island of St. Mary’s, Isles of Scilly; the young Millard, 9-10 years old, at left]
Harold Wilson was sceptical of opinion polls. When he was in discussion with Lyndon Johnson about the Vietnam War, the U.S. President asked “what are the polls saying?” Wilson later recalled that he had thought that Johnson was referring to the Poles, and that he, Wilson, had tried to recall recent speeches by Gomulka!
That was then. Since then, British politics has given up the realms of commonsense thinking and has taken refuge in ideological spiderswebs and in the reading of electoral tea-leaves.
The opinion polls at present seem to be predicting a Conservative Party victory of as great as a 150-seat majority. Even mainstream commentators are talking in terms of a 70-seat Conservative majority. To me, that would be disastrous. Nothing to do with Brexit (which I favour). For me, to allow the present ZOG/NWO Cabinet of idiots, traitors, aliens and Israeli agents real power would be a calamity for the people of the UK. I have previously blogged about this: see Notes, below.
I am talking about domestic policy and, to some extent, foreign policy. I am talking about the imposition of an elected dictatorship on the British people. I am talking about rule by a concealed Jewish-Zionist lobby. I am talking about worse pay, pensions, State benefits, working conditions, living conditions etc. I am talking about destruction of free speech, too.
Is a Boris-Idiot government (with real power) inevitable? I do not know. Maybe not, but things are looking black.
The first thing to note is that polls usually narrow towards Election Day. At present they point to a Conservative majority of maybe 60. However, if Labour can pull itself up by a few points, that majority might shrink to single figures. Then there are the other parties (in England, mainly) to consider: LibDems and Brexit Party.
Labour
The Jewish lobby has weakened Corbyn and Labour via incessant attacks over four years. Some of the poison has seeped into public perception. The attacks continue. Only today, the “MP for Barrow and Furness —and Tel Aviv”, John Woodcock, was again attacking Corbyn and Labour, under the banner of which he scraped back into the Commons in 2017, though he has now left Labour amid charges of sex pest behaviour, and will soon no longer be an MP (no doubt “they” will find him a well-paid position). Again, I happened to see “former Labour Party adviser” John McTernan today on Sky News All Out Politics. Sky’s Adam Boulton was too polite to point out that McTernan’s advice proved disastrous for Labour in the past, and also for the Australian Labor Party. McTernan on Sky again derided Corbyn. With “friends” like those, Labour needs no enemies!
Labour’s more serious problems are, firstly, that it is unclear about what it stands for. Not just on Brexit. No overarching narrative. In the past, Labour’s position was a given: the voice of the “workers”, meaning the industrial proletariat, other manual and low-paid workers, renters rather than “owners” of freehold or leasehold property.
In those days, meaning until the 1970s, there was no serious racial aspect. Though there had been an influx (ultimately calamitous, by reason of breeding) of blacks and browns since the 1950s but mainly in the 1970s (and of course later), the percentage of blacks and browns and other non-Europeans was small until the 1980s; there was no constant wave of immigration in the hundreds of thousands, as there now is.
In the 1980s, Labour lost its way. The industrial proletariat started to disappear along with its industries. Immigration and births to immigrants started to create raceless and cultureless “communities”, including huge numbers of mixed-race individuals. British culture on TV and radio started to be overtaken by the Americanized cultural takeover that started in or immediately after WW2. The stalwarts of traditional Labour in the Commons and in constituencies started to be replaced by those who were influenced by the anti-white politics of post-Marxism, by the feminist and/or lesbian “sexual politics” movements, by persons who were unaware of the fight that Britain had with Jewish extremists in Palestine in the 1940s.
Such Labour activists were brought up in the 1960s and 1970s and had been indoctrinated by “holocaust” hoaxes and nonsense, such as the films of the faked “diary” of Anne Frank, of Schindler’s List (many people now think, quite mistakenly, that it is a “true story”, unaware that it was an adaptation of a novel, Schindler’s Ark, which was written in 1982 by an Australian who was only a child during WW2, having been born in 1935; he was brought up in New South Wales).
Gradually, Labour became the bastion both of the politically-correct ideologues and of the careerist “centrists” such as Tony Blair and his wife, both affluent barristers with no connection to Labour’s history (Blair’s father was a Scottish professor; Cherie’s father was a dissolute Liverpudlian TV actor). Labour went from being led by elderly Marxist hypocrite Michael Foot to, at first, a middling position under, in turn, Neil Kinnock and John Smith, then to Blair’s neoliberalism, with the Jewish-Zionist element firmly in control.
Labour lost connection with the “working class”, first because the old monolithic, unionized industrial proletariat had gone, and because the new concerns of former Labour areas (mass immigration, race and culture, poor conditions of non-unionized and precarious employment, sexual abuse of English girls by, mainly, Pakistanis, drug abuse) were simply ignored and, indeed, denied by the Labour Party.
Labour, in short, was becoming, under Blair, what it now is: the party of non-Europeans (the “blacks and browns” etc), of those dependent on public funds (public service workers, council employees, NHS people, those living on State benefits). These Labour voters were ruled over by a dictatorial pro-multikulti Common Purpose stratum, above which sat the Labour Friends of Israel MPs and above all the Jewish-Zionist “fixers” of the Lord Levy sort, who arranged the funding, doled out peerages and other “honours” to the compliant and “liaised” with Blair and his courtiers.
Meanwhile, Labour’s leadership became a cosmopolitan and finance-capitalist clique, “intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich” as one of its degenerate creatures, the Jew “lord” Mandelson put it. By 2010, it seemed to many that there was little difference in substance (as distinct from style) between Labour and Conservative. Labour lost to the Conservatives led by David Cameron-Levita.
Corbyn, though poorly-educated and no sort of leader, gave hope to the “children of the proletariat” (speaking ideologically: many are from rather comfortable backgrounds). His almost miraculous accession to leadership seemed to be a return to old Labour values: community, nationalization, State funding, workers’ rights. I have blogged about the “Hand of God” aspects to Corbyn’s election, eg his getting exactly the number of nominations required, some of which were from MPs who had no intention of even voting for him!
Labour now is a house divided. The Jewish-Zionist lobby may have attacked Corbyn-Labour, but that is only part of the story. Most Labour MPs date from the pre-Corbyn era, most from the pre-2010 era. Some MPs are volubly anti-Corbyn and closer to a careerist “Blairite” or “Brownite” position, such as Jess Phillips (ironically, only elected in 2015).
Labour gives an impression of being split two or three ways, and that is even before Brexit is mixed into the equation. This plays badly, electorally.
A normally loyal Labour MP on Corbyn and prospects for #GE19:
‘We’re led by a lunatic. He’s a nice but dim man who is being controlled by truly evil people.’
So are Labour’s prospects dead? Maybe not. Firstly, it has the support of the non-whites, to a large extent, though that tends to be concentrated in relatively few constituencies. Then it has most of the public service people. Finally, it has the young. Very few under-25s vote Conservative now, only about 4%. Only about 15% of under-35s vote Conservative. The rub is that younger eligible voters tend not to vote. So far.
Corbyn’s policies on utilities, transport and fares, rights for tenants etc may play well for him, if Labour can get them heard amid the Brexit noise and the Boris-The-Idiot-Star clowning and posturing.
Where Labour is undermined is in its disconnect, in visceral terms, from its former core communities: eg in the black-brown MPs Labour has, some of whom seem almost half-witted. Diane Abbott would be Home Secretary under a Corbyn government…
Corbyn’s lack of leadership is also a factor, as is his asinine support for Roma Gypsy thieves and scavengers and for the horrible “tinker”/”traveller” element. That must alienate millions.
In the end, Labour now has no real reason to exist in its present form. It is somewhat neo-socialist, but not at all “national”. It divides rather than unifies, because it prefers non-Europeans to the white British people among whom and for whom it was founded.
“I am a socialist, but a white man first.” [Jack London]
The above parody tweet was sent to me by a blog reader. It does rather set the scene for the past decade, the “austerity” (inflicted by part-Jews David Cameron-Levita and George Osborne and continued by Theresa May and now —so far— by Boris Johnson, again both part-Jew…) upon the poorer half or more of the UK, while the more affluent half and especially tenth of the population have been “doing rather well”
I have blogged rather extensively about the Conservative Party and about its leading members, particularly Boris Johnson aka “Boris-Idiot”.
The Conservative Party, like Labour, has travelled far from its roots, even far from where it was in the 1970s. The old country Conservatives scarcely exist in MP terms now. Like Labour, the Conservative Party is now packed with pretty mediocre MPs, most in it for the money. In fact, many would be flattered to be as good as mediocre. Like Labour, the Conservative Party has ceased to be representative, not only of the country as a whole but even of its traditional supporters. In the 1950s, nearly 5 million people were members of the Conservative Party. Now? About 140,000. Boris Johnson was elected by about two-thirds of those. 92,000 people in a UK which now holds some 70 million. Only 1 in about 500 adult inhabitants of the UK is a member of the Conservative Party.
The trump card of the Conservative Party in this election is that it is not the Labour Party. It has little else to offer, except the Brexit “deal” that Boris-Idiot fluffed and which is worse than that offered to Mrs May 18 months ago. It is only the clown-image, of Boris the Clown, which, bizarrely, is keeping the Cons high in the polls. That, and Corbyn’s rock-bottom ratings.
So Johnson has once again gambled. The gamble is that he can win more Leave-supporting seats than he loses Remain-supporting seats.
Stress points for the Conservatives? Privatization, by the back door, of the NHS; Johnson’s character; the wealthy getting wealthier, the rest getting poorer; privatized rail and utilities; poor pay; the cruelty of the post-2010 benefits system.
LibDems
Ironically, the key to the LibDems taking seats might be Brexit Party taking away Con votes in the South of England, and so letting the LibDems in. That might happen even more if Labour voters in strongly Con areas vote tactically. I do not have much time for Jo Swinson, a pro-finance capitalist and Orange Book LibDem who pays lip service to the Jew-Zionist lobby, but I have to concede that she has put in a couple of stellar performances in the Commons recently.
The LibDems are pro-EU, pro-Remain, anti-Brexit. They are the only party unequivocally Remain. That clarity has to help them. How much it will help them is unclear. They need to get an across the board 20%+ even to regain the number of seats they had in 2010 and 2005. They are presently polling around 18%, but the night is young.
Brexit Party
Brexit Party has lost its mojo somehow. Its stellar start, with the rallies and speeches and huge enthusiasm, seems a long time ago already. I think that the reason is that Brexit is really its only policy, though others will no doubt appear soon. It is largely “the Conservative Party at Leave”, and people do have concerns other than Brexit. I doubt that it can poll much above 10%. It might manage 15% across the board. Chance of gaining more than one or two stray seats seems minimal at present. However, that may change, but BP needs to start attacking the Conservatives, not forever saying how much they want to play ball with them.
UKIP; Change UK
Both washed up, as I have long predicted. Polling at statistical zero. Dustbin of history zone.
Thoughts
There are 6 weeks to go. In 2017, turnout was below 69%. In 2015, turnout was 66% and in 2010, 65%. 2005: 61%. 2001: 59%. Since the 1990s, turnout slumped in 2001 and has gradually increased again but is still several points below the 1990s figures. If there were an unexpectedly high turnout, particularly among the younger voters who generally favour Labour or the LibDems, that could change the picture completely.
At present, the smart money is on the Conservatives. The smart money was on Remain in 2016, on Hillary Clinton to beat Trump, on anyone but Corbyn to replace Ed Miliband. You get the picture. I do not think that Labour can do well on its own merits, but devotees of the Turf will know that frontrunners rarely win. The election is Boris’s to lose, and he may yet do just that, counter-intuitive though that now appears.
This is an example of where Britain went wrong during the 1980s, 1990s and particularly under the 1997-2010 Blair-Brown era, and which continued on into the 2010-2019 years:
News heard on the early Today Programme on BBC Radio 4:
Farage has been reported as possibly going to direct Brexit Party to stand in as few as 20 seats, all Labour-held, 2016 Leave-voting seats;
Could it be any clearer that Brexit Party is not a serious party, not even a semi-serious protest party? I think that Brexit Party can probably be written off at this point.
The news, if accurate, does reinforce my previously-blogged point that Farage, despite his people skills, speaking skills and public profile, is not really very knowledgeable or effective politically. After all, UKIP was in the end a big Westminster zero after 25 years of operation and, so far, Brexit Party has underwhelmed. No by-election successes, and its polling for Westminster has dropped from 20% at one point to 12% now. My feeling is that Brexit Party could have gone the distance, but missed its moment to morph into a real party.
The other piece of news so far today is polling that, incredibly, shows
Boris Johnson “more trusted on NHS” than Corbyn!
Whatever one thinks of Corbyn, this is just mad and bolsters my view that the UK has gone mad, socio-politically. Already, we have had polling, from a month ago, to the effect that part-Jew, part-Muslim origined Johnson, whose father was a part-Jew who worked for the World Bank and was an MP, Boris Johnson who had a U.S. passport until recently, who was born in New York City, was brought up in USA and Belgium before attending Eton and Oxford, and who even belonged to the wealth-saturated and degenerate Bullingdon Club, “has the common touch” more than Corbyn!
On the campaign trail
Soon-to-be-ex-PM Johnson 'booed out of Addenbrooke's Hospital' during Cambridge visit.https://t.co/aIBA8I7Uud
The latest Ipsos MORI poll gives Conservatives 41%, Labour 24%, LibDems 20%, Brexit Party 7%, Greens 3%.
“Ratings for the Government as a whole are low, with just 19 per cent of voters happy with how it is running the country, including only a third of Conservatives, while 74 per cent are dissatisfied. Gideon Skinner, head of political research at Ipsos MORI, cautioned: “As Theresa May knows, a poll lead can be lost during a campaign and this puts the Conservatives at the upper margins compared with other polls. Nevertheless it confirms the Conservatives are starting in a strong position.” [Evening Standard]
If the above poll is accurate, we are staring down the barrel of a Conservative majority of 196, according to my use of Electoral Calculus (I gave Scottish results as likely SNP 50% and LibLabCon 15% each). That 196-seat majority would be disastrous for the UK.
Still, the starting gates have only just opened. All the same, Labour needs to hit hard now. For example, instead of weakly accepting that “antisemitism must be addressed” etc, Labour should start defending the British people; point out that many exploiters and parasites in the UK—by no means all, of course– are Zionists. Take the fight to the enemy and Labour might well find that many many British people want the Zionists taken down, their influence and power reduced greatly.
The opinion polls are proving to me that what so many British people want and need is social nationalism of the right sort.
Below, “Conservative” and, quelle surprise, not entirely English (part-Indian?), judging by photos found elsewhere than on her Twitter profile, freelance scribbler seems to have been living under a rock (or under the protection of a trust fund or affluent family) for the past 10+ years.
"Understandable, but will lead to economic armageddon"
The <40s are already living with "economic armageddon", stagnating wages, insecure jobs, spiralling housing costs. All under the watch of the #Selfservative party of 'fiscal responsibility'#GE2019#VoteLabour2019#JC4PM
Ms. Gill does seem to understand that there is the possibility of radical change inherent in the dispossessed UK young (and, indeed, the not so young). She does not want such change and does not exactly identify what change it might be (“economic armageddon” sounds to me suspiciously like socio-political illiteracy), but the change in question could as easily be social national as post-Marxist.
Strange. Perhaps I was too critical. She seems to take a different and more sympathetic view here (or is it just that she is more concerned about things when they affect her own and personal life?): *click on it and read entire thread…
These are FAQs if you complain about the housing crisis.
1. Why don't you move outside the South?
Yes that's a good idea as there are more houses, but one in three jobs are created in London. From a personal perspective, I need to be near newspaper offices + Westminster
Below, a very accurate though totally obvious view of what has been happening over the past decade in the UK. Though I would not want any Jew to be Prime Minister, I did like the way in which Ed Miliband had time for ideas, for policy, and for the results of applied policy; a holistic view. That used to be the norm in UK politics, before the rise of socio-political idiocy in or around 2005-2010, the Iain Dunce Duncan Smith-type of nonsense.
Lots of objections to class war appearing. Totally agree. Assault on welfare state, slashing top rate and corporate tax while imposing cuts on everyone else, driving people to food banks, Universal Credit, pay freezes, growth in zero hours. Where will it end? FFS.
For those new to this blog, I shall briefly outline my view: I have always favoured Leave/Brexit, certainly since about 2010. The EU, which was originally the EEC, a group of nation-states in mainly North and West Europe co-operating together and trading freely, has become a monster.
The EU has allowed millions of non-whites from Africa and Asia to invade its shores. It has encouraged that invasion and has attempted to resettle those millions and their offspring in countries and places. The EU permits Roma Gypsy thieves and scavengers free movement from their nests in Eastern Europe to the West. The EU Commission, the body which really directs the EU (the Parliament providing mainly a mere facade of “democracy”), has had its tame lawyers and most of the tamed EU states pass laws against “holocaust” “denial” etc, which echo the laws against heresy and blasphemy promulgated in the late Middle Ages. It is clear that the EU is on a course, planned from the beginning, of centripetal convergence. The aim is a “European” (meaning geographically European) superstate whose controlled and monitored citizens will be largely non-European and/or of mixed race, as provided for under the Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan:
At the same time, I am extremely opposed to Boris Johnson and his pack of mainly non-British idiots and schemers posing as a Cabinet. They are just a manifestation of ZOG (Zionist Occupation Government).
The above positions have created a conflict, because Boris Johnson has tried to hijack the Leave/Brexit cause, calculating that, in such a polarized political environment, he and the Conservative Party might count on the support of perhaps 50% of the voters, whereas otherwise, Conservative Party electoral support now only amounts to about 35%, at most.
So now, Boris-Idiot has been railroaded into asking the EU for an extension of time, which he has done, despite his brave words about how he would rather “be dead in a ditch” than make any such request.
I suppose that any other Prime Minister of the UK would have complied with the newly-imposed legal requirement; a few might perhaps have considered refusing to comply. Boris is once again unique in having come up with a schoolboy “plan” to send a photocopied letter to the EU, while not signing it! In what world is that the act of a statesman? It is the act of a naughty schoolboy trying to be clever. Did Boris-Idiot think it up alone, or did his mad adviser, Dominic Cummings (see Notes, below) assist?
In any case, surely it is clear to me that merely failing to sign such a letter in such circumstances does not invalidate the request. To take a similar type of case, if two heads of state or government meet to sign a treaty already agreed in all details, is the treaty ineffective if one such VIP, as a joke, signs in invisible ink, or pretends to sign using a pen without ink? To my mind, the answer must be in the negative. The formal signing is merely the public show. True, in that case, the VIP would have at least mimicked the required act. Having said that, who but a charlatan public entertainer posing as politician and statesman would try such a stunt? I can only think of one, off-hand…
In my opinion, the sending of the letter, albeit in rough photocopied format, albeit unsigned by the person posing as Prime Minister, is still a valid request, a valid request from one EU government to the EU, not from one individual. If the Supreme Court of the UK pronounces upon these questions, no doubt they will first be analyzed in detail.
I predicted from the start, as soon as the 2016 Referendum was held, that the EU ZOG/NWO matrix would work to defeat the intention of a majority of the voters. The idea would be either to remain in the EU or to leave in name only. I see no reason to change that view. The Boris “deal” is no better and indeed arguably worse than that finally achieved by Theresa May. Even “No Deal” would be a scam in the hands of Boris and his ZOG/NWO colleagues. The only difference would be a bias toward the USA and not so much toward the EU part of the NWO/ZOG conspiracy/consensus. The ultimate result would be the same.
What now?
Electorally, this in itself may not harm the Conservative Party. Perhaps even the reverse. The “broad masses” of voters are in any case not only interested in Brexit. What is giving support to the Conservative Party is not anything that that party is doing or not doing, but what Labour is doing or not doing. The weakness of Labour is the main factor. The opinion polls are now all very firmly putting the Conservative Party well ahead of Labour, in some cases by more than 10 points. Unless Labour can pull its socks up pretty soon, it is toast, unless events move on the ground: economic collapse, any chaos via No Deal Brexit etc. Even should that happen, it is not clear that Labour would or could reap any electoral benefit. The Conservatives might, in those circumstances, be damaged, but not enough.
What about Brexit Party? My sense is that it has “lost its mojo”. It might get 15% in any general election held soon, it might get only 10%. Enough to take the gloss off any Conservative win, but not enough to prevent it. One should never completely write off the egregious Farage, but in the end he has had no Westminster success, at least to date.
For me, it is clear that a social-national movement must arise. At present it cannot, because the basic conditions do not exist: no germinal social-national party exists, no revolutionary situation which that party might both exploit and command exists.
Twitter is a very unreliable guide to the public mood. If you only took Twitter into consideration, you would imagine that 90% of the population want the UK to remain in the EU (most polls put it at or below 50%).
“Hate”: we hear a lot about “hate” from certain groups, whereas in fact those groups are themselves the chief purveyors of hate:
Remain whiners;
Jew-Zionists;
post-Marxists and pseudo-“socialists”, such as the “HopeNot Hate” and “UAF” crowds.
Not infrequently on Twitter are encountered individuals manifesting all three of the above.
Part of the delusionary tendency of Remain is the idea that people who want out of the EU are poorly-educated, have never travelled (save to somewhere such as Magaluf) and are extremely stupid. I suppose that such ideas bolster the Remain whiners’ sense of self-worth. Sadly for them, their ideas about this are, like their ideas on other subjects, suspect. I myself was once measured at 156 IQ, have a degree from somewhere at least semi-decent, have post-professional qualifications in law (in three countries) etc. I once had a personal library of 2,000+ books, have lived in, worked in or visited dozens of countries, speak a foreign language etc…Should I feel inferior to Remain whiners, most of whom are in every way less intelligent, educated, travelled and experienced than me?
Remain whiners are, in my opinion, often the kind of people who, in the 1950s and thereafter, carefully read books to make sure that how they lived and behaved was certified “U” and not “non-U”. In other words, Remain whinerdom seems to be yet another manifestation of British suburban snobbisme… See, for example, the tweet below
Expecting a pro-Brexit march of a million people any day now! Where are they all? I only saw a small group of drunk men – one almost completely toothless – outside a pub near Trafalgar Square singing "We love you Boris, we do!" I wonder what they love about him. Maybe… racism?
Silly Remain woman comes from Oxfordshire to march (pointlessly) with hundreds of thousands (we are told) of others, contra Brexit. Sees a group of drunks in a pub who claim to be pro-Boris Idiot. That gives her the chance to tweet (the main purpose of the day) about how they are or may be “racist” (which of course would be terrible…). One of the drunks has no teeth. Ha ha! Look at him! What a hillbillie! The woman does not fail to note on her Twitter profile that she worked for the DTI, BBC and Reuters. She forgot to mention that she reads the Observer (well, probably—if she can guess about people, so can I).
As for the “million-strong” march, its effect will be the same as all other large marches in London. Zero.
Also:
I’ve no idea whether it was 1 million or 78,000 on the Remoaner march yesterday but this is worth a look. https://t.co/lJSogqgxBI
It is pretty clear that most of the hysterical young Remain whiners of 2016 have grown up a bit, but that the middleaged and elderly Remainers have not quite understood that the times have left them behind. I would be prepared to bet that all those Wallingford Remainers support mass immigration, and fake or other “refugees” as well! After all, those elderly Remainers will not live long enough to see Wallingford (a pleasant Thames-side small town which I knew as a child) turned into yet another urbanized or suburbanized black/brown multikulti hellhole…
Looked at a few more tweets by Sarah Hurst; here’s one just seen (so I was right —see above— give that man a cee-gar!):
Why is the government constantly lying about wanting an independent trade policy that can't benefit us? Because the real reason for Brexit is immigration, and they can't say that.
I should add that, while for me it is important to get out of the EU, my main socio-political focus is on the racial and cultural future of the UK and, beyond the UK, Europe (EU and non-EU). There is no point stopping free movement from the EU if the UK is still going to be importing blacks and brown (etc) in huge number. Another point of huge importance (for the UK and beyond) is the necessity for a “cultural revolution” and chistka.
Update, 30 November 2020
The Jewish or half-Jewish anti-Brexit Remainer woman from Wallingford, mentioned in the body of the blog post above, is an enemy of “English nationalism”:
Good luck to Wales playing England at something just because I can't stand English nationalism.
Actually, she is comedy gold, reading some of her tweets. Dual nationality (UK/USA, apparently), and she celebrates Thanksgiving in Wallingford because she spent 12 years in the USA but “cannot afford” to return there (implying that she wishes that she could).
She apparently stockpiles tinned food (buying extra regularly), in which I am with her— it is a good idea if you can afford to do so and have storage space (see also Dennis Wheatley’s memoirs, Drink and Ink, in which he says that he not only did the same in the years 1938-40, in case food was rationed should war break out, but urged the readers of his newspaper column to follow suit).
As to her recent tweets to the effect that Brexit might result in food shortages, the incompetence of Boris-idiot’s government might indeed cause such shortages now. Her tweets are, however, often just unintentionally funny, as when she cries poverty while also spending over £300 at a go in Waitrose.
Oh, and she thinks that Lord Sumption, until fairly recently a Supreme Court justice, is “a dangerous lunatic”!
This dangerous lunatic is constantly given a platform by the BBC. And then they ask where is misinformation coming from! https://t.co/XuRu9pWi4N
I have my own idea as to who might be a dangerous lunatic…and I am not alone in that…
This is where she stashes her Brexit food, and she actually thinks that this makes her sound normal. A psychiatrist really needs to step in https://t.co/Jui9ifOpiE
That woman reminds me of several things, such as “why are persons of Jewish origin always alien, ‘strangers in a strange land‘ as the Old Testament has it? More than just strangers; hostile strangers.
Also, why are “Remain whiners” also, almost invariably, facemask and “lockdown” zealots?
Incidentally, the woman in question also poses as a expert on Russia. Here is an example of her “expertise”:
Our policies are now the same as Russia's: put flags on everything, build more warships and blame the EU for our economic problems.
I was so pleased that Alison Chabloz got bail this afternoon (after having had to spend three days in prison) that I nearly forgot to blog about Labour’s recent conference, which ended yesterday.
[On Alison Chabloz, by the way, she is free pending appeal, which will not be heard for months in all likelihood. In the meantime, she can post on her website, sing songs, whatever. It seems that her bail is unconditional. She has now spent a total of 5 days or part-days in prison or in court on the breach of condition matter. That means that even if she fails on appeal (which itself will be another day taken off any time to be served in prison), she will only have 22 days to serve including day of release. So really 21 days. Unpleasant but bearable for her, though perhaps not for her persecutors, who have been desperate for their pound of flesh.]
So back to Labour and its chances in the upcoming general election.
I think that we have to start from the baseline that Labour is now a joke. There always were joke elements in Labour, thinking of that old hypocrite Michael Foot and his “donkey jacket” etc. Corbyn in some respects personifies that late 1970s or 1980s Labour. As I have blogged previously, Corbyn is a familiar English “type”, the middleaged-to-elderly and probably white-bearded “socialist”, with his “Lenin” cap and copy of (in the past anyway) the Morning Star, Tribune or at least The Guardian; to be found at allotment gardens, socialist commemorations such as the Durham Miners’ Gala or the annual remembrance of the Tolpuddle Martyrs, at steam rallies or heritage railway stations. I think of Corbyn as one of those Edwardian caricatures, with an outsize head and a little descriptive and humorous caption.
The picture I have of Corbyn is more the amiable type described above than the Corbyn of the 1980s, of the IRA sympathies and crypto-Communism. Like so many of his type then, Corbyn must have found it hard to reconcile the “Green Fascism” (as some term it) of the Provos with the “social rights” bleating of the inner-city Labour Party, let alone whatever back-of-postcard “Marxism-Leninism” Corbyn may have picked up from his truncated course (he dropped out after a year) in Trade Union Studies at North London Poly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Corbyn#Early_life , and then to mix that in with some attachment to the British form of representative Parliamentary democracy.
Again, I have tweeted and (after the Jews had me expelled from Twitter) blogged from 2016 about Corbyn’s rather poor intellectual and cultural level, how he is a poor leader (in fact, no leader at all), and about his cartoon political level: “Jews good, Zionism bad; wars bad except for the war against Hitler’s Germany and any wars conducted by Marxists”; “The Battle of Cable Street” in which “the people of East London” “defeated” Mosley and the [British Union of] Fascists; “!No pasaran!” (and other pathetic misunderstandings of the politics of the 1930s).
It is easy to laugh at Corbyn as a politician or generally, though if he is thought unfit to lead a major party or the British government, then he is no more so than have been others, such as David Cameron-Levita, Theresa May or, now, Boris-Idiot.
As the days go on, it is clear that very few people in this country think that Boris Johnson is a fit and proper person to be Prime Minister. Every day that goes by reduces him as a prime ministerial, let alone statesmanlike, figure. It has nothing to do with Brexit. I favour Brexit. I do not favour Boris-Idiot, who is doubling down on Brexit as the only way to keep a bloc or constituency of voters voting Conservative. Johnson’s Cabinet is entirely composed of Conservative Friends of Israel members, who want to impose a ZOG/NWO tyranny on the UK. Most of them are also complete deadheads.
I believe that, for several years now, the voters have been voting against the party they hate most, rather than for the party they support most.
What are Labour’s positive points for voters? What are the negative points?
Labour has a number of policies which might appeal to those voters not completely hostile: promises to tenants, the young generally, the elderly generally, commuters, those faced with ever-higher utility bills etc.
As to the negatives, well, I did not watch much of the recent Labour Party Conference on TV, but a few things did strike me. I saw a wild-eyed and fanatical young man (in fact he looked completely mad) who wanted to abolish all independent schools (was he a teacher? Good grief! I suppose that that is why the main teaching union is called NUT). I also saw the delegates vote to, in effect, open Britain’s borders to almost all immigrants, as well as keep free movement of labour (in reality, that would include “Roma” Gypsy thieves and scavengers) within the EU, as part of keeping the UK within the EU. They also voted to allow all immigrants to receive State benefits, to work, and to vote.
Opinion polls are strongly against abolition of independent schools and against open borders. Most voters also oppose more immigration. The Labour policies (not yet official) would mean yet further hordes of backward immigrants from all over the world coming to the UK, either being supported by the State or driving down pay levels (probably both), occupying housing sorely needed for British people, using stretched services such as NHS, schools, trains, roads etc. Those immigrants would be able, if Labour were in power, to vote (so no truly British party would have a chance), and to import “family members”, so increasing the non-white population even more. Those would then breed. It would mean the end of this country as a decent place for white British people.
Then we look at who would be in a Labour Cabinet. We have already mentioned Corbyn. What about this absurd drunken “ho”?
Emily Thornberry, aka Lady Nugee (her husband being a half-Jewish High Court judge); the photograph below shows the couple at a Zionist dinner, alongside the Israeli Ambassador to the UK.
Then we have Angela Rayner, who wants to abolish non-State education, as likely Secretary of State… and what about the blacks around Corbyn? Kate Osamor? She might be in Cabinet (she was in the Shadow Cabinet until recent scandals) if Corbyn can form a government. I blogged about her a while ago, after her son (employed by her at £50,000 a year via her MP expenses) was convicted but not imprisoned for drug dealing. He was kept out of prison because his mother pulled strings. I have heard of “the political jungle”, but really…
When you look at all the negatives, you can see why even those who hate or mistrust the Conservatives are often now unwilling to vote Labour. These deadheads in the highest seats of government…and voting for even more mass immigration. Nein danke.
The opinion polls are all over the place, and in the past month have veered from giving the Conservatives a Commons majority of 200 right through to Labour being largest party but without a majority. Incredibly, Boris-Idiot is still way ahead of Corbyn as Prime Minister material. Truly, Eton and Oxford are the materials that make stupidity shine! Even unpleasant Jo Swinson is ahead of Corbyn, though!
The Survation poll above puts the Conservatives as largest party but (via Electoral Calculus https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/userpoll.html) a huge 54 votes short of a majority (but with the LibDems on 61 seats, a second Con Coalition is possible). The ComRes poll puts Labour ahead, but even further from a majority: 57 short. The LibDems under Jo Swinson have ruled out a coalition with Labour under Corbyn (a sign of how embedded the Jewish lobby now is in the LibDems), but Labour could still just about form a minority government with the votes of SNP, Plaid, Green and some Northern Irish MPs.
Conclusion
Boris Johnson is trying to weaponize Brexit in the hope that it can be his chariot back to power and with a majority. It might work. Certainly, without the Brexit vote, Johnson is toast, the Conservative Party is toast.
Labour has almost caught up with the Conservatives in the opinion polls. That seems to augur well for Labour in the sense that it means that a complete collapse is less likely despite the contempt in which many voters seem to hold the party. As always in the UK, the FPTP voting system, the contrived boundaries of constituencies and the existence of “safe seats” (a high majority of seats are considered “safe” in most circumstances) make the election hard to call. At present, I think that a hung Parliament is still the most likely result. A majority for the Conservatives is also possible. Labour? Hard to be dogmatic, but their best result would probably be to be largest party in the Commons, with a plurality but not majority of seats.
and other tweeters notice her hypocrisy: Shami Chakrabarti favours abolition of independent schools, yet sends her son to Dulwich College! A bit like Diane Abbott, who sent all her children to fee-paying schools while decrying private education…
#shamichakrabarti So you support the abolition of Independent schools. How is your son getting on at Dulwich College? You are a typical left wing Hypocrite.
💥 BREAKING – Labour Pledge to Scrap Universal Credit AND The DWP@jeremycorbyn set to announce scrapping #UniversalCredit & DWP as official Labour policies.
Benefit cap, two child cap and more set to go too.
This is certainly going to be a vote-winner for Labour as well as being the only right and proper thing to do. Having said that, most people likely to be benefited (literally) by this policy either vote Labour already or do not vote. Only complete idiots would vote Conservative or LibDem if they are reliant on State benefits; they would be turkeys voting for Christmas. Will others, floating voters not on benefits, vote Labour because of this? Some might, but in my view not enough to be very significant electorally, though I might be wrong.
Update, 28 September 2019
The latest opinion poll published (by YouGov, from work done 3-4 days ago, so not quite up-to-date in a fast-moving and volatile political environment).
That would give the Conservative Party a Commons majority of perhaps 48. However, the two other recently-published polls (see above), which were far more favourable to Labour, took their soundings on the same days as did YouGov. Just shows how uncertain is the public mood now.
I happened to see this, from The Times, tweeted by one of the active Jew-Zionists on Twitter (involved with the anti-Corbyn-Labour GnasherJew cabal) and others:
Of course, the Jews want rid of Corbyn and having been trying to depose him for 4 years now, using every lever of influence they have in the msm, as well as over many suborned Labour Party MPs (eg Tom Watson). That despite Corbyn having paid lip service to the “holocaust” fakery etc.
Having said that, there is no doubt that Corbyn is not resonating as much as he might with former Labour voters. The Jewish lobby campaign against Corbyn has, of course, had an effect, though that is not the whole story. Corbyn is associated with the kind of Labour stances that most English people (especially) instinctively know are detrimental to them: mass immigration, fake “equalities” laws, backward-looking 1980s Labour Party socialism etc.
That is rather unfair (it was Tony Blair’s social-democratic Labour that imported the really huge waves of recent immigration after 1997, for example), but there it is. The people have the instinctive feeling that Corbyn-Labour is somehow anti-British (though I myself see it as no more so —in some ways less– than “centrist” pro-Israel Blairite Labour, or indeed the Zionist-ruled “Conservative Party).
Ultimately, my view is the Labour and Conservative parties are both sliding. A new wave will rise up.
…and Angela Rayner wants the voting age to be 16. Well, why not? After all, she herself managed to get knocked-up at 16, so she was certainly sensible…oh, no, wait…
In fact, why not reduce the voting age lower yet, so that the in-school brainwashing about the multikulti society can really have an electoral effect…
This is desperate. It’s just the toss of a coin now as to which of the two largest System parties collapses first.
Update, 2 October 2019
John Rentoul is ideologically far from me, but is always worth reading all the same; probably the best-informed of the System commentators:
Average of 4 most recent polls from different companies (ComRes, Survation, Opinium & this YouGov, polling from 24 Sep): Con 31% Lab 24% Lib Dem 21% Brexit 14% Green 4% There isn't going to be an election until after 31 Oct, but these vote shares would gain Cons 5 seats vs 2017
I saw this tweet (the thread is worth reading; click on the tweet):
Astonishing how many people assume if you support Corbyn you are; a) Stupid b) Crazy c) Tribal d) Require educating on politics (generally from people who evidently know a lot less than you) In the main none of these things are true, it simply shows the power of propoganda.
— J T Beckett CEng MCIBSE 💙 💚 #Antifa #BLM (@carbonsaveruk) October 28, 2019
What I take away from the tweet, mainly, is the first sentence: many (most?) people that that lady meets think that she is basically silly (and in the minority?) for supporting Corbyn-Labour. The tweeter’s Twitter profile reveals that she is from Leeds, which has 8 MPs, 5 of whom are Labour MPs. I do not know Leeds, but know that it is not natural Corbyn territory: e.g. the highest ratio of private to public sector jobs of any major UK city (77% private, 23% public). Leeds is (officially) 85% “white”.
Even so, the comments (and those of other tweets in the thread) are telling. Corbyn-Labour is just not breaking through beyond Labour’s core vote, and maybe not even there, much.
From the same thread:
In my office, the widely held belief is that only people on benefits vote labour!!!
My attention has been caught by a recent tweet from a Brexit Party MEP previously unknown to me:
My colleague in the European parliament @MagicMagid arranged a charity dinner in support of @RefugeeRescue saving refugees in the Mediterranean. I could not attend the dinner but have instead made a donation. I urge you to do the same!
At first, I thought that that tweet was a fake and/or a parody, or perhaps tweeted in a spirit of satire. No. It is real and it is meant to be taken at face-value. The bastard really is urging Brexit Party members, supporters and voters (of which I am not and have never been one, by the way) to give money to one of the organizations ferrying migrant-invaders across the Mediterranean from North Africa to civilized Europe.
When many people who support —or did until now support— Brexit Party criticized Nielsen’s support for this people-ferrying soi-disant “charity”, the new MEP’s response was textbook System-politician:
For all those who made racist remarks in response to my earlier tweets about a charity I have supported- you have no place in the Brexit Party. We are an open, diverse and inclusive party with no space for discrimination or abuse. Get on board, or get out.
The thread of further comments on Twitter is worth reading. All UK political life is there, from well-meaning but stupid ladies (sitting in suburban or rural comfort) who just want to emote about “saving children”, and the sort of basically malicious “anti-racist” idiots (Jewish or otherwise) who want as many non-Europeans as possible to invade the EU and especially the UK, to more sensible people who see that the UK’s population has increased from about 55 million in the 1980s to about 65 million or even 70 million now, most of which is via immigration and from births not only to immigrants but also now to their children and indeed to those children’s children (a demographic time-bomb: experts now say that European-race, i.e. white, people will be in the minority in the UK by 2070 at latest. My guess? 2040. Already some British cities are minority-white).
That does not, it seems, alarm Henrik Nielsen.
Nielsen was born in 1959 in Copenhagen, is 60 years of age and was at one time the head of the anti-EU campaign in Denmark. Why he opposes the EU I do not know. He seems rather at home as an MEP.
Nielsen is married to one Sharon Ruth Bierer, also a dentist, born in London and who has been a director of dental-oriented companies in London. The name Bierer is often of Jewish origin, but not always. Nielsen and his wife have two adult children, Jacob and Laura, the latter of which is, remarkably, the policy director of Labour Leave, the Labour Party pro-Brexit organization.
Nielsen and his wife own a rather pleasant-looking villa in Puglia (Apulia), southern Italy, which they rent out at £300+ per day.
I agree there with tweeter “Reimer Bard”. Brexit Party is faux-nationalist even as compared to its previous incarnation, UKIP.
Finally, the person that Nielsen is supporting in his tweets is this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magid_Magid . A Somali immigrant who claims to have funded a “gap year” by working for only 9 weeks (at 12 hours a day). I suppose that it is just about possible.
Brexit Party
I have blogged several times before about Brexit Party, about its stellar explosion onto the UK political scene, about Farage’s impressive public meetings, about its possible impact on the Conservative vote etc; its EU elections success. I have also chronicled its lack of direct success so far in Westminster by-elections: Peterborough, and then Brecon and Radnorshire. That “close but no cigar” aspect has deflated the Brexit Party bubble somewhat, as has the noise around the person I am pleased to call Boris-Idiot and around the whole current Brexit hullabaloo.
Let’s look again at Brexit Party. It is or is owned by a private company itself controlled by Nigel Farage. In that it has similarity to Momentum, the Labour Party group, which is, or is owned by, a company itself controlled by a couple of Jews.
I have blogged before about the fact that Brexit Party is a party without policy (save for leaving the EU). That is both its strength (i.e. a clear message) and its weakness (the voting public has concerns other than just the EU and Brexit).
I have blogged about not only the strange policy-free nature of Brexit Party but also about its strange mixture of candidates. No less than three out of the Brexit Party EU elections candidates were former Revolutionary Communist Party members (one, Claire Fox, a defender of the IRA Warrington bombing, is now a Brexit Party MEP). Some Brexit Party candidates were of non-European ethnicity, and some of those are now MEPs, including a couple of Jews and a Pakistani.
It is hard to see the ethnic, cultural or ideological ties binding the Brexit Party MEPs inter se. Even the faux-“libertarian” “small state”-ism of many of them does not seem to fit all.
There seem to be more than just a few links between Brexit Party and the Trump set-up.
What is really behind Brexit Party? There is already a Brexit Party Friends of Israel organization. What is the gameplan? To offset any real nationalist upsurge by containing it in the Brexit Party box? Possibly. It worked with UKIP…
Brexit Party electorally
To my mind, the Brexit Party upsurge bubble has been, if not burst, then somewhat punctured, and so partly-deflated. Farage has made the mistake of sitting on the fence between outright support for Boris-Idiot’s supposed Brexitism, and opposition to the Conservative Party. That has weakened Brexit Party to some extent. All the same, and crucially in a situation where is is no real social-national or even small-c conservative-national party, voters in England and Wales are going to have the usual false choice in the next general election: the System parties, or joke candidates such as Monster Raving Loonies and tiny socialist or other parties, or…Brexit Party. It may be that, in desperation, many will vote Brexit Party.
At present, Brexit Party is not breaking through re. Westminster. The latest two polls (published today and yesterday) put the figures as:
make a Conservative majority of either 38 or 46 (I have taken the Scottish results as 50% SNP).
This is frightening. It means that, were there no significant change in the polling, there could be a Boris-Idiot ZOG/NWO [Zionist Occupation Government/New World Order] dystopian regime, an elected dictatorship, in place by the end of the year. If that happens, democracy in any real sense will have died and only determined non-electoral resistance will be able to fight against it.
Having said that, polling often narrows before an election, but Labour is going to have to pull its socks up “majorly” (to use a Trump-ism) if it is going to keep even its present complement of MPs. I suppose that the silver lining would be that many pro-Zionist Labour MPs would go, but that would be little comfort to the British people ruled over by a ZOG dictatorship.
What about Brexit Party itself? Its polling is running between 10% and 15%, which is nowhere. At present, it has no prospect of getting MPs and would have to raise its game to about 25% across the board before getting even a small bloc of MPs. That is not impossible, but if British people see Brexit Party MEPs (who may not even be British by origin…) lecturing them on the supposed “goodness” of supporting migration-invasion etc, the polling will not improve and may even decline in percentage terms.
No social-national party, no conservative-national party, the Conservative Party a ZOG/NWO regime in the making, Labour the party mainly of the blacks and browns, the LibDems supporting both finance-capitalism and migration-invasion, and fake-nationalist Brexit Party joining the multikulti “celebrations”…
The Remainers’ intellectual dishonesty, exposed in a tweet from an emeritus Professor of Government, no less; nailed by Andrew Neil…
Both sides fought the referendum on the basis they would regard the result as binding; and it was on that basis that people voted. Show me any Leaver or Remainer who said it was just a big state-sponsored opinion poll and could be ignored. https://t.co/ElwoARYP9X
“If you look at the more genuinely Welsh areas, especially the Welsh-speaking ones, they did not want to leave the EU,” Dorling told the Sunday Times. “Wales was made to look like a Brexit-supporting nation by its English settlers.”
I wonder what The Guardian would say about any analysis of UK voting patterns (in general elections, as well as referenda) that called areas with huge numbers of blacks and browns etc “not genuinely English”? Or described the blacks, browns, Chinese etc as “settlers”…For that matter, what about any analysis of voting patterns in North London that referred to “its Jewish settlers”?
A few more tweets
The real problem here was that direct populist democracy, i.e. the 2016 Referendum, was grafted onto the longstanding system of representative democracy (elected MPs, political parties, Parliament). It’s like a train trying to run on lines of the wrong gauge. Or to put it another way, trying to graft a pear to an apple.
WATCH | "There has been an active conspiracy by the political class to stop a real Brexit. There was a clear majority for Brexit in the referendum, however we have a House of Commons that was 75% Remain" – legendary historian David Starkey hits the nail on the head! pic.twitter.com/F1LX5Y4ICa
I am impelled to write a few words about Peter Hitchens after having just seen an interview with Owen Jones [see below], which interview dates from 2017.
I have already written a blog post about Owen Jones:
To examine the views and influence of Hitchens in detail would necessitate a blog article of inordinate length, but Wikipedia has a considerable amount of information about him:
I should like to focus mainly on a few matters raised in that interview.
As to Hitchens himself, he is an odd fellow, apparently fairly well-educated. His family background had elements of tragedy (his mother bolted with an unfrocked priest, and the couple later died via a suicide pact in an Athens hotel). Not mentioned in the interview is that Hitchens (like Owen Jones) has part-Jewish roots, his maternal grandmother having been half-Jewish, in that her mother was Jewish. It was on that basis that Hitchens’ even more eccentric brother, Christopher, declared himself in latter years to be “Jewish” (taking the traditional Jewish course of deciding via the matrilineal side alone).
The interview mentions his having attended a naval school, but that must have been in early years, he then having attended The Leys School, Cambridge, an institution which has schooled a number of well-known people: at least one Rothschild, a few kings (albeit from Bahrain and Tonga), a number of MPs and journalists (in some cases both, as with Martin Bell).
Hitchens then went on to the City of Oxford College (a college of further education) and finally to Alcuin College, part of the University of York.
It may be that the university education and milieu that Hitchens found in Alcuin College permanently influenced his attitude. Wikipedia says of Alcuin College that,
“From early days of the college an uproar for secession of the college from the remainder of the university has been present.[3] It is a self-styled Separatist Movement and at times presented as a running gag at the University of York about Alcuinites….For many years Alcuin College was very much the outcast on the university campus, the only college physically separate from the others except for a bridge from the library…“
The photograph of Alcuin College in winter shows an almost Soviet bleakness and isolation.
Hitchens, though characterizing himself in the Owen Jones interview as having been a “joiner” in his youth, has also been an outsider, defector and maverick. I wonder whether he applied to the University of York because Oxford and/or Cambridge (in both of which cities he had attended school) refused his application, or perhaps he made no application to Oxbridge because (I speculate) his developing extreme socialist views made him reject such “bourgeois” places of learning. A better interviewer than Owen Jones, such as the late and great Brian Walden, might have explored all that.
Hitchens was from 1968 (aged 17) to 1975, a member of the Trotskyist “tendency” called the International Socialists [IS], the forerunner of the Socialist Workers’ Party [SWP]. He joined two years before he went to York. Later, in his forties, he became a card-carrying member of the Conservative Party, but only for the six years 1997-2003, and —typically— at the very nadir of Conservative fortunes, which is interesting, psychologically. Does he court unpopularity? Does he deliberately express unpopular or contrary views?
Hitchens is known as what might fairly be called a “reactionary”, someone who thinks that Britain was a better place in the 1950s, no ifs no buts. In fact, I believe that I watched him say that or something like that on TV once. My own view is different, that some aspects of life in the UK are better now, though many are certainly worse. This blog post is about Peter Hitchens, not Ian Millard, but in my view, things that are better now than in the 1950s (which I scarcely remember, having been born in 1956) or the early 1960s (which I certainly do remember) would include
central heating as the norm;
wider selection of fruits and vegetables (and in general a healthier or at least more varied diet);
less antiquated snobbism;
more understanding of animal welfare;
far easier access to information (via Internet);
Whereas, on the other side, the aspects of British life now that mean that UK life is worse (than in the early 1960s, anyway) are (and Hitchens has a point, because it is a longer list by far)
the general pressure of life now (of course, I was a child in, say, 1963, so my perception is affected to that extent but I think the judgment is still valid);
pervasive lack of freedom of expression;
pervasive “political correctness” etc;
the cost of living, though that is a complex question; it includes
the cost of real property both for sale and rent, and the impossibility for most people to buy a property without family money;
British people swamped by mass immigration;
real pay and social benefits etc generally reducing;
hugely less choice of employment for most people;
many people in full-time work unable to live on the poor pay offered;
unwanted millions of immigrants and their offspring;
congested roads and railways (and refer to the above line);
a huge new mixed-race population;
a huge amount of crime;
public and private housing shortages (refer to immigration, above);
huge numbers of drug-contaminated persons;
workers exploited in terms of having ever-shorter lunch breaks etc, “on call” after hours etc;
public services near to collapse in some respects;
intensive farming, with consequent harm to wildlife;
standards in all areas (NHS, schools, social security, Westminster MPs, police etc) falling like a stone
We often hear (eg from very young Remain whiners) that, eg, “foreign travel is easier now”, whereas that is mostly illusion. True, there were some silly aspects “back then”, such as being restricted as to foreign currency taken on holiday (you even had to have the amount, bought from somewhere like Thomas Cook, written in your passport!), and that silliness (a kind of postwar sacred cow) lasted until Mrs Thatcher stopped it in 1979 or 1980! Yes, true, but that was about it.
If you listen to Remain whiners (esp. the under-30s), you read or hear that Brexit will mean either no visa-free travel to the EU states, or no travel allowed at all! They really believe that, pre-1972, British people were almost imprisoned, as if Cuban, Chinese or Soviet citizens!
Until blacks and browns abused it in the 1980s to import relatives illegally, you used to be able to get a “British Visitor’s Passport” from post offices for a small amount; the passport was valid for short visits to almost all Western European states (not many people went to Eastern Europe as tourists until the 1990s). I had one in 1978 or 1979, in between possession of two ordinary passports, when I wanted to travel to France at short notice. I think that it cost about £5 and took about 5 minutes to be issued at Lanark Road Post Office, Little Venice.
Transport to the European mainland: true, there were no budget airlines as such in the 1950s, 1960s, but there were routes and ways not now in existence: in the 1950s and 1960s, people could take their cars by air to France! The main route was Lydd (Kent) to Amiens. This was not only for the rich: 5,000 cars (20,000 passengers) as early as 1950, and over 50,000 cars (250,000 passengers) by 1955 (incredible when you recall that rationing lasted until 1955!):
The idea that some Remain whiners have that young people will be unable to travel if the UK leaves “Europe” (meaning the EU) is laughable to those who know. As a child I travelled with parents; and then (from 1971) as a teenager, I travelled alone to Paris, Amsterdam etc. No visa required, UK not in EEC (the then EU).
I might add that it actually takes longer to fly to Paris in 2019 than it did in 1970 or even 1960!
One cannot say that Hitchens approves of that aspect of 1950s lifestyle, though, and (if I understand him aright), he thinks that the British war against Germany could have been avoided, but I may be mistaken here. He certainly thinks that of the First World War, which he says, surely rightly, destroyed British naval supremacy and economy.
Where Hitchens is certainly mistaken is in saying (in the interview) that Churchill’s refusal to countenance the German peace proposals of 1940 was “unquestionably the right and moral thing to do”. Oh really? Right and moral, to continue a war only started because triggered by a treaty obligation that could never have been fulfilled (the Anglo-French worthless “guarantee” to Poland) and when an honourable peace via armistice was on the table?
Such a peace might have been bought at the price of German victory in the East, but would that have been so bad? The destruction of the Stalin/Bolshevik regime? The saving of most of Eastern Europe from both wartime destruction and post-1945 Stalinism? The prevention of the enormous damage, loss of life and hurt across Western and Southern Europe and North Africa? Hitchens says, however, that he is “sceptical” about Churchill overall.
Hitchens is on surer ground when he says that British history has gone, in that no-one knows British history. He cites David Cameron-Levita being unable to translate the two words “Magna Carta” from Latin! After 6 years at Eton! That was when “Scameron” was a guest on the Letterman Show. Shaming for the whole country. Not just the Magna Carta bit. Cameron came over more like a part-Jew public entertainer (and not a good one) than a British statesman. Oh…wait…
[the bit about Magna Carta starts around 8 minutes in]
Scameron was also proven, though I think on another occasion, not to have heard of the Bill of Rights! Hitchens cites an apparently intelligent 6th-former whom he met, and who had passed exams in English History, and yet who did not know which side Oliver Cromwell was on during the English Civil War!
I have had similar encounters. Few people under 40 now know even the most basic facts about British history, and less about European history generally. An indictment of the British educational system. One should, though, be wary of thinking that this kind of ignorance developed overnight. I recall having a brief conversation with a South London couple I met by a swimming pool in Sousse, Tunisia, in 1986, and who, it transpired, had no idea at all that what is now Tunisia had been (part of) a Roman imperial province. Not knowing who was Nelson or Drake, though, is arguably of a different order.
Hitchens says, again correctly, that “we” “have no idea now what it means to be English or British”, but does not go on to examine the racial implications. Come to think of it, that may be one reason why so many people in the UK want to denounce others to Twitter, Facebook, the police, employers etc for holding the “wrong” views, i.e. because the denouncers have no idea of the English historical struggle for free speech (John Hampden etc…) and no respect for it.
Owen Jones talks about how open-minded (he says…) Corbyn is, and implies that he, Jones, is the same. Oh yes? Take a look at my blog post about him…
Hitchens himself is really little different. He once had a short and at first reasonable discussion with me on Twitter about the early Zionists, in 2017 or 2016, but then a Jew tweeted to him about how I was apparently an evil “neo-Nazi”, after which, just like Owen Jones, inter alia, Hitchens blocked me. I was unaware then that Hitchens is part-Jew, though not to the extent that would have rendered him liable to sanctions under the 1936 Nuremberg law(s), his maternal grandmother having been only part-Jew (Mischling) and his maternal grandfather not a Jew. In fact, under those laws he would even have been able to work as a journalist.
Hitchens says that Enoch Powell’s so-called “Rivers of Blood” speech “was a disgrace”. Why? He dislikes its tone, it seems. What about its truth, though? He also says that “the intermarriage [resulting from immigration] is great”. I begin to wonder what major part of modern British society he does dislike, when push comes to shove! To be fair to Hitchens, he does disapprove of the ghetto communities established by Pakistanis and others in, mainly, the Midlands and North of England. He is certainly not “white nationalist”, let alone social-national. If he were, he would be sacked at once. Long live freedom!…
An area in which I do find myself largely in agreement with Hitchens is in intervention by the “West” (in my terms, “NWO/ZOG”) in the affairs of the Middle East. Iraq, Syria, Libya. He opposes it. That’s something.
As to Russia, Hitchens seems to take an objective view (informed by better historical knowledge than most msm scribblers), eg:
I apprehend that Hitchens likes the social conservatism of most Russians.
So what is my overall view of Peter Hitchens? I should say that he is someone of considerable intellect, though nowhere near as intelligent as he himself imagines. Someone of considerable education, but who imagines that he knows more and better than almost anyone else, and believes that it is his role in life to pronounce on the truth of any given social, political, historical or ethical topic. Someone who harks back to a supposed golden age prior to, perhaps, 1959, or 1989 (at very latest). Someone who sees what is wrong in the present society but appears to have no programme or (Heaven forbid!) ideology to move from here to there (to a better society).
Hitchens takes a reasonable view such as “the family is a good thing” and tests it to destruction. Likewise, in his critique of both socialism and the contemporary Conservative Party, he goes to an extreme, saying that the Conservative Party is “extreme Left-wing”, by which he means “socially liberal”. He defends traditional marriage and his arguments here have force.
Hitchens thinks that the Conservative Party is dying (understandable, looking at its MPs and ministers) but, yet again, goes to an extreme, wishing that it could have lost the 2010 General Election so that it might have died, and so made room for a new and socially-conservative party. I wish that it had lost too, but for other reasons!
Hitchens reminds me of two other scribblers of note, Peter Oborne and (now rather forgotten) Paul Johnson.
All three are often intuitively correct on some issues, risibly mistaken on others. They are alike in other ways, too. As the Russians say, they are all “Maximalisti”.
Hitchens (like Owen Jones) blocked me on Twitter for ideological reasons. Hitchens (like Owen Jones) makes a very comfortable living from the System msm. Hitchens (like Owen Jones) poses no danger to the existing state of affairs, despite making much noise. Hitchens (like Owen Jones) is a mass media pussycat pretending to be a tiger.
I like to read Hitchens’ words occasionally. He is often right, not always. However, his words are commentary, not inspiration. He says in the interview that Britain is finished and that the only serious history of contemporary Britain will one day be written in Chinese! Maybe, but God moves in mysterious though sometimes sanguinary ways. As a Christian and a student of history, Hitchens should know that.
Hitchens’ recent book (which I have not yet read, but which promises to be at least as myth-shattering as those of the unjustly neglected historian Correlli Barnett)
Update, 18 September 2020
Since the above was written, Peter Hitchens has been almost a lone voice struggling against the “Coronavirus” panic and the allied government-proclaimed fear propaganda.
Update, 24 April 2022
Hitchens is now in the small minority of public figures unwilling to go along with the msm noise against Russia, and for Ukraine (meaning the Kiev regime of the Jew-Zionist Zelensky).
The British people were told that they and they alone would decide by referendum whether to stay in or leave the EU. Remain or Leave. No nonsense about “the Irish backstop”, no nonsense about “deals” with the EU, no ever-more complex rejigging of the UK-EU relationship, no second vote years after the Referendum (i.e. no “people’s vote”, to be held in 2019, 2020 or even later), no asking to remain in the EU for weeks, months, years after the set departure date.
Yes, the relationship between the EU and the UK is complex, but sometimes, with Gordian Knots, you just have to cut the knot. You can tie new knots later.
As I predicted at the time, Remain would immediately launch a kind of quite long term damage-limitation operation, building on the Operation Fear pre-referendum propaganda. The fear propaganda had a number of aspects:
No-one would be allowed to travel from the UK to EU states;
Before the UK was in the EU, no-one from the UK was allowed to travel to France, Germany, Italy etc without a visa;
No UK people could live or work in, eg, France, Spain, Italy, Germany before 1973;
Anyone voting Leave hates Europe and Europeans;
A vote for Leave is a vote for hate;
A Leave win would reduce most British people to poverty;
This propaganda was fuelled by even more than usually inept and wrong forecasts by hugely well-paid and hugely overvalued “erudite idiots” such as the Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, a globalist Bilderberg participant of probably part-Jewish origins (see Notes, below). Ex-Goldman Sachs and carrying Canadian, British and Irish (and other?) passports, Carney and others claimed that Brexit would immediately shrink the UK economy. In reality, such forecasts did that, by causing fear and uncertainty.
Many young people, meaning loosely anyone under 30 but especially the 16-24 age group, badly let down by their pathetically poor education, really seemed to believe the above bullet-points. They really believed that a Leave result would mean that they would not even be able to visit EU countries without onerous visa requirements. In fact, listening to them (bleat) on BBC radio, one realized that many seriously believed that, if the UK left the EU, they would not be allowed entry to EU countries at all! Yes, those who believed that were/are stupid, ignorant and poorly-educated, but the immediate blame must be placed on the Remain propagandists.
There were reports in the msm and on social media about pathetic teenage girls bleating and crying because “their whole future” had been “destroyed” (by older Leave voters)! Now they would never be international models, pan-EU entrepreneurs etc! In reality, of course, 99% of the young Remain whiners never were going to get well-paid or indeed any jobs “in Europe” (as they always mis-designate the EU). The few who might, always could (I myself once had a girlfriend who, in her 1960s youth, had been on the cover of the French edition of Vogue).
The Remain fightback started immediately. Project Fear was kept going, along with new lines: “the Referendum was not really valid because it was so close” was one. Another was “turnout was only 72%, so the Leave vote was really only about 37%”…
As Leave supporters countered, what if we applied that to General Elections? Or by-elections? We have just had a by-election at Newport West. I blogged about it and later added the result details:
In that by-election, Labour won, with a vote share of 39.6% of votes cast. However, turnout was only 37.6%. In other words, nearly two-thirds of eligible voters, many no doubt disgusted by the charade of “democracy” being played out, refused to or at least did not vote. Should we say that the result is invalid, because Labour was only voted for by about 15% of the eligible electorate?…
The same is true of the vast majority of constituencies where MPs have been “elected” despite having received less than 50% of the votes. Some MPs were “elected” on votes of 30%, the result of 3-way or 4-way splits. In view of the often low turnout in elections, that means that many MPs were voted for by only a fifth or even a tenth of the eligible voters!
People who could not be bothered to vote either way in 2016 must accept the result. Leave.
We should recall that every single referendum region in England, except London, votedLeave, most by very nearly 60%-40%. In fact, in the UK only London, Scotland and Northern Ireland voted Remain.
If you were to take out Scotland, Northern Ireland, London, Gibraltar and all non-white voters, Leave would have won, in England, by something like 75%-25%.
If there were to be another EU/Brexit referendum any time soon, Leave might in fact win all over again:
The point is that a promise was made to the British people and has been broken. Now we see that
The “Conservative” government has badly mishandled the 2-3 years of negotiation with the EU (was that deliberate? was that sabotage?);
An attempt has been made to have a “Brexit In Name Only” via a so-called “deal” which would be actually worse than just staying in the EU officially;
attempt(s) are made to revoke Article 50 and so to stay in the EU;
requests for extensions of time for departure (why?);
a House of Commons “legal coup d’etat” has been made, passing a law to all but outlaw Brexit, and passed by one vote, that of African convict Fiona Onasanya MP, who was recently released from prison and soon will not even be an MP! The Commons coup was arranged between Oliver Letwin MP, a Jew and former Rothschilds employee, and pro-Zionist would-be dictator Yvette Cooper MP.
In fact, the Rothschilds connection is interesting, because puppet President of France, Macron, a complete agent of Zionism, NWO and ZOG, also worked for Rothschilds.
Conclusions
There is effectively no or almost no real democracy in the UK now. People are waking up to that via the Brexit saga;
There is no political party, let alone one which is powerful and/or credible, which speaks for the British people;
Most MPs are useless, not even mediocre, and/or are just freeloading traitors; they are also, most of them, direct enemies of the British people. Many belong to secret groups of cosmopolitan manipulators. Many are pro-Zionist and/or have Jewish-Zionist connections, spouses, sponsors etc.
There must be a new and better society and a better system of government.
Update, 12 April 2019: a few thoughts about the near-future EU and local elections
The Brexit mess, so spectacularly mishandled by Theresa May and the idiotic careerists around her, may save UKIP from immediate collapse as a party, inasmuch as many British voters will want to punish the Conservative Party one way or the other. There may be a “perfect storm” for the Conservative Party, pressured on two fronts by both the Leave and Remain sides.
There will soon be elections for the European Parliament, on 23 May 2019. Recent opinion polling seems to be saying that Labour will have a landslide: initial voting intentions show Labour on 37.8% (up from 24.4% in 2016); Conservatives at 23.1% (unchanged), Brexit Party (Nigel Farage’s new party) 10%, LibDem 8%, UKIP 7.5%, Change UK (the recent Lab/Con defector MPs’ vehicle) around 4%, among others.
One has to be cautious in assuming that the above opinion poll reflects the likely outcome. The same poll seems to indicate that, after discussion, many pro-EU voters prefer Change UK (which would hit Labour and LibDem levels), while anti-EU voters may prefer either UKIP or Brexit Party.
Before the EU elections (in which the UK may not participate at all if the UK leaves the UK before 23 May), there will be local elections, on 2 May 2019. The indications are that, in those elections, Labour may also sweep the poll, with Labour benefiting not only from the “pendulum” or “see-saw” effect of elections in a system using FPTP voting, but also from abstentions by usual Con voters (or by their voting for Brexit Party or UKIP).
As far as the local elections are concerned, Labour starts the campaign with several advantages. The decade of spending cuts has finally impacted even the most true-blue Conservative areas. Labour has a army of local activists, thanks to its membership surge under Corbyn. It also has funds from the same source.
The Conservatives have few local activists now and most are beyond retirement age. The party looks tired. The Brexit mess can only be laid at the door of Theresa May and her Cabinet. The Cons will be lucky to avoid a wipeout in the areas voting on 2 May.
There are also strategic factors. The Conservative Party claims 124,000 members, which seems high (average 200 members per constituency). Most are elderly. Few are active. The median age for Conservative voters has also risen, to 52. Recent polling has shown that only 16% of voters under 35 support the Cons, and only 4% of those under 25 do so.
Not for nothing is (or was) France called La Belle France. If I had to name a country which, for me, challenges the better parts of England for its countryside, it would be France, where I myself lived for 4 years (in North Finistere, Brittany), commuting by car ferry to the UK every week or so. My first holiday away from my parents was a 3-week stay in Paris in 1971, aged 14/15. I stayed in the –at the time, not very smart– Rue de l’Arbalete, in the 5th Arrondisement on the Left Bank, near the Sorbonne, the Ecole Normale Superieur and the Jardin des Plantes, in which park I spent quite a lot of time looking at chess games, wandering about, sometimes drinking a strange green carbonated mint-drink. In other words, I like France (and often its people) very much, despite French bureaucracy and, at times, hugely irritating inflexibility.
The Present Situation
Now we see that many of the French cities are intermittently burning, that there are violent clashes between protesters and riot police in the streets, including the Champs-Elysees and the Boulevard St. Germain. There have been mobs running through the Tuileries, a ministry stormed, at one point the Jeu de Paume (museum/gallery) on fire. The number of protesters on the streets before Christmas 2018 was around 30,000. Now, in early January 2019, we are are seeing 50,000 and more. What is going on?
Macron and His Regime
We must understand that the current President of France, Macron, is the evil “genius” whose “reforms” have caused the uprising (for such it is becoming). However, the present situation is one which has roots going back to 1989 (when socialism in various forms died across the world), to the establishment of the Fifth Republic in 1958, to that of the Fourth Republic in 1946, and indeed to the fall of the Third Republic in 1940, with the consequent establishment of the Vichy government (in power from 1940 to 1944 and governing about half of the territory of France itself, as well as overseas possessions).
The “democratic” basis of the Fifth Republic has always been shaky, but it is arguable that France is more “democratic” now than it has ever been, at least since 1940: the President is now elected every 5 years (changed from 7 in 2000), and is elected directly by the voters, whereas from 1958-1962, the President, at that time de Gaulle, was elected by an “electoral college”. This “democratic” accolade is perhaps an omen, however: the last very “democratic” France, the Third Republic, collapsed from its own weakness and division, first amid an undeclared civil war between the Popular Front and its many and various opponents, then from external invasion, as the German forces swept across Northern France in 1940.
Macron and his pop-up “movement”, En Marche, did not come out of nowhere. Like other fake “movements” across Europe and the former Soviet Union (eg the “Orange Revolution” in Ukraine), Macron’s was funded by Jewish cosmopolitan financial circles. Macron himself worked for Rothschild et Compagnie Banque from 2008-2012. In those four years, and another after he left Rothschilds, Macron is said to have made about (possibly more than) 3 million Euros.
Let’s retrack and look at Macron more personally. He went to a Jesuit school, where, aged 15, he met a woman teacher, married with children and aged 39. This woman became romantically and sexually involved with him (sexually —supposedly— only after he turned 18, by which time she was 42 —and if you believe that, you will believe anything…), and left her husband and three children, later marrying Macron (in 2007, when he was 30 and she 54).
Macron only stopped being a student when aged 27, in 2004. He became an “inspector of finances”, a post at a high level in the civil service. He formed a strong connection with a Jewish businessman called Alain Minc, who lent Macron 550,000 Euros in order to buy an apartment in Paris. When Macron left the ministry, he had to buy himself out of his contract. That cost 50,000 Euros. Did that sum also come from Minc?
Here is what puzzles me about Macron: he reminds me of the young Faust, whom Mephistopheles calls “an intelligent youth whom it is easy to instruct”, if I recall the quotation aright. Thus we have the still-young Macron, only 29 and from, though not a poor background, not one of wealth either. He graduates, from the last of several institutions, aged 27, and within 2 years is lent over a half million Euros by a Jewish businessman, not even for a business idea but to buy personal real property. Not just any Jewish businessman, though. Minc has been on the supervizory board of Le Monde and has also been an advisor to several leading politicians in France, including Nicolas Sarkozy.
The oddness does not end there. In the same year, 2006, one of the wealthiest women in France, Laurence Parisot, who was head of MEDEF, the French equivalent of the CBI in the UK, offered the young Macron, who at 29 was still only 2 years from having been a student, the job of managing director of MEDEF (he declined). Laurence Parisot was also head of the bank BNP Paribas.
What else of note do we know about Macron? Well, in 2018 he was awarded the annual Charlemagne Prize, the first recipient of which (in 1950) was none other than Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi, the evil mind behind the Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan! Other recipients of the Prize have included Jean Monnet, the godfather of the EU, who received it in 1953, Konrad Adenauer (1954), Winston Churchill (1955), Edward Heath (1963; he brought the UK into the EEC, predecessor of the EU, in 1973), Henry Kissinger (1987), Tony Blair (1999), Bill Clinton (2000), Jean-Claude Juncker (2006), Angela Merkel (2008), Donald Tusk (2010), Martin Schulz (2015), Pope Francis (2016) and the very influential globalist and supporter of finance-capitalism (and alleged to have been an agent of the British SIS), Timothy Garton Ash (2017).
Macron’s En Marche “movement” was, it is alleged, initially bankrolled by the Rothschilds. 5-6 months before the foundation of En Marche in April 2016, Macron visited Israel.
Macron came to power because the French were tired and disaffected, estranged from the System parties. Marine le Pen of the Front National was thought to have a good chance of victory in the 2017 Presidential Election, so perhaps En Marche was formed by the System and Zionists partly in order to head her off.
Macron and those behind him intended to destroy much of what remains in France of “socialist”/social democratic policy as well as the relaxed lifestyle (including restricted business hours, hours of work etc) which is so much part of France’s appeal for those who live there.
Macron conceals his harshness behind a superficially-pleasant manner, but his mask has dropped, repeatedly. He said, for instance, that there are only two types of people, the “important” and the “nothings”. Such words have not been spoken openly in France for many many years. They call to mind 1789 without the cake!
Macron seems to despise the French people and to be sanguine about their replacement by blacks and browns, another thing that links him to Coudenhove-Kalergi, Tony Blair, Angela Merkel (etc) and to the Jewish-Zionist lobby.
There has been a migration-invasion of France and it continues. It was foretold in fiction decades ago, in the book The Camp of the Saints, by Jean Raspail.
The French people have woken up to Macron and to the cosmopolitan finance-capitalist globalists behind him. His approval rating was said to be 25% in late 2018, and may now be as low as 15%. 80% of French approve the Gilets Jaunes or Yellow Vests.
What Now?
What happens now is an open question. The Yellow Vests appear to have wide popular support, far beyond the 50,000 who are fighting on the streets, demonstrating, or standing vigil by roads etc. The government is about to take severe and even harsh measures. It remains to be seen whether such measures contain dissent or whether they will ignite an uprising of the poor and middle classes against the wealthy (relatively) few, against the powerful Jewish-Zionist lobby, and against the EU and other manifestations of the NWO (New World Order) and ZOG (Zionist Occupation Government).
[Addendum, 10 January 2019:I should add that what may prevent the Yellow Vests from developing beyond a mere protest movement is that they appear, as a group, to have no real ideology and little organized direction (not sure about the latter), but something more organized (in both senses) may develop.
Since the original blog post was published, the Yellow Vests have faded away, and Macron has been re-elected (2022), with 58.55% against Marine le Pen on 41.45%. A good result for Ms. le Pen, but nowhere near good enough.
Ian Robert Millard 