Category Archives: jeremy corbyn

HOW BRITISH POLITICS IS FAILING

The web based comment blog “Unherd” hosts interesting contributions from politically minded commentators.  The one below is interesting.

It is a recent contribution from Peter Kellner.  Peter Kellner is the Blairite Director of YouGov, the internet based opinion pollsters.  His opinion on the interpretation of statistics is well worth considering.  So when Peter Kellner says:- “I wouldn’t bet a great deal against changes that could be immense, and which not everyone will like”, we should take notice.  Also, as he is an enemy of English Nationalism and he is fearful of the consequences – so that should be encouraging too!  

Here is Peter Kellner’s article:-

HOW BRITISH POLITICS IS FAILING

Something odd, and possibly dangerous, is eating away at the fabric of British politics. Brexit, of course, has much to do with it, but the consequences could be with us long after the current crisis is resolved, one way or another. 

Signs of the malaise can be clearly seen in an exclusive survey for UnHerdconducted by Deltapoll. It shows a remarkable lack of faith in both main party leaders, not just by voters generally but by high proportions of their own voters. Loyalties are being tested as never before.  

In the past, one party leader has occasionally had a shaky reputation among their own supporters on one or two characteristics. In the early 1980s, many Labour voters thought Michael Foot was weak; towards the end of her premiership, many Tories considered Margaret Thatcher out of touch. But I have never seen so many supporters of both parties simultaneously hold such low opinions of their own leaders across the board.  

The responses of all voters shows that both leaders have strongly negative ratings on all counts. That is unusual enough. But when we look at the figures, showing how Conservative voters view Theresa May, and the figures, showing how Labour voters view Jeremy Corbyn, the scale of the drama becomes clear. The positive scores for May range from 57% of Conservative supporters who say she is strong, down to 40% who back her on Brexit. Her average score among Tory voters is 45%. Labour voters give Corbyn positive scores ranging from 64 to 38%; his average is 50%. Among all voters, the averages are, of course, even worse: May 26%, Corbyn 28%. 

To put these figures in context, a successful leader would expect average scores of around 80% among their party’s own voters and 40% among the general public. For both leaders to fall so far short of these figures should set off alarm bells in both parties. 

Here, though, is the paradox. Precisely because both leaders have terrible ratings, the scale of the problem is less obvious than it would be if only one was doing badly. In that case (as when Foot led Labour and towards the end of Thatcher’s premiership), their party would have support well below 30% in the polls and facing a landslide defeat. Instead, nothing much seems to have changed since the 2017 election. An average of recent polls shows the two parties still close together, and with almost as many supporters as 18 months ago. The high commands in both parties, though plainly struggling over Brexit, see no wider reason to panic. 

In truth, they should be terrified. For the poll shows that the disenchantment with the main parties and their leaders has spread throughout Britain. Within Westminster, it is rare to find any backbench Labour or Conservative MP who, giving their candid views in private, will say their leader is any good or that their party is in anything other than deep trouble. But some hope this despair is a feature of the Westminster bubble, and that real voters away from London have not changed their views of politicians and parties that much. 

In fact, it is increasingly hard to avoid the conclusion that millions of voters Left and Right are losing faith in the people who either govern us today or aspire to do so in the future. 

Which brings us to the possible long-term consequences of current public attitudes. In any country with a different electoral system, the chances are that support for both Labour and the Conservatives would have crashed by now. Across Europe, countries with more proportional voting systems have seen the traditional big parties slump in recent years – even with leaders less widely derided than Britain’s.  

Here, first-past-the-post creates a huge barrier to entry. Elsewhere, small parties ranging from the Greens to the far right have obtained a foothold in their parliaments with as little as 5% support, and then managed to increase their credibility. Here, they can’t. In 1983, the Liberal/SDP Alliance won 26% and only 23 seats; in 2015 Ukip’s 14% gave them just a single seat.  

The party that might have benefited from the Tory and Labour travails is the Liberal Democrats. But they paid a heavy price for their role in the 2010-15 coalition government. While their support has picked up a little in recent months, they are still scarred by decisions they took almost a decade ago. 

It is, of course, possible that when the Brexit drama has played out, normal service will resume. Perhaps May and Corbyn will both be replaced by leaders who have greater personal appeal to the electorate. 

I am not so sure. My reason is that May and Corbyn’s truly awful ratings do not flow solely from their personal attributes. Both lead deeply divided parties, and these divisions are unlikely to disappear anytime soon. The faultlines will remain: inward-looking nationalism versus outward-looking enterprise with the Tories; ambitious socialism versus progressive capitalism with Labour. A leader that combined the strategic ability of Napoleon with the genius of Einstein and the moral courage of Mandela would still struggle to win public approval if they could not reunite their parties. The Deltapoll figures providence symptoms of a deeper crisis. 

In short, both main parties are more fragile and less stable than for many decades. First-past-the-post could save both Labour and the Conservatives from the consequences of their current divisions. But it is no longer ridiculous to image a different future. Once the adhesive glue of our electoral system starts to crack, things can change with bewildering speed. A century ago, amid the stresses of post-First-World-War Britain and the divisions within the Liberal Party, realignment happened quickly. Labour climbed from fourth place in 1918 to government in 1924.  

Will Brexit end up having the same glue-cracking effect? And if it does, will the beneficiaries be existing herbivores such as the Liberal Democrats and the Greens; or some new centre party created by disenchanted Labour and Tory moderates; or carnivores on the outer fringes of Right and Left? Is the century-long dominance of Britain’s Parliament by competing forces on the centre Right and centre Left about to end? 

Ask me again in 10 years’ time and I shall tell you. Meanwhile I wouldn’t bet a great deal against changes that could be immense, and which not everyone will like. 

Here is the link to the original article>>>https://unherd.com/2019/01/how-british-politics-is-failing/

ENGLISH ETHNICITY – LABOUR’S VIEW

ENGLISH ETHNICITY – LABOUR’S VIEW

As various Labour commentators have pointed out, Labour has been moving away from its traditional core support amongst the English “white working class” to instead focussing on its new support amongst the ‘Rainbow Alliance’ of big city based multi-culturalists and internationalists.

Michael Dugher, who was the MP for Barnsley East, confirmed this in an interview with the New Statesmen in 2015 when he said he was perturbed by Labour’s failure to connect with the white working class population it used to represent, “Working class voters are not core vote anymore – you saw that in Scotland, you saw that in England”. 

The New Statesmen also reported that Dugher refers repeatedly to English identity:- “In parts of my constituency, they do fly the flag.  And they are right to be proud of it.  It’s as much about their pride and identity as it is a cry for help”, he says.  “When they fly that flag, they say I am proud of this country, I am proud to be English, I am proud of where I come from; but also, we haven’t gone away, and we deserve a voice, too.”

Interestingly Mr Dugher also said that Labour’s Scottish MPs “wanted to operate in Scotland without any reference at all to the impact on England.  Every time they talked about further devolution, the English and the Labour Party were excluded from that conversation.” 

More recently the New Statesman, on the 19thSeptember 2018, in an article headed:- 

“How the decline of the working class made Labour a Party of the bourgeois left.  Progressive politics in the 1990s turned away from class politics and solidarity in favour of group identities and self-realisation”

The article written by Professor Jonathan Rutherford makes the same point, in a perhaps more intellectualised way, as follows:-

“The future of British politics will be about the nation state of England, the union of our four nations, and their democratic and economic renewal. It will be about the renascence of the everyday life of work and family. Yet the problem for the left is its domination by an older political generation that lost faith in the idea of the nation, is sceptical about the future of work and doesn’t seem to believe in the family.

Throughout its history, the Labour Party has embodied the paradox of being both radical and conservative, and so it has played a vital role both in maintaining the traditions of the country and shaping its modernity. These dispositions are not party political. They are qualities of mind and character that are woven into the fabric of our English culture. In the words of John Stuart Mill, one demands the uprooting of existing institutions and creeds; the other demands that they be made a reality. One presses new ideas to their utmost consequences; the other reasserts the best meaning and purposes of the old. England’s paradoxical nature is embedded in our constitutional settlement.

Yet with the decline of the industrial working class and the growing influence of a professional middle class, Labour has lost its conservative disposition. Some will claim this is positive: the party is now more left-wing. But this misunderstands the nature of the change. Labour has become a more bourgeois liberal party, and it risks becoming a party in society but not of it.

Over the decades, progressive politics has believed in continuing social improvement and change without end. Its neglect of the human need for belonging – of the value of home and cultural familiarity, and of economic security and social stability – has created a bourgeois left that is deracinated. Its cosmopolitan liberalism and moral relativism have left it poorly equipped to address the questions now confronting its own children about the nature of adulthood, and the meaning and purpose of life, and how we can live it well.

Cosmopolitan liberalism

Cosmopolitans believe that their obligations to others should not be confined to fellow national citizens, but extended to include all of humanity. Yet in committing to everyone as part of a universal humanity, we commit to no one and nothing in particular.

Under the influence of this abstraction, progressive and left politics in the 1990s turned away from class politics and solidarity in favour of group identities and self-realisation. It rejected forms of membership that make a claim on people’s loyalty. The particularist loyalties of the nation state and inherited national customs and traditions divided individuals from their shared humanity. Among the more radical, this repudiation extended to their own white English ethnicity. A mix of white guilt and post-colonial politics delegitimised English culture as imperialist and racist, and by default those who value it.

Labour needs to make changes that are deep and far-reaching. It has to break out of its socially liberal heartlands in the public sector and metropolitan areas. It needs to bridge the faultlines dividing both the country and Labour’s own electoral coalition – social liberals vs social conservatives, towns and country vs cities, young vs old, north vs south, England vs Scotland.”

Here is a link to the original article>>> https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/09/how-decline-working-class-made-labour-party-bourgeois-left

These observations on the direction of travel that Labour is headed in are interesting and increasingly obvious when you consider the sort of things which you hear Labour politicians saying and see when Labour activists are filmed.  For instance just look at some of the delegates at their recent conference!

The question that arises of course is whether the growing gap between Labour, as it now is, and the direction it is headed in, will lead to a permanent divorce between it and the traditional English “white working class”? 

There is a Labour group which I have mentioned before, founded by the, former Labour Cabinet Minister, John Denham, called the English Labour Network.  They were represented at Labour’s Party Conference and one of their keynote speakers, Hackney Labour Councillor, Polly Billington, was talking about her English identity and “the need to separate Englishness from ethnicity”. 

The idea of Labour being able to redefine Englishness in such a way that it was wholly separated from its ethnic heritage is laughable and demonstrates the grave difficulty that Labour would have in trying to bridge the gap. 

This is especially so when you factor in that the Labour network and Polly Billington have had a lot of flack from Labour activists.  In effect the Party claimed that it is racist even to mention England and the English! 

Not only do many Labour activists not like the idea of England, but they are opposed to the idea of any nation or anynation state. 

It is difficult to see how those people could possibly be reconciled to any attempt to represent the interests of English people and of the English nation! 

The English Democrats manifesto explains Englishness as:-

3.17.1 It is common for those who assert their English identity to be challenged in a way that would be considered insulting if directed elsewhere. To avoid misunderstanding, and to meet the demands of those who are hostile to any assertion of Englishness, we have set out below what we mean by the English. 

3.17.2 The English can be defined in the same way that other nations are defined. To be English is to be part of a community. We English share a communal history, language and culture. We have a communal identity and memory. We share a ‘we’ sentiment; a sense of belonging. These things cannot be presented as items on a checklist. Our community, like others, has no easily defined boundaries but we exist, and we have the will to continue to exist.”

Whilst English “ethnicity” is not the only criteria for Englishness, it has the right to be recognised not just from a moral point of view, but also from a legal point of view. Refusal to recognise English ethnicity and to discriminate against people expressing it, or displaying it, is illegal and contrary to the Equalities Act 2010 and other equality legislation;  As the BBC found when it tried to sack an English Rugby reporter from its Scottish team because the Scots didn’t like a sassenach reporting on their rugby!  
 I refer of course to the ground-breaking case of Mark Souster against BBC Scotland.  This case upheld as embedded in the Law the legal principle that the English are a distinct “racial group” within the UK!

Polly Billington and the English Labour Network are of course applying the classic Fabian doctrine of “Adopt and Adapt”.  I shall be interested to see how they adopt and adapt their way out of the English having the legal right to be recognised as an ethnic group! 

This right is in addition to the legal findings in favour of English Nationalism and English National Identity. 

So no Polly, Englishness can’t be re-defined into multiculturalism by you or your group or by Labour generally!

MAY 2018 ENGLISH LOCAL ELECTION RESULTS


MAY 2018 ENGLISH LOCAL ELECTION RESULTS?
So what have we learnt as a result of the English 2018 local elections? Are they a political “watershed” milestone in English politics?
The first thing to note was that so far as the Labour Party was concerned, despite wildly optimistic predictions from the ideological Left and others, like Sadiq Khan, Labour only did well in areas where there was either a preponderance of politically correct Middle Class, mostly State employees, often with non-traditional value lifestyles, or in areas heavily dependent of welfare benefits, or where “ethnic minority” immigrant populations have become dominant. Labour is continuing on its path of becoming the multiculturalist “Rainbow” Party!
Elsewhere in England, Labour made very little progress.  As Prof Matthew Goodwin of Kent University and Prof John Denham of Winchester University and also the English Labour Network were correctly predicting that, in all the areas where people still predominantly identify themselves as being “English”, under its current policies (where Labour politicians can barely mention England or the English), any hopes of a Labour breakthrough were doomed.  This has proved to be absolutely correct. 

See: John Denham: Why does our Labour Party refuse to talk about England? >>>> https://labourlist.org/2018/04/john-denham-why-does-our-labour-party-refuse-to-talk-about-england/

And: Why Labour Needs An English Manifesto >>>> https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/labour-manifesto_uk_5a7d8cd3e4b044b3821c372f

Such progress as Labour did make can be explained either: 1/ by a collapse of the Green vote, (most of whose voters went back to Labour except for where the “Progressive Alliance” was effective; for instance in the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames, where 29 seats changed hands.  Almost all of these were lost by the Conservatives, and they all went to the “Progressive Alliance” of Liberal Democrats and Greens.  This success has led to some support from Labour MPs for Labour to join it >>> https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/07/labour-mps-revive-campaign-for-progressive-alliance, ;
Or 2/ by the third of former UKIP voters who appear to have voted Labour. 
These former UKIP voters have probably gone back to Labour on a conditional basis thinking that Labour is still committed to its General Election promises of ensuring a full Brexit.
However if Labour’s Parliamentary Party continues on its trajectory to become more Remain supporting and undermining of Brexit, this vote may easily be switched next time to parties that are genuinely in support of leaving the European Union.  It would appear that Labour’s deceitfulness and disingenuous on the Brexit question has to some extent worked – so far!
So far as the Conservatives are concerned, they are projecting this result as a great success, given that it was mid-term into a Government.  However it seems obvious from a look at the statistics that in fact their success, such as it was, was dependant on both hanging onto their own vote and also recruiting an average two-thirds of the former UKIP vote. This means that their continued success is very dependent on their Government maintaining a reputation for working towards leaving the EU.  This is however a Government which will have had to have achieved Brexit by the time of the next General Election. If they have failed to deliver a satisfactory Brexit by then, this result contains a strong hint of severe troubles to come for the Conservative and Unionist Party!
The result also does show that the Conservative leadership have again successfully used their long-standing tactic (also true of the majority of “Conservative” MPs, including Theresa May) of being dishonest and disingenuous by pretending to be Eurosceptics.  It is worth remembering that when the decision time came in the EU referendum they came out as Europhile “Remainers”.  If their true position has become clear, to those that voted Conservative this time, by the next election then I would say “woe betide” the Conservative Party – if there is then a credible alternative. 
The leaders of both Labour and the Conservative Party, Jeremy Corbyn and Theresa May, are clearly both liabilities for their parties, not only personally but also through political ideology.  If either Party were to exchange their current Leader with someone more in tune with real mainstream opinion in England, then their rivals would be in serious trouble come the next General Election.
So far as UKIP leadership is concerned the results were disastrous.  I understand, but didn’t hear her say it, that their Suzanne Evans MEP has said that the results show that “UKIP is over”. 
In my view, UKIP’s Party members and voters have done England a tremendous service in forcing Cameron to give us the EU Referendum and helping to ensure that it was won for Brexit. 
It was always going to be difficult for UKIP to adapt itself, given the disagreements amongst its members and supporters on most other issues other than wanting to come out of the EU, UKIP’s Leadership troubles have of course also contributed dramatically to breakup of UKIP support.  Having blocked UKIP branches from supporting a democratic Brexit voice for England with a ‘Brexit’ English First Minister they have failed their membership by gifting to the Conservatives the Eurosceptic position.
What these election results show however is that, if Brexit is not satisfactorily delivered by the Conservatives, and English interests continue to be ignored by both Labour and the Conservatives then there is a crying need for the English Nation to have a political party which will speak up for us. 
UKIP leadership has missed its English democratic chance but UKIP’s membership does have a natural place to go if they want to! They still can make their voices heard above a corrupt and out of touch British “Remainer” elite.
I, of course, think that English voice will be only found in the English Democrats.  In the coming months, I and other English Democrat activists, will be working to encourage over to our Cause of open English nationalism, all those English voters who care about England’s future, to come over to us so that will be able to effectively represent the English Nation. My message is:- Don’t give up your political voice, Don’t allow yourself to become a ‘ sad returner’ to the tired and old LibLabCon political group. England needs you! The English Democrats are here for you!
As Helen Lewis, the Deputy Editor of the New Statesman (aka Helen Lewis-Hasteley and married to Jonathan Hayes the Digital Editor of the Guardian) said on BBC Radio 4 on the 4th May just before the 9.00 o’clock News, the only way for UKIP to have been able to come back would have been as an English nationalist party.  Being a Labour “Remoaner”, she of course thought that would be “ugly”.   I will leave you to imagine what I think of that!

LABOUR IN TURMOIL IN SCOTLAND – AGAIN!

LABOUR IN TURMOIL IN SCOTLAND AGAIN


Kezia Dugdale, the Labour Scottish Leader, has just resigned with immediate effect after only serving a two year period since 15th August 2015.

On the face of it as, under her leadership the Party has gone from one MP to seven, you would have thought she might have been considered a success and be wanting to stay on. But she has resigned with all sorts of rumours as to why she has done so now floating around.

I wonder if the answer might be quite simple?

Ms Dugdale has invested a lot of time and effort in trying to move Labour towards a “Federal” system, whereby the different nations of the United Kingdom would have separate powers defined as against the powers of the centre (i.e. more like the United States of America), than was the case before the devolution process started under Blair.

She seemed to be having some success in terms of the newspaper headlines with it being announced only last week that Labour was going to move to a Federal system. 

Here is a link to an article about this >>> Jeremy Corbyn puts federal government ‘on the table’ if Labour win power | The Independent

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-labour-federal-government-kezia-dugdale-devolution-scotland-wales-northern-ireland-stv-a7913876.html

It then came out that the supposed “Federal System” was one in which England wasn’t going to get any representation, but instead the English “Regions” were going to get some sort of limited representation.

But what must have finished it off for her was Jeremy Corbyn’s remarkably stupid remark in answer to a question at a well-publicised Question and Answer session at the Edinburgh Festival in which he said:-

“We are thinking very hard about what forms devolution would take in the future. Devolution in Scotland has gone a long way.

“We are looking at the way we bring about genuine devolution and particularly economic devolution. Could you have a separate economic and legal system in different parts of the UK?

“I think that becomes difficult and very problematic. I want a Labour government that is going to legislate better working conditions for everybody across the UK.”

Here is a link to an article about this >>> Jeremy Corbyn mocked for saying ‘problematic’ for Scotland to have own legal system – even though it does already | PoliticsHo

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/home-affairs/justice-system/news/88503/jeremy-corbyn-mocked-saying-problematic-scotland-have

The fact that Mr Corbyn could say that about Scotland, which has always had a separate legal system not only shows that the man is profoundly ignorant of the basic constitutional structure of the United Kingdom, but also it gives an insight into his real views. What he said is just like a “spoonerism” where you mis-say a word which gives away your real views.

This comment is a political spoonerism where Jeremy Corby has given away the fact that he generally is not interested in any sort of a Federal system, since of course all Federal systems have to some extent different legal and economic arrangements in the different states!

If YOU had been working on trying to make Labour Federal and then your Leader had come up to Edinburgh and at a high profile event made such a stupid remark which gave away his true opposition to everything you had been working on, wouldn’t you resign too?

I wonder whether we will next hear that Kezie Dugdale has joined her new girlfriend the SNP Member of the Scottish Parliament, Jenny Gilrath in the Scottish National Party?

IS JEREMY CORBYN JUST ANOTHER DECEITFUL POLITICIAN?

IS JEREMY CORBYN JUST ANOTHER DECEITFUL POLITICIAN?


On the 17th August Jeremy Corbyn was interviewed by the BBC. The interview went as follows:-

Jeremy Corbyn:-

“I don’t think you can label the whole community. I think what you have to do is label those that perpetrate disgusting and disgraceful crimes against people and they can be from any community. They can be white, they can be black, they can be any community and they have to be dealt with as the crime of what it is.”

BBC interviewer:-

“Do you not think it is a problem with Pakistani men because we have seen in Rochdale, in Rotherham, Newcastle and Oxford that being the problem?”

Jeremy Corbyn replied:-

“The problem is the crime that is committed against women from any community. Much crime is committed by white people. Crime is committed by other communities as well. I think it is wrong to designate an entire community as the problem. What I think is right is to deal with problems, the safety and security and vulnerability of often young women who can be groomed by all kinds of people into some awful and dangerous situations.”

BBC interviewer:-

“Did you sack Sarah Champion?”

Jeremy Corbyn replied:-

“No she resigned.”

BBC interviewer:-

“Did you sack or did she resign”

Jeremy Corbyn replied:-

“She resigned”.

BBC interviewer:-

“So you did not sack her?”

Jeremy Corbyn replied:-

“She resigned.”

BBC interviewer:-

“If she had not have resigned would you have sacked her?”

Jeremy Corbyn replied:-


“Well she resigned so that is the question.”

BBC interviewer:-

“Do you think she was right to resign?”

Jeremy Corbyn replied:-

“She resigned and I accepted the resignation.”

BBC interviewer:-

“Do you think she was right to resign?”

Jeremy Corbyn replied:-

“Well I accepted her resignation so clearly I did and I thank her for her commitment to the safety of women and the vulnerability of women and championing equalities in this country and I will be working with her in the future.”


(Here is a link to the original >>> Jeremy Corbyn: Wrong to blame ‘entire community’ for abuse – BBC News).

This interview was in the context of his being asked about Labour’s Shadow “Equalities Secretary”, Sarah Champion, being forced into the position of resigning by him. Jeremy Corbyn repeatedly denied she had been sacked. 

The truth was, of course, that he had made it impossible for her to continue. If she had been an employee that would clearly have been a “Constructive Dismissal” situation. So that was Corbyn’s first deception in this interview.

The second deception in the interview was to claim:-

“I don’t think you can label the whole community. I think what you have to do is label those that perpetrate disgusting and disgraceful crimes against people and they can be from any community. They can be white, they can be black, they can be any community and they have to be dealt with as the crime of what it is.”

Sarah Champion had never said, nor indeed has any commentator from any part of the spectrum, so far as I am aware, ever said that the whole of the Pakistani or Muslim community, or the whole of any Muslim community, or indeed the whole of any community whatsoever, is involved in child sexual exploitation.

What Sarah Champion had pointed out however is nothing more or less than the truth, namely that the gangs of exploiters are principally Pakistani Muslim men (but also include other Muslim men) and also that the “ethnicity” of the victims was almost invariably young white English girls.

Jeremy Corbyn then went on to say that:-

“The problem is the crime that is committed against women from any community. Much crime is committed by white people. Crime is committed by other communities as well. I think it is wrong to designate an entire community as the problem. What I think is right is to deal with problems, the safety and security and vulnerability of often young women who can be groomed by all kinds of people into some awful and dangerous situations.”
This was his third deception in the short interview!

Where it is of course true that there are individual paedophiles from all communities, what is certainly not true is that there are gangs of paedophile criminals drugging, raping and prostituting on a hugely profitable commercial scale thousands of young girls from another ethnic or religious group.

The idea that there is any “moral equivalence” is however completely preposterous and shows how far adrift Jeremy Corbyn’s moral compass actually is. 

But then that is of course all too true of Labour politicians generally because they are the very Establishment Party that was most involved in protecting the Muslim politician child rape gang members and their “clients” and in closing down any criticism of what was being done and also in concealing it and also in persecuting anybody who opposed that. 

So I ask: Is Jeremy Corbyn any more or less deceitful than Tony Blair?

What do you think?

GENERAL ELECTION RESULTS

GENERAL ELECTION RESULTS
Amongst all the Tory angst and delusional crowing from the Labour side, as well as the fall out for the Liberal Democrats there has been very few reports about the English Democrats’ results. 
Before getting on to those I would just like to point out that, although Theresa May made many mistakes in both the calling and the conduct of the General Election, the sheer numbers of people voting Conservative did actually go up quite significantly. 
The Labour vote went up by slightly more, but the results aren’t a product of their increase in the vote, they are a product of more effective targeting by Labour than by the Conservatives. 
In particular Mrs May made the mistake of calling the General Election whilst it was still during the Universities’ term time and therefore lost several seats by small margins because of the student vote.  It also appears that some Labour student voters voted twice from some of the more idiotic boasting on social media!  I shall be drawing that to the attention of the police and of the Electoral Commission. 
Despite having somewhat increased their seats the Liberal Democrat Leader was forced out as a result of a coup within the Liberal Democrats.  This appears to have been orchestrated by Brian Paddick, whose only known achievement is to have been a senior policeman promoted, so far as one can tell, mainly because of him being gay, rather than because of any merit of his as an effective police officer. 
Tim Farron has expressly confirmed that it is no longer possible to be a Liberal Democrat and a genuine practicing orthodox Christian, let alone a scripturally based Evangelical Christian. As I have said in a previous blog, our politically correct British political Establishment has now decided that it is a breach of “fundamental British values” (sic!) to believe as Christ states in the New Testament:- “I am the way, the truth and the life:  no man cometh unto the Father but by me” (John 14.6). 
So far as UKIP is concerned, they have, of course, not only failed to win any seats but also lost the one seat that they had actually won in Clacton. They also lost almost all of their deposits. A result made worse by their leadership’s decision to stand 377 candidates instead of the 106 which would have been all that would have been required in order to qualify them to get all the publicity that they did in fact get during the election. 
So far as the English Democrats are concerned, we were not prepared for the election and, indeed, had spent all that was available on our standing in the local and Mayoral elections and so were only able to put up 7 candidates with the short notice given.  Most of our candidates did not distribute any leaflets, but in any case the issue, as we now know over many years’ experience, is not so much getting a single leaflet out, but much more importantly having the manpower resources to knock on doors, to have got data on our potential supporters already collected and to be allowed to do further leafleting of all potential supporters to make sure that they did actually turn out and vote. 
As our results show we are nowhere near achieving that yet. 
We do however fully intend to be at the position where we can win some seats at the next General Election. 
That is the aim which I am setting the English Democrats and we will be working towards achieving that and hope to be successful in doing it, provided of course that the next General Election isn’t called on another sudden whim by whomsoever happens to be the then Leader of the Conservative Party!
Here are our election results:-
North East Cambridgeshire – Stephen Goldspink – 293
Barnsley East – Kevin Riddiough – 287
Barnsley Central – Stephen Morris – 211
Holborn & St Pancras – Janus Polenceus – 93
Clacton – Robin Tilbrook – 289
Bradford South – Therese Hirst – 377
Doncaster North – David Allen – 363
I would also like to say thank you very much to our candidates for standing in the General Election and for keeping the flame of English nationalism burning. 
To quote the English theologian and historian, Thomas Fuller, in his religious travelogue ‘A Pisgah-Sight of Palestine And The Confines Thereof’ of 1650:-
“It is always darkest just before the Day dawneth”!

THERESA MAY’S JUNE 8TH GENERAL ELECTION DEBACLE


THERESA MAY’S JUNE 8TH GENERAL ELECTION DEBACLE

What a difference two months make in the new weak and wobbly British political landscape!

Two months ago we had the usual county council local elections occurring with some of George Osborne’s new “Metro” mayoral elections. Theresa May and the Government was regularly reassuring people that there was not going to be any General Election until 2020.

We are told that Theresa May then, on a walking holiday with her husband in Wales, decided that she was going to call a General Election.

Certainly in terms of the strategic and logistical background it does generally seem to have been an ill-considered and whimsical decision. One thing that we do know about May is that she does not consult widely. She only talks candidly to an inner circle of loyalists who are said to number no more than eight, including her husband and Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill West.

It has been leaked that nobody in the Cabinet was consulted about the decision and they were simply presented with a fait accompli that the decision had been made and that they were going for it. The same appears to be true about the disastrous manifesto and her further poor decision not to take part in any head-on TV debates with Corbyn.

The result is that her reputation has gone from Machiavellian Mastermind to Blithering Blunderer within the space of a few weeks!

Jeremy Corbyn on the other hand, to listen to journalist reports, has gone from Unelectable Loony Lefty to Populist Pied Piper in the same period!

Ignoring the hype what can sensibly be identified as the elements of May’s poor decision-making!

Politicians often think that they are the masters of electional planning. It is however true that whilst they have a lot of experience of the tactics of electioneering, they may not be the best judges of strategy and what needs to be considered at a strategic level.

Two startling examples of Mrs May’s failure to think through the strategy is that, if she had merely had the election a month later, the students from the universities would have been dispersed to their homes all over the country, in many cases not having a vote registered there and the string of Conservative losses such as Canterbury, Bath, Bristol West, etc. and Nick Clegg’s loss of Sheffield Hallam would not have taken place. Those are completely explicable in terms of the student vote. The fact that issue wasn’t even considered before timetabling the election must demonstrate vividly the lack of strategic planning within her process of decision making to call the election.

Another issue which is difficult to reconcile with any suggestion that there was a strategic element in the decision-making process is that the Government only needed to wait until October 2018 before the new House of Commons boundaries would come into force. These boundaries have been calculated on current populations and are thought to make it much easier for the Conservatives to get an overall majority. For a Conservative Leader to ignore that advantage in deciding to call an election shows a staggering lack of strategic thinking.

More generally I do not think that Theresa May succeeded in persuading voters that the election was really necessary for the purpose that she claimed to be calling it, i.e. as a mandate to push through her Brexit negotiations. Her unwillingness to take part in televised debates helped to make Jeremy Corbyn look a much more effective leader than she was. Her frankly rather silly slogans didn’t help to improve her standing.

We can’t however ignore the further example of catastrophic decision-making process which led to her producing her manifesto, without proper consultation with her Cabinet colleagues. It made even pensioners in English country towns and villages all across the land who had never voted for any other party other than the Conservatives in their lives, question whether they really wanted to support such a blunt attack on their interests. 

Indeed the manifesto was so bad in terms of populist appeal, that if you were minded towards a conspiracy theory then you might think that Mrs May had actually tried to lose the election! Personally I generally are more inclined to “cock-up” this “conspiracy” theory. I think that what has happened is not only a demonstration of Mrs May’s inadequacies, but also more generally how poor the British parliamentary system is at producing people to occupy leadership positions who genuinely have any real leadership abilities and characteristics.

Theresa May is one example of somebody with virtually no natural leadership ability. So of course was Gordon Brown another example. Jeremy Corbyn seemed to be similar but the fact is that when he was able to break out of the Westminster bubble effect, he does seem to have shown some considerable personal leadership qualities. The fact remains though that the establishment’s party system regularly seems to give people leadership titles and puts them into leadership roles which they are clearly personally unsuited to filling.

Labour Deserts English Voters!

Labour Deserts English Voters!

It seems highly probable that Jeremy Corbyn will be re-elected next week as Leader of Labour and then he and his “Momentum” group will set about the same task as Lenin applied himself to in reconfiguring the Russian Communists. 


Hard Left Momentum want to turn the Labour Party into a hard-Left party in which the Bolsheviks squeeze out the Mensheviks. 


Whether the de-selected Menshevik Blairite MPs will thereafter go on to form a new party or join the Liberal Democrats we cannot be sure at present. 

Leading the Menshevik tendency is Owen Smith who is a leading light in Wales’ “Taffocracy” and someone who wants reruns
of the EU referendum until the poor old Demos gives
in and votes ‘Remain’. 

Smith also wants England broken up into EU”Regions” and is
an open enemy of the English Nation.


Both candidates are therefore opposed to any pride in England or Englishness. So what does seem clear is that there really is no future in Labour for anyone who takes a pride in England or in being English.


Since those whom Labour has, in recent times, called the “white working class” are very likely to also call themselves “English”
that will amount, in historical terms, to a decision by Labour to cease to be a serious contender for Government (at least through democratic means!). 

Instead the “Momentum Labour” will no doubt seek to use their dominant position to infiltrate all aspects of our society, seeking to be the catalyst for socialist revolutionary change, however much such a change may be against the wishes of the majority of our country. 


For my part I wish them nothing but ill in that endeavour, but by doing so Labour will have given up any serious attempt to lead
the English, just as Labour has already lost any serious claim to lead the Scots! This is a change of historic and constitutional importance.

DOES CORBYN’S LABOUR HAVE ANY "MOMENTUM" IN ENGLAND?


DOES CORBYN’S LABOUR HAVE ANY “MOMENTUM” IN ENGLAND?


It seems highly probable that Jeremy Corbyn will be re-elected as Leader of Labour and then he and his “Momentum” group will set about the same task as Lenin applied himself to in reconfiguring the Russian Communists. 

Momentum want to turn the Labour Party into a hard-Left party in which the Bolsheviks squeeze out the Mensheviks. Whether the de-selected Menshevik Blairite MPs will thereafter go on to form a new party or join the Liberal Democrats we cannot be sure at present.

(Owen Smith is a leading light in the “Taffocracy” and someone who wants reruns of the EU referendum until the Demos gives in and votes Remain. Smith also wants England broken up into EU”Regions” and is an open enemy of the English Nation.)

So what does seem clear is that there really is no future in Labour for anyone who takes a pride in England or in being English.

Since those whom Labour has in recent times called the “white working class” are very likely to also call themselves “English” that will amount, in historical terms, to a decision by Labour to cease to be a serious contender for Government (at least through democratic means!).

Instead the “Momentum Labour” will no doubt seek to use their dominant position to infiltrate all aspects of our society, seeking to be the catalyst for socialist revolutionary change, however much such a change may be against the wishes of the majority of our country.

For my part I wish them nothing but ill in that endeavour, but by doing so Labour will have given up any serious attempt to lead the English, just has Labour has already lost any serious claim to lead the Scots!

Labour’s institutionalised anti-English racism and the Shami Chakrabarti Inquiry

Labour’s institutionalised anti-English racism and the Shami Chakrabarti Inquiry

Given all the recent overage of Labour’s anti-Semites I thought that I would look at the Inquiry which Jeremy Corbyn was forced into setting up to give the Labour Party cover during the recent elections.

Here is the site of the Inquiry http://www.labour.org.uk/index.php/chakrabarti.

On reviewing the Inquiry’s Terms of Reference I have sent this letter to Ms Chakrabarti:-

Dear Madam

Re: Terms of Reference of the Enquiry

It is my submission that the Terms of Reference of your Enquiry are prima facie racist themselves in so far as they are as follows:-

“Consult widely with Labour Party Members, the Jewish community and other minority representatives about a statement of principles and guidance about antisemitism and other forms of racism, including islamophobia.”

The racism in question is anti-English racism contrary to the Equalities Act 2010. The anti-English racism is direct in so far as the English are implicitly directly excluded from the enquiry and indirect in so far as the effect of the terms of the enquiry is to exclude the English.

This is particularly relevant and significant when in fact the predominating racism of Labour Party members and activists is against the English. This has been amply demonstrated by Emily Thornberry’s sneering tweet against home owners in Rochester signalling their English national identity with flying the Cross of St George. Jack Straw’s comment “the English as a race are not worth saving”!

John Prescott’s comment “There is no such nationality as English”.

Jeremy Corbyn’s comment “There has never been a collective voice for England”.

Tristram Hunt’s recent article in the Spectator stated that when he raised the English question with a member he encountered the response “that he should just go and join the British National Party (sic!).

I could go on to quote many other examples of anti-English racism on the part of Labour Party members and activists and, indeed, of Labour hierarchy, not least the discrimination against England in having a Welsh Party and Scottish but no English party. It is perhaps otious to do so, given the anti-English racist Terms of Reference of your enquiry.

Please confirm whether you would get the Terms of Reference expanded to include anti-English racism within Labour’s ranks or whether you accept that the terms of your enquiry are fundamentally flawed and discriminatory.

Yours faithfully


R C W Tilbrook