Category Archives: Party Politics

The Purpose of Government

In Britain, we see the two main System parties vie for public support. The Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn was regarded, until a week or two prior to the 2017 General Election as a joke. Deadheads such as Diane Abbott and Angela Rayner were openly laughed at by millions. Many more disparaged the “anti-patriotic” political histories of Corbyn and his closest allies. The Conservative Party under Theresa May was generally regarded as a safer pair of hands, more patriotic, more electable. What changed in those final weeks and days before polling?

The Conservative Party election bubble burst when Theresa May made a policy announcement about social care for the elderly. I believe that that suddenly floodlit, for millions, what the contemporary Conservative Party is all about. Since 2010, the Conservatives (firstly as the “Con Coalition” during 2010-2015), demonized and attacked –in some cases killed– unemployed, disabled, sick, generally poor and/or marginalized people. Now, however (as I had in fact been predicting since 2010), they were going after the pensioners, but that alone  (meaning also a backlash from pensioners or those nearing pensionable age) is not the whole story.

There was once a theory of government which said that the purpose of government was, in the language of today, defence of the realm, primarily: what we now call “defence” and, by extension, “national security”. External and internal defence. That was then. Today, in advanced countries, government is expected to do a great deal more than that. It is expected to care for the people in practical ways, either providing education, policing, health services, career opportunities, social assistance etc, or laying down the conditions in which those services etc can be provided by the private enterprise sector or the “charitable” or “non-profit” third sector.

This is the reason why Labour was able, despite all its flaws, to catch up with the Conservative Party: because Labour was at least offering (promising) help to the people, in circumstances where the only other party choice, the Conservative Party, was not.

The electorate, even in Britain’s notoriously unfair First Past The Post electoral system, is now in the driving seat. The people want things and services and they will not vote for any party which does not at least promise that the people will get what they want.

Labour is presently benefiting from this wish of the people that government provides help. Tomorrow, next year, in 2020 or, especially 2022, the wish may become a demand and the party benefiting may be one which, in 2017, does not as yet exist.


They Go Like Sleepwalkers, whence Providence Dictates

Adolf Hitler once remarked that he went like a sleepwalker to wherever Providence or Fate dictated. A cynic might ask why, in that case, did Germany lose the Second World War. I have thought about this over the years, coming to the conclusion (decades ago now) that Germany’s bitter defeat saved not only Germany itself but all Central Europe and even all Europe from terminal disaster.

As is well-known, the atom bomb scientists working on the Manhattan Project (the British end being known as “Tube Alloys”), were almost all Jews who had fled from or anyway left Europe to live in the USA. Their motivation was to create a weapon which would obliterate National Socialist Germany. Japan was but an afterthought.

So focussed were the Jew atom bomb scientists on Germany’s destruction, that when it seemed possible in mathematical theory that detonation of the first bomb in the desert of the South Western USA would cause the world’s atmosphere to catch fire, destroying all life on Earth, those Jews decided to proceed. A sombre fact indeed.

Had Germany not been forced to surrender by complete military defeat, it would have seen its main cities destroyed by atom bombs. The air, water, soil of much of Central Europe would have been contaminated for decades, in fact for centuries. Seen like that, the bitter defeat and humiliating  surrender was a saving grace in the end.

Why do I bring up these facts? Because I want to make the point that agencies above the human level act on what might be seen as “purely” earthly concerns: war, politics etc.

Move now to the present UK political scene. Less than 2 years ago, Jeremy Corbyn, an eccentric and –his critics said– extremist radical, was persuaded to stand in the Labour Party leadership contest and agreed purely because he wanted to have his kind of politics at least represented. It was uncertain as to whether Corbyn would even be allowed to become a candidate, because to stand, a candidate required nomination by 15% (35) of Labour MPs. Corbyn did not have even that much support. In the end, he was nominated, not only by the few who supported him, but by a number of MPs who did not support him and who had no intention of voting for him. Reflect on that. A number of MPs who were anti-Corbyn still nominated him and without those nominations Corbyn would not even have been on the ballot. As it was, Corbyn only managed to scrape onto the list with 36 nominations, the last a few minutes before nominations closed.

Once on the ballot, Corbyn’s supported mushroomed and he won easily, overwhelmingly. The same happened when there was a challenge to his leadership the following year. Events happened by which his opponents were wrongfooted. There seemed to be an aura of invincibility around Corbyn and his campaign. Indeed, in 2015, Conservatives were urged by Toby Young and others to join Labour under the £3 offer scheme and then vote for Corbyn, on the premise that a Corbyn leadership would sink Labour!

Mainstream media commentators seemed unable to fathom Corbyn’s appeal. Journalist Janan Ganesh, for example,  wrote that Corbyn’s election “spelled disaster” for Labour. I wonder if he wishes now that he had spiked that opinion!

Coming up to the 2017 General Election, the polls predicted Labour’s worst-ever disaster, with its MP bloc being reduced from 230 to as few as 150. Some predicted an even lower number. That general perception of Labour’s defeat persisted until about two weeks before Election Day, when the Prime Minister, Theresa May, suddenly destroyed both her own carefully-crafted public persona and her party’s chances. The bursting of the Conservative Party balloon was palpable. The polls immediately narrowed and by Election Day were showing the parties almost neck and neck. We should, again, reflect on this: Theresa May, for no reason, destroyed her own party’s campaign. For me, “the Hand of God” is shown here.

The eventual result of the General Election was a Labour MP bloc of 262, up from 230 and something few had seen coming. As for the Conservatives, though some loyalists said that “Labour lost”, that was and is not how it feels. The Conservatives lost 13 seats (317 won, down from 330) and their House of Commons majority. Corbyn’s stock rose and he is now said to be higher in public esteem than Theresa  May, while Labour is higher in the polls than the Conservatives.

Taking it as a fact, for the purposes of argument, that higher forces are protecting Corbyn, why would that be so? After all, he is some kind of agnostic, it seems, is not overtly religious or spiritual and does not on the surface seem to have anything to commend him to what Schwerin von Krosigk termed “the Angel of History”. All one can say to that is the admittedly-platitudinous comment that “God moves in mysterious ways”. There are a few ideas that come to mind: the Conservative Party may now be prevented from imposing a Jewish-Zionist repression on freedom of expression on the Internet, for one thing. It is also far less likely that the UK can get involved in Israel-instigated wars or attacks in other parts of the world.

It may be, also, that it is necessary that the UK has to have a weak System government, so as to gradually open the door to social nationalism and a completely different society down the line. I cannot say. All I can say is that it seems as if Corbyn does enjoy a degree of “divine protection” and it will be fascinating to see how that plays out in the coming months and years.

General Election Day 2017

I write in the early morning of 8 June 2017, General Election day. Within 24 hours, most results will have been counted and announced. Some will come in later in the day on the 9th.

Against almost all expectations (including my own) the election looks as if it may be close-run. Predictions from polling organizations offer everything from a hung Parliament (no overall House of Commons majority) to a solid Conservative HoC majority. However, few if any “experts” are now predicting the 100+-majority landslide that seemed almost inevitable just a few short weeks ago. What happened?

To my mind, what happened to the “Conservative landslide” is that voters suddenly woke up to Theresa May as a brittle, nervy, unhealthy (type-1 diabetes) woman who, though clever at the Westminster version of office politics  (outmanouevring opponents etc), is not really a national leader. Her “strong and stable” mantra played well at first against a Labour Party frontbench that was (and still is, largely) a joke, but May’s U-turns on policy damaged her and her party badly. The impression was twofold– first, that policies which impact upon almost every family in the land had not been properly thought through; secondly, that faced with public and newspaper opposition, Theresa May was willing to trim or even abandon her policies. “Strong and stable” became “weak and vacillating”. There is a third aspect: Theresa May was seen suddenly as someone who might be ruthless in stamping on such as the pensioners whose votes are so vital to the Conservative Party.

There is that “backroom person suddenly given power” thing about Theresa May. Her career outside politics was at the banks’ cheque-clearing organization, BACS, hardly exciting or cutting-edge work. In fact, as MP and minister, Theresa May did not shine and her long tenure as Home Secretary was marked by absurd initiatives and continuing mass immigration, as well as by the sacking of 20,000 police officers. Her main focus was on careerism, becoming a minister, then plotting for years to become Prime Minister.

The people around Theresa May are not impressive and had been kept in the background by the Conservative election machine. In particular, clown prince Boris Johnson was not prominent. When he did emerge, he messed up (again).

Jeremy Corbyn, on the other hand, went during the campaign from looking like a mixture of crazed radical and ineffectual duffer to looking quite reasonable and, in a word, electable, at least to many. Corbyn too was surrounded by people at best mediocre: Diane Abbott (replaced a day before the election on grounds of “ill-health” after several staggeringly-bad TV and radio interviews); Dawn Butler; Angela Rayner. All deadheads.

Corbyn had been the hate-figure of the mass media, the Jew-Zionist-Israel lobby and the Conservative Party to such a great extent that he eclipsed those around him. In the end, ironically, that may have played well for Labour. The Presidential-style campaign pitted May against Corbyn and, as May’s campaign unravelled, Corbyn’s did not and Corbyn himself began to look a lot more reasonable than May to many.

Labour has promised much. It may not be able to deliver; but the Conservatives seem to offer nothing but ever-more poverty, low pay, poor prospects, more “austerity” nonsense and repression of free speech, egged on by the Jewish Lobby which is so powerful in the Conservative Party (Theresa May herself being a member of Conservative Friends of Israel, as are 80% of Conservative Party MPs).

Few, if any, expect Labour to somehow “win” the election, either by getting a House of Commons majority (practically impossible in view of Labour’s long-term shrinkage and the dominance of the SNP in Scotland) or by becoming the largest party in the HoC. However, Labour now looks as if, far from shrinking its MP numbers from 229 to 200 or even 150 as many (including me) had thought likely, it might retain a Commons bloc (cadre?) not very much reduced from where it was after 2015. A small increase is also not now impossible.

The small Conservative majority in the House of Commons (6, but in practice more because of the non-voting of the Speaker, Sinn Fein MPs, suspended MPs etc) might as easily decrease as increase. A hung Parliament would leave the Conservatives as the largest party, almost certainly, but unable to rule except as a minority government, outvoted easily by hostile parties, notably Labour and SNP.

Could Labour form a minority government? The convention is that the largest party in the Commons has first chance to cobble together sufficient Commons support. As Bagehot put it, a government is formed when a party has “the confidence” of a majority in the Commons. If the Conservatives as largest party could not agree something with the SNP, then Labour might try, with a greater prospect of success. Labour social policies are closer to those of the SNP. The same is true in the foreign policy arena.

If the Conservatives achieve a majority greater than that presently enjoyed, then the above will be –in the American sense– moot and irrelevant. If, however, the Conservatives have no majority, then it is quite likely that Labour, even if not the largest party, will be able to form a minority government.

The only fly in that ointment is that the SNP has fewer than 60 seats in the HoC. It may well have only 40 or 45 after the election. If Labour ends up with, even, 250 (20 more than where Labour was before the election was called), that will still be far fewer than 300 even with SNP support, 326 being the necessary number. That would necessitate support from LibDems, Plaid Cymru, Northern Irish MPs etc. Difficult.

One thing is for sure: if the Conservatives lose seats, then Theresa May will have to resign. Corbyn is in a better position. His power comes from the members, who still seem to support him strongly. Moreover, the anti-Corbyn Labour MPs (many of whom are pro-Israel mouthpieces) lose either way. If Labour does reasonably well or not too badly in the election, Corbyn’s position will be upheld. On the other hand, if Labour is badly defeated in the election, the most aggressively anti-Corbyn MPs will lose their seats. They are toast either way.

Looking beyond the election, there will be a space for a new social-national movement down the line. The System parties are increasingly less capable of sorting out Britain’s problems.

General Election 2017: Stoke-on-Trent North


Stoke-on-Trent North constituency was established in 1950, since which time it has been a safe Labour (or Labour Co-op) seat. Only since 2015 has its status been considered to have become marginal.

For the first 29 years of the existence of the constituency, the Labour vote did not dip below 60% and was often above 70%, peaking at 75.49% at the 1953 by-election

Only in 1970 did Labour fail to secure over 60% of the vote, coming in with 59.36%. That was also the first election at which 4 candidates stood. In fact, only once before that had there been more than 2 candidates (October 1974: Lab, Con, Liberal). In 1979 the Labour, Conservative and Liberal candidates were joined by one from the National Front (the NF lost their deposit, securing less than 1% of the vote).

In the 1980s, there were commonly 3 parties in contention, but from 1992 others joined the fray. There were 7 candidates in 2005, 5 in 2010 and 7 in 2015.

Joan Walley, the MP for 28 years (1987-2015) had vote shares above 50% and even 60%, peaking at 65.2% in 1997. Her final election, however, in 2010, was achieved on a lower level: 44.3%.

The MP from 2015-2017, Ruth Smeeth, was elected on a vote share of only 39.9%, the lowest Labour vote share ever in Stoke-on-Trent North. There may have been a number of causative factors: long-term decline in the Labour vote; also, the number of candidates contending (Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Green Party, UKIP and 2 Independents). The Labour candidate herself may have been another factor in the lacklustre Labour performance.

Ruth Smeeth

Ruth Smeeth is not from the West Midlands. Her origins (as far as the UK is concerned) lie in Edinburgh and London. Her Jewish mother came from a background in East London where her immediate family members in the 1930s were engaged in crime and gangsterism: the era of razor gangs and the like. They were violently opposed to the English people who supported Oswald Mosley and were engaged in streetfighting or worse.

Ruth Smeeth has described herself as “culturally Jewish” and worked for years for the “Britain Israel Communications Centre” [BICOM], a public relations or propaganda outfit working on behalf of Israel and Zionism:

In 2009, Bradley Manning, the American whistleblower, made available to Wikileaks a cable in which the American Embassy described Ruth Smeeth as “a source” whom the Embassy staff should “strictly protect”. It is largely a question of definition whether such a person is called “a confidential contact”, “an agent of influence”, more simply “an agent” or (brutally? unfairly?) “a spy”. The diplomatic cable simply used the words “a source”.

Despite the above, the Labour Party machine was determined to get Ruth Smeeth adopted as the candidate for Stoke-on-Trent North and she was, after an all-women shortlist was imposed on the selection procedure. Surprisingly (or perhaps not), her activity for the American and Israeli governments seems not to have barred her from becoming the candidate.

As an MP, Ruth Smeeth has taken part in some minor campaigns (see the Wikipedia article, above), but has also spent much time attacking the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn; she has been vocal (on occasion, near-hysterical) about alleged “anti-Semitism” in the Labour Party and generally.


Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Green Party are all putting up candidates. The obvious absentee is UKIP. In 2015, Labour’s vote was 39.9%, Conservative vote 27.4%, UKIP 24.7%, the LibDems 2.9% (down from 17.7% in 2010 and 14.8% in 2005); Green Party secured a vote share of 2.8%.

The constituency voted about 60%-40% for Leave in the EU Referendum.

It would be too easy to add together the 2015 vote shares of the Conservatives and UKIP (combined, 52.1%) and assume that UKIP votes will be transferred to the Conservatives. The chances are that a high proportion will either not vote or will go elsewhere than to the Conservatives. However, we can probably guess that half of 2010 UKIP votes will be gathered in by the Conservative candidate (particularly bearing in mind Brexit etc), making a possible Conservative vote share of perhaps about 40%, possibly several points higher. Then there is the (open) question of how many 2010 Labour voters will go Conservative.

Labour is unlikely to do as well this time as it did in 2015 after five years of Conservative-led coalition government. Any persons who support Labour generally but are anti-Israel (or anti-Zionist or, indeed, “anti-Semitic”) will not vote for Ruth Smeeth and will probably either vote Green or even LibDem, or just stay home, “voting with their feet”. Likewise, any Labour members who are strongly pro-Corbyn may well decide that what they have to do is abstain or vote elsewhere, simply in order to get rid of Ruth Smeeth and then get a more suitable Labour candidate for next time.

Realistically, only Labour and Conservative have a real chance. That means that the LibDem and Green votes, even if as small as they were in 2015 (under 3% each) are of importance.


Both Labour and Conservative candidates are likely to be in the 35%-50% range, with the Liberal Democrats and Green Party contending for the remaining 10% or 15% of votes.

I assess the likely outcome as follows: Conservative Party to win Stoke-on-Trent North for the first time over Labour, with the Greens (possibly) third and LibDems (perhaps) bringing up the rear.

Press Coverage

Bookmakers’ Odds

At time of writing, the Conservative Party is odds-on to win:


The Self-described “Left”, “Liberals” and “Democratic Socialists”: The Fall of the Pretensions

Those who follow me on Twitter, WordPress etc will know that I never use the now-outdated terms “Right”, “Left”, “far-Right” etc. Politics is more nuanced now. There are not two monolithic ideological blocs facing each other. However, others do still use such terms, for what they are worth. Those who self-describe as “left”, as well as some “liberals” and “socialists” have been celebrating the rigged election (rigged via propaganda and hullabaloo) of a French presidential election candidate, Macron, who should be their worst nightmare.

In Macron, we see someone who believes in the virtually untrammelled movement of money across the world. He describes French culture as non-existent, he wants to destroy most of the rights of French citizens in respect of employment, State benefits and in respect of their culture. You would think that such a person would be anathema to the so-called “left”, yet most of the latter in France supported and voted for him rather than voting for Marine le Pen, not even abstaining. Their counterparts in England applaud Macron, because he opposed Marine le Pen.

As in other political matters, the role of the Jewish Zionist element is key.

In the UK, the upcoming General Election is likely to be a “landslide by default”, with the misnamed “Conservatives” sweeping all before them as their main rivals (UKIP, Labour) implode (the LibDems being unlikely to figure except as peripheral players). Again, the self-described “left” has nothing effective to say. Its supporters prefer to laugh at the demise of UKIP (and in general the failure of non-Conservative nationalist parties) rather than offer the British people anything by way of effective opposition to the Conservative regime under Theresa May.

The Labour Party is now widely expected to achieve no more than 150 or so seats, a prediction I made a year ago. Some predict as few as 125. Labour is declining from what it was until 2010, with a self-view and image as a national or UK-wide party, to that of an English and Welsh party focussed around and supported by, mainly, some ethnic minorities and public sector workers.

The self-described “left” favours many things which most British people do not: mass immigration, open borders, globalized movement of people, of money, of employment. These are also favoured by the Conservative Party and the LibDems.

The people have been left out. They are the victims not only of the rootless cosmopolitan finance-capitalists but of those who have claimed until now to speak for the people: the “left”/”socialist”/”liberal” political parties and the trade unions tied in with the “socialist” or “social democratic” political parties. The whole journalistic milieu, pretty much, can be added to the mix, as can a good deal of the “media” world generally, including entertainers etc.

The “Left”, “liberals”, non-national “socialists” etc are now not speaking for the people of Britain (or any part of Europe). Their pretensions are exploded. They can only applaud the anointing of a completely-manufactured fake and puppet, such as Macron, just as they applaud the finance-capitalist EU (and imagine that it will somehow protect “rights”, despite “holocaust” “denial” laws, arbitrary cross-border arrest etc), just as they applaud mass immigration and just as they want open borders so that the detritus of the failing post-1945 international order can flood across Europe, destroying everything in its path.

The fall of the pretensions means that, soon enough, nothing will stand in the way of pan-European (but anti-EU) social nationalism. It will speak for the people and it will be heard.

The UK Local Elections 2017 as a Guide to the General Election and Beyond

Writing before all results have been reported and collated, it is nonetheless simple to discern the main outlines: the Conservatives have done well, Labour has done badly, the LibDems have done fairly badly (though well here and there) and UKIP has been effectively extinguished. As the experts have been at pains to explain, the local election results do not translate exactly into General Election results, but they do provide clear indications.


The Conservative Party and government under Theresa May is not, in fact, “popular”, but that makes no difference electorally, because it is not judged on its merits (or those of the quite similar 2010-2015 government) but as against failing Labour. The Conservatives are winning by default, not by reason of their own (non-existent) merit.

Anecdotal evidence is always suspect, but in the South of England it is clear that relatively few will vote Labour on 8 June. Labour will win no seats and may lose the few still held, even in parts of London (the Labour bastion in the South).

As for the rest of the country, the SNP and Conservatives will sweep the board, very likely, in Scotland; in Wales also, the Conservatives are likely to do well (in places), now that UKIP is no more.

The only part of England where the Conservatives will struggle will be the North East and even there they may do better than at any time since the franchise was expanded in the early 20th Century.

The Conservatives have an almost unassailable advantage in that they need only avoid doing something which terrifies the voters in some way. Labour provides all the reasons voters need to vote Conservative: support for more mass immigration and open borders for “refugees” (migrant-invaders); its leaders’ one-time support for the IRA etc; uncertain policy on EU Brexit; most of all, Labour’s perceived ineptitude (one need only use two words– Diane Abbott!

The UKIP collapse alone will give the Conservatives votes enough to take many Labour seats. It seems that about half the 2015 UKIP voters will not only not vote UKIP but will vote Conservative. UKIP came second in no less than 120 constituencies in 2015. That speaks for itself. Many of those seats were Labour, 44 in fact:

2015 UKIP voters switching to Conservative has a twofold effect: firstly, Cons taking Labour seats; secondly, preventing Labour or the LibDems being able to take many, possibly any, Conservative seats.

Likely number of seats: from 400 to 425


I have been tweeting and blogging that UKIP is washed-up for about 18 months now. Finally the msm has caught up with me. UKIP had two main policies which were popular: getting the UK out of the EU; reducing immigration. The Conservatives have taken over the first and pay lip service to the second. This leaves UKIP with nowhere to go. Add to that the clownish behaviour of its “leaders” (MEPs, mostly) and it is not hard to see why UKIP will struggle to avoid annihilation, even in Eastern England. Its Stoke Central by-election fail (see my earlier blog posts) was a warning: the disenchanted voters were not willing to get out of bed or leave their TVs long enough to vote UKIP.

UKIP’s weakness has always been its even distribution across England. Even on nearly a quarter of the vote in some seats and a national vote of 12%, nothing was won in 2015, whereas the Green Party, with a national vote of  less than 4%, could capture one seat because it had enough votes in one place to win narrowly in a 4-way split. UKIP’s support is expected to decline to as little as 4% nationally soon.

Under a proportional system, UKIP would have obtained 80 MPs in 2015.

That leaves open the question: if half of UKIP voters are defecting to the Conservatives, what about the other half? Probably staying home, not voting, most of them.

Likely number of seats: 0

Liberal Democrats

The LibDems call themselves “cockroaches” for their ability to survive. Many think them the least principled party in British politics. In 2010, the LibDems obtained roughly a quarter of the vote, but (like UKIP in 2015) were cheated by the FPTP voting system and ended up with 57 seats, when their vote share would under proportional voting have entitled them to 160 or so. As it was, the LibDems sold out on PR and other matters and suffered accordingly by being reduced to 8 MPs.

It is possible that the LibDems will be able to take seats from both Con and Lab, but their best chances will be in the South of England. Having said that, they may well also lose a few.

Likely number of seats: about 12


Labour is at last in that “existential crisis” which many (including me) have forecast for the past 18 months. The Jewish-Zionist plots against anti-Israel Corbyn have blown wide open Labour’s lack of relevance now that the proletariat has been replaced by the precariat. The Zionists have done such a good job of demonizing Corbyn (and so Labour) that many of Corbyn’s fiercest MP critics are likely to lose their seats!

Labour was struggling to present itself to the electorate as competent even before Diane Abbott started to come apart at the seams. The earlier mass resignations of more competent people left Corbyn surrounded by bad-joke Shadow Ministers: Diane Abbott as notional Home Secretary (to call that a joke is an understatement), Dawn Butler (both of the foregoing not only deadheads but expenses cheats!), Angela Rayner etc etc. Only the most unthinkingly loyal Labourites will be voting Labour under these conditions.

Labour’s leaders have consistently supported mass immigration (both past and future) and see nothing wrong in that. At the same time, the “Blairite” (Zionist) MPs have often also supported or not opposed Conservative cuts to social security (including the cruel and dishonest “assessment” of the disabled and sick, which Labour in fact introduced!); these policies and statements have alienated, perhaps forever, many traditional Labour voters.

Above all, perhaps, Labour is (surely correctly) seen as hopelessly divided, hopelessly inept, generally hopeless. It has no prospect of winning any seats at all and every prospect of taking a serious hit on 8 June.

Beyond the General Election, it is likely that Labour will decline into being a niche party for ethnic minorities and unionized public sector workers.

Likely number of seats: about 150

Other matters

I do not deal with other parties here, but it is likely that the SNP will end up with 40-50 seats; the Northern Irish parties have seats; Plaid Cymru will probably have a couple, perhaps a few.


Conservative landslide by default, barring something very unusual happening in the next month. People voting against Labour, not for Conservative, but the immediate result being the same.

The 8 June election will mean “Conservative” government for probably 5 years, to 2022 That is the 33-year-cycle successor year to 1989, which saw the end of socialism across the world. 2022 will see another huge change, in Europe and beyond its shores. A social national party, even if it only starts operations in 2017 or 2018, might be able to seize the initiative in the UK and then seize power.

John Woodcock, Barrow and Furness and the General Election 2017

It has been announced that John Woodcock will be allowed to stand for the seat of Barrow and Furness. He has therefore survived a serious threat of deselection, having said publicly that no-one should vote Labour in the General Election (presumably excluding from his exhortation those voting for him).

John Woodcock

Woodcock, now 38, is one of those MPs who has never had a non-political job, unless is counted a brief spell as a trainee journalist on The Scotsman. Personal details are “a little vague”, but he was born in Sheffield and attended the University of Edinburgh. After his time at The Scotsman, Woodcock was an aide to John Hutton, the MP for Barrow and Furness from 1992-2010 and now in the House of Lords. He was also (2009-2010) a Special Adviser (SpAd) for the then Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. He was elected as Labour (strictly speaking, Labour and Co-operative) MP for Barrow and Furness in 2010.

As MP, Woodcock has been associated mostly with the Israel lobby and was even Chair of (Parliamentary) Labour Friends of Israel from 2011-2013. He prefers to talk more about his self-serving support for Trident (the submarines for which are built in Barrow-in-Furness, the main population centre in the constituency).

Woodcock’s entries in the House of Commons Register of Members’ Interests show donations from the governments or agencies of Israel, China and Kurdistan:

Woodcock is one of the most anti-Corbyn Labour MPs and was until 2015 the Chair of Progress, the Blairite group. He has repeatedly called for the removal (as Labour leader) of Jeremy Corbyn and has been associated with the most anti-Corbyn of the Labour plotters, including Liz Kendall (who stood against Corbyn in the second Labour leadership election, receiving 4.5% of the vote and coming last out of the four contenders). Woodcock has denied that he had some kind of affair with Liz Kendall, though rumours persist. At present he is involved with fellow-depressive Isabel Hardman of the ultra-Conservative Spectator magazine (Woodcock’s depressive illness is said to have been triggered by what his own political website describes as “a nasty fall from his attic ladder”, a Fawlty-esque vision, arguably: falling off an attic ladder hardly compares with, say, the WW2 Arctic Convoys, the Normandy Landings, the Siege of Leningrad or the Battle for Berlin). He is, it seems, separated from his wife, mother of his children.

Woodcock is intolerant not only of dissent generally but of views in conflict with his own, especially where Jews and Israeli interests are concerned. I declare an interest here: the fake “revolutionary” scribbler Owen Jones tweeted to Woodcock in 2015 that he should block me. Woodcock complied immediately!

So there we have Labour’s 2017 General Election candidate for Barrow and Furness: a not very popular, pro-Israel, pro-China Blairite, whose marriage collapsed because of his behaviour and who is currently involved with another depressive case, which lady is an ultra-Conservative scribbler. Not very appealing.

Barrow and Furness: political analysis

It is possible to think of Barrow and Furness as being now a marginal Lab-Con constituency despite the fact that, since Labour’s win in 1945, the Conservatives have only won twice (1983, 1987). The Labour majority that Woodcock inherited was 5,208. Woodcock’s tenure as MP reduced that in 2015 to 795 on a similar turnout. The 2010 Labour vote share was 48.1% (Con 36.3%); the 2015 Labour vote share was 42.3% (Con 40.5%).

The Liberal Democrat vote share of 10% in 2010 was slashed to 2.7% in 2015. It is hard to see that increasing much, bearing in mind that the Barrow and Furness area voted Leave in the EU Referendum:

Woodcock is strongly Remain and that again pits him against most Barrow voters.

The UKIP vote in 2010 was a fairly miserable 1.9%, but was elevated in 2015 to 11.7%, enough to achieve a third place. However, it is unlikely that that relative success can be repeated. The majority of 2015 UKIP voters will probably defect to the Conservatives, especially now that they scent blood vis a vis removing Woodcock.

Other parties are not very significant. The BNP and Greens both stood in 2010, both losing their deposits. The Greens also stood in 2015, more than doubling their vote (but only to 2.5%).

Conclusion and Prediction

Labour will struggle to hold the seat. Woodcock is not considered to be a very good constituency MP and will be, so to speak, handicapped by his mental issues and by the fact that many Labour voters may prefer to stay at home rather than vote for him.

Woodcock (and so, Labour) has the advantage of being pro-Trident in a pro-Trident constituency, but (barring the Greens) that is a given for candidates in Barrow and Furness.

The 2015 Conservative vote increased by about 4 points over that of 2010. Earlier votes were far below this level: 1997 27%, 2001 30%, 2005 31%. The direction of travel has been upward for 20 years. If the Conservatives can add the votes of UKIP defectors to those of their own loyalists, they can win if enough formerly Labour voters either vote Conservative or stay at home. The Conservative candidate is the same as in 2015, which may help their cause.

Overall, the Conservatives have a good chance of scoring their first win at Barrow and Furness since 1987.