Should We Prepare for Social Collapse?

We read of those, especially in North America, who are termed “preppers”, people preparing for various forms of disaster (nuclear war, an asteroid hitting the Earth, inability of the State to maintain civil order) leading to social collapse, either with rampaging and desperate hordes of displaced people everywhere or with a mere few “survivors” from whatever calamity has struck. We in Europe tend to laugh at these American excesses (as they seem to us), but perhaps we should be less amused and more cautious.

Naturally, there is a huge difference in geographical and demographic norms. The wide open spaces of much of the USA and Canada contrast starkly with Europe, particularly the UK, with its centuries-old man-altered landscapes, densely-populated cities and towns, lack of true wilderness (except in the North-West of Scotland).

The population density of the USA, overall, is 92 persons per square mile; that of the UK nearly 700. Naturally, that is a misleadingly simplistic picture. The most densely-populated American state, New Jersey (where I myself once lived) has a population density of over 1,200 ppsm, whereas, while the UK West Midlands region has a density of over 3,000 ppsm and Manchester over 2,000, Devon has only 172, Cornwall 154 and the Scottish Highlands and Islands only 11. On the other hand, there is the point that “crowded” (in parts) New Jersey, the 4th-smallest American state, is about the same size as Wales. The more sparsely-populated areas of the USA are often a very long way from major cities or even modest towns.

It is clear that, for the UK prepper, less is more and that the congested urban and suburban areas are to be avoided as a base. However, the distinction should be made between the hardcore prepper, who intends to live by hunting, fishing and his wits, i.e. as a “survivalist” and the person who aspires to the creation of a new society after any collapse of the existing one. The latter is therefore, almost ipso facto, a conserver of civilization and culture.

I have already blogged about the idea of forming and developing a “safe zone” or base area for UK social nationalists. I have suggested that, in terms of region, the Devon/Cornwall peninsula might be the most suitable. Naturally, when social nationalists have relocated to that zone, their lives will not consist, in the absence of immediate war or social collapse, of hunter-gatherer or subsistence farmer activities. They will do normal jobs, run businesses, smallholdings, farms and estates and in general live (in most cases) as they do in those other parts of the UK where they live at present.

I suggest the following ideas. This is not supposed to be a comprehensive list, but only a basis for one:

  • Food Security

Keep a stock of food to last for a year or even two. The Mormons have been doing this for a long time, certainly for many decades. There is no need to re-invent the wheel when we can learn from others who know how to do things. Here is one explanation of how the food storage system works with the Mormons:

The Mormon system seems to work on the idea of having a buffer for months rather than years, but with modern canning, packing and freezing techniques it should be possible to give the people in the safe zone at least a one-year supply of food from store.

Naturally, in a rural area, agricultural and horticultural produce will be available. Members of the social-national community will no doubt own estates, farms, smallholdings. In addition, those occupying smaller residences can be encouraged to cultivate part of their gardens, grow produce on a small scale under glass etc.

An important aspect of food security is the existence of a seed bank. Individuals and families can keep their own, but the community as a whole should also maintain one.

No doubt people will be able, in hard times, to forage and to find wild food and to fish.

  • Energy Security

It is to be expected that, in the first instance, the houses and other buildings in the safe zone will be on mains electricity. This supply is vulnerable in the event of war, natural disaster or social collapse in the wider society.

The first necessity is to build up the supply, within the zone, of solar electricity generation and solar heating. There are buy-back schemes etc whereby the householder can even sell his excess power to the National Grid, so long as it exists. At any rate, the community within the safe zone should do everything it can to utilize this renewable supply.

Geothermal heating of homes and other buildings is possible now, if the capital is there to utilize it.

It may be possible for individual residences in the countryside to have small wind turbines too, which can both supply those homes with electricity and also put any surplus back into the National Grid or a local grid.

A further option for some farms and estates would be hydropower from rivers and smaller streams of water.

As an emergency fallback, there should be a range of off-grid options for heating homes: woodburning stoves, ordinary open fires and, for electricity generation, emergency generators run from oil or other petroleum products.

It would be useful, too, if members of the community were to stockpile emergency lighting: candles (even tealights), hurricane lamps etc, battery-operated or camping gas-operated lights, wind-up lamps and torches.

  • Water Security

Water supply is easier, being regional and local rather than national. Indeed, many houses and farms in rural England have their own supply from springs. However, a contingency plan must be drafted and worked out.

  • Communications

The Internet was designed, originally, as a means by which communications might continue even after nuclear war. Presumably, that system will continue in some form even during social collapse. If so, it might be of huge importance beyond the confines of the safe zone, in the struggle to rebuild the wider society.

The community ought to maintain a radio transmitter.

  • Conclusion

An article such as this cannot cover all aspects of how a decent society might survive when the wider society around it is in a state of disorder and even collapse. I have not touched upon questions of social order, for example. However, these few proposals may start running a current of thought. The proposed safe zone will have to operate on the basis that an externally-triggered emergency will probably occur before very long.


The Labour Vote and the Effects of Insecurity and Mass Psychology in UK Politics Today

At present, across the advanced world, there is starting a political ferment. In the UK, attention has been focussed on the EU Referendum, Brexit, mass immigration and the economy. The backdrop for all that has been the decline of popular support for System parties in general and the Labour Party in particular.

There have been two contrasting by-elections recently: Richmond Park; Sleaford and North Hykeham. One, a very pro-Remain constituency which has only ever had Liberal Democrat or (one, Zac Goldsmith) Conservative MPs; in the other, Leave captured 62% of the Referendum vote in a constituency which has never had anything other than Conservative MPs. In both of these by-elections, the Labour vote bombed.

I have blogged about the results of both by-elections: Richmond Park;

Sleaford and North Hykeham

We hear various reasons put forward as to why the UK Labour Party is not gaining or regaining the support of the people. Some blame Corbyn and his ideology and connections; others make the valid point that Labour support was sliding even before Corbyn became leader. Labour did poorly in both 2010 and 2015 General Elections.

I should like to put forward the following idea: that Labour is sliding in public esteem and support for a more basic reason than ideology or even perceived competence. Labour is sliding because the people generally have no faith in its power or even willingness to protect them.

A primary function of the State, which predates even the State itself as we now know it, is the ability and willingness to protect the people from external danger. This primary function was, over time, added to. The State was expected not only to defend against other states and rampaging bands, but also to keep order within its own borders, to promote justice and fairness; also, eventually and in general, to keep the people fed and housed, their children educated, the national culture protected and promoted. These incidents of State functioning are now basic, even in those states which operate on a more or less laissez-faire ur-ideology.

The protective functions of the State are also transferred to or expected to be carried out by the ruling political parties, both those actually in government and those which aspire to government.

Apply the above to the Liberal Democrat Party. For decades, it had built up a respectable support base. It proclaimed all sorts of virtuous policies, said it would protect people in every way, acquired 62 MPs by 2005, yet was all but wiped out in the 2015 General Election after having engaged for 5 years in the “Con Coalition”. Why? It was because people expected the LibDems to protect their interests against the more savage manifestations of Conservative government: spending cuts, callousness toward the poor, unemployed, disabled etc. The LibDems (despite protests) did not, overall, do that. Their punishment was condign: to be reduced to a rump of 8 MPs (now 9, by reason of the special circumstances of the Richmond Park by-election), with effectively no hope of recovery.

Now we look at Labour.

Welfare State

The Labour reaction to the attack on the Welfare State which an earlier Labour Party had done so much to support was to join in the “me-too” mass media and Conservative Party onslaughts on the disabled, on the unemployed, on all those dependent on State assistance (except the Royal Family, the subsidized farmers and the increasing swamp-floods of immigrants). Time after time, Labour MPs, especially those who had been ministers or who were shadow ministers, supported the most callous “reforms” to the social security system. Many Labour MPs either supported the Conservatives in the Commons (even more so after the 2015 General Election) or failed to oppose measures such as the Bedroom Tax. Indeed, it was Alastair Darling, James Purnell, Stephen Timms etc (all Labour ministers) who brought in the dreaded, hated and incompetent ATOS organization in the first place.

Conclusion: Labour failed, both in Government and in Opposition, to protect those most dependent on the Welfare State. Reaction? Those people deserted Labour in droves, either going to (at first) BNP, then (later) UKIP, or dropping out of voting altogether. They will not vote Labour now, despite Corbyn’s support for them, because they have no faith in his (in effect) being elected as PM and because most Labour MPs are still a rabble of pro-neoliberal, anti-Welfare State me-too-ers and fakes.

Pay and Living Standards

In government, Labour under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown advanced the interests of the wealthy or affluent above those of the rest of the population, in the hope of general improvement of the economy. A pathetic version of trickle-down theory. Income and capital inequality soared. Gordon Brown’s Working Tax Credits and other tax credits ameliorated this to some degree, though at the cost of taxes and taxpayers subsidizing, in effect, low-paying businesses–and on a huge scale. Welfare for Business. Mad.

Pay has continued to decline or stagnate for most people, but Labour has no answer for that problem and is judged on its record. There is no sense that Labour stands with the poor working people (or middling people who are becoming poor).b-cisxdiqaa7qj_-jpg-large

Another factor in this is the continuing rise in rents as against pay. When the cost of rent in the private sector is added in, pay has slumped almost as much as has the Labour vote.

Result? Voters have no confidence either that Labour pay policy works or even that Labour is somehow “on their side”. This belief in the uselessness or untruthfulness of Labour has led many either to prefer Conservative policy on the economy as well as (if, arguably, bizarrely) on pay, or to cease bothering to vote at all.

The proletariat scarcely exists now in the UK and has been replaced by a more volatile “precariat”, without loyalty to the former certainties of class, background, region, or even race and culture.

Mass Immigration

Here Labour has no cards to play.  It deliberately imported millions of immigrants, (mainly non-European, i.e. non-white) under Tony Blair and then Gordon Brown, not only to provide big business with cheap labour and more consumers but also to destroy British (especially English) race and culture [see Tom Bower, Broken Vows: Tony Blair — The Tragedy of Power]. Whistleblowers exposed this treason far too late and, it has to be said, the swamping has continued under the misnamed “Conservatives”, right up to today.

Those behind the Labour Government’s immigrant-importation were and are traitors and include, among many others, these two then ministers:

The Jewish Zionist Barbara Roche was particularly culpable. The voters of her once-safe Labour constituency realized (years before Tom Bower’s book came out) that she hated English (and all European) race and culture– they voted her out in 2005 and she has never returned to Parliament, despite lobbying hard for either another Labour candidacy or a peerage. She had inherited a 20,000+ Labour majority in 1992. Straw in the wind?

Labour MPs are still lobbying for more immigration! Even those, such as Yvette Cooper, now belatedly paying lip-service to “having a discussion” about it (as the hordes break down the gates!) are “refugees welcome” dimwits and promoters. Most Labour MPs are not even interested in talking about mass immigration, let alone actually doing anything about it. Corbyn and his absurd or joke “front bench” will never even talk about the swamping of England, except to support it. Angela Rayner and the freeloading moneygrasper Diane Abbott are two names that come to mind.

The cartoonists have hit upon Labour’s immigration madness many times, yet all Labour MPs say is that the people need to have the “benefits” of immigration “explained” to them. Patronizing and wrongheaded.



The result of Labour’s immigration non-policy and its attacks (both now and in government) on English and British race and culture? Millions of former Labour voters voting for UKIP, for the Conservatives (who at least pay lip-service to slowing the rate of immigration despite doing nothing much in a practical way) or not bothering to vote at all.


On the big issues for most voters, meaning living standards and social protection generally and immigration (bearing on race, culture, identity, NHS, schools transport, crime etc), Labour is not only NOT protecting the British people, but is still actively against most of what is in the popular interest.

The “instant karma” of all that is that the people withdraw their support and withdraw their votes. Richmond Park and Sleaford were just the start, in fact not even that: Scotland is already a Labour Party-free zone, pretty much (Labour is only 4th in the polls there now, on a pathetic 15%).

One has to wonder what sort of people would now vote Labour. Some ethnic minorities, some public sector workers, some traditionally-minded (older? maybe not: older people have seen the devastation caused by mass immigration over decades) Northern voters. Not much of a mass-support base.

On the basis of the latest polls showing 25% support, Labour would have about 180 seats (out of 650) on present boundaries and only 140 (out of 600) on the proposed new ones.

Labour is on the way out. It has betrayed the trust of the people and deserves to be obliterated. The people rightly feel that they are not protected by Labour.

A new social national party must arise, to protect the people and to create and preserve a new form of State in England and Wales.


The Sleaford By-Election: post-poll view

I blogged previously about the Sleaford by-election, predicting a Conservative win, a UKIP second, a Labour third or fourth, a LibDem third or fourth and a possible good result for a lady standing as “Lincolnshire Independent”. I said that, for me, the Labour and UKIP results would be the most interesting aspect of the contest. This was the actual result:

The 53.5% achieved by the Conservative candidate was in line with previous elections. Only in the Labour landslide of 1997 did the Conservative Party vote in Sleaford drop markedly and then only to 43.9%. The candidate in the by-election was a medical doctor (one of the most consistently trusted occupations), indeed a consultant paediatrician, as well as a woman following on from a perceived-as-arrogant male MP. From the party-political point of view, she was a good candidate.

The other candidates in the by-election were very much “also-rans”.

UKIP came second with a 13.5% vote. That is slightly below the 15.7% achieved at the 2015 General Election, which at the time was its best result by far. As I have been predicting elsewhere, UKIP generally has been failing to break through, its votes in both local and Westminster by-elections either dropping or just about holding up. The Sleaford result proves that UKIP made a big mistake in not following the Front National of France in going toward social nationalism, leaving UKIP as a wishy-washy and more nationalist form of Conservatism. The still fairly recent Batley and Spen by-election, when UKIP followed the Conservatives and LibDems in not standing a candidate (out of supposed “respect” for the assassinated Labour MP), showed UKIP’s sad desire to become a System party by aping the existing ones. Result? Ignominy and irrelevance. The Sleaford result bolsters my view that UKIP peaked in 2014 and is now washed-up as an insurgent force.

The Liberal Democrats achieved 11% in the by-election, above the 5.7% of the 2015 General Election and in line with previous elections (18.2% in both 2010 and 2005; 16.2% in 2001). Even taking into account the political sympathies of the coastal East Midlands, unsympathetic to the Liberal Democrats and their pro-EU, pro-mass immigration views, this shows that there is no Liberal Democrat resurgence. No-one in Sleaford voted LibDem as an alternative to either Conservative or Labour.

Labour’s result in the by-election was, at 10.2%, well  below its 2015 General Election vote (17.3%) and the similar 2010 result (16.9%). In 2005, Labour was on 26.5%; in 2001, 32% and in 1997, 34.3%. The direction of travel for Labour is unmistakable: Labour is going straight down. 34% to 10% in less than 20 years. To my way of thinking, the Sleaford by-election result mirrors what is happening in England generally (Labour already having been binned in Scotland). Labour is, even more than the other System parties, yesterday’s news. It offers almost nothing to people; and its medium-term future is as a niche party for about 20% of the electorate (public-sector employees, some ethnic minorities, some metro-liberals, some of those who are in trade unions, NGOs  etc). It may be that Sleaford Labour’s choice of candidate, a thick-sounding dustman or ex-dustman, did not help, but I doubt that anything would have helped Labour to do better.

The only thing left to say about the Sleaford by-election is that the lady standing as Linconshire Independent did (as I predicted) better than before. On previous occasions, her votes were 6.4% and then 5.2%. This time she managed 8.8%.

In summary: Conservatives coasting, UKIP stagnating, LibDems nowhere, Labour gone.

The Sleaford By-Election: pre-poll view

On Thursday 8 December, the by-election for the Westminster seat of Sleaford and North Hykeham will be held. Details about the constituency and its electoral history can be found here:

Conservative, Labour, UKIP and the Liberal Democrats are all putting up candidates and last time (2015) finished in that order. Marianne Overton, “Lincolnshire Independent”, is also standing. That last is more than the usual “Independent” joke or vanity candidate; she is an MBE-holder who, in 2015, received 3,233 votes (5.2%–only about 260 votes below the LibDem), saving her deposit. There are three other Independents standing (one with Green Party support) and the inevitable laugh-in candidates, this time the Bus Pass Elvis Party and the Monster Raving Loony Party.

This is a big test for UKIP, which in Sleaford started off in 2001 with about 1,000 votes, exceeded 2,000 in both 2005 and 2010 and peaked at nearly 10,000 in 2015, in third place, only about 900 votes short of Labour ( which itself came in second after the Conservative, who won having received nearly 35,000 votes). In 2010, UKIP finished in fifth place (after the Lincolnshire Independent).

UKIP has a lot to prove, after its recent downturns in local council by-elections and after the farcical circus of its leadership contests. My own prediction is that UKIP’s vote might hold up, in the absence of any alternative non-System party standing. However, I cannot see UKIP doing substantially better (if at all) than it did in 2015. A real social nationalist party might be able to run the Conservative close, but UKIP will not be able to do that or anything like it.

The Labour vote in Sleaford has shrunk from over 18,000 in 1997, through 15,000 and 14,000 in 2001 and 2005, to less than 11,000 in both 2010 and 2015. In view of Corbyn-Labour’s disastrous “policy” of having effectively no immigration control at all, I doubt whether Labour will do well. A startlingly bad result for Labour will surely be regarded as though a trumpet blast by the Angel of the Revelation: a wake-up call or a portent of upcoming oblivion.

The LibDems are probably facing a lost deposit unless they can persuade enough former LibDem voters, with some former Labour and Conservative voter support, to vote LD. In past elections, the LibDems did well, peaking in 2010 with 18.2%, but that was then. In 2015, their 5.7% reflected the party’s 5 years as a doormat for the Conservatives. Whether they can save their deposit and even retain fourth place is open, bearing in mind LD support for mass immigration and the EU, in a region generally anti-immigration and anti-EU; but it is an open question, the LibDems being the cockroach survivors of British politics.

The Conservative Party candidate will win. The only question is by how much.

For me, the interest in the by-election contest centres around Labour and UKIP. I think that UKIP will probably be able to beat Labour into third place. I also think it possible that Labour will find itself in fourth place. A by-election worth watching.

Update Note 9 December 2016: I shall be writing a separate blog post now that the Sleaford by-election is over. This was the result:


The Austrian Presidential Election

I write conscious that my understanding of internal Austrian politics is limited (though no worse, frankly, than that of most UK journalists and other commentators). However, this election is in some respects of more importance to wider Europe than it is to the Austrians themselves. I write also conscious of having only visited Austria a few times: a week in Vienna in the 1980s; a 2-day crossing by car from East to West, from Hungary to Germany, in 2001; some plane changes at Vienna Airport en route to or from Almaty, Kazakhstan in the 1990s.

This is not an electoral contest which has no wider effects. Austria, like Switzerland, is at the spiritual centre of Europe, as well as being in the geographical centre of both Europe and Central Europe.

The election comes at a moment when symbols matter as much as practicalities: the President of Austria has few powers, though one, the power to dissolve parliament and call a general election, may be key, in that, if elected, Norbert Hofer will be able to call such an election just at the moment when the Freedom Party (FPO) is in the ascendant. Austria would then have both President and Prime Minister from the Freedom Party.

The symbolism noted above relates to the wave of professed anti-System upsurges across the West: UK Brexit referendum, Trump’s egregious rise to power in the USA, Marine le Pen and Front National mounting a credible presidential election challenge in France; the referenda in Italy and the Netherlands. If Hofer can succeed (and the UK bookmakers had him odds-on yesterday, if that means anything), the balance of power tilts in Europe, in the EU. It would make a (far more important) Marine le Pen victory in 2017 more likely and that really might be a tipping-point for the EU and Europe.

The key points about Hofer are positive, as far as I am concerned. Hofer, like Marine le Pen, is in favour of stronger ties to Russia; he wants to protect Austria and wider Europe from Islamization via Muslim numbers, births and cultural influence; while Hofer seems not to have said much about Jewish Zionism (Austria having even less freedom of expression now than France or the UK), it is noteworthy that the Jews in Austria and abroad have come out openly against Hofer. Social nationalists will take the point and, if Austrian, vote accordingly! In other words and in general, Hofer seems to be singing from the right page.

A Europe and an EU with Hofer (et al) in Vienna and with Marine le Pen in Paris, with, beyond Europe itself (and despite my very considerable reservations) Trump in Washington D.C. and Putin in Moscow (Russia being neither European nor Asian but, in reality, sui generis), the world will be in a better place than it might have been.

I am writing before close of polling in Austria. Soon we shall know the result. May it be the right result.

Note: the above blog post was written and published only minutes before the news broke that Norbert Hofer and Freedom Party had lost the election. I have decided to leave it up in the interests of honesty and integrity. I got it wrong, but the reasoning was right. Freedom Party may still win the next general election if the cards fall in the right order.

It seems, at time of writing this update, that Norbert Hofer was voted for by about 47% of the Austrian voters who voted. That must presage well for Freedom Party, in that Hofer’s opponent was a catch-all candidate voted for not on his own merits (if any) but as an anti-Freedom Party figurehead. The next general election in Austria will be different.

In the end, the status quo has been maintained in Austria. This is no “anti-fascist” or “anti-Nazi” victory. It would have been better had Hofer won, but in the longer term, this result might actually be a good thing.

The Society of Measure

In the mid-20th century, especially in the 1960s, it was commonplace to see articles or features about the supposed coming “age of leisure” which would be facilitated by machines and advanced industrial techniques. Now (since the 1980s), those predictions are often laughed at, as society (eg in the UK) finds itself enmeshed in the “long hours culture”, the workaholic culture, the low pay economy. Was this inevitable?

The fact is, that the predictions of the past about a future “society of leisure” left out one crucial fact in particular: that the benefits of industrial efficiency and the emerging developments in computing, robotics etc would be taken by the owners of capital, by shareholders and others.

Since the 1970s, real pay (whether absolute or per hour) of most employees has stagnated and indeed even declined across the advanced Western world generally. At the same time, the profit accruing to capital and the remuneration of the upper strata of executives, higher managers and their professional counterparts has rocketed.

The above was true to some extent even in the Soviet Union, except that there, the developments in technology and efficiency were not spread equally across all industrial sectors and the benefits were used mainly for State power and prestige: military and naval upbuilding, space programmes and other large-scale projects such as the BAM railway.

The result (focussing on the West and particularly the UK) is that people have to work ever-longer hours for ever-lessening real pay. If public services, amenities and State benefits are taken into account, the contrast between the optimistic promises and predictions of the 1960s and 1970s on the one hand and the realities of 2016 on the other is even more stark.

There is another factor to be taken into consideration: there are three “work/leisure” faces:

  • work as unwelcome and/or repetitive drudgery, with little free time;
  • leisure as mere absence of work, for whatever reason;
  • creative work, balanced with stimulating leisure or free time

Adolf Hitler was referring, by implication, to the above alternative lifestyles when he noted “the Aryan ideal of creative work“, to be contrasted with (as he saw it) uncreative Jewish profit-making, as well as equally-uncreative paid drudgery [see Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf 2:7]. In explaining, for example, the symbolism of the red-white-black NSDAP banner, Hitler wrote:

And indeed a symbol it proved to be. Not only because it incorporated those revered colours expressive of our homage to the glorious past and which once brought so much honour to the German nation, but this symbol was also an eloquent expression of the will behind the movement. We National Socialists regarded our flag as being the embodiment of our party programme. The red expressed the social thought underlying the movement. White the national thought. And the swastika signified the mission allotted to us — the struggle for the victory of Aryan mankind and at the same time the triumph of the ideal of creative work which is in itself and always will be anti-Semitic.

In our contemporary society, we see the temporary victory of uncreative work/leisure modes: on the one hand, soul-less profiteering (whether by manipulations on stock and bond markets or by buy-to-let parasitism etc); on the other hand, everyday work becoming less and less interesting for most people. Soul-less economic serfdom. Creativity and a decent work/life balance become the province of the artist, the maverick off-grid person, the creative writer. Most people are excluded.

At the same time, those without paid work and who are under pensionable age cannot even enjoy the one major benefit of being unemployed: leisure! They are harried and chased around by Department of Work and Pensions drones. In other words, in place of actual paid work, there is a ghastly and ghostly simulacrum of work consisting of the tick-box applying for (often non-existent) job vacancies or the attending of pointless “courses”, in return for which the unemployed claimant is paid a shadow version of a very low real salary: State benefits.

It is estimated that, between now and 2030 or so, developments in robotics alone will mean that 20%-30% of UK jobs will disappear, including some presently “professional” ones (eg in the medical and legal fields). The numbers of unemployed, under-employed and poorly-paid will increase. The “precariat” will include ever-more people.

The solution to all of the above is not a “society of leisure” but a “society of measure”:

  • strict limits on hours worked by employees, perhaps 30 hours per week;
  • strict enforcement of break-times within the working day;
  • strict demarcation between work-time and free-time (leisure time);
  • strict limitations or barring of employees being “on call” when at home;
  • payment to all citizens of “Basic Income”
  • more equitable distribution of the fruits of the economy.

Such a society will have time for those important things which have traditionally been part of “leisure time”: home, family, culture, rest, sleep, entertainment, sport. This must be the way to go and will cure many of the ills of the present society.



Text reference link:

Thoughts on the Richmond Park By-Election

I write only a few hours after the Richmond Park by-election result, which saw the Liberal Democrats win an unexpected victory over former Conservative Party MP (standing as Independent) Zac Goldsmith.

I had not taken much interest in the by-election, mainly because the constituency is atypical, full of the sort of affluent self-described liberals who usually vote soft Conservative or Liberal Democrat and who believe in the EU, multicultural/multiracial Britain, “refugees welcome” (though not in Richmond, of course) and whatever helps to support their own comfortable lifestyles.

The result:

What struck me first of all was the poor showing of Labour, which lost its deposit for the first time since the constituency was created in 1997. Labour achieved a 12% vote in 2015 and managed 5% even in the 2010 General Election which Labour lost. Labour’s 3.7% vote in the by-election was only 9 times that achieved by the Monster Raving Loony.

UKIP did not stand, which perhaps says something in itself. UKIP had climbed from a vote of 0.7% in 2001 to 4.2% in the 2015 General Election.

Zac Goldsmith had increased the Conservative Party vote from around 39% under previous candidates to 50% in 2010 and 58% in 2015. However, his anti-Heathrow-expansion stance was irrelevant in the by-election, because the decision to expand the airport has now been taken. Another factor was the EU: Goldsmith’s pro-Brexit view was at odds with that of most Richmond voters in the most pro-EU constituency in England.

There were minor candidates: Fiona Syms, estranged or ex-wife of the Conservative MP for Poole. She received 173 votes (fewer than the Monster Raving Loony); a sullen Indo-Pak calling himself “Maharaja Jammu and Kashmir” (real name Ankit Love), representing his “One Love” crank party [] (which consists, it seems, of 3 or 4 people). The “maharajah” received 67 votes; there were a couple of other candidates.

What can perhaps be said about this by-election? What does it indicate? That Labour is still sliding and that UKIP has (at best) stalled.

What cannot be said about the Richmond Park result? That voters outside Richmond Park (or the few places like it) are anti-Brexit; that the Liberal Democrats are resurgent. In the end, the only practical result of the by-election is that it reduces by 1 the number of Conservative MPs (and so by 2, in effect, the already-small Commons majority of the Theresa May government).

Proposals for a new society…

%d bloggers like this: