When I was a victim of a malicious Zionist complaint…

Six months and a day ago, I attended Grays Police Station, Essex, for an interview with the police. I trudged through the snow and slush of estuarial Essex after a long rail journey involving several changes of train. A police fortress set in a snowbound urbanized wasteland. Crossing the rail line in the snow reminded me of visits to socialist Poland in the 1980s. Not pleasant.

A week or so before my supposedly voluntary but in fact involuntary trip to Essex, I had been surprised to receive a telephone call from a detective-sergeant of the Essex Police, who informed me that the “Campaign Against Anti-Semitism” [CAA] had made formal complaint against me.

Now the CAA, as some readers will know, is a small but well-funded Jewish Zionist organization, sufficiently in funds to be able to employ a number of full-time staff. It was founded around the time of Israel’s 2014 Gaza slaughter, in order to defend the interests of Israel and of Jews generally. Some of its members also belong to “UK Lawyers for Israel”, a similar group and the one which complained against me to the Bar Standards Board in 2014, as a result of which I was disbarred in late 2016 (though I had not practised for 9 years!). The signatory on that complaint had been one Jonathan Goldberg QC, a Jew who was once the preferred Counsel of the notorious Kray gangsters. Goldberg also appeared pro bono (without fee) for the CAA in its private prosecution against the satirical musician, Alison Chabloz (which prosecution was later taken over by the Crown Prosecution Service [CPS] and the original charges dropped, though new ones were substituted and the matter adjourned until, at the earliest, late December 2017).

The head of the CAA, one Gideon Falter, had, prior to founding the CAA, made a complaint against a Foreign Office man, Rowan Laxton, who was accused of having shouted out (while on a gym treadmill, watching a TV report of yet another Israeli atrocity), “Fucking Jews! Fucking Jews!” (yes, that is enough to get you arrested in contemporary London…). Laxton’s case ended not with his first-instance conviction before a (dozy? biased?) magistrate, but with his acquittal on an appeal by way of rehearing in the Crown Court.

The “Director of Investigations and Enforcement” (sinister title…) at the CAA is one Stephen Silverman, who lives in Essex and who was exposed in open court (possibly inadvertent admission by the CAA’s own advocate) in December 2016 as having been the Internet troll @bedlamjones on Twitter and a user (abuser?) called “Robbersdog” on another discussion site, Disqus. This person abused anyone thought to be anti-Zionist, particularly women. His posts were notorious for their gloating sadism. He particularly enjoyed looking forward to people being arrested, questioned, charged, tried, imprisoned for “anti-Semitic” comments. He was in fact part of a whole group of Jew-Zionists on Twitter and elsewhere, all following the same line of attack (Twitter has now removed several for similar abuse). Despite that, Silverman remains in post at the CAA, an organization apparently supported now by a number of politicians, all under the thumb of the Israel lobby.

Back now to my visit to the area some call “the arsehole of England” (it must be true: it is represented in Parliament by freeloading chancer and former receptionist Jackie Doyle-Price!). It had been arranged with the detective in charge that I would appear at Grays Police Station on 12 January at a specified time. I arranged to have a solicitor who, in the event, failed to turn up. Given the “choice” of returning within a few days or a week at most (and the expense and inconvenience therefore being doubled) or interviewing without legal advice (I last practised at the Bar in 2007-2008 and, apart from corporate “crime” on behalf of companies such as South West Water and Balfour Beatty, had not engaged in criminal law since about 1994), I decided that I had no choice but to continue to interview.

The several detectives who dealt with me were polite, even reasonably friendly; certainly professional in their approach. I was never arrested during the whole proceeding and was told that I could leave at any time. I was then cautioned and interviewed for three hours about some 60 pages of tweets, hundreds in all. Slowly, each tweet was put to me. Many were stories from newspapers, cartoons etc. I mostly no-commented, but did make some pertinent points and the odd joke.

What struck me first was the sheer injustice of all of this. The Jews complaining about me had done so at no cost to themselves and yet had wasted the time and money of both me and the police. The police should have told them, at the least, to go whistle, instead of taking the complaint seriously. I was in fact told by the police that they were dealing with another half-dozen CAA complaints of similar nature. So much for “the police are starved of resources”!

The next point that struck me, as we trawled through many tweets alleged (but not proven) to have been tweeted by me, was how brainwashed the police were in respect of the “holocaust” mythus. They referred to one cartoon (“Alice in Holohoax Land”) and asked how anyone could make a joke of people (Jews) made into soap and lampshades! They obviously had no idea at all that those WW2 “black propaganda” stories had not only been totally debunked but also accepted by the Zionists themselves as untrue! They also, needless to say, had no idea that those “holohoax” tales were in fact of WW1 origin, recycled (so to speak) for WW2 use. I did not bother to argue with them. Perhaps they will read this blog post.

Another funny moment was when the detective in charge objected to tweets poking fun at “Saint” Bob Geldof. It turned out that he took Geldof’s charitable image at face value. I thought that detectives were trained to recognize the dodgy. Apparently not.

I was able to read into the record of interview (taped) a letter I had sent prior to interview, detailing the abuse of the criminal justice system being engaged in by the CAA and by Silverman in particular, as exposed during the Chabloz case and otherwise. I asked that this letter be sent to the CPS, were the complaint against me to go further.

Anyway, after a dehydrating 3 hours (I was given one cup of water) in a hot little room, I was taken outside to the custody desk and booked out. I had never been under arrest and was not given police bail, but just released without anything more. The detective murmured something about “postal disposal” to the custody officer (I never was sent any letter of closure, though) and I was released back into the cold streets of Grays, now being blanketed by more snow.

I do not (much) blame the police involved. They were obviously under pressure from higher ranking police (probably either Zionists or, more likely, freemasons). Political pressure from higher-up, too, in a situation where the governing party under Theresa May and Amber Rudd is really just “ZOG” [Zionist Occupation Government].

Needless to add, I was never prosecuted.

So that is my account of an experience provided for me by the abusive CAA organization. It is time for the CPS to rein back the apparent latitude given to Jewish-Zionist organizations making malicious and politically-motivated complaints against private citizens (I do not belong to any political party or group).

As to my final word, I should say only that “what goes around comes around”…

The Slide of the English Bar and UK Society Continues and Accelerates

When I started to blog, I intended to write about things of general or objective importance. I intended to avoid the personal and subjective. Above all, I wished to avoid mixing the objective and the subjective. However, I think that some of my personal reminiscences and thoughts might be of interest to others. I also consider that objective conclusions can be drawn about UK society from some of my experiences.

Many of those who are reading this will be aware that I was disbarred in late 2016. That happened after a group of Jew-Zionists calling themselves “UK Lawyers for Israel” (some of whom, probably many, also belong to the so-called “Campaign Against Anti-Semitism”) made official complaint (in 2014) about a number (at first, several dozen) of tweets which I had posted on Twitter. Eventually, the number of tweets comprising the subject-matter of the charge was reduced to seven. Seven (7) tweets out of, at the time, at least 150,000.

Now, though I may blog in detail about the manifold injustices around my own case at a later date, my purpose today is to compare the overall “justice” I received with that meted out to another Bar defaulter recently, in order to illustrate wider points.

Now the bare bones of my own situation were that:

  • I ceased Bar practice in 2008 and last appeared in court in December 2007;
  • I did not hold a Practice Certificate after 2008;
  • I joined Twitter in 2010 and started to tweet in 2011 or 2012;
  • My Twitter profile and picture never made any reference to my being or having been a barrister (whether practising, non-practising or employed);
  • Only a tiny handful of the 155,000-200,000 tweets I had posted made any mention of the fact that I had, once, been a practising barrister; none of the supposedly “offensive” tweets did so;
  • The tweets I posted (whether complained of or not) were all posted as part of my “personal or private life”, I having had no professional life after 2008 anyway.

It should be said (without getting too technical) that the Bar Code of Conduct was once a slim volume but has expanded into a fairly lengthy and complex code. Suffice to say that the now-usual “race and religion”, “diversity” etc stuff is now included (and I think that we can be sure what kind of persons drafted those clauses…).

In the past, a barrister’s private life was not justiciable under the Code except in a few carefully-drawn exceptions, the main one being where a barrister had been convicted of a (serious) criminal offence (parking, speeding etc excluded). The new Code, in force for a number of years, kept those boundaries but, crucially, made them advisory only, taking away the cast-iron defence that whatever was complained of had been done in the course of the barrister’s personal or private life.

At the same time, the old and sensible distinction between barristers who are in practice or employed, as against those not practising or employed as barristers, was removed in relation to “Core Duty 5”, i.e. in effect “bringing the Bar into disrepute”.

In short, I was, in effect, “bringing the Bar into disrepute”, or so decided a Bar Tribunal panel of 5 chaired by a retired Circuit judge, when (6+ years AFTER having given up Bar practice) I tweeted the seven “offensive” tweets (on my Twitter account that made no mention in its profile etc that I had ever been a barrister).

I should say that the presiding judge made the point in his summation and sentencing that I had had an unblemished record at the Bar throughout the years since I was Called in 1991.

Other barristers had and have Twitter accounts. Some post obscene comments, such as the “lady” QC whose every sentence contained a swear word. Many have pictures of themselves in wig and gown, or advertise their practices via website links etc (which is now OK but would have been a serious Bar offence only 20 years or so ago). None of those who have used obscene language etc (including telling people to “fuck off” etc) has ever been hauled before a Bar Tribunal, despite their proclaiming their professional status, despite having photos of themselves in Bar clothing in some cases, despite their being in practice at the Bar and talking about it and the law constantly. The presiding judge at my 5-person Tribunal called my case “unprecedented”.

There are so many examples today of barristers doing things which would have meant disbarment decades ago but which are now laughed at and even applauded. We see, for example, the Jewish barrister known to the public as “Judge Rinder” (not in fact any kind of judge) on TV, the show aping that of (also Jewish) “Judge Judy” in the USA. The barrister who plays the role of “Judge Rinder” is acting entirely within the ambit of what is now tolerated by the Bar regulators, but one could not imagine such a show on TV in, say, 1967 or even 1987.

That is even leaving aside the vulgar advertizing and self-promotion undertaken by members of the Bar in practice. That was not permitted until the 1990s. The following example of a Bar defaulter was also one of the most shameless self-promoters.

Now let us look at how the Bar treated so-called “celebrity barrister” Henry Hendron, who, despite being a horrible little bastard –from what I have heard on radio and read in newspapers (I have never met him, admittedly)–, was treated very leniently by the Bar Tribunal, certainly as contrasted with my case.

Hendron supplied so-called “chemsex” drugs, apparently used in gay orgies, to his 18-y-o foreign boyfriend, who died as a result.

http://metro.co.uk/2016/05/09/celebrity-barrister-sentenced-after-supplying-drugs-that-killed-teen-boyfriend-5870206/http://metro.co.uk/2016/05/09/celebrity-barrister-sentenced-after-supplying-drugs-that-killed-teen-boyfriend-5870206/

Hendron was ALSO found guilty, on his own admission, to failing to administer his chambers (which he headed as Head of Chambers) properly and was fined £2,000, a trivial sum for someone who made hundreds of thousands of pounds in a year.

https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/media-centre/press-releases-and-news/barrister-henry-hendron-suspended-for-three-years-following-criminal-convictions-for-supplying-illegal-drugs/

So the Bar Standards Board and a Bar Tribunal think that a barrister and indeed head of chambers who was convicted at the Central Criminal Court of supplying illegal drugs for immoral purposes, and that supply having resulted in death (within the Temple itself at that!) AND failing to run his chambers properly should get suspended from practice for three years (in fact only two, because time was ruled to run from 2016!) and get a modest fine, whereas I, “found guilty” of having tweeted seven supposedly “offensive” tweets about Jews and not a practising or employed barrister at all, had to be disbarred! You really could not make it up.

This is what the Bar Standards Board official , Sara Jagger, Director of Professional Conduct, said about the Hendron case:

“A conviction for supplying illegal drugs is a serious matter. In this case, it had tragic consequences. Mr Hendron failed to meet one of the core duties of a barrister, which is to uphold public trust and confidence. The suspension imposed by the tribunal reflects this.”

This is what the same woman said about my case:

“The use of such offensive language is incompatible with the standards expected of barristers. The Tribunal rightly found that such behaviour diminishes the trust and confidence the public places in the profession and the decision to disbar Mr Millard reflects this.”

The Board’s press statement (still on its website today) also repeated the lie that my Twitter account “made it clear that” I was a barrister. An out and out lie.

Who, I wonder, would the public think less properly able to reflect the standards expected of a barrister? A snivelling, drug-taking degenerate, convicted of illegal drug supply resulting in death, and who also ran his chambers improperly, OR someone who as part of his non-professional life posted seven supposedly “offensive” tweets (taking them as described by the Bar Tribunal)?

You decide.

Postscriptum: The BBC Radio 4 “PM” programme interviewed Henry Hendron in a very sympathetic way recently; the popular Press handled the story with a relatively light touch. Contrast that with the day or three of msm storm around my case last year! We can see the way society is going: downhill, fast.

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

Background

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoke-on-Trent_North_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections.

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:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britain_Israel_Communications_and_Research_Centre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Smeeth#Early_life

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.

Analysis

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.

Prediction

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

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/general-election-2017-stoke-north-13066893

Bookmakers’ Odds

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

https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/stoke-on-trent-north/winning-party

 

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.

Conservatives

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: http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/ge15/UKIP-second.htm

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

UKIP

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

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.

Conclusion

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.

%d bloggers like this: