From Secure Base to National Power

I have blogged about my plan for a “safe zone” in a region such as the South West of England, where forces of social nationalism, of culture and of civilization can be concentrated when, at the same time, much of the UK, particularly the urban wasteland, becomes gradually a horrible dystopia.

In the safe zone, it will be possible over time (perhaps only a few years) to take over local and county councils and, in respect of Westminster constituencies, to depose sitting MPs, once enough social nationalists are resident in the zone. Our people will be found in every official chamber and office, every business, in the three emergency services, in the common-rooms of schools and universities, on the farms and in the telephone company.

The question arises, does the safe zone only mutate and develop into a mini-ethnostate or does it expand beyond its (notional) borders? Does it move from local, county and regional power to national contention? If it does, how does this happen?

A major point to note here is that, at the same time as the safe zone is developing, there will be the formation of a social nationalist party or movement, to which people from all over the UK can belong. “Outstations” will exist even in areas not likely to be friendly to national renewal, such as London, Birmingham and the other urban sprawls which have majority non-European populations. Once this political party has even a handful of MPs from the safe zone, it can expand its influence wider. Also, the safe zone will exercize a magnetic attraction to those living outside it.

There may be a social collapse in the UK, following either war or social breakdown. More likely will be a gradual slide into a less civilized, less cultured way of life, where things such as electricity supply, social care, NHS, trains etc still exist, but operate, steadily, less well than before. In those circumstances, it will be possible for the political party to contrast the safe zone with the degenerate part of the UK and to make political capital out of that contrast.

Only in the case of a complete breakdown of the powers of the UK state would it be necessary to think in terms of paramilitary activity. In any event, there would be already-existing military units willing to save the State and society by alliance with the safe zone ethnostate.

The party or political movement will have to build its strength and await the right time, both electorally and otherwise. The way the UK is going, it cannot be very long before a revolutionary situation of some kind develops, i.e. before the British people are tired of being lied to and ready to cast off the System parties which have no solutions. Then the party can strike in both electoral and other ways.

Advertisements

Seismic Shifts in the World

There are now huge changes happening in the world power structure. Russia is on a roll, strategically, at the same time as its underpinning economy is struggling.

2016 has been a successful year for Russia in the military-diplomatic realm. Its support for the Assad government of Syria has proven decisive. The rebel forces have been all but vanquished and Russia sits for now unchallenged in Syria and, thus, in the most strategic part of the Middle East and the Eastern Mediterranean.

It scarcely matters that, on paper, Russia’s economy is not prospering. Stalin built up the Soviet Union to be a world power while the Russian and other peoples under his rule suffered under socio-economic conditions that make today’s Russia look like a land of plenty in a fairy tale.

At the same time, Donald Trump’s victory in the United States is a victory for Russia and (I hope) for peace between Russia and the USA. If Russia helped to procure Trump’s election via “active measures”, then so much the better. It makes a change from the Israel lobby pulling all the strings and, even if Trump is (as he may be) entirely unsuited for the role of head of government or head of state, at least Israel-controlled warmonger Hillary Clinton was prevented from exercizing power and fomenting more war.

In the Far East, traditionally one of Russia’s weakest areas, influence is felt in the latest sayings of the president of the Philippines. American influence is waning fast  in a region where Chinese power is waxing.

As for Europe, the rise of populism and, to a lesser extent, social nationalism, plays to Russia’s strengths: tradition, white European culture and history, shared values, shared hopes for a better future (and against globalism, multiracialism, China, Zionism, Islamism, Americanism).

In France, Marine le Pen has every chance of becoming President in 2017. In Austria, the Freedom Party narrowly missed in its Presidential bid but is well ahead of all rivals and looks like winning the general election of 2018 (in theory also may be but unlikely to be in 2017). Even in Germany, the more nationalistic forces are increasing in influence.

All of the above leads to a situation in 2017-2018 in which the broadly social-nationalist agenda can be carried forward.

A Wildlife Grid for the UK

A few years ago, I began to tweet occasionally about the necessity for a wildlife grid, that is, connected strips or plots of uncultivated land to allow birds and animals to travel and live safely. Around the same time as I started to tweet on the subject, I read that one or two charities had started pilot schemes. It has been heartening to see in recent weeks that this activity has apparently been stepped up.

We are now used to the concepts of nature reserves, national parks etc. The wildlife grid complements these. Not that nature is expunged elsewhere: there are landowners and farmers who are not completely hostile to wildlife. However, modern farming (except organic or biodynamic) is often to a great degree inimical to the environment: pesticides, herbicides, intensive use of land, grubbing up of hedgerows. The wildlife grid mitigates the damage by allowing nature respite and allowing animals to travel between areas suitable for them and through areas otherwise unsuitable.

There is another part of the UK which can help wildlife, if properly used. There are a million or more acres of land in the UK used as private gardens. Some people in modest houses concrete or tarmac their “front gardens”, destroy hedges (replacing them with walls or fencing), uproot trees, lay what is left entirely to lawn. All harmful. Others however are now learning to plant hedging, plant bushes and trees, keep a part of the garden or gardens wild, select bee-friendly plants etc and to avoid use of harmful pesticides and herbicides. Even the (often derided) “water feature” can be very helpful to wildlife. Also, there are ways of helping various creatures (birds, hedgehogs, bees) via the installation of suitable places for them to live or feed in. The wildlife grid not only complements all of that but comprises that, in part.

The aim need not be a wildlife grid owned or run by the State or even by large charities. The grid will consist of all sorts of variously-held land: national parks, nature reserves, private farmland and parkland, wildflower strips alongside roads, private gardens, woodland, unused land. What matters is what is done with the land, rather than who owns it. In any case, when it comes to small areas or narrow strips, no one large organization could monitor and control all of that.

It might be asked then whether this is not all self-functioning. Up to a point, but what would be useful even so would be a secretariat to map the UK in terms of a wildlife grid, to identify areas of the country where gaps exist and, assuming existence of a suitable trust with capital and income, to buy land to fill in such gaps, planting trees, creating whole forests. Also, such a body  would be able to explain the concept to interested landowners, as well as being able to conduct public relations education and so on.

The wildlife grid will be part of a future programme to place wildlife at the centre of urban, suburban and rural policy in the UK.

The Veneer of Social Order

Living in a country such as the UK, basic social order has been taken for granted for centuries. Even during the economic and political upheavals of the 1920s and 1930s, or during the Second World War, disorder was only briefly and occasionally present. The 1950s and 1960s brought the odd street battle (not always political), but real life continued. The same was true of the 1970s and 1980s, where the occasional skirmish between political opponents or industrial disputants and/or the police was something that people for the most part watched on television, in between a variety show and Match of The Day. The relatively few riotous disorders in a few black neighbourhoods in London and elsewhere did not directly affect many citizens.

In those past decades, there were certainties: pretty much everywhere had a police station (even a village would have a “police house” with one or two constables). Every village had a sub-post office, every town had at least one main post office. Emergency calls for ambulances were quickly answered and took people to Accident and Emergency departments and hospitals which were usually efficient, with quiet wards and plenty of staff. Courts were places of seriousness and, in larger towns, some grandeur. Social security offices were there to help the poor, unemployed, disabled and destitute.

Now look. The UK’s social fabric has worn very very thin. Police are concentrated in large police stations and headquarters and are rarely seen on the streets. I myself happened to need to report something recently (in a small town in Southern England) and went to the large police station only to find that it shut daily at 1800 hrs and was staffed (as far as could be seen) by one woman aged (it appeared) in her sixties, certainly late fifties, in a uniform bearing the rank “Station Support Officer”, i.e. not even a policewoman. Admittedly, another and very pleasant woman, with a charming yet efficient telephone manner, called later to take details, but she was based in some other part of the county.

Many will recall the petrol disputes and consequent shortages which happened a few times in the Tony Blair years. I myself saw, in 2000, scenes verging on the anarchic, simply because the petrol stations were running out of fuel.

Again, take the health service, with its crowding, its noisy hospitals, its bureaucracy, its ever-lengthening response times and waiting lists. Or look at the courts (those not closed down, of which there have been literally hundreds in England and Wales). Instead of imposing and beautiful buildings imparting a sense of “the majesty of the law”, we find that many courts are housed in ugly utilitarian edifices. In addition, many are now priced out of justice by high fees.

Then we have the governmental functions that interface with members of the public on a vast scale: the almost inhuman DWP created or coarsened by Iain Dunce Duncan Smith, the Jew “Lord” Freud etc., the HMRC and its even more shambolic administration. To call them “not fit for purpose” is to be kind.

We have examined the now-skeletal police service; the same is true of the armed services, such as the British Army. What would happen if there were a truly big challenge to public and social order? Could the State cope? I think not.

For the above reasons and several others, I favour the creation of a mini-ethnostate in one or more parts of the UK, possibly starting in the South West of England. I have written about the idea in several of my blog posts on this site as well as on my own website:

http://ianrmillard.com/social-national-communities

If the social order breaks down in the UK, the “safe zone” that I propose will be a redoubt, an area where public and social order can be maintained, together with culture, civilization, a decent life. From this defended region can come the call to the rest of the UK to re-establish society and State.

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:

https://mormonwoman.org/2009/08/28/ask-a-mormon-woman-why-do-mormons-store-food/

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

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2016/12/02/thoughts-on-the-richmond-park-by-election/;

Sleaford and North Hykeham

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2016/12/09/the-sleaford-by-election-post-poll-view/.

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:

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

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

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.

161214-matt-web_3139193a

ctgqcfywiaa6yvr

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.

Conclusion

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.

cqsbrinweaalitk

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:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleaford_and_North_Hykeham_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s

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.

%d bloggers like this: