A void in British politics

The Conservative and Labour Parties have been the big players in the UK parliament since the Labour Party displaced the Liberal Party in the 1920s.  For many years the Liberal Party had very few MPs, but then in 1981 divisions in the Labour Party led to the creation of the Social Democratic Party.

For a short while, the SDP appeared to have considerable potential, but soon afterwards it joined forces with the Liberal Party, and then merged with them in 1988 to form the Liberal Democrats.  As an aside, the SDP was a modernising force in British politics, being the first party to have a central membership register held on a computer, and also the first party to allow membership fees to be paid by credit card.

The British National Party came into existence in 1982, following a split in the National Front, but for many years made little impact.  It was nevertheless perhaps the leading anti-EU party in Britain, prior to the launch of the United Kingdom Independence Party in 1993.  For much of the period between 1999 and 2010, there was an unfriendly rivalry between the two parties.  UKIP always performed better in European Parliament elections, but the BNP frequently outperformed UKIP in local elections.

Nowadays both parties enjoy little support, and so there is arguably a void in British politics which is waiting to be filled.  Britain First has recently decided to start contesting elections on a much larger scale than before.  Britain First is well known for its confrontational activities, but it has also shown considerable enterprise in developing online campaigning strategies.

Another party which deserves mention however is the newlyformed Veterans’ and People’s Party, which apparently has eight thousand members – an impressive figure for a young party.  Its policies include the return of the death penalty, and it cannot be ruled out as a potential growing force in British politics.

The third party which deserves a mention does not yet exist.  Many people in the Labour Party are displeased with the current leadership, and are plotting to form another breakaway party – which could at its outset boast far more MPs than the Liberal Democrats have, as well as high profile financial backers.  Apparently the party’s central policies would include trying to thwart Brexit, as well as furthering the warmongering aims of former Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Further comment would perhaps be premature.  Nevertheless there does appear to be a void in British politics at the moment, and time will tell which party will emerge to fill that void.

Related previous posts include:

The future of Brexit

Liberal Democrat membership at record level

The Labour Party is far from dead

The future of Brexit

I find it amusing that at least some comments writers are claiming or at least hinting that Theresa May’s election gamble was doomed from the outset.  I utterly disagree, and can remember that a Conservative majority of around ninety seats was being touted at least twice during the election campaign.

There has also been some speculation as to the Prime Minister’s motives for calling the election.  It is widely believed that she hoped to increase her majority, but it has also been argued on the Western Spring website that she hoped in fact to lose her majority.  After all, Theresa May served in the government of David Cameron, who never wanted us to leave the European Union.  Maybe some of the Conservative Party’s rich backers begged her privately to try and lose her majority so as to thwart Brexit.

The situation now is that Theresa May remains as Prime Minister with the support of the Democratic Unionist Party, who are apparently not making any demands as yet concerning Brexit.  Nevertheless, there are a lot of MPs on both sides of the House, who are apparently eager to try and stop Brexit from happening.

Theresa May has the option of seeking another general election at any time, but could only do so if she first won a vote in the House of Commons.  This would presumably be fairly easy, however, given that Jeremy Corbyn has said that he would welcome another general election at any time.

In the meantime, Brexit supporters have a simple choice.  They can keep their heads down, and hope that Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union proceeds smoothly; or they can take action.  Find a political party which is committed to Brexit – it does not have to be UKIP – and join it.  Pay a membership fee.  If you cannot join a political party because of the job you do, then make a donation instead.

Make our MPs fear the wrath of the electorate.

Related previous posts include:
The post-referendum political landscape
Theresa May's election gamble

Theresa May's election gamble

The big news item this week is that the Prime Minister is to call a general election to take place on 8 June 2017.  On this day she will have been Prime Minister for less than eleven months.

In the past fifty years, four people have become Prime Minister without first winning a general election: James Callaghan, John Major, Gordon Brown, and Theresa May.  When Gordon Brown took over from Tony Blair as Prime Minister, there was a lot of talk in the press about calling an early general election.  Many commentators felt that he had a duty to call an election so as to provide himself with a clear mandate to rule; however I cannot recall any similar reaction to either James Callaghan or John Major becoming Prime Minister.  Of the three, John Major alone went on to win a general election as Prime Minister.

Theresa May had not planned to go to the country this soon, but apparently she now wants to make clear that the public is on her side as the Brexit process unfolds.  Many opponents of Brexit have been demanding a second referendum, but instead we are getting a general election.  Mrs May will be campaigning on Brexit, as well as on her many failings as Prime Minister, whereas the Liberal Democrats are hoping to clean up on the anti-Brexit vote.  As a result, some commentators are predicting a poor outcome for the Labour Party.

It is also reported that a lot of people object to having another general election so soon after the last one, and will not be voting as a result.

There have been fifteen general elections in the past sixty years.  Nine of these have seen an increase in turnout over the preceding general election, and six have seen a decrease in turnout.  Two of these – in 1966 and 1974 - took place shortly after the preceding general election, and both saw a reduction in turnout, but not a large reduction.

Every general election between 1955 and 1997 saw a turnout of between seventy-one and seventy-nine percent.  The 2001 general election saw a much lower turnout of below sixty percent; and while each of the subsequent three general elections have seen an increase in turnout, it remained below two thirds of the electorate in 2015.

This will undoubtedly be an unusual general election, largely owing to Brexit.  If the comments sections of the national press are to be believed, then many people will be voting Conservative for the first time, presumably to show support for Brexit.  UKIP has lost by defection its one remaining MP, and is probably heading for oblivion.  Meanwhile, a lot of tactical voting is expected in the Brexit camp.

I will not be voting.  A vote for the Conservative Party may be a vote for Brexit, but it is also a vote for another five years of Tory misrule.

Related previous posts include:
The post-referendum political landscape
The Labour Party is far from dead

The post-referendum political landscape

In the short space of time since the Brexit referendum, not a great deal seems to have changed in the realm of British politics.  David Cameron is no longer Prime Minister, but we still have a Conservative government.  Labour remains in opposition, with Jeremy Corbyn still at the helm.

Looking ahead, however, a lot could change.  Once Britain has left the EU, we will no longer be bound by the dictates of the European Union or its agencies.  We will still be bound by the dictates of the European Court of Human Rights, however, as that is an agency of the Council of Europe - an organisation which Britain has not yet voted to leave.

Another important point to note is that Britain will no longer have MEPs once Brexit has been achieved.  There will be no more European Parliament elections, as a result of which there will be one fewer set of elections conducted under a system of proportional representation.

It is possible that UKIP will cease to exist following Brexit, but I don't expect many people will be upset.  For example UKIP councillors can easily defect to another party, and thereby probably improve their chances of re-election.

Immigration will remain a big issue as there is no reason to think that Theresa May will limit immigration merely because it is easier for her to do so.  I therefore expect at least one anti-immigration party to enjoy some prominence in the year ahead, although not nearly enough to make a difference.

It is almost a truism of politics that you do not need to win power in order to exert an influence, and this is certainly true of UKIP.  It is no secret that David Cameron promised a referendum in order to stem the flow of support from his party to UKIP.

On immigration however it is a different matter.  In 2009, the British National Party had two MEPs, a London assembly member, and around one hundred councillors.  So far as I can make out, the only response to this from the establishment was to set up a parliamentary committee which did not achieve anything and was probably never intended to.

Related previous posts include:
Who murdered Jo Cox?
The power of the people

Theresa May: accessory to murder

Having voted for Britain to leave the EU, I was naturally pleased that the outcome of the referendum was a majority leave vote.  I was confident that the EU would collapse in due course, and that the referendum vote would therefore serve either to accelerate or to delay an inevitable process.

Nevertheless I am not optimistic.  Freed from its European shackles, the United Kingdom can now restrict immigration from other European countries.  Unfortunately we cannot expect a government led by Theresa May to take immigration seriously.

Theresa May served as Home Secretary for the whole of the six years that David Cameron was Prime Minister.  As such she was accountable for government policy on both crime and immigration.  A pledge to cut immigration to just tens of thousands each year never came close to being realised, but police budgets were cut, and criminals are the winners - notably fraudsters.  Frauds reported to the police very rarely result in a prosecution, even where substantial evidence is provided.

It is also inconceivable that Theresa May had no input into the faked murder of Labour MP Jo Cox.

As I write, a young woman has recently been murdered in Sheffield, which I'm sorry to say does not surprise me one bit.  Given that the worst Home Secretary in British history is now our Prime Minister, we must not expect the homicide rate to fall any time soon.

Related previous posts include:
A sense of the inevitable
Who murdered Jo Cox?
Tories pretend to be tough on crime ... again

Another Bastille Day bloodbath

The major news story as I write is the recent murder of dozens of people in the French city of Nice, which took place during the annual Bastille Day celebrations.

Bastille Day is the unofficial name given to a national holiday which takes place in France on 14 July each year, which celebrates the storming of the Bastille on that day in 1789.  The Bastille was a large fortified prison in Paris in which people could be imprisoned on the whim of the monarch.  In other words it could easily be seen as a symbol of state oppression.

On 14 July 1789, a mob attacked the Bastille, and was soon reinforced by a regiment of soldiers.  The attack ended with the governor being murdered, and the inmates being released.  In other words it was an act of mob rule.

As it happens, there were only seven inmates in the prison that day, and only one was a political prisoner.  Nevertheless that is a detail.  Even if the Bastille had been full to bursting with political prisoners, then its storming would still have been an act of mob brutality.

I have long wondered why the French people celebrate this act of barbarity, and I also wonder why - to my knowledge - nobody in France has ever argued for it not being celebrated.  The word stupidity comes to mind.

More than two hundred people died on the original Bastille Day - more than double the number who died in yesterday's terror attack in Nice.  It is also worth noting that the original Bastille Day bloodbath was not connected with Islam.

Who murdered Jo Cox?

It is sometimes said that nothing happens by accident.  Nevertheless, we do not have to delve too far into history to find examples of events which appear not to have been orchestrated.  Consider two momentous events in the history of western Europe: the English reformation and the French revolution.

The English reformation began in 1534 when Henry VIII abandoned the Roman Catholic Church, and England officially adopted protestant christianity.  The main reason for this appears to have been the refusal of the Pope to allow Henry to divorce his wife.  Henry wanted to divorce his wife because she had failed to provide him with a male heir.  She was pregnant many times, but produced only one child that lived, and that one child was a girl.

The French Revolution describes a series of events which began in 1789.  It appears that there was a lot of political unrest in France in the years leading to the revolution, but it appears also that the main cause of the popular uprising of 1789 was a hail storm which destroyed crops in many parts of northern France, and particularly in the vicinity of Paris.  As a result, the citizens of Paris were short of food, and this shortage of food prompted many of them to rebel.

In short, a major event in European history took place because of one woman's reproductive difficulties, and another took place because of inclement weather.

As I write we are just two days away from the referendum on Britain's membership of the European Union, and the major news story in the United Kingdom is the murder of Labour MP Jo Cox.  Jo was not well known, and I cannot recall having heard of her prior to her death.  She was however the mother of two young children.

It is hard to think of any MP whose murder would have affected the mood of the public in quite the same way, and it is not at all surprising that many people in the Remain camp are using her death as a political weapon.  The whole thing has been so convenient for the Remain vote that it is also not surprising that at least some political bloggers are arguing that her death was orchestrated.

It is still early days, and I don't want readers of this blog to leap to any conclusions, but consider these points:

• Early press reports suggested that Jo Cox was attacked after intervening in a fight between two men.  It was later reported that she was set upon by a lone man.
• At least one witness has reported that the killer repeatedly shouted the name of a political party, whereas at least one other witness has said that the killer did not yell anything.
• Jo Cox was supposedly shot three times, but at least one witness has denied hearing any gun shots.
• The man charged with her murder is supposed to have been an avid reader of political material, whereas not one person who knew him was aware of him having any political leanings.
• Video footage of the alleged killer being arrested does not show any blood splashes on either him or his clothing.

Successive governments in this country - whether Labour or Conservative or coalition - have shown quite substantial disregard for the sanctity of human life, and it would not surprise me at all if it transpires that the establishment sacrificed one of its own in a bid to influence the outcome of a critical referendum.

But then, successive governments in this country - whether Labour or Conservative or coalition - have also shown quite substantial disregard for the truth, and I wondered at an early stage whether or not Jo Cox had in fact died.

Please take some time to watch this video analysis of the murder:

Two more analytical videos can be found on these two links:
Were bankers involved?
Jo Cox murder false flag

Related previous posts include:
We can't trust chameleon Dave

Does the EU maintain peace?

As I write there is less than one week to go before Britain votes on whether or not to remain in the European Union.  Many years ago I read a profile of a man called Madron Seligman who at the time was a Member of the European Parliament for the evil Conservative Party.  He was also a close friend of Ted Heath, who was the Prime Minister who took Britain into what is now the European Union.

Seligman recounted how he and Heath had holidayed in Europe shortly before the outbreak of the Second World War.  They knew that war was imminent, and felt that something should be done to prevent the outbreak of another such war.  To cut a long story short, the European Union was viewed by many people as a way to ensure that there would never again be a war in Europe.  In addition, Germany passed a law banning any political party from associating itself with Hitler's regime.

I decided many years ago that the whole idea of the European Union preventing another war was absolute nonsense.  One of the main effects of the EU has been to undermine national identity.  This has had the effect of increasing what might be termed nationalist sentiment in many of the EU's member states.  This has been confirmed by a recent study by the University of Leipzig, which reports the following:

• One third of people in Germany think the country is dangerously overpopulated by foreigners.
• More than twenty percent think that Germany needs a single strong party which embodies the national community as a whole.
• Twelve percent believe that Germans are by nature superior to other people.
• Ten percent want Germany to be led by a fuhrer - the title adopted by Hitler while serving as both the president and chancellor of Germany.

None of the above implies that anyone in Germany wants another war in Europe - or does it?  I hope not, but I have been wrong before.

Related previous posts include:
Britain First and the fiction of a free country

A sense of the inevitable

A lot has changed since I began writing this blog more than three years ago.  One change is that I am now far more likely to believe in the power of the inevitable.

When Leo Tolstoy wrote War and Peace, he believed that all of history is an inevitable process which people cannot influence - not even supposedly powerful people like kings and emperors.  On the one hand, this might seem an utterly bizarre notion, but on the other hand there are always exceptions to just about any rule.

Consider football.  Suppose Everton play Swansea.  It is easy to envisage either team winning the match.  Now suppose that Tottenham play Chesterfield.  It is hard to imagine any realistic outcome other than a victory for Tottenham.

Tolstoy wrote his novel about the French invasion of Russia in 1812.  The invasion was a complete disaster which proved to be the beginning of the end for the Emperor Napoleon.

It is hard not to see a strong sense of inevitability about the events of 1812.  Napoleon led a very large army into Russia with little in the way of supplies.  It had apparently not occurred to him that it would be very difficult to keep such a large army supplied by foraging.  Many of his troops were killed in battle as he marched towards Moscow - notably at the Battle of Borodino - and many more died of hunger.

Eventually the French captured Moscow, but found that almost the entire population had fled.  As winter began to draw in, the French abandoned Moscow, and began the long march home. Tens of thousands of soldiers died from the effects of hunger and extreme cold, while many others were either killed in battle or murdered by Russian civilians.

But enough of history.  As I write, the British people are looking forward to the long-promised referendum on Britain's membership of the European Union.  I have not so far spoken out about this, partly because I have a sense of inevitability.

I have previously said confidently that I expect Scotland to leave the United Kingdom at some point in the future, and now I confidently expect Britain to leave the European Union.  Even if the outcome of the referendum is a victory for staying in, then I still think it would be only a minor setback.  Nothing is more likely to bring the European Union to its knees than its own continued exisence.

As a final points, the European Union has nothing to do with the European Court of Human Rights.  That is an agency of the Council of Europe, an entirely separate body.

Related previous posts include:
Austerity versus democracy in Greece

Hunger in Greece, hunger in the UK

As I write, the world is awaiting the outcome of the Greek referendum, but it looks as if the no vote will prevail.

There is a side of me that feels compassion for my fellow Europeans living in dire poverty, but another side of me reflects that most Greeks are the victims of their own cowardice.

The people of Greece elected the politicians who took the country into the single currency, and since then have persistently refused to vote for politicians who support a return to the drachma.  What is worse, the one party I can think of in Greece which has consistently supported the drachma is widely vilified and persecuted.

It now seems that a return to the drachma is inevitable, but it could have been achieved a lot sooner, and with far less pain.

Here in Britain we have a growing economy, but we still have a lot of severe poverty, and I know for a fact that my local food bank is still seeking donations.

National newspapers sometimes try to act as if they care, and I have seen reports on how people can eat cheaply.  Sadly though these reports are usually poorly written.

It is true that a lot of food can be bought cheaply in supermarkets late in the day, but there is only so much discounted food in any supermarket, and not everyone is able to visit the supermarket shortly before it closes.

Also, meal plans in newspapers are often unrealistic.  For example one plan implied that a packet of six sausages could provide both a dinner and a lunch for two people.  I make that two sausages per person for dinner and one for lunch - better than nothing I suppose.

Another problem with these meal plans is that they tend to overlook the fact that many people work, and so are unable to cook their own lunch.  Canteen lunches may well cost more than someone on the minimum wage might reasonably afford, and packed lunches are often far from appealing.

Instead of insulting attempts at meal plans, maybe Britain's national press could acknowledge the fact that successive Labour and Tory governments in this country have failed to tackle the root causes of poverty.

Related previous posts include:
Austerity versus democracy in Greece
Starvation Britain

Austerity versus democracy in Greece

Just over a year ago I commented on the unwillingness of President Hollande in France to comply with rules imposed by the European Union.  Today the big news story is the outcome of the general election in Greece.  The winning party, Syriza, has made clear their intention to increase the minimum wage and provide large numbers of people with free electricity (not really free, but paid for by someone else).

What makes this election result momentous is that Greece is an economic disaster, with unemployment running at around twenty-five percent.  The Greek people have been enduring this misery for many years now, and its membership of the Eurozone is largely to blame.

Syriza is not opposed to membership of the Euro, or at least not at the moment, but it is opposed to the austerity measures that membership has inflicted on the Greek people.

Back in the late 1990s, Denis Healey warned that the European single currency would work only if there was a perpetual flow of money from the north of Europe to the south.  Now the Greeks have elected a government which wants Greece to stay in the Euro, but without the Greek people paying the price.  More money must come from elsewhere in Europe, and Germany is the country which immediately comes to mind.

Germany can refuse, of course, but to refuse might prompt the Greeks to quit the Eurozone.  If Greece were to prosper outside the Eurozone - and European countries not currently in the Eurozone are faring much better than those within it - then it might prompt other countries to leave as well.

The eventual outcome could be either the demise of the Eurozone or else a much smaller Eurozone with only Germany, Holland, Belgium, France, and maybe Austria retaining the single currency.

Either way, the original dream of a gigantic pan-European single currency is dead in the water.  Austerity was supposed to keep it alive, but democracy has killed it.

Related previous posts include:
Cameron versus the EU
Austerity versus democracy

Should we demonise the holiday pay ruling?

A recent ruling by the Employment Appeal Tribunal may prove expensive for many employers.  The ruling is that holiday pay should reflect regular overtime in addition to the contracted hours of work.

On the one hand, this ruling is based on EU law, and so any employers who fear the consequences are free to reflect upon the fact that  this ruling would never have materialised if successive Labour and Tory governments had not taken this country further and further along the road of surrender to EU imperialism.

Nevertheless the EU is not always wrong, and this is a ruling which can benefit a lot of working people.  As for those employers who are worried by the financial impact, maybe they should try blaming someone other than their own workers for their financial misfortunes.

Companies pay tax on their profits and on their payrolls.  These taxes are used to meet the cost of the billions of pounds the British government squanders each year on such frivolities as EU membership.

Maybe British employers should blame Tory and Labour misrule for their financial misfortunes before they blame a legal ruling which benefits the common man.

The Clacton by-election

The Clacton by-election is just a few days away, and a UKIP victory is widely predicted.  This would make Douglas Carswell the first ever MP to be elected for UKIP.  If I've got it right, it would also be the first time since October 1990 that a political party has seen its first ever MP to be elected under its banner.  (At the start of that month, all of the Liberal Democrat MPs had been elected for other parties.)

The Conservatives are certainly acting up.  As well as making some very insulting remarks about UKIP voters - apparently including one about vacuum cleaners - there has been talk of ignoring at least some rulings of the European Court of Human Rights.

The European Court of Human Rights is an agency of the Council of Europe, which is distinct from the European Union.  Like the European Union, it is undemocratic.

While I have no problem in principle with what is being outlined, it is fair to point out that not everyone regards David Cameron as someone who can be trusted to deliver on his promises.

I will never vote UKIP, but I will nevertheless be not the slightest bit surprised if Douglas Carswell returns to the House of Commons next week.

Update: I have since found out that the government is also planning to tackle the EU on immigration.  Perhaps they could explain why they did not make this a condition of coalition government back in the summer of 2010.

A related post offsite: The Clacton Rebellion

Is Britain the puppet of the USA?

The former Conservative MP and government minister Neil Hamilton - now the Deputy Chairman of UKIP - has written an essay in a national newspaper about the ISIS threat.

What interests me particularly about it is this quote:

From the 1930s the US was determined to destroy the British Empire and then enmesh us in the EU, seeing Atlanticist Britain as the agent of US foreign policy and free market economics.

I am not sure I have ever heard an establishment figure make such a remark before.

Britain has changed a lot since the 1930s.  In those days, Britain had an empire, and so far as I can make out no one minded.  Not one political party in this country supported abolishing the empire - apart from the Labour Party very briefly - and neither am I aware of any public clamour for abolition.  Britain seemed also to be its own country in those days, entering both the First World War and the Second World War before the Americans did.

Nowadays we have long since let go of our empire, and we seem to be obsessed with following the USA into illegal wars.

I am not sure about Hamilton's reference to free market economics.  So far as I am aware, successive governments in the USA have thrown one subsidy after another at their biggest companies, and yet in a genuine free market there would be no subsidies whatever.

As for the EU, I am not sure I have ever before heard anyone argue for the involvement of the Americans in its foundation and development.  I had always understood that countries like Germany and Holland and Belgium were the guiding lights.

If Britain is a puppet of the USA, as Hamilton seems to imply, then why has Britain long since abolished the death penalty while most states of the USA have not?  Why has Britain never adopted a written constitution like that of the USA?  Why are our senior judges not appointed on a blatantly partisan basis?

Either way, the policy objectives of both the United Kingdom and the USA in recent decades seem to me to have been riddled with inconsistency, and it is hard to discern an underlying logic.  Maybe that is part of the reason why they now seem impotent in the face of the ISIS threat.  It is not that they no longer know what to do, but rather that they never had a clue in the first place.

Related previous posts include:
MH17 and Gaza: more lives lost to western imperialism
Air strikes against Iraq are wrong