Sunday, 15 January 2017

How to 'Jezz' It Up – or not!

Labour party leader Jeremy 'Jezza' Corbyn has been almost invisible for several weeks as I write this, reappearing just a day or so ago with what at least one of his spokesmen has suggested is to be a 'Trump-style' re-launch. This immediately struck me as another big step on the road to Labour's seemingly inevitable oblivion, at least as a credible political party seeking election to national government.

His (or his aides') thinking has probably been along the lines of: "It obviously worked for Trump, so those same lines should do it for me [or "him"] too!"

Wrong! The USA has been suffering all manner of issues during the Obama years, some of which came to wide public realisation and understanding during the second such term. It has certainly become widespread knowledge during the last couple of years or so, thanks to trusted source outside the mainstream media – sources such as Drudge Report, Breitbart and of course InfoWars & Prison Planet. Also the alleged attempted rigging of the presidential election in favour of Hillary Clinton has been widely reported on those and other sites, as have other related matters.

Thus Trump's messages to the voters of America were not only appropriate, but resonated with them He is also very much non-Establishment, which is something else the voters lapped up, as they were sick of being conned by the Establishment – which in the States is more-or-less a two-headed beast, near enough running both significant political parties there.

To transfer those same messages (nearly verbatim) into our political arena just doesn't work, as the quoted snippets in this piece illustrate. The full speech is a lot more telling, though I haven't (so far) found a video of it online.

It doesn't take a genius to see why those Trump-like lines don't work when transplanted to our country and even to our politics. Oh yes, we too have an Establishment, and their aims, objectives and methods are at least similar to those in the USA in some regards. However, they are supporting the Left primarily, exactly as in the States – though also trying to control the Right (with very mixed success).

Thus this particular re-launch seems almost certain to backfire, as is discussed here.

Meanwhile, Labour's fortunes are sinking, not only in opinion polls but also in by-election results and especially regarding council seats. The Liberal Democrats are making hay while the sunshine switches away from Labour, even taking seats in Labour heartlands via huge swings.

Here's one such result from a council by-election just this past week...

Sandhill (Sunderland) result, council by-election on 12-01-2017:

LDEM: 45.0% (+41.5)
LAB: 25.0% (-29.9)
UKIP: 18.7% (-7.2)
CON: 10.0% (-5.7)
GRN: 1.3% (+1.3)

Just look at the size of that swing away from (mainly) Labour to the Lib Dems! Sunderland is, unsurprisingly, a traditional Labour heartland – but perhaps no longer. This and other results over the past year might well be giving an indication that Labour's seat losses in the next General Election could be even more severe than commentators and psephologists have already been saying, and closer to my own prediction (I originally made nearly a year ago, and haven't changed) of 120 to 130 seats.

Thursday, 10 November 2016

Draining the Swamp

It is pleasing that Stateside there will soon begin what is being termed 'draining the swamp' to get all the accumulated filth out of American 'power-offices' (as one might collectively label them, government and non-government positions that wield real power, together).

This is assuming that the corrupt elements in the Establishment don't succeed in arranging or aiding the President-elect's assassination in the meantime, or that Obama doesn't now succeed in starting WW3 as he has been unsuccessfully reportedly doing since April of last year, according to several informed sources. One way or another, their collective (and well-embedded) might will fight back hard in order to preserve their positions, perks & benefits, and ideology. It appears that some of them at least are Satanists, according to several reputable sources, so this is big stuff indeed!

The latter of the above two possibilities seems to have become much less likely as Mr Putin has already (just hours ago) publicly stated that he is "ready to restore relations with the United States" – a crucially important marker put down in the timeline at this precise moment. This pulls the rug out from under Obama, and leaves him little room now to foment that global nuclear conflict.
Thus the world is already considerably safer as a direct result of the Trump presidential election success: something I have been saying all along would be so, of course, as readers of my scribblings both here and elsewhere will no doubt recall.

Meanwhile, although America has been slowly waking up to the realities in their country – despite almost entirely one-sided media bias (even in places ostensibly on the opposite side) and slanted & faked-up opinion polls, among other methods of swaying public opinion – they are still a fair way behind where we are in Britain.

It was the advent of widely-read online media alternatives and other informed (and more open & honest) sources that has turned and continues to turn public awareness away from the slanted reporting and concealment of politically 'inconvenient' matters that made all this possible, of course – which, incidentally, is why corrupt institutions are trying to control and censor such sources.

The difference between the two sides of the Atlantic has, I think, been largely if not mostly down to the less one-sided nature of our own mainstream media here in Britain. People started to become aware of the differential reporting and treatment of the same topic, especially once they were easily able to check our various sources one after the other.
Of course, media can take whatever views they wish, as long as they are legal ones – but their credibility and thus readership (and the all-important advertising revenue) will be impacted if they are perceived as less than honest, accurate, fair or useful from their readerships' point of view.

This 'new media' change still took time to take effect, as our successive elections of various kinds have illustrated if one analyses enough of them, but the trend in Britain over the last decade and a half (or so) has been unmistakable. Although a number of factors have been in play, some media's attempted manipulation of public opinion had been perhaps the single biggest contributor for quite a while, and that has now diminished considerably – as sales of and subscriptions to the traditional media sources consistently dwindles in evidence.

Another source of indoctrination that hasn't yet changed much – but will, thanks to the new types of schools in Britain – is the socialist brainwashing being perpetrated upon our upcoming generation by so-called 'qualified' Lefty teachers and college/university lecturers. That's currently most of them. This, combined with the young's as-yet inexperience of life and learning in the real world over time, largely explains the generational political divide.
Yes, those of us who have 'been around the block' a fair few times have learned – in our own way and in our own time – what is real and what is cleverly dressed up falsehood or 'spin', and those of us with the wisdom and self-honesty to actually learn and truly grow up despite our earlier preconceptions tend to be on the political Right, even if with a degree of caution and broader realism tempering our outlooks to some extent.
That is as true as ever, though not universal. Too many chips on shoulders and suchlike for that!

It is the targeting of our young,on both sides of the Atlantic, that starts it all off again with each successive generation – and it will be the eventual and essential draining of the education sector 'swamp' that will finally clean up the core of our society, but will probably be completed after the others have been cleansed. It will take many years.

Friday, 4 November 2016

Rainham Central By-Election

The Rainham Central by-election was held yesterday (3 November 2016), caused by the sad loss of Mike O'Brien to cancer, and the insistence of at least one opposition party to stand where perhaps (as some have said) it should have been uncontested. In the event, a total of six candidates stood, representing the six enduring parties that we have around Medway. Others have come and gone, but these six can be relied upon for fielding candidates in Medway – though not necessarily in all seats or all cases.

Anyway, the by-election result is now in. The solid Conservative win is no surprise, with no less than 61% of the total vote; but perhaps Labour's third-place position will have been unexpected by some – though I had a strong feeling that it might go that way.

Indeed, I well recall rubbing my hands with glee at seeing the Statement of Persons Nominated – i.e. list of candidates – when it was published. That is always the moment when I know more or less what is going to be the outcome, and when I make my (sometimes public) predictions. It is always a delight when the ever-arrogant Medway Labour end up in third place or lower, as has happened a few times in recent elections, both local and national (e.g. Rochester & Strood last year).

Here are the vote numbers, in descending order as usual...
  • Jan Aldous (Con) – 1,448
  • Mark Mencattelli (UKIP) – 389
  • Simon Allen (Lab) – 320
  • Paul Chaplin (Lib Dem) – 137
  • George Meegan (Green) – 61
  • Mike Russell (Eng Dem) – 14
Percentages (including changes from May 2015) are...
  • Con: 61.1% (+9.9)
  • UKIP: 16.4% (-5.2)
  • Lab: 13.5% (-2.9)
  • Lib Dem: 5.8% (+5.8)
  • Green: 2.6% (-5.2)
  • Eng Dem: 0.6% (+0.6)
As with the recent Strood South by-election, again we see a huge divide between the current 'big three' parties and the rest. The norm nowadays seems to be that the English Democrats have become the dependable last place party, now coming behind even the Greens(!)

Even more noticeable is the sheer size of the winner's majority – over a thousand votes more than the runner-up, and in fact a good three and a half times the votes of UKIP and more than four times the Labour candidate's vote.

There's a real message for some of the parties in there somewhere...

Monday, 24 October 2016

Strood South By-election

Edited to correct a misleading part taken from a Medway Labour tweet and scans

It is no secret that I have considerable affection for the Strood South ward of Medway Council, so it will come as no surprise that I took an interest in last Thursday's by-election. That event was caused by the resignation of UKIP councillor Catriona Reckless-Brown who will soon be moving to Wales where her husband (former Rochester & Strood MP Mark Reckless) has been selected to stand for the Welsh Assembly, also for UKIP.

The three Council seats in Strood South were at that time held by UKIP, Conservative (John Avey) and an Independent (Mark Joy, who had been elected as UKIP but then left the party) so very mixed – in fact the only ward of Medway Council's 22 to be a three-way split. There were six candidates in the by-election, including the two (one Conservative, Josie Iles, and one Labour, Isaac Igwe) who had lost their seats to the then two UKIP candidates.

The results of the by-election were thus, in descending order of number of votes cast:
  • Josie Iles (Con) – 724
  • Isaac Igwe (Lab) – 521
  • Karl Weller (UKIP – 480
  • Steve Dyke (Green) – 74
  • Isabelle Cherry (LD) – 62
  • Mike Russell (Eng Dem) – 23
As you can see, there were only three real players in this race. The Labour campaign tried to make out it was between just them and the Conservatives, bizarrely basing this primarily on the fact that they have more councillors than UKIP do. As it turned out, there was little difference between those two parties' votes, and it could quite easily have gone the other way, placing Labour in third place.

Also note the wide gulf between them and the winner – more than 200 votes. It is to be noted that I predicted this outcome, and told a couple of people my forecast, though forgot to make it public until the morning of last Thursday, i.e. polling day! My exact prediction was "a comfortable Conservative win, with Labour and UKIP close together in second and third place, either way round." (It's on my Facebook page.)

The turnout was low, sadly, at 16·74% – just one in six eligible voters participated. By-elections tend to have significantly lower turnouts than full elections, and last year's council elections here were boosted by coinciding with the General Election. Indeed, back in May 2000, at the full council elections that year Luton (a Labour safe ward) had a turnout of just 17·37% – hardly any higher than this mere by-election.

EDIT: The Council leader, Alan Jarrett (Conservative), has today been reported in the local newspaper (not online, unfortunately) as saying that UKIP lost the seat because their councillors had been "ineffectual" since being elected some 17 months ago; and UKIP group leader Roy Freshwater is also quoted as saying they lost the seat (a) because of the weather and (b) because they don't have the 'party machine' that the two traditional big parties have. Medway Labour has selectively scanned parts of the relevant page from the 'paper. This they misrepresented, but this edit corrects what I wrote here before, having taken the Medway Labour claim as correct. I really must learn that they can NEVER be trusted!

I certainly agree that the UKIP councillors have been, frankly, a waste of space, and have done as little work as their counterparts in (say) the European Parliament, who are known to be 'the laziest party group' throughout the entire Parliament – though very good at taking as much (public) money as they can, including the occasional 'fiddle' that comes to light (Janice Atkinson's restaurant bill that was in the news around a year ago) – and who knows how much there might be as yet unrevealed?

Anyway, keeping to their usual practice, and as their own fellow has now publicly stated, the 'Kippers on our Council really do seem to have done nothing of any consequence to represent those who elected them in what was, after all, just a national 'anti-establishment' mood swing at the time – May 2015. That of course has faded since then, as I predicted it would, and UKIP Cllr Roy Freshwater's own claim of a lack of a big 'machine' would indeed have hampered their chances of holding the seat at this time. The weather affects all parties equally, and no doubt contributed toward the low turn-out.

Even so, the best they could have done would have been to come second, and I think just 150 votes or so behind the winner: it could have been a slightly closer contest, and they'd have been the runners-up rather than Labour. However, the bigger issue for voters was the lack of activity by UKIP in the ward and elsewhere in Medway for that matter. These things are noticed and the word gets around. It was no doubt what lost the three we had before May 2015 their seats (Messrs Irvine, Mason and Rodberg, all of whom re-stood but lost.)

To me it seems obvious that another of my (longer-standing this time) predictions – that there will be no UKIP councillors at Medway after the next all-out elections – will also come to pass.

And whose fault will that be? Theirs alone!

Tuesday, 18 October 2016

Woolfe at the (Exit) Door

The new UKIP leadership contest, after Diane James' resignation almost immediately after having been elected, is now gearing up.

The party seems to have been running out of eligible potential candidates, so they have felt it necessary to waive (or perhaps permanently change: I don't have that confirmed) their previous rule that candidates must have been UKIP members for at least two years.

Anyway, at least Stephen Woolfe got both his application and deposit in on time on this occasion – but has now pulled out, and is apparently resigning from the party. It is said by some 'Kippers that he had already spoken to the Conservatives, apparently with the intention of preparing the way to join that party later. Others claim that it was the Conservatives who approached him. We might never know which it was...

Here's another twist: the change of rule I mentioned above has allowed Raheem Kassam to stand, and Suzanne Evans' suspension from the party was lifted recently, thus allowing her to stand this time too. Both of these are somewhat divisive individuals, as are others who are also in contention.

Now, you always get an element of that in any leadership contest, with supporters of one being anti at least one of the others – but this has a noticeably different feel from that, which is usually significant only during the contest/election itself.

I have been reading negative comments (quite a lot of them!) about the likes of Evans, Carswell, Hamilton, O'Flynn and others since long before there was even the first leadership change (i.e. the Farage one that wasn't) so this is deep-seated long standing faction-ism within what is and has always been a somewhat 'flaky' party.

As I have been saying for a few years now, UKIP's time is likely to end "in a few years" – i.e. at what would from then have been around 2017 or 2018. Long before the next General Election, I surmised that they would either cease to exist or become just a lobbying movement by now, post-referendum, with no 'sales pitch' beyond being a kind of Brexit Watch until that's all over – then nothing. That of course is expected to be completed before the next election anyway.

With major donors having already withdrawn their support, leaving UKIP with a reported £800,000 deficit which no doubt will grow much worse as time passes, the party is going to have a tough time indeed just trying to survive.

With Woolfe as leader (which was likely) that might have been possible. Now I don't think they can succeed or survive...