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...

Thursday, 8 September 2016

Third Kick-off Deferred

I have deliberately not posted anything here for a while, during which time much has happened and things were in a state of flux. Events here in Britain and in various parts of the world have occurred, have just begun in some instances, and are now moving forward – if only at a slower rate than before.

My 'kicking-off' post a couple or so months ago turned out to be slightly inaccurate, in that the move toward a third World War involving nuclear and other weaponry that occurred around the end of July was not the first such crunch point. Until recently I had been unaware that the first such attempt (again, pushed for for the USA president and his followers, I understand) was made in April of last year, and this recent push was in fact the second such attempt.

My information – now from several solid enough sources – is that it was a personal intervention by Jesus with Vladimir Putin that averted the more recent crisis (I have no such details regarding the first such event, by the way) via a visit some six weeks or so ago.

This is real, and the information is in fact all 'out there' for those who wish to seek it out independently of me, so they can't claim I led them anywhere. I wonder how many have the guts to do so...

Many will not face up to this, continuing to pretend that it isn't so, or that it is something else.That's their problem, if they cannot handle it – but we are now in the thick of it and it is shifting almost without our perceiving what is really happening right under under our noses.

These are literally the biblical End Times, and the evidence is that thankfully a lot more of humanity is now waking up to this. Indeed, the rest of us are either already grown-up enough to handle much more of the truth, or at least have what it takes to learn that the world (and the universe beyond) is hugely different from the meagre 'nuts and bots' approach that some tend to take.

I know how long the delay of WW3 will last, approximately, but am not telling. We ALL need to become more adult and prepare ourselves for what it still to come – and it will come: that much has been promised in the form of the Rapture that will follow men's evil that is to be entirely responsible for the forthcoming Satanic crisis.

In a sense, the 'silver lining' is that their secret underground cities will not save the Satanists: that too has been promised. Perhaps the self-styled élites that no doubt will still exist within mankind of the future will learn this lesson and, knowing their own vulnerability, will not repeat what for now is yet to come, but will be in those future groups' and individuals' history...

Friday, 27 May 2016

The Short Sharp Shock

As American President Obama has spoken today at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park of what happened on 6 August 1945, and how it must never be forgotten, it is a reminder of possibly the most severe application of the 'short sharp shock' concept that humanity has ever applied in its long history.

True, the sacrifices of lives at Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended up saving perhaps millions of lives by in effect bringing the Second World War to an abrupt end, but at what a cost!

The principle is a good one, though, and one I have applied consistently for quite a few years now,mainly to those who troll me here or elsewhere, and especially to the 'ad homs' – those who attempt ad hominem attacks on me in an attempt to counter or belittle me and my views. I have had the latter quite a few times, and it is just about always a dishonest practice, so I have no hesitation in responding.

Some might think that what I do is nasty, but in fact it is meant kindly (even though it doesn't look like it!) as my response is fast, sharp enough to make the other party sit up and realise that they've made a mistake, and pitched only as strongly as is necessary to be confident of achieving the intended result. I know what will happen if I don't do this, and it tends not to be good!

There are broadly three outcomes: one is the Lefty troll who gets the message that I know my stuff and will fight back. They almost always realise that there is no point in continuing and just vanish, never to come into contact with me again – at least not under that (usually fake) identity.

The second type is the type who made a genuine mistake, and apologises for having gone too far, usually carried away in the heat of the moment. I have even been thanked for waking the other up before things got really out of hand – which is of course my intention in all such cases.

The third type doesn't learn, and puts his own ego and views first regardless. Such types will typically block me, and they are no real loss.

The most recent of that last category is interesting, as being the second example of what might have been thought to have been 'friendly fire', at least at one time. The first had defected to UKIP and for reason seemed to hate me because I had stuck to my guns and my principles.I never did work out what had happened there, but eventually put it down to the usual warped and twisted thinking that one finds with 'Kippers, especially those who were formerly Conservatives, perversely.

The recent instance, though, was someone who is a political party paid official who has never been elected to public office, but whose rigid (and frankly one-dimensional) view on a topic went against my own actual experience during my years as an elected Councillor. In the end, his approach turned into a sly, sneaky but obvious 'ad hom', so I responded in the above-descri bed manner, as always.

As I expected, I was de-friended – and the original post deleted in its entirety. I can think of the reason that individual would give for doing the latter, but I think that even my medium-strength riposte was too close to home, in reality.

Anyway, I relate this tale for a more significant reason: where have we encountered this attitude before, of an unelected official placing his (or her) views above those of the people's elected representatives? Ah yes: the European Union (EU) – and indeed, dictatorships in general. I cannot perceive the slightest difference here, and it is but one of the issues I have with formalised political parties and similar bodies operating in that arena.

Long (and perceptive) experience across much of the spectrum, and in various places and situations, has taught me much over several decades now; and it is extremely unlikely that I shall ever join/re-join any party ever again. Meanwhile, if any of them tries anything on with me, they should be prepared to get the same kind of response – and, as with the examples I have pointed to here and the others, I am (by inference) even then holding back even stronger material for those who don't get the message the first time...

Thursday, 17 March 2016

Looks Like It's All Kicking Off

Well, we now have a very firm piece of the puzzle in place, regarding the coming storm on Earth, with the production and screening of the television adaptation of 'Childhood's End. The first part was shown a little earlier this evening here in Britain, on the Sky 1 channel.

This was always a strange story, and one I didn't much like when I read the novel many years ago – long before I became a committed Christian, by the way, which is significant here. Indeed, the book might well have been one of the reasons I took that step, which I am sure was not its intention. It has always seemed artificial somehow, created specifically to spread a message at a crucial time; and I thought the author, Arthur C. Clarke no less, had perhaps been unnaturally influenced to write it in the precise manner that he did.

The premise is based on the physical appearance of the 'benevolent aliens' in the story, which is faithfully reproduced in the mini-series – and anyone watching it will probably spot a lot of, shall we say, interesting devices to make them not only sympathetic, but misunderstood by those who opposed them, such as the so-called Freedom League.

Now to the real world of today.

We know that the Antichrist is in the world, that he has reached maturity in recent years, and is currently being kept hidden from public view until the world's population has been psychologically prepared to accept his appearance – an expression used in the first part of the mini-series, and at the end of that first episode we see exactly why. We know his throne was installed in the Vatican earlier this decade, which will afford apparently credibility to a large sector of the world's inhabitants.

Coincidence? Hardly likely. The timing is too precise, on top of the above and some other other considerations.

Thus I conclude that the real New World Order is due to kick-off quite soon now. The infrastructure has been largely in place for some years, the destruction of Europe by letting Turkey into the European Union will probably herald the next phase, and for that the real 'Karellen' will need to be revealed to a prepared populace.

We shall see what unfolds during the next two or three years at most, I feel.

Thursday, 18 February 2016

In The Wrong Light

Some people have heard of the Illuminati, one of those secret organisations whose true purpose remained shrouded in mystery until it was revealed. Their name stems from the idea that they are somehow 'illuminated' and have the light of supposed truth shone upon them.

No doubt they had secret 'knowledge' imparted to their Bavaria-based originators as claimed, and passed on to their members ever since – or at least some of it. It seems almost certain that this Communist-style programme was and is Satanic in nature and origin, especially when one looks at their six goals...
1. The abolition of government.
2. The abolition of patriotism.
3. The abolition of private property rights.
4. The abolition of all rights of inheritance.
5. The abolition of religion.
6. The abolition of family relations.
This is the road to the infamous New World Order to which Gordon Brown made several references a few years ago. It is apparently intended to destroy our entire civilisation, turn us all into serfs or slaves, and they would be the self-appointed élite running it all.

It all fits in neatly with the Frankfurt School of Cultural Marxism's programme to destroy a nation and its culture from within that the Blair/Brown years pursued in every regard. I reproduced the list of primary policies here, a couple of them helpfully giving the reasons for those particular policies; and can also disclose that a secondary list was also being assiduously followed during those years.

Those who were paying attention will undoubtedly recognise several if not all of them, especially those in the primary bullet-point list, most of which came to pass during those Labour years...
  1. The creation of racism offences. 
  2. Continual change to create confusion.
  3. The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children.
  4. The undermining of schools’ and teachers’ authority.
  5. Huge immigration to destroy [national] identity. 
  6. The promotion of excessive drinking.
  7. Emptying of churches.
  8. An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime.
  9. Dependency on the state or state benefits.
  10. Control and 'dumbing down' of media.
  11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family.
With a frankly superb front man like Blair, all manner of distinctly subversive moves were able to be very cleverly camouflaged. Several of the ongoing issues created by this approach are still points of contention today, such as benefits dependency and leniency toward criminals in our justice system. This is why we have these as significant societal issues – and of course several were started by earlier Labour governments, which is why some don't seem to be new as such.

The attractions to those behind all of this, and those actively and knowingly participating in the programme, must be that they 'know something the ordinary people don't know' and that they will be the ones in charge in the New World Order. They and their acolytes seem to seriously believe (as do members of other secret societies) that they 'know best'. However it is an obviously false light that shines upon them, and a very dangerous one as we are witnessing.

What any of us can do about any of it is unclear – but we start by knowing at least something of what is going on, why, and how. This is real – as real as the Illuminati's All-Seeing Eye symbol on American Bank notes these many years – and we all need to be alert, informed, and prepared.

Sunday, 7 February 2016

Socially Engineered

In London, Zac Goldsmith has an uphill battle ahead of him to win the London Mayoralty this coming May. Labour's Sadiq Khan is widely tipped to win instead, a few think by quite a margin.

Why? Is it because Sadiq is better for the job than Zac would be? No: the exact opposite is the case – though Zac doesn't have the charisma of the incumbent, Boris Johnson. He'd still be vastly better for London, especially in the upcoming years, but it will take a lot for him to win. It is definitely possible, but far from easy.

Why should this be? It's down to the social engineering of London during the Labour years in government, especially the vast influx of immigrants from what were known would be Labour-favourable (one way or another) origins. The scale of that situation has been reported in a few places in recent months, and there are a number of associated aspects of all of that which show just bad that purely politically-motivated policy has been – most notably for the newcomers themselves.

We here in Medway have also witnessed social engineering at work in places such as Troy Town, which is an area within Rochester. Back in the 'eighties, the then Labour-run predecessor council to today's Unitary Authority arranged for a lot of social housing to be built in Troy Town. If you were to wander around that area, you'd no doubt be surprised at just how much of this ill-fitting 'square peg in round hole' accommodation there is there. It isn't vast, but there is a fair amount of it, and of course it's generally high-density – so there are a lot of votes embedded in those quarters.

A former mayor, who has lived here much longer than I have, gave me the low-down on this, including names and dates. It explains why that ward (when it was a separate ward) was the only part of Rochester to have Labour councillors even after the Unitary Authority came into being, and even after the following local elections when Labour lost its other Rochester seats. They are still there today, though not very well liked – and that is a whole 'nother story, which is very interesting in itself but doesn't concern us today.

Interestingly, because there was already a fair amount of social housing and similar in neighbouring Strood, and Labour seemed to think they had those seats by default, perhaps too much of their effort went into the 'Troy Town project' – and there are still signs of that going on today, I notice whenever I pass through there. The consequence seems to have been that the good folks of urban Strood (the rural part is a separate entity) saw what was going on in other places that had Conservative representation and grew ever more marginal in their voting at each successive local election.

By the year 2003 they had switched over (grown up?) and elected five out of six Conservative councillors, with Fred Bacon holding on in what was by then called Strood South ward only because of his strong personal vote. Since then, Labour has held only one or none of the three seats in each of Strood North and Strood South wards, and now has no seats there at all.

Other Labour 'safe' territory on our council also had the odd seat lost to Conservatives last May: Twydall, and Luton &Wayfield. No longer do they have any safe seats on Medway Council, despite all they have done to try to wangle things (including their ward boundary changes that were accepted by the Local Government Commission, taking effect in 2003).

The overall lesson in all of this is to at least be aware of any such political manipulations in the local community and nearby. Even if there is little if anything any of us as ordinary citizens can do about such social engineering, at least we ought to know of it and realise what is really going on.

Of course, this could equally well be done the other way around by Conservatives or other elected representatives on the political right, but my experience has been that this is rarely done for political reasons and in most instances is done just to improve the quality of an area – which is surely what those they are representing would wish them to do. I have seen this from the inside: different motivation, different goal in view; so let us not be misled on that.

Meanwhile, Labour here are fighting a losing battle – and I have seen a number of signs that, behind the public face, they do realise this – especially since the advent of the Corbyn & company party leadership, which makes an already bad situation for them even worse. The rest of us here in Medway, though, have to live with the fallout from their manipulations from years past – just as Londoners are having to cope with a raft of acute and in some cases severe consequences of the last Labour government's self-serving policies that ripped apart our Capital's core being and transformed it entirely.

At least it never got anywhere near that extent here...

Thursday, 28 January 2016

Who Is In Poll Position – January 2016

Indicative of the general trend, here are some interesting polling results from Ipsos MORI that are out today, kindly shared by the 'Britain Elects' Twitter account...

The party which 'has the best team of leaders to deal with the country's problems':
CON: 43%
LAB: 16%
UKIP: 4%
LDEM: 2%

The party which 'has the best policies for the country as a whole':
CON: 35%
LAB: 25%
UKIP: 6%
LDEM: 4%

The party which 'would be best at looking after the interests of people like you':
CON: 33%
LAB: 29%
UKIP: 8%
LDEM: 5%

The last has Labour closer to the Conservatives than with the other questions, but still behind by several percentage points.

We can also see that (as I predicted) UKIP support has really fallen away, as more and more people see them as (a) not as credible as many once thought, and (b) a dead end, going nowhere. None of this is surprising, of course, and merely continues a trend that became well-established several months ago.

Indeed, UKIP has become irrelevant (as I had predicted for some time) and the Lib Dems still are, leaving us with the very real prospect of no proper opposition party before much longer. As I have indicated before, including recently, that is not a good thing.

The only prospect I foresee is the one I have been anticipating for several years (as some reading this will be aware) which is that the Lib Dems will need to get their act together and be prepared to take on that task within the next three or four years. No-one else is set to do it!

Tuesday, 5 January 2016

Re-arranging the Deckchairs

Three months or so after Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn appointed his initial Shadow Cabinet, already an upheaval is under way as that entity is being reshuffled at this very moment.Some has already happened, no doubt more is to come. A running 'blog is being run here.

As many expected, this has become an exercise in removing at least some of those who voted against the Dear Leader's wishes in the free vote (i.e. not Whipped) on military intervention in Syria – although the initial perceived threat to Hilary Benn (who made the strongest case for intervention, from the Labour side of the Commons) was later dismissed but has today re-appeared.

My feeling is that he has to go if the Corbyn leadership stance is not to be weakened, especially during this reshuffle. We shall find out this afternoon!

Barnsley East MP Michael Dugher has written about what he and others have termed a 'revenge reshuffle', calling it neither good politics nor the supposed Corbyn 'new politics'. He is right – and in fact his piece is (perhaps surprisingly) well worth a read, though one does need to grit one's teeth when reading the predictable references to the supposedly 'wicked Tories' and just ride over all of that.

However, the point of it was – as Dan Hodges has long been aware, and has written about – for Corbyn to stamp his personal authority on his leadership of the party, and in the process eliminate most if not all of the significant dissent that had been occurring in recent times. It is useful to read Dan's piece to realise just how effective this has been.

This is not to say that the whole was handled well, especially by 'Jez' himself – unless his intention was to produce the exact side-effects that Iain Martin documents here. As one sometimes finds when looking at something sideways-on, there might have been a deliberate purpose to handling all this the way he has done, camouflaged by the broad perception that he was botching it as usual. Perhaps yes, perhaps no...

Overall, this is a moment in the Labour party's long history that will be marked as a turning point, one way or another, and whether it survives as a viable influence could very well be being determined right now. That old saying about 're-arranging the deckchairs on The Titanic' springs to mind: whatever is done on the inside, without regard to the world beyond, will make no difference to the party's sinking below the political waves.