Programmes of Treason

This seems to be a suitable time to revisit the topic of the programmes that were devised by the political Left for a corrupt leadership and/or governmental establishment to destroy a nation and its culture from within.

I covered the Frankfurt School of Cultural Marxism's bullet list of policies before, and shall include it here for convenience, but first here is a not dissimilar set of actions that seem to have been geared toward a nation like the United States. These are often attributed to Saul Alinsky, but that source has never (as far as I know) been sufficiently corroborated for us to be certain – not that it really matters, of course.

You might recognise some if not all of these from what had indeed been happening in the USA during recent years. There are those of the establishment over there who are still pushing this agenda, certainly parts of it, against the current President's policies…

There are 8 levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to create a social state.
The first is the most important.
1) Healthcare — Control healthcare and you control the people
2) Poverty — Increase the Poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.
3) Debt — Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.
4) Gun Control — Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government. That way you are able to create a police state.
5) Welfare — Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and Income).
6) Education — Take control of what people read and listen to — take control of what children learn in school.
7) Religion — Remove the belief in God from the Government and schools.
8) Class Warfare — Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take from (tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor.

Now for the Frankfurt School policy programme, again intended for the destruction and replacement of a nation's structure and culture, this one distinctly recognisable to Brits who remember the Blair & Brown 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

There is a secondary bullet list of another dozen policies, though the only source I ever found for that has long since gone. I wish I had taken a copy at the time.

In both these cases, then, we can easily see how this is all in effect treasonous, and extremely dangerous. It is hardly surprising that one of the first-term actions of the Blair government was to remove the death penalty for treason – a seemingly random activity for a government supposedly concentrating on more weighty matters for the nation, but obvious now that we understand the context of that move. It was in case they got caught and indicted.

In practice, we must always be aware of how dangerous the political Left is, no matter how carefully they prepare their oh so plausible 'sales pitch', and regardless of their 'window dressing' to give the impression (to the gullible, who form all too large a part of the population) that they are "on the people's side" and should be allowed to implement one or another of the above policies.

All of it, always, is intended ultimately to enslave and impoverish all of us who aren't the self-appointed élite types behind these programmes: devising them, implementing them, aiding them, hiding & covering-up the reality and whatever might leak out or be discovered about them.

In this crucial time, the current activity is very strongly the (multiple) attempts to start civil unrest and indeed civil war on both sides of the Atlantic, including several of the EU nations with more to follow. That is intended to lead to martial law and a police State – and it is transparent that this is what the shadow government (Deep State/establishment) has been working toward in the USA for some time. See the 'Alinsky' policy No. 4.

Here in Britain, despite the weakness of a minority government and a fair amount of criticism of it, they are at least Conservatives (despite what some like to claim) and the path being taken here is more tortuous.

Across the Pond, much of what has been planned has been scuppered, deferred or similarly knocked off track by the election of President Trump and what he has been doing ever since. He is a very canny operator, and has already achieved much more than what appears on the surface.

I just hope we here can at least do as much as is necessary to protect our own nation!

Syria

The military strike, earlier today, on what were reportedly Syria's chemical weapon stores, is now a matter of history. It has happened.

I was not in favour of any military intervention there because I knew that the West was being manipulated by Deep State forces, and this could have played right into their hands and triggered their wanted World War 3.

In reality, this was always a 'Kobayashi Maru' kind of situation (as per the second original Star Trek movie, "The Wrath of Khan") – namely, a no-win scenario. Do, or not do, there was never going to be an actual solution: it was more a test of character, and about trying to find the least bad option and subsequent fallout.

So, now that the strike has been implemented, what are the positives that we can take from where we are today?

First, on the assumption that the intelligence regarding the target site(s) was good, we in the west (several countries, including Britain) have reduced the capacity for chemical weapon usage in Syria – although they could bring in such materials from elsewhere, I suppose, but at huge risk as of course all movements are being very closely monitored.

It isn't worth the risk of attempting that, not only because of the high risk of loss of those materials as well, but also because the game would be up and the whole world would know what was going on. That could not be undone, and loses a strategic and propaganda advantage that could be vital in the near future.

The action has also 'sent a message' – and expression I see over-used but on this occasion it is justified – so that everyone knows that chemical weapons are 'off limits' and that will be backed up by the most powerful military forces on the planet. In case anyone had forgotten what those forces are capable of doing, this action was also a reminder of that.

Under the circumstances, there is not a lot that the Assad regime or its Russian friends can say or do. There is certainly no justification for any kind of escalation, though the Russians will feel obliged to make at least a token response – one that say "we could easily do much more than this, today is just a taster. Don't push it!"

 

They could try to claim that what was targeted was 'medical supplies' – but both sides are fully aware of just how easy that would be to discredit upon examination; and there really isn't any justifiable reason to oppose an independent investigation of the affected sites, if they don't wish to be ridiculed and dismissed for making empty, unverified claims.

In the end, I still wish we hadn't done this – but now that we are here, we need to realise that it need go no further than a little bit of face-saving for the Russians after what they have already stated.

As One Door Closes

The dominance of the Corbynites on the Labour party's National Executive Committee (NEC), achieved this week, and the already-begun expected (at least by some of us) purge of what are termed 'moderates', are leading to the party's ultimate demise.

What I have read was an 11% vote for Jon Lansman (head of the Corbyn-supporting Momentum organisation) and two other 'Corbynistas' has resulted in their faction now running the NEC – and indeed purging of anyone who is not of their mind has already started from at least one key position, just a day later.

None of this comes as any surprise, as it has been easy to see where the party has been heading for some time. I might hold the record for being the first to predict all of this, which I have been doing ever since Ed{ward} Miliband became the Labour leader almost two-thirds of a decade ago. Back then, I initially predicted that within half a decade or so, the party would reach a point from which it could never return, and it would start to become more obvious to all that it was on its way to extinction within a few years after that.

To the political geeks who would listen, I also disclosed that the psychology and structural make-up of the party meant that this was inevitable, and the point of no return had effectively been reached at that time. I don't think they believed me…






Actually, by last March, even The Guardian had learned of a plot by Momentum and the UNITE union to take over control of Labour.


The present situation has been made comparatively easy by what appears to have been almost complete inaction on the part of the so-called 'moderates' within the party, including and most especially its elected members in the House of Commons – its MPs. It is now being suggested by concerned people that they leave the Labour party and stand as Independents at the next election. They are just about certain to be de-selected as candidates anyway – something that has this week been threatened, and that we really knew would happen if we were honest with ourselves.

This, though, would fragment them into non-entities without a party machine to campaign for them, so they'd be unlikely to win the seats and there'd be no full-on manifesto to give them even an election campaign firm foundation. They could form a new party or similar but less formalised entity with common goals and its own manifesto, but that could be difficult to achieve and it'd need to establish its credentials over a period of years.

I have a better idea. When we had a not dissimilar situation in the country around thirty years ago, when Militant were trying to dominate Labour, a 'gang of four' broke away from the party and set up the centrist Social Democrat Party (SDP) which many disaffected Labour members joined and supported for many years. Some went with it in the subsequent merger with the Liberal Party when the Liberal Democrats were formed, a (much) smaller number stayed with an ongoing SDP.

Interestingly, a similar phenomenon to that divide occurred with the old Tory Party in the 19th century when it officially ceased to exist upon the formation of the Conservative Party – but some of the party faithful kept it going for decades.

Similarly, the SDP is still around, and seems to have been quietly waiting in the wings for a suitable time for its re-emergence. It is strongly pro-Brexit, so would certainly seem to be an ideal new home for Leave-favouring displaced Labour MPs, councillors and ordinary members. Remainers might not be so keen, depending on how their feelings weigh up between Brexit and having a Commons presence.

I suspect that there are enough Labour moderates to make such a move to this new home work – just as it did to a considerable degree last time round. The advantage this time is that there would be fewer seats to contest, rather that the SDP's full slate approach back in the 'eighties. At that time they were winning almost as many votes as Labour, but getting only a small fraction of their number of seats as the SDP vote was too thinly spread – something that afflicts the successor Lib Dems to this day.

For the next General Election, the campaigning would be limited to (probably) around 250 seats, which should be sufficient to tip the balance even the first time (presumably May 2022) and get at least some of the SDP candidates elected. It might not be very many on that occasion, but it would be a much greater success story than (say) UKIP and the Greens have ever had, and perhaps better than the Lib Dems' wins on that day.

I think it could work!

How the Mighty are Falling

All of a sudden, it seems to have become almost trendy for high-profile people (mostly men) to be 'outed' regarding claimed histories of inappropriate behaviour, largely toward women but there have been examples of young (at the time) boys being the victims in one or two instances.

Now, at this stage, most if not all of these are allegations without any proof necessarily having been presented, and certainly not made public – but it would hardly be surprising if at least some of these claims turned out to be well-founded, though I doubt that all of them are. No doubt there's some of 'mud sticks' idea behind ending certain individuals' careers.

The most recent instance of this phenomenon as I write this is the case of Matt Lauer, who apparently is (or rather was) a presenter on America's NBC news programmes. This one is interesting, though, as there are those asserting (after some research and his known history, I gather) that he is being purged by NBC because, as it is claimed, he hadn't been delivering on the globalist agenda – which, as regular readers here will already know, most of the USA's big media outlets support.

This is something to watch out for with other seemingly on-side media and political figures in  particular, at least on that side of the Atlantic and possibly here too, who befall a similar fate. We know that the globalists are losing out now; and their leaders are no doubt feeling the pressure, so I'd guess they need to send a message to all their friendly media's front-line staff that it's their job to fully push their agenda or face a similar fate. Not a great surprise, of course.

Whether there is any truth to the allegations or not, it is still enough to harm or perhaps even end careers. Of course, they can't keep making spurious and unfounded allegations, so there are likely to be at least some genuine instances among those who have already been targeted, and those who are being lined-up to be next, if deemed necessary.

It seems to be becoming a little more widely known that the globalists and their high-profile minions are part of an evil (actually satanic) plan to subjugate humanity, kill off most of us in the process, turn the rest into slaves or serfs, and then the world's 'saviour' will be publicly revealed in his throne room in the Vatican – actually the now-mature Antichrist.

Here are some images of that room, with the place at the centre ready for the throne when it and its occupant are to be revealed.

Of course, as with all the major changes to society that are designed to harm our culture in this supposedly 'enlightened' age, it is all satanic in nature, and shares one feature and one only – it is all specifically targeted against God's rules, institutions (e.g. his definition of marriage) and peoples (originally just the Jews; now Christians are the world's most persecuted faith group) – which rather gives the game away. I could list dozens of specific examples, but I suspect that most of my readers are well up to sussing them out for themselves, armed with that insight.

Remember the Biblical prophesies about the End Times,such as 'good will become bad, and bad will become good', and the reference to the 'seven hills' of Rome (i.e. the Vatican) for further examples. Only God's chosen US president has been able to defer the bad times yet to come so soon, but come they will! It will not be fun…

Uber going Unter?

The current controversy in London regarding the new ban of the Uber taxi service stems from a complex scenario that isn't as black-and-white as might be convenient to some.

It has become evident over the years that there are some taxi drivers who commit serious criminal acts against their passengers, particularly (it seems) if they are lone females, especially younger ones. The exact distribution and intensity of these across the various service providers is multi-dimensional, so it is very easy for someone with a specific agenda to select the statistics that suit that person't argument.

Overall, though, the app-based Uber service has been shown to be more reliable, trackable and documented in a way that reduces the risks in a way that other such service providers do not and (currently) cannot equal. Does this make it infallible? No: but it is reportedly a lot better than the alternatives. It has a solid user-base of several million customers.

The seemingly sudden ban by London (Labour) Mayor Sadiq Khan on continuing Uber's licence to operate in London turns out to be a poor response to what has (I am informed by those in the know) become a significantly improved reputation by Uber. In other words: "You're getter better, better than the others in fact, so now we are going to ban you!"

Is this because Sadiq Khan wishes to pander to lower quality and hates the raising of standards? Well, that's possible – but it now seems almost certain that this was a mainly (if not entirely) political and self-serving move by the London mayor, as he is significantly dependent upon the Black Cab fraternity and their votes, as well as those of their supporting Trades Union. A number of reputable commentators have already looked into this and come to that very same conclusion.

Now, as a non-user of Uber myself, even when I am in London (e.g. at my late father's house), and without having the necessary smart 'phone to be able to access Uber, I have no personal axe to grind on this issue. Therefore I present just some aspects of this that are troubling. There are others as well, that I have not covered here, but the above is the crux, I believe.

Muddle in the Middle

Following on from my previous post, after a few interesting days…

One of the inevitable effects of so-called 'centrist' parties is that they are, in effect, opposing everyone else, both Left and Right. I suspect that a realisation of this is what might have deterred Arron Banks from launching his own rumoured centrist party. He must have sussed out, surely, that he'd not only be in actuality but also publicly perceived as 'against everyone' and his efforts would thus be dismissed as negative and as being irrelevant to tackling any actual issues. One cannot (in general) fight a war on two fronts – especially when one's opponents have only a singly 'enemy' (the Left or the Right) each.

This is always going to be the problem with such parties or movements – not that the idea is without merit, but in the real world it cannot work. This is why even mainstream parties that wish (or even need) to do well in the 'middle ground' still pitch themselves as centre-left or centre-right. There is a good reason for it, y'see.

James Chapman's proposed new party – provisionally to be called either the Democrats, the UK Democrats, or the New Democrats – has been tweeting for the past three days; and if one were to look through their several hundred tweets already (including many re-tweets of others' contributions) as I have done to some extent, one would find a very strange mix, with some home-brew threads that really seem off-the-wall.

I encountered one such thread about the devil and the law, which is frankly impenetrable and gives the impression (probably incorrectly) of a drug-fuelled mini-rant. It certainly doesn't make any sense that I can deduce. Meanwhile, their 'anti everyone' stance in other tweets and commentary elsewhere produces a very muddled and unclear policy outlook.

As I mentioned before, even their proposed form of name is in complete contrast to their actual policy placement, as their primary goal is to overturn a democratic decision in favour of their own preference. This is the referendum result that was a vote to leave the European Union.

Okay, so it is currently the annual 'silly season' where just about anything can happen – and this seems to be this year's biggest contribution toward maintaining that perennial reputation. For all I know, this might be just be a parody, and will be declared as such any day now. If not, though…

I suspect this will end up like Veritas, Respect and the other non Union-driven fringe parties such as the English Democrats – and where UKIP currently seems to be heading as well (just as I predicted several years ago and ever since) as a dead end that will no doubt have a flurry of publicity, and will then vegetate and slowly die.

It might not; but I can't see it going anywhere, as there is no sense or positive purpose in it.

UPDATE: soon after I wrote this, it transpired that the aforementioned James Chapman was having 'mental issues' and commentators were asked not to add anything for the time being. I have waited four weeks since reading anything about this, and merely mention it now, for information.

All Roads Lead to the Centre

Something that I have been discussing in semi-private for several years now (some of it is publicly visible on Twitter) is the prospect of yet another political party here in Britain, in reaction to all the (both perceived and actual) polarisation of the existing parties that many are seeing as 'extremism', or at least a tendency in such a direction.

Remembering my predictions about where Labour in particular were heading ever since Ed[ward] Miliband then became their leader, and the consequent (promoted by some) rise of UKIP as the only remaining way for the broader Left to undermine the potentially huge Conservative success that they could see lasting for decades, it was clear that the public perception of the then (and current) political scene as becoming ever more divided and divisive was near-enough certain to expand greatly within a very few years.

That has now happened, exactly as a small number of us in the commentariat expected, and an even smaller number (I'd guess) publicly stated as their opinion.

Thus it is no surprise that the idea of what is claimed would be a new 'centre-left' party has been mooted for a while, and now there are actual moves being made to bring it into reality. It is an easy concept to sell to the public and, to a cautious extent, the big media.

There have been several of such proposals in recent years, including (inevitably) a specifically Labour break-away party for all those moderates (if such a beast exists) who have been and are being ousted from re-standing at the next election by Momentum, and those ousted folk's supporters. Now, just this past week, we have had James Chapman (a.k.a. Chappers) proposing in effect a coalition of those from all parties and political persuasions (or none) who are opposed to the UK leaving the European Union – which is to be a big policy feature of this new party.

In the ultimately irony, going against a democratic decision that the British people have already made – and which has strengthened in terms of leaving the EU via what some are mischievously calling a 'hard Brexit' – they are thinking of calling themselves 'The Democrats'. I suppose that is at least consistent with what already exists on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean: a party called 'Democrats' that is anything but.

Thus we know from the outset that it is a deception, and no doubt will become as malign a political force as those other 'Democrats' once the brand has been established, initially seemingly benign and well-intentioned but soon shifting gears to where it is probably even now planned to ultimately sit in the political panorama.

It has been noted that the two main founders of this new party have shifted their own positions to further their own careers. Now, I don't have any fine details on their personal histories, but anyone who feels so inclined (I don't, this time) can easily check – especially on Brexit.

Meanwhile, we do of course still have the Liberal Democrats, who fit into this exact slot: centre-left, anti-Brexit. Why create a new party when one such already exists? Not that it is exactly doing well – but that tells me that any party with that approach will now lose out, so it is hardly worth creating a near-copycat new one. It isn't as if the Lib Dems are as toxic a brand as they once were because of their coalition with the Conservatives in government earlier this decade: that is now essentially history. Indeed, their pluses (such as they are) significantly outweigh their negatives.

A new party comes into the arena as an unknown, and it takes many years to establish themselves, especially if they do not even have established elected members as its founders. The public simply will not trust them, although I'd expect an initial 'honeymoon' period that will give a misleading indication of popularity.

If this new party goes ahead, especially with its proposed somewhat pretentious title, I'd expect it to face a real test once it has to put out a real election manifesto and then defend that to the public, including via the media. We have already witnessed how unforgiving that process can be, and I cannot see the new venture becoming any more than, say, another Respect or Veritas, though not in quite the same form as those always were 'cult of personality' pseudo-parties.

So was UKIP under Farage, of course – but that party was being bigged-up by those who saw it as the only way to stop the Conservatives after the obviously useless Ed Miliband became Labour leader. There will be no such incentive for those manipulators to support or promote the new venture.

It will probably die or be absorbed into one of the fringe parties after a few years, much as Veritas merged with the English Democrats some months ago. Near-enough no-one will miss it…

Licence to Sin

My previous post here looked at one area where some people are apparently now 'authorised' to commit the kind of violence they had been doing for years already. The main point, though, was the seeming legitimisation of the violence.

Now we have let that sink in during the days since I posted that, it is perhaps a good time to look at the broader picture. Ultimately, it is the Satanic agenda that embraces and encourages sin of various kinds – including deception, polygamy, theft, child abuse and violence in general.

This in itself is absolute proof that there is nothing of God or of righteousness in those political, religious or secretive movements (the three 'legs' of the devil's support tripod that I have mentioned before) that 'authorise' any of those things, let alone practise them. God hates sin, and certainly doesn't seek to encourage or condone it. Thus these, where sin is embedded at their core, cannot be of God and never have been.

Although it is often hidden out of public gaze, and camouflaged by nice-sounding passages that can be quoted to give the organisation (or whatever) an acceptable public face, the reality is always there, lurking beneath the surface – or suddenly exploding into our consciousness.

Often the participants don't realise what they are getting themselves into – such as secret society initiation rituals where the initiate doesn't know what vows he is going to make until he has to repeat what is read out to him. Those of the Freemasons are quite horrific, for example – though their officials try to make out that it isn't 'literal'. Of course it is: otherwise the wording would have been changed, obviously. Interestingly, Jack the Ripper applied Masonic punishments to his victims; though no-one outside the Brotherhood knew their origin back then.

Always one finds harming and other sins allowed, even encouraged and sometimes enforced, with all the Satanic 'tripod legs'. Thus we can fairly easily determine which parts of our society are under the devil's full control. I do realise that there are some grey areas, and much misinformation around besides, but most people with a reasonably functioning brain should be able to sort the wheat from the chaff – apart from those with their own warped agenda, which also usually turns out to be Satanic only they don't often realise that fact. That, though, is another story…

Licensed Violence

The removal of the 'non-violence' rule by the Corbyn/Labour-supporting Momentum political movement is just the (predictable) next stage in what I have long thought was their always-intended move toward totalitarianism.

Students of twentieth-century history will be aware of the route taken in various other countries toward 'socialist revolution' and its eventual destination, and will no doubt spot the parallels. Those readers who have been following my writings here and elsewhere will also be aware that I have been expecting all of this – and worse to come – for quite a few years now, long preceding the advent of Momentum. They are just the vehicle: the plan has been there all along.

Indeed, I am surprised it took them this long to become sufficiently bold and confident that they felt they could now make this change to their rules: they no longer need the veneer of apparent respectability, as their support is large enough and solid enough. Not that the rule would ever stopped them anyway, one might surmise from media reports and other factors, but I can well imagine that they had to at least appear to be a peaceful movement while they were still building up their numbers.

Now the gloves can come off formally: they have effectively licensed violence.

The exact timing of this rule change is significant, though, inasmuch as it almost immediately precedes their next 'street action' which I gather is planned for this coming weekend – so expect an upping of the ante on this occasion. I am anticipating the most severe rioting we have seen in this country for many a year, unless the police have devised (and can implement) a clever enough strategy to be able to nip it all in the bud on the day.

From here on in it all escalates in the now near-desperate effort to foment sufficient civil unrest to achieve the next steps along the road to ultimate totalitarianism here in Britain: civil war and the introduction of martial law in order to subdue and control the population.

Pinch Point

With reports that one of the big reasons – perhaps the biggest – why last week's election was called at all was because the EU's Jean-Claude Juncker told PM Theresa May that her then (small) inherited majority wouldn't serve her well enough when it came to the 'pinch points' in the Brexit negotiations, we are starting to see some of the bigger picture.

In particular, a somewhat squeezed Mrs May, trying to do the best job for Britain, while undoubtedly not trusting Juncker (who would?) nevertheless must have felt that it was better to go for it than to leave things be. At the very least, it wouldn't let the EU negotiators be able to claim that our Prime Minister hadn't had the guts to try.

This and many other behind-the-scenes activities are what I have to try to discover and take into account when making my own predictions and formulating my own approaches to all the reasonably probable outcomes and consequences of what is happening out there in the political world.

As some 'old hands' here already know, my own (admittedly modest) influence is done mostly invisibly, and primarily through extending public knowledge of what the players are really up to, via a complex network of channels and other structures.

In practice, it is like a hysteresis loop, with the effect somewhat lagging behind whatever I (and no doubt others) do, and out of phase with it for a while. Steering a boat, especially at close quarters with another vessel, feels a little like it as well. Nonetheless it is the best anyone can do while respecting the population's right to self-determination – which I always do.

Most people eventually grow up politically, which is why the majority of the older generation end up no longer conned by the Left's false promises and attempted bribes, and tend toward the political Right in their leanings. Over time, the wiser heads die off, though, and the newly-indoctrinated – so mostly Left-leaning – youths reach voting age, so the whole learning cycle begins again.

Thus this is a never-ending scenario, and we all have to use our brains more effectively if we are to become a better and stronger nation in the near future. One vital aspect of that in the current time-frame is to get out of the EU completely, regardless of the outcome of last Thursday's election, and that is something we can still do.

It's All About The Sales Pitch

Although, in this General Election, I hadn't expected such a large chunk of the UKIP vote to switch to Labour (thus defeating their own professed key policy's safety), especially in the south, the outcome wasn't something I had not foreseen as a – hopefully remote – possibility. The strong mobilisation of the so-called 'youth vote' was another factor that shifted the dynamics significantly.

As ever, Labour were largely reliant on the 'freebies for the many' bribery technique that has long served them so well when dealing with the (sadly) gullible masses – and millions fell for it, as they always do. This is the 'sales pitch' that a Labour government will give you all that you seek in life, gladly handed out free of charge by the State. As long as someone else is described as paying for it (even though that is nearly always a falsehood) they are happy to go along with it.

Of course it's all nonsense; but that doesn't register with those millions of voters, either now or ever in the past. That is why the technique is still prevalent with the Labour party in particular: it works!

It is, nevertheless, salutary to note that despite all of this, and despite a poorly-devised Conservative manifesto and a lacklustre campaign, Labour still lost this election and ended up a long way short of a majority. Indeed, the Conservative vote count went up significantly since two years ago, even though it didn't translate ideally into seats in this starkly two-party election in which every other party fell by the wayside as essentially irrelevant.

As usual, my longer-term prediction is that our new path will converge on where we would have been anyway, some fifteen years hence. It will just be a much more bumpy ride than it needed to be…

Local Diversity Representation

Phew! That's a bit of a mouthful; but the other title I came up with was probably too jokey: "Diversity isn't where a Welsh poet lives" (Dai Verse city.)

Anyway, the purpose of this post is to look at my local elected Council and see how it measures up in regards to gender mix and ethnic diversity. It's only because Labour have for years attempted to 'weaponise' these topics – as we have all witnessed when they fling labels around such as 'sexist!' and 'racist!' (the exclamation marks have in effect part of the word) – so I wondered how the party groups were doing in these two respects, partly as a break from all the current General Election activity. In particular: have Labour put their money where their mouth is, so to speak?

Because we have had so many changes over the years, including several party defections and a few by-elections – even since the last local elections just two years ago – the only sensible way to tackle this is to look at the state of the party groups as they are today (there are no Independents) which means just Conservatives, Labour and UKIP. I found this council web-page useful for reference.

First, the gender mix: here are the numbers of male (M) and female (F) councillors in each party group, followed in each case by the percentage female…

Conservatives (38) – 28 (M); 10 (F); 26% F

Labour (15) – 9 (M); 6 (F); 40% F

UKIP (2) – 2 (M); 0 (F); 0% F

Overall (55) – 39 (M); 16 (F); 29% F

Okay: that's not bad for Labour, actually, and okay for the Conservatives – though those who are avid 'equality' freaks will no doubt be less pleased. Personally, I have never been concerned about these matters – which is probably why it has taken me so many years to post about this! It was actually inspired by something I read about Emmanuel Macron's mostly-white campaign team just minutes before I started writing this; also because of the 'diversity' theme of tonight's Eurovision Song Contest  – which was presented by three white males, by the way…

Right: on to ethnic mix now. It's the same style of tabulation for this, with (W) meaning 'white' and (E) standing for 'ethnic', as these are the preferred terms, as I understand the thinking to be this week. No doubt it will change soon enough(!)

Conservatives (38) – 33 (W); 5 (E); 13% E

Labour (15) – 14 (W); 1 (E); 7% E

UKIP (2) – 2 (W); 0 (E); 0% E

Overall (55) – 49 (W); 6 (E); 11% E

Poor UKIP really don't have enough members to do much about their participation in this diversity exercise – and to be fair to them, when they did have three members (up until several months ago) the third was at least female. Labour, though, are sadly lacking here – and they are the ones who kick up a fuss about these things. Next time they do so, feel free to fling this back at them!

Though there isn't any completely up-to-date census data on this, I think the overall figure is roughly proportional to the mix in our local population of some quarter of a million souls, perhaps a fraction high if anything.

Whether this exercise will prove to have been of any value or not remains to be seen – but at least we have the information on record in a form that might come in handy for future reference purposes.

Wolf in Sheep's Clothing

As many of those folk who have known me for a long time, and especially in close-up, will already know, I am a very strong believer in a healthy democracy. This needs at least two (but hopefully not too many) political parties with credible policies and a reasonable hope of being elected to government.

We have increasingly lacked that proper structure here in Britain, which is why I have (as many readers will be aware) been playing a small part in trying to fix the issue. For the past nearly seven years this has meant trying to find a replacement main opposition party to the Conservatives – whose ongoing tenure in government seemed to me assured for many years to come – in the knowledge that Labour were going to more or less destroy themselves in about half a dozen years.

As I told people in the second half of 2010 and later, I knew that Labour had set themselves upon an irreversible path to their own demise once they had installed Ed[ward] Miliband as their party leader – though I doubt any of them believed me back then. The party was turning to the left, and then some. Now, of course, those people perhaps understand at least something of why I made that bold claim, and with such conviction.

Fast-forward to today and what do we find?

Labour continued to turn leftward, eventually and inevitably installing the real party-killer (Ed-M was just the catalyst that made it not only possible, but just about unavoidable) Jeremy Corbyn. It had to happen. Equally predictably, this move allowed the ever-lurking out-and-out Communists to infiltrate and dominate the party, using the movement they created called Momentum. Their long-awaited day had come!

Thus today's Labour party has become the wolf in sheep's clothing, and is busy transforming the party from within. The parliamentary party has, as they'd have expected, become a serious problem, because of all those pesky 'moderate', 'Blairite' or 'blue Labour' MPs as the current leadership (and especially Momentum) brands them.

Thus we are seeing a number of more 'suitable' candidates for the upcoming General Election being parachuted in to safe Labour seats, while the less safe seats are becoming more marginal in the present political climate so will probably be voted out of office anyway – not a significant issue, then.

The Labour party manifesto for this election reads like something that wouldn't have gone amiss in former Communist East Germany – and its supposedly draft version was leaked to two news outlets so that it became in effect de facto policy. As I posted on social media less than a day ago, the idea was to make it effectively impossible for the party to materially change anything – and indeed at the meeting to discuss any such changes that was held later in the day, it was reported as just 'tinkering' and making no substantive alterations.

Thus the Corbynite faction have what they have sought all along: the leader they wanted, the now-official policies they wanted, and their own/preferred people forming a majority of their parliamentary party a month from now.

This was the real reason they embraced the 'snap' election so readily: not to win it (they knew that wasn't possible) but to transform Labour into a genuine Communist Party disguised as something else, even if the camouflage isn't exactly fooling most people. Still, they have enough supporters for their needs, considerable evidence of which I continually find in various places.

Such a wolf can never again be a suitable alternative party to the Conservatives. As I said seven years ago, Labour had set itself upon a one-way street to destruction: there can be no way back. Perhaps, as some have surmised, they will split as they once did when the SDP was formed by 'the Gang of Four' more than a generation ago. If so, though, it will be for the same actual reason (i.e. not the public face) which will be currently-elected members seeking to avoid losing their seats – self-interest, in other words, so this would not make a breakaway party trustworthy.

With UKIP now losing support hugely, the party falling apart internally (which has been going on for some time now) and rapidly becoming a 'dead end', as I labelled them a few years back; the Greens continuing to fool nobody so with barely three percent support; and a slowly resurgent Liberal Democrat party as the only other even vaguely realistic alternatives; it is the last of these that – for all its faults – looks like being the only conceivable future opposition party out of those currently in existence.

What about possible new parties, though?

The wealthy UKIP financial supporter Arron Banks has been rumoured to be creating a new party, a kind of UKIP Mk 2 that is provisionally being called "The Patriotic Alliance" – but all has gone very quiet on that front for the past two months; i.e. from well before the snap election was called, so the current hiatus wasn't caused by that.

So, in conclusion, what we expect to happen in the next few months? Theresa May's Conservatives look set for a landslide win in next month's General Election. After that, Labour might or might not split, Arron Banks' new party might or might not be launched, and the Lib Dems might or might not continue to climb up the pecking order. It looks like interesting times ahead!

Counting the County

A luxury of sorts that we have here in Medway is that our Unitary Council deals with matters that a county council would handle in a dual-tiered area, as well as the borough matters. Thus Medway Council deals with education and highways (for example) as well as waste collection and libraries, among other topics.

Therefore, when it comes to county council elections, we can sit back and relax while the rest of Kent goes to the polls. This is what happened yesterday; and many other elections were going on around the country, from county and district/town/borough to mayoral elections and even a by-election in the nearby Tonbridge & Malling council area.

Despite there being no impact in my home area, I felt that this was all so significant on this occasion – especially falling so close to the snap General Election next month – that I stayed up all last night to follow the results as they came in. I resumed at mid-morning to get the results from those places that did not count their votes overnight but had waited until the morning to make a start. These included Kent County Council, in whom I was understandably most interested.

Anyway, there were 81 seats being contested in various 'divisions' as they are called, some having one seat and others having two seats. This was down three seats from the previous 84, owing to some boundary changes. The resulting seat counts were as follows…

Conservatives 67 seats
Liberal Democrats 6,
Labour 5
Green 1
Liberal Democrat Focus Team 1
Swanscombe & Greenhithe Residents' Association (SGRA) 1

Note especially that UKIP, who had 17 seats before the election, were completely wiped out – something that happened almost universally around all of Great Britain where elections were held on this occasion. Altogether, GB-wide, UKIP lost over 50 councillors, and retained just one.

The oddity with the Lib Dem designations has meant that officially the party group comprises six members – already more than Labour so making the yellows the official opposition group – but in practice the 'Focus Team' member will undoubtedly form part of that group. Labour's membership, meanwhile, has lost more than half of its former twelve seats.

Overall, this is a healthy step-change for the county council in clearing out much of the deadwood, though in the longer term it needs to achieve a less one-sided make-up, which could lead to cosiness and stagnation. That, though, is for the next elections in four years from now.

Snap Election

I had been wondering for some time just how much longer Prime Minister Theresa May could put off seeking a snap General Election in the wake of all the derailing threats that other parties were making in the Commons, more especially in the Lords, and elsewhere in the country regarding the Brexit process. Although I wasn't exactly expecting it to happen, I had been watching daily for signs of a change of heart from the PM's previous position.

It has now happened, in a clear-cut case of cause-and-effect. If the others had not behaved as they did (and still are) then this would not have become necessary. It is as simply and correctly stated as that. The election will be held on 8 June, just seven weeks from tomorrow.

Because of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, this has necessitated a Motion to be voted on in the House of Commons, and Royal assent after that. The first hurdle was completed a few hours ago as I write this, with well over 500 MPs agreeing to the General Election, and just 13 (nine of them Labour) MPs voting against. This comfortably exceeds the requirement of at least 2/3 of the full House assenting – the minimum thus being 434 out of the 650.

The general assumption is that the Conservatives will hugely increase their majority, which was just 12 seats after the previous election. I believe top psephologist Michael Thrasher (of Thrasher & Rallings fame) anticipates an overall majority of something like 120 or so. My own estimate, just for the record, is 165 plus-or-minus 9% of that figure: in effect, between 150 and 180.

A new spanner in the works, though – if it goes ahead – is a move to create an 'unholy alliance' of main opposition parties (Labour Lib Dems, SNP, perhaps Green) to field just one cross-party candidate in each target Conservative seat, so that all the non-Conservative votes will (they think) go to that candidate. As many Conservative MPs were elected with less than 50% of the actual vote, this suggests that the one significant opponent could take the seat, ultimately depriving Mrs May of an overall majority.

Thus goes the theory, demonstrating one-dimensional thinking in the process. Of course we can ignore fringe candidates like the perennial 'Save the NHS' and others of a similar nature, as well as the likes of TUSC and the always-entertaining Official Monster Raving Looney participants. This is nitty-gritty stuff. On the other hand, there is also UKIP, but their influence is waning.

If this scheme should go ahead, it makes two fatal errors: (1) that the electorate will vote the same way they did last time, or in the current polls, polarised into voting for any candidate who is not-Conservative regardless of party designation. The news is that they will not: people are already declaring wholesale that they will vote Conservative this time. Number (2) is the same for UKIP voters from last time and who have stated so to pollsters: they too are switching in large numbers to the Blue candidate.

Thus such an approach seems likely (I think certain) to fail; and if anything it will probably result in Mrs May gaining an even larger overall majority than my seemingly optimistic estimate. I say 'estimate' because – as those who have followed my prediction will know by now – I don't make any firm predictions until I know who is on the ballot paper, the day the Statements of Persons Nominated are published.

That is how I have been able to be so devastatingly accurate in the past…

Reckless Abandon

The news today is that Mark Reckless – once upon a time Conservative MP for near-to-me Rochester & Strood constituency, who then switched party to UKIP – has now resigned from that party too. Just like his friend of many years, Douglas Carswell MP, he is now sitting as an Independent, though he is no longer an MP but a member of the Welsh Assembly.

Somewhat like the European Parliament, Assembly Members (AMs) can sit with a particular political grouping if they wish, and if they are accepted, and it appears that Mark R. will be sitting with the Conservative Group in that structure. As far as I am aware, he has not re-joined his original party, and I don't think they would want him – at least not unless and until he has demonstrated true loyalty to them this time, I can well imagine.

This is quite possibly what this 'grouping' move is intended to demonstrate over time, in the hope that he will be invited back in a year or two. It could be that he wants to be an MP again, and sees no chance of that happening if he had stayed within UKIP. Not only was he unlikely to be selected as a candidate (because he was not much liked within that party) but recent election results – including the by-election a few weeks ago where their leader Paul Nuttall stood and failed to take the seat, carrying on the tradition of his predecessor – show that the party is unable to win seats.

With opinion poll figures for UKIP showing a downward trend for a long time now, and vote share in by-elections dropping hugely, the writing was on the wall: there is seemingly no electoral future in UKIP. This surely at least partly explains why both Douglas and Mark have now left the party, and at this specific time. The official line is that with the triggering of Article 50, their work within UKIP is now complete. It's plausible, though I am sceptical.

That event did provide a convenient excuse on the occasion of this second resignation – but it does not account for the timing of the Carswell departure, which was a little before that date, in a kind of 'no man's land' on the political calendar – and the two departures must be viewed together, just as their both joining UKIP was staggered just weeks apart, and of course because of their long friendship.

Overall, I don't see today's change making much difference to anyone outside Wales, and probably very little change there either. I shall keep a weather eye on what develops over time; but that, I think, is all it warrants.

All's Well That's Carswell – or is it?

News today that Douglas Carswell – the original Conservative sitting-MP defector to UKIP – has left that party comes as little surprise: pundits and commentators have been expecting it for some time. He will now sit as an Independent.

Thus UKIP, which has never has had one of its own people elected to the House of Commons, has gone from no MPs to one (defector), and then to two with the second defection by Mark Reckless shortly after, then back to one a mere six months later, and now zero again, less than two years after the last General Election.

The timing of this move is interesting, coming as it does at a slightly odd time. Douglas states his reason as being the completion of the mission to leave the EU – but we haven't yet done so. Article 50 is to be triggered just four days from now, so if that was the reason why didn't he at least wait until then? The Referendum was held months ago, so that wasn't the cause either.

Apparently he has been liaising with senior Conservatives with the apparent aiming of rejoining his former party. I don't think that would go down well among the party's rank and file membership, and is something that I'd recommend be seriously pursued.

ANother ingredient in the mix is the possible imminent launch of UKIP big sponsor Arron Banks' new party, provisionally called the Patriotic Alliance. The feeling I get with that, though, is that he might be even less welcome there than back in the Conservative fold. I could be wrong.

In recent days, though, yet another movement has surfaced: this appears to be some kind of 'New UKIP'. While that is probably a dead-end route (the analogy of stopping digging when you're already in a hole of your own making springs to mind) it might provide a new home for Douglas C. I have no idea if that is even on his radar, but as mere speculation it is worth airing as one of the possibilities.

Behind all of this, though, I suspect is the realisation that UKIP – which I have long stated is a dead end – is dying, as polls and by-elections have been clearly showing. Here's Britain Elects' poll-of-polls graph covering the period since the May 2015 General Election…

The UKIP polling support is clearly moribund, with the resurgent Liberal Democrats looking set to overtake them shortly. This has been borne out in a large number of by-election results in recent months, mostly council seats but still telling a strong story. UKIP votes have been slashed from the previous election in many of the contested seats, down to between a third and a half of their former vote share.

I watch these closely, and every week (Thursday night & Friday morning) you'll find the results with my comments re-tweeted on my Twitter timeline. The writing is now very clearly on the wall – and perhaps this is indeed the best time to get out and make oneself nominally available to any suitably-positioned new movement that could do with having on board an established political figure to give it some weight.

That could well be the calculation at work here.

No More Kipping

The creation of a new political party by Arron Banks – long anticipated by some including myself (as I have mentioned before) – seems to have taken a step forward today, with the suspension of Mr Banks from UKIP. This was (he says) because of something he recently said about UKIP.

Now, this is a promising move, if it is handled in the right way. I have been saying (and showing) for some time that UKIP was always a dead end – and it has been proven true. I'd venture to suggest that a considerable majority of the electorate also now realise this.

Despite the boost given to them by certain pundits, movers & shakers, and being gifted votes as a protest party, their core vote was usually in single figures (I estimate 6% to 8% tops) as has been shown consistently in opinion polls and in particular in more recent actual elections, whether council or parliamentary. Note that each party has a core vote that will probably never change, plus other more fluid 'floating' votes, so the core forms just part of the polling/voting figure.

Most notably, the UKIP vote has in the majority of cases dropped hugely since the previous election in that seat, typically down to just a third to a half of the percentage vote they had the last time. I watch this every week, and tweet all the results, so they can be found on my Twitter feed.

So: what about this new party, then? I'd welcome it, because it is about time that the deadwood were to be cleared out from our nation's political scene – and that means Labour and the Greens, along with TUSC, as well as UKIP. None of them offers any real value in twenty-first century politics.

So far there are two problems with what has emerged today: Arron Banks seems to be thinking of it as a Mark Two version of UKIP, which would be the wrong approach. It has to be something new and fresh, not modelled on what has gone before, otherwise it will almost certainly mutate over a few years into being in the same situation as UKIP is today, and will never generate sufficient public confidence to become viable. They'll prefer the devil they already know.

The second issue is the likelihood of Nigel Farage being pushed to be its leader. Again, this will lead to the same kinds of difficulties that UKIP had for years in that it will become the Nigel Show all over again – a 'cult of personality'. That is not what is needed. Hopefully Farage's Trump association will lead to a full-time occupation on that side of the Atlantic, which will thus help save the new venture here if it should go ahead.

I wish such a new party well, especially if it does result in the dross vanishing from the scene. It could (and should) be much healthier for British politics, both nationally and (over a longer period) locally too. It just needs to be done right, from the launch onward, and all should be set fair to raise the bar hugely over the next few years.

Weaponising

I have touched on this previously, here and elsewhere, in the context of Labour Motions to Council – but it is much broader than that. This is the matter of weaponising an issue – or even a non-issue that is manufactured into a weapon that can be used to raise the party's profile and/or support, or be aimed against their political opponents, or (ideally) all of those!

It isn't only Labour that do this: the entirety of the Green party's existence is dependent upon weaponising environmental matters (including a lot of pseudo-science and other fakery) in order to impose their Communist-style policies of tax-and-regulation (i.e. theft and oppression) on us all.

This, though, is why the most visible aspects of Labour's activities are all over the place – what I call 'grasshopper politics' – as the only topics that matter to them are those that play to their lust for power and ways of achieving that. Okay, sometimes they have to 'play the game' and express a view on other matters (though they usually still play politics with them where possible) but with little enthusiasm.

One place you can always depend on finding Labour activists, including elected members, is on marches and similar – including today's NHS-supporting rally in London. Some of our local Labour councillors actually boasted that they would be there, as they always do. Hardly surprising, of course, as this is the most heavily weaponised issue in Britain today, even though Labour's position is entirely dependent upon deception and outright dishonesty.

Equally unsurprising is that this event was called and organised by one of the big trades unions, and in particular by its General Secretary – Dave Prentis of Unison. There is lots I could write about that, but it's all public knowledge nowadays and much more widely known than when I started discussing the big union 'barons' a few years ago, when few folk realised just how much the whole movement had already been subverted to Communist manipulations.

The lesson from all of this, though, is to watch what they do, and how every new subject that comes seemingly out of the blue is used by the Lefties in exactly the same manner as their traditional 'weaponised' topics, including groups of people – at least while they are of use to Labour et al.

Once upon a time that included blue collar workers, but they have generally outlived their usefulness so were dropped by Blair, and that changed situation maintained within the Labour leadership to this very day, as has been widely reported.

It is thus instructive to become aware of how public opinion and the political landscape are being manipulated entirely to serve party political ends, and have nothing to do with serving the public interest. After all, with so much attention being concentrated on minor issues such as Fixed Odds Betting Terminals (a recent 'big issue' with Labour all around the country) it means that big, important matters are being sidelined by that party.

I know from my own experience as an elected member on a Council, and from my decades in the Civil Service and other sources/inputs, just how little the Left serve the nation's interests and how much they try to block and generally oppose those of us who did and those who still do, if it serves their own purposes.

They always but ALWAYS put their own interests first, even if they are very clever at disguising that fact.

Social Engineering Revisited

This post augments the one I wrote on this topic a few weeks ago, and re-iterates part of that post, leading onto a third part soon...

One oddity in my locality is a council ward currently called Rochester East. Part of this was formerly the smaller ward of Troy Town, and it is there that the uncharacteristic proliferation of social housing is to be found. This view from Google Maps shows where much of this is situated.

The main chunks are the two paired long blocks running between Cossack Street and Princes Street (Glovers Mill and Burritt Mews) and the 'chunky' blocks between them (Hussar House and Lancer House), also much of John Street and Hoopers Road. There are a lot of Labour voters living in those places, unsurprisingly when one looks at their nature and pays attention when passing through – which I have done many times.

The origin of all this goes back primarily to the 1980s when the then council leadership (Labour at the time) arranged for all this to be built, in order to skew the demographics of what was an essentially Conservative-supporting area. It does seem very much out of place in that part of the world – but it did work.It gave Labour a permanent and highly strategic foothold in urban Rochester.

When I was first elected to Medway Council nearly seventeen years ago, Troy Town was indeed represented by Labour councillors, even though other parts of Rochester were Conservative. Now, it wasn't always quite as clear-cut as that, for historic reasons from before I moved to Kent and which I have never been able to get to the heart of dependably, only conflicting anecdotal material being offered; so I am now sticking with the period I know personally.

Anyway, even with ward boundary changes a few years after the Unitary Authority came into being, what then became part of Rochester East ward has consistently swung it for Labour, even when other seats they held in the wider Rochester & Strood parliamentary constituency area came and went (in Strood North and Strood South wards, for example) – and they are now the only two Labour-held seats out of the twenty-two in that constituency.

That is highly significant. Without the social engineering of some three decades ago, they wouldn't even have those two council seats. The demographic slant also helped them at parliamentary election level, though never enough to make an actual switch: it was only Tony Blair winning (and John Major losing) in 1997 that ensured that the Medway area had three Labour Members of Parliament from that time.

Actually, it is just two-and-a-half MPs, as one of the constituencies (Chatham & Aylesford) was and is only half in the Medway council area.

Anyway, this does show what goes on in politics and why it is done (because it works!) Any party can do this when it has the power to do so; but it is only Labour who drag whole areas downward for their own power-lust purposes, as is of course a very old story nationally. I think the practice first came to public attention back in the mid 'sixties, though I was too young at the time to fully appreciate what was going on.

The modern-day context is Labour's 'Refugees welcome' initiative, which leads into a whole new story for which the background information in this post will aid understanding. It is, though, a separate story, which I intend to tackle here soon...