RISE AND FALL OF ANGLO-AMERICA – IMPORTANCE OF CHANGING DEMOGRAPHICS IN POLITICAL AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENTS

RISE AND FALL OF ANGLO-AMERICA  – IMPORTANCE OF CHANGING DEMOGRAPHICS IN POLITICAL AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENTS

 

I was recently reading a review of Professor Eric Kaufmann’s important book about why the White Anglo Saxon Protestant ascendancy in the United States has been displaced. 

 

The theories about this usually focus on the numbers of immigrants, in particular of Hispanics, coming into the United States across their southern border and the consequential cultural overwhelming of the White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (“WASP”) and also of their traditions which founded America. 

 

Professor Kaufmann has however an interesting point to make, which is that something within “WASP” liberal culture which was fatal to its continuing dominance.  You can see his theory below. 

 

It seems to me that you can see something similar happening in

earlier times, for instance in Ireland.  The Anglo-Irish Ascendancy of English origin families, by the late 18^th Century, owned most of the land of Ireland and held most of the political power.  This dominant position was then frittered away by members of the Ascendancy themselves. 

 

Consider the following:- 

 

1.    The 1798 rebellion of the “United Irishmen” led by Wolfe Tone who was a “WASP”. 

2.    The consensual handing over of the Irish Parliament to incorporation into the UK Parliament under the Act of Union 1801 was led by the Ascendancy itself. 

3.    The subsequent granting of voting rights to Irish Catholics was spearheaded by the leading Anglo Irish ascendancy figure, the Duke of Wellington in 1829. 

4.    The vigorous campaign for land rights and Home Rule by the Home Rule League and Irish Parliamentary Party led by Charles Parnell. 

5.    There were also significant numbers of the Ascendancy who supported Irish Independence.

 

All these moves were opposed on the other side by Empire Loyalists, but the fact remains that there was an enduring strain of liberal thinking amongst the English in Ireland and indeed liberal English thinking in England which was against the interests of continuing the dominance of Ireland by English families. 

 

This made me wonder what might have given rise to this type of thinking, which I do not think is found amongst other peoples around the world. 

 

It seems that English people don’t like injustice and unfairness to other groups, perhaps thinking that if such treatment is removed the people concerned will want to become part of the English way of doing things.  As history has repeatedly shown this is delusional but it keeps recurring and is now happening in England.

 

One possible explanation is that the English were particularly prone to the idea that everyone else wants to become English.  This may be due to our unusually long period of Nationhood from England’s unification of 927 under King Athelstan.  By contrast many European nation states only came into existence in the 19^th Century.

 

It could also be part of the unique form of Reformation that we had under Henry VIII and Thomas Cromwell led by the Crown, or it could be a consequence of the division within English society traditionally caused by class consciousness. 

 

There is also the impact of Traditional English moral conformity around sexuality.  In this regard it is interesting that the English traitors of the pre-war Cambridge spy network were mostly young men who were gay and therefore felt themselves in rebellion against the prevailing moral and legal codes even before they were recruited by Soviet Spy Masters to the cause of communism and worldwide revolution.

 

All of these were fractures in the English Nation’s sense of itself as a unified body which may be the root of what is certainly an interesting phenomena.

 

Here is the review of Professor Kaufmann’s book:-

 

Rise and Fall of Anglo-America. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 2004. ISBN 978-0674013032.

 

Here, Kaufmann offers his views on how the Anglo-Protestants, the founding stock and once dominant ethnocultural group of the United States of America, lost its status of dominance. He rejects the conventional view that this is due primarily to comparatively low fertility rates, large-scale international migration, and the growth in cultural prominence of ethnically diverse newcomers. Nor have the Anglo-Protestants maintained their dominant status by incorporating other groups of European descent into their midst, Kaufmann argues. Rather, the fall of Anglo-America is a consequence of the characteristics that have come to define this group, namely expressive individualism and egalitarianism, which are antithetical to maintaining dominance.

 

Historically, the early Anglo-Protestant settlers in the seventeenth century were the most successful, creating numerous surviving written records and political institutions that last till this day. For this reason, they became the dominant group, culturally, economically, and politically, and they maintained their dominance till the early twentieth century. Commitment to the ideals of the Enlightenment meant that they sought to assimilate newcomers from outside of the British Isles, but few were interested in adopting a pan-European identity for the nation, much less turning it into a global melting pot. But in the early 1900s, liberal progressives and modernists began promoting more inclusive ideals for what the national identity of the United States should be. While the more traditionalist segments of society continued to maintain their Anglo-Protestant ethnocultural traditions, universalism and cosmopolitanism started gaining favor among the elites. These ideals became institutionalized after the Second World War, and ethnic minorities started to gain rough institutional parity with the once dominant Anglo-Protestants.

 

What do you think?

 

Here is the link >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Kaufmann

 

 

 

Tamworth and Mid-Bedfordshire By-elections October 2023

 

Tamworth and Mid-Bedfordshire By-elections October 2023

 

The two By-elections that took place on the 19^th October had interesting results which bear looking at carefully - especially since the Mainstream Media now seem to entirely specialise in misleading their readers. 

 

Whilst it has been reported, and is of course true, that Labour won both of them, there wasn’t a swing in the way that the Mainstream Media reported. 

 

In the case of Mid-Bedfordshire, Labour’s vote in the By-election was 13,872, whereas in the previous election in 2019 Labour’s vote was 14,028, i.e. a reduction of their vote by 156.

 

The only other part of this election result which has been at all accurately reported is the fact that the Reform candidate got 1,487 votes, which  was slightly more than the difference between the successful Labour candidate’s vote and the unsuccessful Conservative candidate’s vote of 12,680. 

 

The really striking element of the result is in fact that the Conservative vote went from 38,692 votes in 2019 down to 12,680, i.e. their vote was under a third of what it had been before. 

 

For Reform’s vote to make a difference it would have to have been taken entirely from those that would otherwise have both turned out and voted Conservative.  Personally I think that is a bit of a stretch, but nevertheless an interesting quirk.

 

Turning to the Tamworth By-election result, in this one Labour got 11,719 votes, whereas in the General Election Labour had got 10,908 votes, so they did get slightly more votes than they had got before, i.e. slightly less than a 1,000 more votes. 

 

The difference in Labour’s result is more than explained by the reduction in the vote for the Greens and for the Liberal Democrats who went respectively from 935 votes to 417 and for the Liberal Democrats from 2,426 to 417. 

 

Reform’s vote of 1,373 was again slightly more than the difference between the Conservative and Labour vote.  Again for Reform to have really made the difference it would have to be shown that all of their voters would otherwise have both turned out and voted Conservative.  Again a bit of a stretch.

 

The big headline again should have been the collapse in the Conservative vote from 30,542 in 2019 to 10,403, a reduction of just less than two thirds.

 

The interesting comparison for the General Election at the end of next year that I would suggest everybody thinks about is what happened to the “Progressive Conservative” Government Party in the 1993 Canadian General Election, where they went from 156 seats and being in Government, down to 2 seats and even the Prime Minister lost her seat!

 

The highly encouraging point is that the “Progressive Conservative” Party was irretrievably damaged and ceased to exist, never becoming a governing party again.  Their politics, as their name sounds, was very similar to the current UK fake “Conservatives” who are in fact progressive on every policy (although they are perhaps more adept at lying about it). 

 

The other quirk is that the Party that really pushed the “Progressive Conservative” Party over the edge was called “Reform”.  In that election they took many traditionalist and socially conservative voters off the “Progressive Conservatives” and helped to cause their total collapse.  Reform never became a governing party in Canada and has now disappeared, but it was the icebreaker that caused the realignment of Canadian politics. 

 

We can and should all hope that the same happens here at the next General Election!

 

 

English Democrats' Chairman’s Overview of the state of politics in England - October 2023 Conference

 

Chairman’s Overview of the state of politics in England

Ladies and Gentlemen, I have been reading.  As you may all have guessed I am an avid reader. 

 

I have recently been reading Matthew Goodwin’s book called ‘Values, Voice and Virtue the new British Politics’.  

 

Matthew Goodwin is a Professor of Politics at Kent University, Canterbury. 

 

Although I do not think he is really on our side, he is at least an academic who is genuinely prepared to faithfully report the results of his research, rather than to try to skew it in order to advance some sort of political dodgy agenda. 

 

The interesting point that he makes is that it is actually the British Political Elite who are the real revolutionaries. 

 

They are the ones who now have “transitioned the British State” into a multi-culturalist, globalist/internationalist, Liberal values, New World order supporting State, that keeps promoting the agenda of multi-culturalism against the wishes of the majority of people in this country. 

 

Professor Goodwin calculates that, from all his opinion polling and other research, there are at most 20% of the population that supports this agenda and at least 60% that oppose it! 

 

Also, as the agenda of the new British elite is pushed more and more upon the rest of the population what is happening is that gradually our people are waking up to it and when they do they are wanting to oppose it. 

 

He puts Brexit and the vote for Boris Johnson in the 2019 election as being firmly in the category of people beginning to resist the new elite’s multi-culturalist revolution. 

 

So Ladies and Gentlemen we are not the Revolutionaries according to Professor Goodwin!  We are the Reaction to the New Elites’ Revolution!

 

 One of the interesting things that he points out is that the new British elite, were not only furious about the Brexit vote and also about Boris Johnson breaking the deadlock in Parliament and even more so about his getting a General Election landslide victory, but, instead of them learning their lesson, they have doubled down on their positions and have become much more hysterical about things like Black Lives Matter, Taking the Knee, Refugees Welcome, Trans Rights and other cultural Marxist agendas attacking their usual targets of Faith, Flag and Family.  This he thinks has big implications for what is going to happen politically over the next five years, which I will come to. 

 

In my view Professor Goodwin’s analysis makes perfect sense once you think about it. 

 

It is an important analysis as it actually changes our viewpoint about what needs to be done. 

 

Now we can see that it is not people with traditional values and who are patriots, who are the extremists.  It is the woke, politically correct, radical, progressives who are the extremists!  It is that elitist revolutionary extremism which the majority of our people are reacting against. 

 

Professor Goodwin thinks, with good evidence, that this is happening, not only in Britain, but also across much of the West, with Alternative for Deutschland in Germany, the National Rally in France, the Sweden Democrats etc., etc., in Europe and of course Trumpism in the United States. 

 

So what are the issues that are being foisted upon us here in England which are causing the most reaction? 

 

Head of the list has got to be mass immigration. It is worth pointing out that Boris Johnson got his electoral landslide by promising to get Brexit done and also promising to control our borders.  What he actually did was re-hash Theresa May’s terrible EU deal and also he dramatically and vastly increased the amount of legal immigration coming into our country.

 

He did this by reducing the threshold amount that had to be earnt for skilled workers to below the average wage, also by hugely increasing the number of student visas.  Foreign students (primarily from India and Nigeria) are now allowed to come here themselves to study and also bring their families with them and also to remain here after their studies.

 

In the last full year the fake Conservatives have granted over 1.2m visas! 

 

Ladies and Gentlemen I have to tell you that a visa is not just an individual, it is for families of up to 12. 

 

In these circumstances it is clear that the mainstream media are misleading our people in claiming that, if you deduct the numbers of people who have left our country as against the 1.2m visas you get a figure of somewhat over 600,000 net migration. 

 

That calculation is completely wrong and dishonest. 

 

In fact it could easily be that the 1.2m visas equals 3m people, or more, coming here in one single year – legally!

 

This is thanks to the fake Conservative Government’s keenness to promote multi-culturalism and also to increase the profits of their globalist big business donors!

 

Let’s consider the geo political issue of migration which shows why this is such a big issue.  In 1950, the population of Europe was about 550 million, while the population of Africa was 220 million.  Today, the population of Europe is 750 million, while Africa’s is 1.5 billion.  The Middle East has witnessed similar levels of population growth in recent decades.

 

Taking a long-term view of history in his book “In his book, Powers and Thrones, historian Dan Jones identifies as an omen of Rome’s final decline the elite’s catastrophic response to climate change and immigration. 

 

In the middle of the 4^th Century, Asia was hit by a mega-drought.  The Huns moved west, terrorising the Goths and driving them to the eastern border of the Roman empire where they begged to be let in.

 

Emperor Valens faced a dilemma; on the one hand, letting them in would be a logistical nightmare.  On the other, it would be both decent and expedient: Rome needed the workers and taxes.  Valens chose to open the doors. But the infrastructure did not exist to feed and employ these people and the bureaucracy failed to distinguish between legal Goth settlers and illegal barbarians.  Rome found within its borders a large population “alienated from their homelands but with no love for their host country” and they revolted.  St Jerome hyperbolically described the lands they plundered as devoid of beasts, birds and fish, with nothing left but “the sky and the earth”.

 

So Ladies and Gentlemen what about the Civil Service?  The Daily Telegraph recently did an expose.

 

 

 

Thirty days of Pride and lessons on white supremacy: inside Whitehall’s woke training regime

Government staff were urged to 'dress up for Pride' and bombarded with material on white privilege, leaked internal communications reveal

Leaked papers have revealed how workers in government departments are bombarded with material about white privilege and supporting Black Lives Matter

 

The extent to which radical gender and race ideology is imposed on the Civil Service has been laid bare by a dossier of internal communications leaked to The Telegraph.

 

Staff in Government departments are being taught about gender ideology, which affirms the idea that people can choose their gender, while those with legally protected gender critical beliefs, who believe that you cannot change your biological sex, say they are bullied into silence.

 

Instead of clearing backlogs from the pandemic, staff are spending work time on attending lectures on LGBT+ issues or watching videos telling them biological men can use women-only facilities if they self-identify as female.

In one department, staff shared a “30 days of Pride” calendar, with daily videos and articles on topics including “transgender children” and “the history of the Stonewall riot”, that contained six hours of content.

Workers in government departments are also being bombarded with material about white privilege and supporting the Black Lives Matter movement.

A group of 42 staff members has now written to Simon Case, the Cabinet Secretary, warning that impartiality in the Civil Service is at risk and the woke takeover of Whitehall could affect policy decisions.

 

Gender advice at the MoJ

‌

A diversity group in the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) claimed that “in many societies” the belief in two genders “is a product and tool of colonialism and white supremacy”.

 

The MoJ’s Gender Equality Network, one of a myriad of groups within the Civil Service set up by staff to discuss subjects such as diversity, circulated a newsletter in July 2022 to its members that discussed gender identity, pronouns and non-binary people.

 

The newsletter said: “Depending on the culture, people who identify as other genders have been associated with sacred powers, spirituality and are thought to be blessings to the family and community they are born into.

“Many North American Indigenous tribes had no constructs of gender and embraced its fluidity before colonisation.

 

“In many societies, the gender binary is a product and tool of colonialism and white supremacy.”

 

The document also promoted a non-binary activist who claimed in a television interview in September 2022 that “there’s as many genders as there are people”.

The remarks were made by Alok Vaid-Menon, a self-described gender non-conforming and transfeminine writer, who was included as a part of a list of “brilliant people in public life who are blazing a trail for a different way of thinking about gender”.

 

The newsletter also urged civil servants to use gender-neutral language. They were told: “Starting a meeting, speech or presentation with, ‘Ladies and Gentlemen’... assumes that everyone in your audience identifies as either a women [sic] or a man, which may not be the case.”

 

In a section on pronouns, the newsletter said: “Non-binary people sometimes use gender-neutral pronouns like they/them, but there’s a great variety of others, including ve/ver and zie/zim.”

 

Don’t say mum and dad‌

 

Since June, the Department for Business and Trade’s LGBT network has hosted five “LGBTQ+ allies training” sessions during work hours, including one session in which staff were told not to use the phrase “mum and dad” as it might cause offence.

 

Civil servants were told it was best practice to “ask about pronouns and introduce your own”.‌

 

Bathroom restrictions ‘inappropriate’ 

 

Civil servants at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) are told in official diversity training it is “inappropriate behaviour” to block biological men who identify as women from using female bathrooms. 

Documents seen by The Telegraph state: “This course should be completed by all staff”.

In a training video for new staff, officials are told: “Many transgender people experience inappropriate behaviour both in the workplace and in their daily lives,” before they are shown a series of scenarios played by actors.

 

One example features an actress telling a trans woman: “wrong door, love, the gents is down the hall” when they attempt to enter a female bathroom.

The trans woman tries to continue to the lavatory, before being told: “Look, you’re not coming in here. You some kind of pervert or something?”

 

Under the Equality Act 2010, gender reassignment is a protected characteristic. But the act also gives legal protection to those with gender-critical beliefs, including the belief that people cannot change their sex.

 

However, civil servants with gender-critical beliefs have complained they are being discriminated against by a cross-Whitehall culture that states they are in the wrong.

 

In a letter from 42 civil servants to the Cabinet Secretary in April, officials said they live with a “pervasive fear” they will be victimised for their beliefs on gender.

 

In the Foreign Office, civil servants are given guidance stating that trans staff can “use whichever toilet they feel most comfortable using”, stressing that “people have nothing to fear from trans people in toilets” and “that it is unacceptable to insist that a trans person is only permitted to use a gender-neutral toilet, or a disabled toilet”.

 

The guidance continues: “Should other employees object to this, you should explain that using the correct facilities forms an important part of gender transition.”

 

In a “Race Action Newsletter” to DWP officials in June 2023, which was “dedicated to Windrush Day and Pride Month,” officials were urged to “Dress Up For Pride”.

 

The newsletter told civil servants: “Rather than dress down Fridays, colleagues are encouraged to visibly show their Pride with snazzy outfits, whether that’s as individuals or as teams.”

 

‘White supremacist worldview’

 

‌Aside from compiling departmental guides on LGBTQ+ issues, civil servants are also spending time putting together documents on white privilege and the importance of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement.

 

Official guidance for staff in the Department for Business and Trade on race equality and inclusion at work, which was updated in March this year, explains how senior HR and diversity officials “provide support to staff impacted by the Black Lives Matter events”.

 

The department launched several immediate and long-term responses to the BLM riots in the summer of 2020, which included its press office launching a discussion on ways to “educate others” on topics including “white privilege” and “black literature”.

A memo from REACH (the Race, Ethnicity and Cultural Heritage Network) for “allies” of ethnic minorities, said part of the organisation’s mission was to help staff “unlearn racism”.

 

The network claimed that: “Hardships for white people are never because of the colour of our skin in this country or workplace.”

 

Officials were told they could “be an effective white ally” by “acknowledging white privilege” and by reading the controversial book White Fragility by Robin DiAngelo, which argues that “white people raised in Western society are conditioned into a white supremacist worldview”.

 

In May this year the DWP held a 90-minute remembrance ceremony for George Floyd, the black man who suffocated after a white policeman pressed his knee onto his neck in a roadside arrest in the US three years ago.

 

During a DWP divisional meeting nominally discussing Universal Credit in July 2020, a “Parents’ guide to Black Lives Matter” was distributed by a staff member in the wake of Floyd’s death.

 

The document, authored by the childcare agency Yoopies, included a section entitled The Dangers of Saying My Child Isn’t Racist, and urged parents to explain concepts such as white privilege.

 

A government spokesman said: “As required by the Civil Service Code, and as the public rightly expects, all civil servants must act impartially.

 

“Where any individual is found to be breaking the Civil Service Code, appropriate action will be taken.

“We are introducing new Impartiality Guidance which will provide added clarity to staff on maintaining impartiality on diversity and inclusion issues.”

 

 

So what about the whole Trans Genderism and the Multi-culuturalist LGBGTQ+ campaign?  The shrillest pushing of the multi-culturalist agenda has of course occurred under supposed Conservative leadership in this country.

 

Don’t think for a moment Ladies and Gentlemen that this is an accident. 

 

I would remind you of David Cameron’s comment about gay marriage in which he said that he was not a supporter of “gay marriage despite being a Conservative but because (he was) a Conservative”.  That of course is not being a Conservative in any meaning that any ordinary sensible person would call Conservative!

 

That is a bit of the veil being pulled aside to show that actually the Conservatives are just as multi-culturalist, just as liberal valued, just as globalist as the Labour Party and the LibDems.

 

The difference is that those two parties openly say that they are multi-culturalists!

 

Although I should say that it is interesting that when campaigning in Red Wall areas, the Labour Party still falsely claims that they are interested in representing the English White Working Class.  I believe that less and less people are believing that story and Matthew Goodwin does provide very good evidence for the growing gulf between the English White Working Class and Labour as people come to understand that they have been conned. 

 

So Ladies and Gentlemen are you LibLabConned? 

 

I have had some interesting conversations with people recently about Gay Pride the Gay Pride Marches.  What I find is that most people assume that Gay Pride Marches are funded by the participants and supporting businesses. 

 

In fact, as we discovered when we won the Mayoralty in Doncaster, the entire cost of running Gay Pride comes out of the taxpayers’ pockets! 

 

I say pockets because the sly way in which this has been set up was to take £12,500 a year for Doncaster Gay Pride March:-  £2,500 from Metropolitan Borough Council, £2,500 from the Fire Brigade budget, £2,500 from the Police budget, £2,500 from the NHS budget and last but not least £2,500 from the Regional Development Agency.  We found that the Doncaster Gay Pride organisers had a regular circuit of 30 plus towns in which they take similar sums and are therefore provided by the taxpayer with a permanent income. 

 

Ladies and Gentlemen I think the important thing to focus on here isn’t the scamming and misuse of public money, it is that the whole Gay Pride agenda is a State sponsored project!

 

We should note that this State sponsored project has been just as much supported by the fake Conservatives as by the other British Establishment parties. 

 

Turning now to the parties here in England.

 

The Conservative Party

 

What have they been doing for 13 years?  - Lying to us

What is Suella Braverman about?  Standard Conservative lies.

The Cons pretended to be Eurosceptics when really they were the most pro-EU party.

 

Liz Truss is now looking to come back as Leader if Rishi Sunac is defeated in the General Election

 

Professor Goodwin says about Liz Truss:-

 

“…and the Conservative Party’s disastrous experiment with ‘Trussonomics’ , a return to the supply-side politics of Thatcherism.  Calls to remove a cap on bankers’ bonuses, slash taxes for high earners, put financial services, London, and the south-east on steroids and retain a strong commitment to global free trade and mass immigration signalled not a bold new offer that was in tune with the post-Brexit realignment but rather a return to the broken politics of the elite revolution which much of the country had already rejected.

 

Trussonomics was completely adrift from the economic and social outlook of voters who had been drifting around the political landscape for years, looking for an alternative to the broken status quo.  As the British Social Attitudes survey made clear, in late 2022, only one in twenty voters, including just 7 per cent of Conservative voters, shared Liz Truss’s instinctive desire to slash taxes and cut spending on public services.  The vast majority of people in the country, including most Conservatives, either wanted to keep taxes and spending as they are or increase them further.  Nor did they support her continued commitment to large-scale migration. 

 

Rather than lean into the new, unfolding realignment, then, the Conservative Party openly rejected it by seeking to return to the old broken consensus.  Against the backdrop of Partygate, Trussonomics cost the party another twelve points in the polls and sent it crashing to some of its lowest support in British polling history.  By the time Truss was replaced by Rishi Sunak, after only forty-four days in the job, the party’s reputation for economic competence had been shredded while the number of voters who saw the Conservative Party as out of touch with ordinary people, incompetent, on the side of a small elite and as having no clear purpose rocketed.  Together, Partygate and Trussonomics was a brutal and self-inflicted two-punch combination.

 

But at a deeper level, the inability of the Conservative Party to remain connected with the realignment is about more than this.  While the party briefly tapped into the underlying fissures over values, voice, and virtue to rally an impressive coalition in 2019, it then became clear that neither the party nor its MPs, who lean further to the cultural left and further to the economic right than their new voters, ever really knew what to do with this new coalition of supporters. 

 

On an array of issues which reflect the importance of the new cultural axis in politics, such as legal and illegal immigration, diversity, gender politics, free speech, preserving and promoting a distinctive national identity, and pushing back against a minority of radical progressives in the institutions, the Conservative Party struggled to appear in tune with its more traditionalist voters and find new cross-cutting issues which, like Brexit, might have otherwise allowed the party to hold its unique coalition together at the next election.”

 

Labour Party – Sir Kier Starmer – Taking the Knee for Black Lives Matter – says it all!

 

Liberal Democrats – Sir Ed Davey – Clearly some women have penises!  Says it all.

 

Reform UK is a For Profit Limited Company and Nigel Farage remains a principal shareholder. 

 

Here is what was said about him in the Daily Telegraph on Tuesday this week:-  “Asked why he had decided to show up to Ms Truss’s talk, Mr Farage, the former UKIP leader, replied: “I absolutely, 100 per cent believe in her”.

 

Accusing Tory MPs of making a “huge mistake” by ousting her last October, Mr Farage added: “It’s policy that interests me.  I think this woman has shown that she’s able to stand up, take the abuse and fight for what she believes in”.

 

Referencing the Morecambe and Wise sketch, he joked the ill-fated mini-Budget saw Ms Truss “playing all the right notes, just not in the wrong order”.

 

So Ladies and Gentlemen I wonder what Matthew Goodwin would have to say about Nigel Farage now?

 

UKIP

I have been invited to speak at their conference next week

 

We are forming an Electoral Pact – Patriots Alliance

 

 

English Democrats

 

We are standing in the parliamentary By-election in Mid Bedfordshire – our candidate is Antonio Vitellio – our leaflet is very good.

 

Police Commissioner Candidates – Myself, David Dickason, Antonio Vitellio – we have a very good general leaflet to raise awareness.

 

We could do with more candidates so please do consider standing.

 

This is what Professor Goodwin says about the coming opportunity:-

 

“In the end, all realignments are about demand and supply.  And while public demand for a very different politics remains on full display in modern Britain, reflected in the large number of people who say none of the main parties represent their values, who feel excluded by the institutions and believe they are being looked down upon by a progressive elite, the Conservative elites in Westminster consistently struggled to supply this demand with an appealing, resonant message.

 

Rather than address the divides that have powered the turmoil and turbulence of the last decade, therefore, the failure of all the main parties to respond to them has left more than enough space for yet another revolt against the new elite.  It is revealing, for example, that in the final days of 2022 only one in ten of the people who had voted for Boris Johnson three years earlier had defected to Labour while a much larger number had either drifted into apathy, no longer sure who to vote for, or to the national populist Reform party, which is aligned to Nigel Farage.  In late 2022, one poll suggested that 28 per cent of British people, including 43 per cent of Brexit voters, would be interested in supporting a new populist party, while other polls have suggested that one-third of the country would potentially be open to a party that specifically campaigned to lower immigration.

 

All three of the revolts that reshaped British politics over the last decade – the rise of populism, Brexit and the post-Brexit realignment of the Conservative Party – were supposed to bring the rulers and the ruled closer together.  But, in the end, they have done no such thing.  Much like a decade ago, a large swathe of the electorate appear disgruntled and disillusioned with a new elite that does not reflect their values, represent their voice, or treat them with the same degree of respect and dignity as other groups in society.

 

And so now, once again, more than six years after the vote for Brexit, many people in the country are searching around for a radical alternative that will allow them to launch a revolt against the growing power of the elite.  The only question that remains is what form this radical alternative will take and when it will arrive.”