The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
"Appeal to Dwindling Core Proves Costly for Labour Party in Britain"
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

A week ago, Ed Miliband’s seemingly surging Labour Party represented Britain’s rising Coalition of the Fringes that was inevitably inundating the stale pale male core of the Tories and UKIP.

But, losing automatically shifts the gestalt and now Labour is seen as the “dwindling core.” From the New York Times:

Appeal to Dwindling Core Proves Costly for Labour Party in Britain
By STEVEN ERLANGER and STEPHEN CASTLE MAY 9, 2015

LONDON — The Labour Party’s defeat in Thursday’s British elections was its poorest performance in nearly 30 years.

It was nearly wiped out in Scotland, long one of its strongholds. Some of its brightest and most experienced members of Parliament lost their seats, including its shadow chancellor and shadow foreign secretary.

Most important, it lost the argument about Britain’s best path toward the future and was left with no clear guiding philosophy.

Ed Miliband, Labour’s leader for the last five years, took responsibility and resigned, initiating another round of soul-searching for a party with trade union and socialist roots in a globalized country where heavy industry and the traditional working class are fading fast.

What happened to the rising coalition of immigrants, nonwhites, and Bridget Jones’ post-national media friends in North London?

… Labour this time got “squeezed by two nationalisms,” as Labour grandee and former strategist Peter Mandelson said, by the Scottish National Party and by English nationalism, not just by the Conservatives but in the form of a strong U.K. Independence Party vote in northern England. The anti-immigration, anti-European Union UKIP hurt the Conservatives in the south, but it had a big impact among Labour voters in the north, and was the main reason that Labour’s shadow chancellor, Ed Balls, lost his seat in Leeds to the Tories.

Labour needs to respond to members’ unease about immigration and the European Union, which requires freedom of movement and labor among its member states. On these issues, this time, Labour had little to say, acknowledging Blair-era laxness but simply arguing that European Union membership was a good thing and there had to be more control over immigration, without specifying how.

 
Hide 188 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. A possible message to US Dems, voters really do care about immigration, especially when the immigrants are illegal. Sorry, undocumented guests.

    • Replies: @Terrahawk
    The Dems would only get that message if the GOP actually presented a plausible immigration policy that benefited the country. Instead the GOP is going out of its way to alienate its base. If the GOP came out and stated that:

    1. All immigration is halted until this mess is straightened out.
    2. Any Federal or State official implementing any of the current executive orders will be prosecuted.
    3. Any illegal using the executive order will be deported since we now know where you are.
    4. Birth right citizenship is going.
    5. Nothing is happening until immigration security is in place.

    The press and elites would go nuts. The Republicans would slaughter the Democrats.
  2. Erlanger is the best of the NYT foreign correspondents. It’s too bad he’s in a more comprehensible place like Britain, we’d be better off with him in Moscow or Beijing.

  3. The gentry left hates the white working class, and the white working class know it.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    The gentry left hates the white working class, and the white working class know it.

     

    The left in its entirety hates the white working class. But they offer, and will always offer greater benefits, so a big portion of that class will always vote for it.

    And don't tell the right to compete on benefits. The right is bound by truth, by reality. The left is not.

    The welfare state's bargain is stated pretty succinctly in Matthew 4: 8-9.
    , @Thought Police

    The gentry left hates the white working class, and the white working class know it.
     
    Yeah, the Left's prime imperative: create friction among classes, even especially when they're lower class. And then they wonder why-oh-why the world isn't united as one under the multicultural rainbow.
    , @ben tillman
    Error.
    , @Clifford Brown
    "The gentry left hates the white working class, and the white working class know it."

    While there were rumblings in the writings of Fanon and the Black Panthers, over the last 20 years, the Left have effectively replaced all remnants of the white working class in their ideology with the New Proletariat consisting of the populations of the Developing World. The irony is that today, the Gentry Leftists of London and Tribeca, who work in media and banking, would view the working class of the mines of Northern England, Les Miserables, the Paris Commune and the writings of Charles Dickens as privileged whites not worthy of support.

    It will be interesting if the Labour "Dwindling Core" simply doubles down on electing a New People like the Democrats have done.
    , @Anonymous
    There's a great interview with Jack Sen on http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net . He's a former UKIP candidate who was drummed out of the party for ruffling the feathers of the UKIP elite.

    "Making matters worse was the fact that I’d merely stated what most of Liverpool also thought about [Labour candidate] Berger — that she was not an ‘authentic Labour’ candidate due to the fact that she had been parachuted into Liverpool by the Labour Party elite, was born and raised in wealthy West London, educated at an all-girls boarding school in Hertfordshire and groomed for the job by Lord Greville Janner, the Zionist Jewish peer who has been investigated for paedophilia on numerous occasions. Berger having “divided loyalties” stemmed from the fact that she had professionally lobbied for our money to be sent overseas while serving as the Director of Labour Friends of Israel."

    How much does this read like the typical leftist formula in the UK, and the US as well.

    Look at Bernie Sanders, Brooklyn Jew and Vermont Senator, if you need further evidence.
  4. “Labour needs to respond to members’ unease about immigration and the European Union, which requires freedom of movement and labor among its member states. On these issues, this time, Labour had little to say, acknowledging Blair-era laxness but simply arguing that European Union membership was a good thing and there had to be more control over immigration, without specifying how.”

    I’m sorry, I was rereading this sentence by substituting “Republicans” in the first sentence for Labour and then “Romney/Rubio/Jeb/etc” for the second sentence where Labour is written (and replacing “Blair-era” for “W/Obama-era” and other appropriate switches in second sentence as well). Kind of chilling.

  5. @Buffalo Joe
    A possible message to US Dems, voters really do care about immigration, especially when the immigrants are illegal. Sorry, undocumented guests.

    The Dems would only get that message if the GOP actually presented a plausible immigration policy that benefited the country. Instead the GOP is going out of its way to alienate its base. If the GOP came out and stated that:

    1. All immigration is halted until this mess is straightened out.
    2. Any Federal or State official implementing any of the current executive orders will be prosecuted.
    3. Any illegal using the executive order will be deported since we now know where you are.
    4. Birth right citizenship is going.
    5. Nothing is happening until immigration security is in place.

    The press and elites would go nuts. The Republicans would slaughter the Democrats.

    • Replies: @Rob McX
    I often wonder how things would work out in the years following such a move by the GOP, if it adopted that policy. Of course most of their corporate donations would dry up. But why would they need them, with a policy that would sell itself to so many of the electorate? Or perhaps the goal of population replacement trumps everything.
    , @Dave Pinsen
    6. Once it's straightened out, any future immigration will be limited to groups who support the GOP by ~70% margins, to compensate for a half century of pro-Dem immigration.
    , @Ed
    Walker in my opinion is combating Clinton's immigration pander beautifully. If he keeps it up, keeps saying he's standing up for the American worker, the Dems will go the way of Labour.
  6. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factor"] says:

    gaybour

  7. anon • Disclaimer says:

    The gentry left hates the white working class, and the white working class know it.

    Yes, they really do – quite odd really. I can think of various logical reasons for how the gentry left are behaving as well but at the end of the day there does seem to be a distinct element of simple hatred.

    I don’t think the bulk of the working class did realize it until recently though and even now it is still an ongoing process but yes it’s happening.

    My current theory is it’s from being bullied at school by early puberty blue collar kids but only because I can’t think of anything else.

    • Replies: @robother
    Bullying in High School (or merely feeling inadequate to those with early maturing sports and "game" skills) is a reasonable explanation. But university education is hugely about internalizing a set of values that denigrate the intelligence and morality of anyone who hasn't attended university. The absurdities of political correctness are best seen as a secret club test, designed to figure out who to blackball socially (and economically).
    , @Jeff W.
    Anon proposes a theory as to why the gentry left hates working class whites:

    My current theory is it’s from being bullied at school by early puberty blue collar kids but only because I can’t think of anything else.
     
    Here's an alternate theory for you: People despise those whom they mistreat.

    It works like this: most people like to think that they are basically good and that the work they are doing is good (e.g., Goldman Sachs' Lloyd Blankfein saying that he was "doing God's work.") So if I believe myself to be a good person, but I know that I am mistreating others, then I must rationalize somehow that they had it coming and that I am "doing God's work" by mistreating them. (See discussions about cognitive dissonance.)

    The gentry left, in their positions in schools and universities, in government bureaucracies, and in medical and legal occupations, mistreat and abuse working class whites every day, and they are well aware that they are doing it. Moreover their livelihoods depend on their looting working class whites; they can only stop doing it if they quit their jobs. How then can they continue to think of themselves as good people? Only by rationalizing that working class whites are really bad people (bitter clingers, racists, homophobes, religious wackos, etc.).

    This is why if you find yourself badly mistreated in a job situation, it is best to quit. The more the boss mistreats you, the more he will hate you, and it becomes a downward vicious circle. Similarly the more that working class whites are abused and mistreated by the gentry left, the more they will be hated.
    , @cthulhu
    Tom Wolfe has written about this topic (why the elites hate the middle class - a better description than just working class) extensively over the years. It comes down to the middle class refusing to acknowledge the elites as their betters. The middle class doesn't read the same books, listen to the same music, watch the same movies, eat the same food, buy the same kind of houses, go to the same schools, etc., as the elites. Charles Murray takes this on in his marvelous and depressing Coming Apart and reaches the same basic conclusion.
    , @anon
    If the upscale Labour voters are like SWPLs in the US, then most of them did not attend schools with a sizable number of blue collar students.
    , @Philip Neal
    It seems to be part of modern electoral strategy for party leaders to display uncalled-for rudeness towards their traditional supporters. Blair, Brown and Cameron have all been guilty of it, and leaks strongly suggest that the contempt is genuine. The graphic towards the end of this item http://tinyurl.com/p277arw indicates that UKIP poached upper blue collar votes from Labour and lower white collar votes from the Tories - exactly the groups the respective leaderships went out of their way to disparage.

    Cameron's rudeness is no great mystery. His family background is old money, not far short of upper class, he is plainly tone deaf to the nuances which distinguish one segment of the little people from another, and he does not know who his core voters are.

    Labour attitudes to the working class have changed a lot in my lifetime in a way which is harder to explain. Thirty years ago they were the party of the thick and they knew it. Student opinion in my day was riven by the miners' strike of 1984, which was all about IQ. Left wing students hated the Conservatives for their willingness to treat uneducated people as enemies, while the Thatcher youth wanted revenge on the left for using stupid, ignorant people to humiliate them.

    The miners were defeated and still Labour could not muster enough working class votes to win an election. The Blairite generation seem to have persuaded themselves that the proles, deceived by the tabloid newspapers, are too dim to see through Conservative propaganda. They increasingly started sneering that the working classes are right wing, and framing conservative opinions as a mark of stupidity. Data on the educational status of conservative voters show this to be quite untrue, but the left have always been good at believing their own nonsense. I find it a pity that many right wing commentators have come to believe it too.

  8. @Terrahawk
    The Dems would only get that message if the GOP actually presented a plausible immigration policy that benefited the country. Instead the GOP is going out of its way to alienate its base. If the GOP came out and stated that:

    1. All immigration is halted until this mess is straightened out.
    2. Any Federal or State official implementing any of the current executive orders will be prosecuted.
    3. Any illegal using the executive order will be deported since we now know where you are.
    4. Birth right citizenship is going.
    5. Nothing is happening until immigration security is in place.

    The press and elites would go nuts. The Republicans would slaughter the Democrats.

    I often wonder how things would work out in the years following such a move by the GOP, if it adopted that policy. Of course most of their corporate donations would dry up. But why would they need them, with a policy that would sell itself to so many of the electorate? Or perhaps the goal of population replacement trumps everything.

  9. I don’t think the article is using “core” in your sense – they mean the core supporters of the Labour Party – in other words, the far left (although still more working-class-tinged than the U.S. far left). And the article notes that this core is getting smaller because people are abandoning the pro-immigration party. It really means close to the opposite of your interpretation.

  10. Ezra says:

    Actually, the text of the article was about as iSteve-ish as you could possibly want. In the writers opinion, Labour’s appeal to working class unity got crushed by the greater appeal of nationalism in Scotland and discomfort with immigration in northern England. Lesson: Labour either needs to be a Blair-ite yuppie party or figure out how to address immigration.

    Some editor in New York couldn’t grok this off-message point and wrote a headline as if the story fit the Narrative.

    Americans should notice the difference between the Tories and the GOP. The Conservatives are an organized political party who are looking to exploit the contradictions of the left in order to win elections. The Republicans are a shell for a corrupt gang who are trying to put as much money into their own pockets before they get chased out of town. The only brake on their subservience to billionaires and financiers is the need to be plausible challengers to the Democrats. The GOP will respond to any weaknesses on the left by larding even more unpopular and destructive favors on their paymasters. If Hilary Clinton emerges on the campaign trail healthy and focused on moderate quality of life issues, the Republicans will have to respond in kind sufficient to lose 51-49. If Hil declares herself a Marxist-Leninist and is obviously suffering from dementia, Marco Rubio will declare himself in favor of negative capital gains taxes paid for by cancelling Medicare and lose 51-49.

    • Replies: @James Kabala
    Could you expand on this? From my American view it seems as if the Tories are at least as bad if not worse than the Republicans. The only difference seems to be that Republicans create bad policies indirectly, through bad Supreme Court appointments, whereas Tories openly vote for such policies (e.g., Cameron personally and directly brought gay marriage to Britain).
    , @Lot
    Very well put. The ultra rich only really care about having a veto power, which the GOP house gerrymander will ensure lasts until 2033 or later. A smaller GOP they control is preferable to partial control over a more successful party.
    , @leftist conservative
    you wrote:

    The GOP will respond to any weaknesses on the left by larding even more unpopular and destructive favors on their paymasters.

     

    Yes, but to put that another way--the more that the Left/Dems demonize whites and especially white males and/or the more the Left/Dems idolize nonwhites/gays, the more that the GOP can pander to the rich.

    The driving dynamic is Dem/Left demonization of the whites/idolization of the nonwhites/immigrants. Thus the Dems/Left determine how much the GOP can pander to the rich.
    As Dem demonization/idolization increases-->GOP pandering increases.

    If Jim Webb were to get the Dem nomination, what with his already expressed distaste for demonization of white males, he could destroy this established (and destructive) dynamic. He could represent a paradigm shift.
    , @David R. Merridale
    If Hil declares herself a Marxist-Leninist and is obviously suffering from dementia, Marco Rubio will declare himself in favor of negative capital gains taxes paid for by cancelling Medicare and lose 51-49.

    I not only laughed out loud, but for a good 15 seconds.
    , @Kevin O'Keeffe
    "The Republicans are a shell for a corrupt gang who are trying to put as much money into their own pockets before they get chased out of town. The only brake on their subservience to billionaires and financiers is the need to be plausible challengers to the Democrats. The GOP will respond to any weaknesses on the left by larding even more unpopular and destructive favors on their paymasters. If Hilary Clinton emerges on the campaign trail healthy and focused on moderate quality of life issues, the Republicans will have to respond in kind sufficient to lose 51-49. If Hil declares herself a Marxist-Leninist and is obviously suffering from dementia, Marco Rubio will declare himself in favor of negative capital gains taxes paid for by cancelling Medicare and lose 51-49."

    This is just about the best analysis of the GOP's nature, that I have ever come across.
  11. Posted this on another thread, but it seems germane:

    Frum gives his thoughts on what the Republicans can learn from the Tory victory.Reading between the lines, he seems to basically be pointing out ways that the Republicans can attract more Jews:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/05/republicans-british-election-conservatives/392852/

    Quite a bit of protesting/rioting in the UK in the wake of the recent election:

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/anti-tory-protests-live-updates-5670515

    http://www.bbc.com/news/election-2015-32678518

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3074951/Socialist-siege-Downing-Street-Hard-left-activists-clash-police-following-David-Cameron-s-triumphant-return-Number-10.html

    • Replies: @EriK
    I can't read Frum, but thanks for repeating yourself.
    , @Alex M
    Be very wary of what Frum is selling you. Replace the flow of hordes of Mexicans with a flow of hordes of Indians (Whites still being replaced), and a doubling down of America kowtowing to Israel and their foreign policy interests(Greater loss of blood & treasure). He is as radical a Jewish activist as their can be.
    , @Justin

    Quite a bit of protesting/rioting in the UK in the wake of the recent election:
     
    If a white candidate (especially a white Republican) actually manages to win in 2016, I wonder if we'll be in for serious riots in the US. Typically America does not have post-election riots, but we've never replaced a black president with a non-black before.
    , @Nico

    Quite a bit of protesting/rioting in the UK in the wake of the recent election:
     
    That right there encapsulates the reason the old left's core voters have been backing off. When the country elected a right-wing party and left-wing protestors or rioters go off the handle, it scares anyone who dared to vote for the right, who correctly interpret it as a personal threat, and turns off anyone who didn't but who believed the election was the moment to make his voice heard.
  12. @Terrahawk
    The Dems would only get that message if the GOP actually presented a plausible immigration policy that benefited the country. Instead the GOP is going out of its way to alienate its base. If the GOP came out and stated that:

    1. All immigration is halted until this mess is straightened out.
    2. Any Federal or State official implementing any of the current executive orders will be prosecuted.
    3. Any illegal using the executive order will be deported since we now know where you are.
    4. Birth right citizenship is going.
    5. Nothing is happening until immigration security is in place.

    The press and elites would go nuts. The Republicans would slaughter the Democrats.

    6. Once it’s straightened out, any future immigration will be limited to groups who support the GOP by ~70% margins, to compensate for a half century of pro-Dem immigration.

  13. @Ezra
    Actually, the text of the article was about as iSteve-ish as you could possibly want. In the writers opinion, Labour's appeal to working class unity got crushed by the greater appeal of nationalism in Scotland and discomfort with immigration in northern England. Lesson: Labour either needs to be a Blair-ite yuppie party or figure out how to address immigration.

    Some editor in New York couldn't grok this off-message point and wrote a headline as if the story fit the Narrative.

    Americans should notice the difference between the Tories and the GOP. The Conservatives are an organized political party who are looking to exploit the contradictions of the left in order to win elections. The Republicans are a shell for a corrupt gang who are trying to put as much money into their own pockets before they get chased out of town. The only brake on their subservience to billionaires and financiers is the need to be plausible challengers to the Democrats. The GOP will respond to any weaknesses on the left by larding even more unpopular and destructive favors on their paymasters. If Hilary Clinton emerges on the campaign trail healthy and focused on moderate quality of life issues, the Republicans will have to respond in kind sufficient to lose 51-49. If Hil declares herself a Marxist-Leninist and is obviously suffering from dementia, Marco Rubio will declare himself in favor of negative capital gains taxes paid for by cancelling Medicare and lose 51-49.

    Could you expand on this? From my American view it seems as if the Tories are at least as bad if not worse than the Republicans. The only difference seems to be that Republicans create bad policies indirectly, through bad Supreme Court appointments, whereas Tories openly vote for such policies (e.g., Cameron personally and directly brought gay marriage to Britain).

    • Replies: @22pp22
    The Tories are actually pretty similar to US Republicans overall. They cover a spread from woolly Liberals to hard-line immigration restictionists, but the overall leadership will not do anything too un-PC, no matter how popular that might be with the base. The current crop have known each other since university and belong to the so-called Metropolitan elite. They were at university when I was and although we shared acquaintances I never met any of them personally. Their social circle is similar to that of a Labour politician and will include few provincials with distastefully regressive views. They treat their core vote with a degree of contempt, because they know that the core vote has nowhere else to go. Fear of a Lab/Nat coalition was sufficient to induce many people to vote Conservative this time as the lesser of two evils. However, if UKIP can survive, then the Tory core vote now does have a choice. Tory donkey voters do exist, but they are few in number and the Tory party vote is far softer than Labour's
    , @LondonBob
    No the Conservatives are well to the right of the Republicans, Jeff Sessions would be mainstream on immigration and Rand Paul listened to on foreign policy. UKIP will also keep the party honest.
  14. Could the people of England have an election to expell Scotland from the UK ?

  15. The key is the northern donkey vote. My grandfather would have voted Labour if they had required him to sacrifice his first-born. For him, it was a statement of religious faith. Few non-Brits will have much experience with these people. They still justify their world view in terms of Tory toff mine owners sending men to their deaths because they were too tight-fisted to take the most elementary safety measures. People from their families who don’t vote Labour are ostracised as “traitors”. That has happened among my own relatives. The donkey vote still refuses (quite wilfully) to notice that the Labour grandees are toffs themselves. If the strength of this religion (for that is what it is) is ever properly broken, then Labour support in the North of England will drain away like water through a dam. These people would rather disembowel themselves than vote Tory, but they might vote UKIP, if UKIP can survive only winning one seat on four million votes. However, never undersestimate the pig-headedness of a donkey voter.

    • Replies: @Zachary Latif
    The Labour party is being attacked in the far north by the SNP and near north by UKIP .

    Here is a nice map of Labour's vote and former coalfields:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CEjit34WMAA0ohE.jpg:large

    Labour's strong gains in London (but still not strong enough to overpower the Tories) is no doubt due to the ethnic minority vote; Sadiq Khan wants to run as Mayor of London.

    I think this election has proven what a vigorous and healthy democracy Britain actually is. A couple of more points:

    (1.) Nigel in resigning said something that triggered a passing thought; he said "UKIP is now the party of working women." This squares in line with my observation a lot of middle class and working class women are gravitating to UKIP because UKIP isn't a right party but more like a "white party". It's policies are going to evolve from Tory Libertarian to basically something like the DUP; Unionist, collectivist and nationalist.

    (2.) North of Hadrian's Wall, politics in Scotland (and eventually Wales who knows maybe even Cornwall one day) is going to follow the Northern Irish model, the deadlock between Unionists and anti-Unionists. Remember Orkney and the Shetland Islands are strongly Unionist territories and the United Kingdom unravelling won't be good for these islands.

    (3.) Britain won't leave the EU. I would like it to but come referendum time I know I'll be voting to stay in. Cameron is going to press hard to negotiate a fairer deal in line with other sympathetic blocs in Europe.

    (4.) Immigration and EU are hot button issues but pale in comparison to the economy. I do *feel* immigration has slowed down since New Labour but I seem to be wrong - http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article50256.html.

    (5.) The Tory government needs to become "One Nation", dismantling the welfare state is a big mistake. The idea of social-national compact is very important to contemporary British (and even English identity). The Tory government should effect boundary reform but keep FPTP; smaller parties need to find ways to survive and evolve (if the Greens & UKIP aren't able to maintain national or regional infrastructures then why not merge into their larger groups).
  16. @syonredux
    Posted this on another thread, but it seems germane:


    Frum gives his thoughts on what the Republicans can learn from the Tory victory.Reading between the lines, he seems to basically be pointing out ways that the Republicans can attract more Jews:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/05/republicans-british-election-conservatives/392852/


    Quite a bit of protesting/rioting in the UK in the wake of the recent election:

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/anti-tory-protests-live-updates-5670515

    http://www.bbc.com/news/election-2015-32678518

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3074951/Socialist-siege-Downing-Street-Hard-left-activists-clash-police-following-David-Cameron-s-triumphant-return-Number-10.html

    I can’t read Frum, but thanks for repeating yourself.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    I can’t read Frum, but thanks for repeating yourself.
     
    It's all a matter of location.....
  17. @anon

    The gentry left hates the white working class, and the white working class know it.
     
    Yes, they really do - quite odd really. I can think of various logical reasons for how the gentry left are behaving as well but at the end of the day there does seem to be a distinct element of simple hatred.

    I don't think the bulk of the working class did realize it until recently though and even now it is still an ongoing process but yes it's happening.

    My current theory is it's from being bullied at school by early puberty blue collar kids but only because I can't think of anything else.

    Bullying in High School (or merely feeling inadequate to those with early maturing sports and “game” skills) is a reasonable explanation. But university education is hugely about internalizing a set of values that denigrate the intelligence and morality of anyone who hasn’t attended university. The absurdities of political correctness are best seen as a secret club test, designed to figure out who to blackball socially (and economically).

  18. @James Kabala
    Could you expand on this? From my American view it seems as if the Tories are at least as bad if not worse than the Republicans. The only difference seems to be that Republicans create bad policies indirectly, through bad Supreme Court appointments, whereas Tories openly vote for such policies (e.g., Cameron personally and directly brought gay marriage to Britain).

    The Tories are actually pretty similar to US Republicans overall. They cover a spread from woolly Liberals to hard-line immigration restictionists, but the overall leadership will not do anything too un-PC, no matter how popular that might be with the base. The current crop have known each other since university and belong to the so-called Metropolitan elite. They were at university when I was and although we shared acquaintances I never met any of them personally. Their social circle is similar to that of a Labour politician and will include few provincials with distastefully regressive views. They treat their core vote with a degree of contempt, because they know that the core vote has nowhere else to go. Fear of a Lab/Nat coalition was sufficient to induce many people to vote Conservative this time as the lesser of two evils. However, if UKIP can survive, then the Tory core vote now does have a choice. Tory donkey voters do exist, but they are few in number and the Tory party vote is far softer than Labour’s

  19. @Grumpy Old Man
    The gentry left hates the white working class, and the white working class know it.

    The gentry left hates the white working class, and the white working class know it.

    The left in its entirety hates the white working class. But they offer, and will always offer greater benefits, so a big portion of that class will always vote for it.

    And don’t tell the right to compete on benefits. The right is bound by truth, by reality. The left is not.

    The welfare state’s bargain is stated pretty succinctly in Matthew 4: 8-9.

    • Replies: @rod1963
    The Right or more accurately the business community that constitutes it's all powerful donor class hates the white working class as well given it's enthusiastic support of illegal aliens, open borders, off-shoring, etc.

    Benefits for the working class? No way. All they get is a lecture by some pasty face dude who never worked a day in his life about the virtues of working. Now if it's GE or Goldman Sachs - it's 'what can I do for you'.
    , @sfg
    The unions don't.

    As for the welfare state being run by the devil...every European country has one, often a lot bigger than ours. The whiter the country, the bigger it is. A smaller welfare state means a lot more money in the pockets of employers who can extort more concession from workers...and these are the people who love more immigration to keep wages down.

    Business is not your friend.
    , @CCR
    That's the difference between the U.K. multi-party system and the U.S. (basically) two party system. In the UK they have UKIP which is left economically but anti-immigrant and anti-crime. So, they've managed to separate those votes from Labor. In the U.S., Dem members who are anti-crime and anti-immigrant can't make the leap to the Republican party because it is too right economically.
  20. @Grumpy Old Man
    The gentry left hates the white working class, and the white working class know it.

    The gentry left hates the white working class, and the white working class know it.

    Yeah, the Left’s prime imperative: create friction among classes, even especially when they’re lower class. And then they wonder why-oh-why the world isn’t united as one under the multicultural rainbow.

  21. @Grumpy Old Man
    The gentry left hates the white working class, and the white working class know it.

    Error.

  22. @Terrahawk
    The Dems would only get that message if the GOP actually presented a plausible immigration policy that benefited the country. Instead the GOP is going out of its way to alienate its base. If the GOP came out and stated that:

    1. All immigration is halted until this mess is straightened out.
    2. Any Federal or State official implementing any of the current executive orders will be prosecuted.
    3. Any illegal using the executive order will be deported since we now know where you are.
    4. Birth right citizenship is going.
    5. Nothing is happening until immigration security is in place.

    The press and elites would go nuts. The Republicans would slaughter the Democrats.

    Walker in my opinion is combating Clinton’s immigration pander beautifully. If he keeps it up, keeps saying he’s standing up for the American worker, the Dems will go the way of Labour.

  23. Maybe the “Labour Party” should become a real labor party. Instead of standing up for the interests of urban elites and immigrants, they should become the party of working class white union members. That’s the direction to go.

    To be fair, Labour is considerably better than both Democrats and Republicans on immigration. Tories are actually not bad either. I would’ve liked to have seen UKIP win more seats, but it seems like the Tories are serious about cutting non-European immigration and removing illegal aliens. That’s a positive development.

    South Asian migration has decreased significantly under Tory rule, after skyrocketing during the Labour era. The UK actually used to have pretty sensible immigration policies, until Blair’s election to office in 1997.

    • Replies: @ben tillman

    To be fair, Labour is considerably better than both Democrats and Republicans on immigration.
     
    To be fair, I'll give you a chance to do a little research and retract this amazing claim.
  24. But, losing automatically shifts the gestalt and now Labour is seen as the “dwindling core.”

    Because they don’t have the milibandwidth.

  25. @Reg Cæsar

    The gentry left hates the white working class, and the white working class know it.

     

    The left in its entirety hates the white working class. But they offer, and will always offer greater benefits, so a big portion of that class will always vote for it.

    And don't tell the right to compete on benefits. The right is bound by truth, by reality. The left is not.

    The welfare state's bargain is stated pretty succinctly in Matthew 4: 8-9.

    The Right or more accurately the business community that constitutes it’s all powerful donor class hates the white working class as well given it’s enthusiastic support of illegal aliens, open borders, off-shoring, etc.

    Benefits for the working class? No way. All they get is a lecture by some pasty face dude who never worked a day in his life about the virtues of working. Now if it’s GE or Goldman Sachs – it’s ‘what can I do for you’.

    • Replies: @unpc downunder
    The ones that really seem to hate the working class are the economically right wing, socially liberal types like every white nationalist's favorite economist Philip Legrain. The economic right think the working class are a bit lazy, while the liberal left think they are a bit intolerant and ignorant, but these left libertarian types think the white working class are both lazy and morally bad.

    I once had a dream that Philip Legrain get lost while on holiday in Italy, and "accidently" got trampled on by a mob of SS Lazio fans. I wonder if Philip's nightmares parallel my dreams?

  26. The gentry left hates the white working class, and the white working class know it.

    I disagree. The gentry are well-born. It’s the parvenus who despise the working class because they know they might be confused for them.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I think gentry left is just a sociological term for the current cultural elites, eg Joel Kotkin refers to 'gentry liberals' http://www.newgeography.com/content/00630-democrats-could-face-internal-civil-war-gentry-and-populist-factions-square-off
  27. @JohnnyWalker123
    Maybe the "Labour Party" should become a real labor party. Instead of standing up for the interests of urban elites and immigrants, they should become the party of working class white union members. That's the direction to go.

    To be fair, Labour is considerably better than both Democrats and Republicans on immigration. Tories are actually not bad either. I would've liked to have seen UKIP win more seats, but it seems like the Tories are serious about cutting non-European immigration and removing illegal aliens. That's a positive development.

    South Asian migration has decreased significantly under Tory rule, after skyrocketing during the Labour era. The UK actually used to have pretty sensible immigration policies, until Blair's election to office in 1997.

    To be fair, Labour is considerably better than both Democrats and Republicans on immigration.

    To be fair, I’ll give you a chance to do a little research and retract this amazing claim.

  28. An interesting part of the British elections is that once it is decided and there is a changeover, the power exchange and change of residence happen two hours later. We Americans have to wait about 70 days.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Much more of the world imitates the British system of government rather than the vaunted American system.
    , @Art Deco
    They have the ministerial positions allocated beforehand. Also, there are not many personnel changes. There are (last I heard) about 3,000 discretionary appointments in the U.S. government and all the consequential ones require senatorial advice and consent. In a British ministry, you have a minister and a parliamentary undersecretary arriving and that's about it.
  29. @anon

    The gentry left hates the white working class, and the white working class know it.
     
    Yes, they really do - quite odd really. I can think of various logical reasons for how the gentry left are behaving as well but at the end of the day there does seem to be a distinct element of simple hatred.

    I don't think the bulk of the working class did realize it until recently though and even now it is still an ongoing process but yes it's happening.

    My current theory is it's from being bullied at school by early puberty blue collar kids but only because I can't think of anything else.

    Anon proposes a theory as to why the gentry left hates working class whites:

    My current theory is it’s from being bullied at school by early puberty blue collar kids but only because I can’t think of anything else.

    Here’s an alternate theory for you: People despise those whom they mistreat.

    It works like this: most people like to think that they are basically good and that the work they are doing is good (e.g., Goldman Sachs’ Lloyd Blankfein saying that he was “doing God’s work.”) So if I believe myself to be a good person, but I know that I am mistreating others, then I must rationalize somehow that they had it coming and that I am “doing God’s work” by mistreating them. (See discussions about cognitive dissonance.)

    The gentry left, in their positions in schools and universities, in government bureaucracies, and in medical and legal occupations, mistreat and abuse working class whites every day, and they are well aware that they are doing it. Moreover their livelihoods depend on their looting working class whites; they can only stop doing it if they quit their jobs. How then can they continue to think of themselves as good people? Only by rationalizing that working class whites are really bad people (bitter clingers, racists, homophobes, religious wackos, etc.).

    This is why if you find yourself badly mistreated in a job situation, it is best to quit. The more the boss mistreats you, the more he will hate you, and it becomes a downward vicious circle. Similarly the more that working class whites are abused and mistreated by the gentry left, the more they will be hated.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    "People despise those whom they mistreat."

    You can see that with English nationalists like George Orwell and Paul Johnson, who really couldn't forgive the Irish for being abused by the English for all those centuries.

  30. With a motto of “We will make police ignore the gang rapes of underage white British girls by 3rd world savage moslems” they have the gang rapist vote locked in.

    • Replies: @David R. Merridale
    With a motto of “We will make police ignore the gang rapes of underage white British girls by 3rd world savage moslems” they have the gang rapist vote locked in.

    By definition there are more gang rapists than gang rape victims, so yeah makes sense.
  31. @Ezra
    Actually, the text of the article was about as iSteve-ish as you could possibly want. In the writers opinion, Labour's appeal to working class unity got crushed by the greater appeal of nationalism in Scotland and discomfort with immigration in northern England. Lesson: Labour either needs to be a Blair-ite yuppie party or figure out how to address immigration.

    Some editor in New York couldn't grok this off-message point and wrote a headline as if the story fit the Narrative.

    Americans should notice the difference between the Tories and the GOP. The Conservatives are an organized political party who are looking to exploit the contradictions of the left in order to win elections. The Republicans are a shell for a corrupt gang who are trying to put as much money into their own pockets before they get chased out of town. The only brake on their subservience to billionaires and financiers is the need to be plausible challengers to the Democrats. The GOP will respond to any weaknesses on the left by larding even more unpopular and destructive favors on their paymasters. If Hilary Clinton emerges on the campaign trail healthy and focused on moderate quality of life issues, the Republicans will have to respond in kind sufficient to lose 51-49. If Hil declares herself a Marxist-Leninist and is obviously suffering from dementia, Marco Rubio will declare himself in favor of negative capital gains taxes paid for by cancelling Medicare and lose 51-49.

    Very well put. The ultra rich only really care about having a veto power, which the GOP house gerrymander will ensure lasts until 2033 or later. A smaller GOP they control is preferable to partial control over a more successful party.

  32. @syonredux
    Posted this on another thread, but it seems germane:


    Frum gives his thoughts on what the Republicans can learn from the Tory victory.Reading between the lines, he seems to basically be pointing out ways that the Republicans can attract more Jews:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/05/republicans-british-election-conservatives/392852/


    Quite a bit of protesting/rioting in the UK in the wake of the recent election:

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/anti-tory-protests-live-updates-5670515

    http://www.bbc.com/news/election-2015-32678518

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3074951/Socialist-siege-Downing-Street-Hard-left-activists-clash-police-following-David-Cameron-s-triumphant-return-Number-10.html

    Be very wary of what Frum is selling you. Replace the flow of hordes of Mexicans with a flow of hordes of Indians (Whites still being replaced), and a doubling down of America kowtowing to Israel and their foreign policy interests(Greater loss of blood & treasure). He is as radical a Jewish activist as their can be.

    • Replies: @Alex M
    **there**
    , @syonredux

    Be very wary of what Frum is selling you.
     
    I'm wary of everyone.As for Frum, I'm linking to him because he provides a level of insight into one branch of neo-con thinking.Best to know what is circulating in the aether....
  33. sfg says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    The gentry left hates the white working class, and the white working class know it.

     

    The left in its entirety hates the white working class. But they offer, and will always offer greater benefits, so a big portion of that class will always vote for it.

    And don't tell the right to compete on benefits. The right is bound by truth, by reality. The left is not.

    The welfare state's bargain is stated pretty succinctly in Matthew 4: 8-9.

    The unions don’t.

    As for the welfare state being run by the devil…every European country has one, often a lot bigger than ours. The whiter the country, the bigger it is. A smaller welfare state means a lot more money in the pockets of employers who can extort more concession from workers…and these are the people who love more immigration to keep wages down.

    Business is not your friend.

    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    It depends what type of welfare state exists and who benefits from it.

    In many European countries, Muslim immigrants grossly abuse the welfare state. The solution isn't necessarily to get rid of welfare, but to limit welfare to native Europeans and exclude immigrants. Unfortunately, Euros lack the will to do that. Unfortunately, so do Americans. What we need is a nationalist-unionist party that cuts benefits for immigrants, while doing more for natives. Such as the Swedish Democrats.

    Here's a good commercial from the Swedish Democrats. Make sure to watch it, as it expresses what we need to do. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7u_UB85v1l4

    Also, I tend to favor good welfare programs (Medicare, Medicaid, SS, make-work govt programs, disability for genuinely disabled people, college tuition subsidies), while not much liking welfare to unemployed single mothers.
  34. Special Ed Miliband is going to rue the day that he promised Muslim voters that he would make Islamophobia a damned near capital crime.

  35. @Grumpy Old Man
    The gentry left hates the white working class, and the white working class know it.

    “The gentry left hates the white working class, and the white working class know it.”

    While there were rumblings in the writings of Fanon and the Black Panthers, over the last 20 years, the Left have effectively replaced all remnants of the white working class in their ideology with the New Proletariat consisting of the populations of the Developing World. The irony is that today, the Gentry Leftists of London and Tribeca, who work in media and banking, would view the working class of the mines of Northern England, Les Miserables, the Paris Commune and the writings of Charles Dickens as privileged whites not worthy of support.

    It will be interesting if the Labour “Dwindling Core” simply doubles down on electing a New People like the Democrats have done.

  36. From the article: Labour’s shadow chancellor, Ed Balls, lost his seat in Leeds to the Tories.

    From the comments: My current theory is it’s from being bullied at school by early puberty blue collar kids. . .

    Yes, it’s a fair bet that a guy named “Ed Balls” was probably bullied at school.

    • Replies: @dearieme
    Good God, you don't imagine Ed Balls attended the sort of school where there are many "blue collar kids" do you? They couldn't have afforded the fees.
  37. @sfg
    The unions don't.

    As for the welfare state being run by the devil...every European country has one, often a lot bigger than ours. The whiter the country, the bigger it is. A smaller welfare state means a lot more money in the pockets of employers who can extort more concession from workers...and these are the people who love more immigration to keep wages down.

    Business is not your friend.

    It depends what type of welfare state exists and who benefits from it.

    In many European countries, Muslim immigrants grossly abuse the welfare state. The solution isn’t necessarily to get rid of welfare, but to limit welfare to native Europeans and exclude immigrants. Unfortunately, Euros lack the will to do that. Unfortunately, so do Americans. What we need is a nationalist-unionist party that cuts benefits for immigrants, while doing more for natives. Such as the Swedish Democrats.

    Here’s a good commercial from the Swedish Democrats. Make sure to watch it, as it expresses what we need to do.

    Also, I tend to favor good welfare programs (Medicare, Medicaid, SS, make-work govt programs, disability for genuinely disabled people, college tuition subsidies), while not much liking welfare to unemployed single mothers.

    • Replies: @Tim

    The solution isn’t necessarily to get rid of welfare, but to limit welfare to native Europeans and exclude immigrants
     
    If you mean native British you have a point. Gypsies, (and corrupt Greeks and Cypriots after the fall of the Euro) don't deserve such largesse either.
  38. I recommend the following article:
    http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/analysis/136047/election-2015-why-british-jews-will-welcome-tory-win
    Here the message is that the Jewish vote would have been needed by Miliband and that he lost it because being not reliably enough pro-Israel.
    Insofar the NYT is right: Miliband did too much for the core and too little for the fringe (which means in effect, for the Jews).

  39. It has nothing to do with Jews or with Muslims specifically. The obvious truth, which no-one has yet admitted, is that in the south and midlands of England – where more than half of Britons live – Labour has already become dependent on non-whites.

  40. @JohnnyWalker123
    It depends what type of welfare state exists and who benefits from it.

    In many European countries, Muslim immigrants grossly abuse the welfare state. The solution isn't necessarily to get rid of welfare, but to limit welfare to native Europeans and exclude immigrants. Unfortunately, Euros lack the will to do that. Unfortunately, so do Americans. What we need is a nationalist-unionist party that cuts benefits for immigrants, while doing more for natives. Such as the Swedish Democrats.

    Here's a good commercial from the Swedish Democrats. Make sure to watch it, as it expresses what we need to do. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7u_UB85v1l4

    Also, I tend to favor good welfare programs (Medicare, Medicaid, SS, make-work govt programs, disability for genuinely disabled people, college tuition subsidies), while not much liking welfare to unemployed single mothers.

    The solution isn’t necessarily to get rid of welfare, but to limit welfare to native Europeans and exclude immigrants

    If you mean native British you have a point. Gypsies, (and corrupt Greeks and Cypriots after the fall of the Euro) don’t deserve such largesse either.

  41. @Jeff W.
    Anon proposes a theory as to why the gentry left hates working class whites:

    My current theory is it’s from being bullied at school by early puberty blue collar kids but only because I can’t think of anything else.
     
    Here's an alternate theory for you: People despise those whom they mistreat.

    It works like this: most people like to think that they are basically good and that the work they are doing is good (e.g., Goldman Sachs' Lloyd Blankfein saying that he was "doing God's work.") So if I believe myself to be a good person, but I know that I am mistreating others, then I must rationalize somehow that they had it coming and that I am "doing God's work" by mistreating them. (See discussions about cognitive dissonance.)

    The gentry left, in their positions in schools and universities, in government bureaucracies, and in medical and legal occupations, mistreat and abuse working class whites every day, and they are well aware that they are doing it. Moreover their livelihoods depend on their looting working class whites; they can only stop doing it if they quit their jobs. How then can they continue to think of themselves as good people? Only by rationalizing that working class whites are really bad people (bitter clingers, racists, homophobes, religious wackos, etc.).

    This is why if you find yourself badly mistreated in a job situation, it is best to quit. The more the boss mistreats you, the more he will hate you, and it becomes a downward vicious circle. Similarly the more that working class whites are abused and mistreated by the gentry left, the more they will be hated.

    “People despise those whom they mistreat.”

    You can see that with English nationalists like George Orwell and Paul Johnson, who really couldn’t forgive the Irish for being abused by the English for all those centuries.

    • Replies: @David R. Merridale
    You can see that with English nationalists like George Orwell and Paul Johnson, who really couldn’t forgive the Irish for being abused by the English for all those centuries.

    I'll concede the gross mistreatment, but, still, no one beats a certain type of Irish nationalist for passive-aggressive self-pity and resentment, what my wife calls "congenital Irishness." It's a hard trait to like.
    , @Hairless Neanderthal
    England dissolving her armed forces hastened this trend. Western officers feel an almost paternal affection for their (blue collar) enlisted troops. Especially in Britain where officership was almost exclusively a function of social class, this brought the upper classes closer to the lower classes, and fostered some kinship between them, as you can see in Goodbye To All That and other books about the Great War.
  42. @Vestulia
    An interesting part of the British elections is that once it is decided and there is a changeover, the power exchange and change of residence happen two hours later. We Americans have to wait about 70 days.

    Much more of the world imitates the British system of government rather than the vaunted American system.

    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    Written constitutions are for slackers
    , @syonredux

    Much more of the world imitates the British system of government rather than the vaunted American system.
     
    The French, with their semi-presidential system, are an interesting exception to the rule.Interesting to note how the the office of president in both the USA and France was designed to more or less fit the character of the man who would be the first chief executive (Washington in the USA, de Gaulle under the 5th Republic).


    US vs UK: Two points to bear in mind:

    1.The American Constitution was essentially designed to preserve the English Constitution as it was before the executive (the Crown) became purely ceremonial.Hence, separation of powers in the USA, but not in the UK.

    2.The American system is designed not to function very well.The Founders had a dislike for the smack of firm government.
    , @Art Deco
    Not so much anymore.

    1. Prior to 1917, just about every European country of any dimension (bar Switzerland and France) had a monarchy. Reconciling democratic institutions and monarchy is readily done with a parliamentary system, not with separation of powers. Switzerland has long had an idiosyncratic local system and France eventually adopted a hybrid system seen initially in Finland.

    2. Canada, the Antipodes, and the anglophone Caribbean states were all British dependencies, as were a swatch of insular states in the Pacific and the Indian Ocean, as was India, as were the Malay states.

    3. Taiwan and Korea have hybrid systems and Indonesia a variant of separation of powers. Ceylon formally adopted a hybrid system about 35 years ago. Japan and Thailand are monarchies.

    4. Separation of powers is now the mode among African countries with some history of electoral politics (e.g. Senegal). One exception is South Africa, which lacks the distinction between the head of state and head of government you see in parliamentary systems but whose 'president' is a parliamentary executive.

    5. Separation of powers is bog standard in Latin America (where electoral politics has been omnipresent since 1990).

    6. The East European states restoring constitutional systems in 1989-92 tended to split their preferences between hybrid systems and Westminster systems. IIRC, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, and East Germany elected Westminster systems while the rest did not.

    7. Constitutional states in the Arab world have tended to be executive monarchies like Kuwait.

    , @Mr. Anon
    Does any country have a government that is substantially like ours? Our system of government is as peculiar as our system of weights and measures.
  43. So the leftists rioted but it was UKIP that was totally ripped off in parliament representation.

    Why didn’t UKIP supporters riot?

    Because, like the Right everywhere, they are lame submissives.

    • Replies: @Lurker
    The leftist rioting was miniscule, not even rioting in fact. If anything it's reminded a lot of people why they didn't vote Labour.

    The election has raised the issue of proportional representation yet again. In a system with three, four or even five major parties running in some seats, straightforward first past the post voting seems ever more unfair. The Tories only got 36% plus of those who voted.

    Unfortunately Labour, as the second largest party still won't endorse PR, they may have lost now, they may lose in five years again but one day they will win under FPTP and then it will be their boot stamping on the country's face and that thought will sustain them through the hard times as it did from 1979 - 97. In fact just as it sustained the Tories from 1997 to 2010.

    Under PR the Tory majority would have been greatly reduced and UKIP up to 87 seats. In fact probably even more. The theory is that many people panicked and voted Tory at the last moment to defeat Labour but if they were confident in UKIP success they would have voted that way instead.

    The situation in Scotland has arisen also partly through FPTP. Millions of Tory voters have been disenfranchised for decades in Scotland, now add that to millions of Labour, UKIP and LD voters.

    (I voted UKIP, a forlorn hope where I am, as the local Tory has a big majority)

  44. I think the advice the left foisters on the right each election cycle is really just projection, and we should hurl it back:

    “you guys should really stop emphasizing and and reduce and downplay your social issues and play up your economic and foreign policy ones. Suppress and drive those crazies out, they’re only hurting your voter turnout. Get on the right side of history.”

    There, that felt nice. And nasty. And cathartic. And true.

  45. @Steve Sailer
    Much more of the world imitates the British system of government rather than the vaunted American system.

    Written constitutions are for slackers

    • Replies: @dearieme
    "Written constitutions are for slackers": well they're certainly not for Americans, except as an item of worship.
  46. Ted says:

    Steve-

    Any thoughts about the rather obviously fradulent polls before the election? Weren’t the Torries supposed to lose?

    Also, what about the massacre north of Hadrian’s wall? The SNP went from 6 seats to 56 seats, out of only 59. This, only a few months after they supposedly lost their independence refferrendum by 11%. Could it be that the Scotts just suddenly remembered that they’ve been fighting for their independence since before the birth of Christ? Or could there have been a little Chicago style counting in last year’s vote?

    • Replies: @22pp22
    British polls are counted by hand in public and are quite hard to falsify. Electoral fraud is mainly a problem in Moslem areas where postal votes are collected by powerful local figures before they can be filled in by the recipient. I am British and I have lived in both Scotland and England. Not everyone who votes SNP voted for independence. Lots of local factors come into play in rural Scotland. The only part of Scotland that did vote for independence was Glasgow, a long-term Labour fiefdom. The Labour Party was destroyed by the need to campaign against independence when many of its followers passionately supported it. Scotland and England have a long and complicated relationship. Americans are too influenced by Braveheart. Many Prime Ministers have been Scottish and the union came about initially because the Scottish King James inherited the English throne when Elizabeth I died childless. The Scottish parliament then voted for union in 1707. The Highland Rebellions were not supported by most lowland Scots who saw the Highlanders as uncivilized brigands. Since then the two countries have been united and at peace and there has never been a terrorist movement north of the border.

    Catholic Ireland and Britain most certainly did have the kind of relationship you describe. Britain was a product of the Protestant Reformation and Catholic Ireland never fitted in.

  47. @anon

    The gentry left hates the white working class, and the white working class know it.
     
    Yes, they really do - quite odd really. I can think of various logical reasons for how the gentry left are behaving as well but at the end of the day there does seem to be a distinct element of simple hatred.

    I don't think the bulk of the working class did realize it until recently though and even now it is still an ongoing process but yes it's happening.

    My current theory is it's from being bullied at school by early puberty blue collar kids but only because I can't think of anything else.

    Tom Wolfe has written about this topic (why the elites hate the middle class – a better description than just working class) extensively over the years. It comes down to the middle class refusing to acknowledge the elites as their betters. The middle class doesn’t read the same books, listen to the same music, watch the same movies, eat the same food, buy the same kind of houses, go to the same schools, etc., as the elites. Charles Murray takes this on in his marvelous and depressing Coming Apart and reaches the same basic conclusion.

  48. @rod1963
    The Right or more accurately the business community that constitutes it's all powerful donor class hates the white working class as well given it's enthusiastic support of illegal aliens, open borders, off-shoring, etc.

    Benefits for the working class? No way. All they get is a lecture by some pasty face dude who never worked a day in his life about the virtues of working. Now if it's GE or Goldman Sachs - it's 'what can I do for you'.

    The ones that really seem to hate the working class are the economically right wing, socially liberal types like every white nationalist’s favorite economist Philip Legrain. The economic right think the working class are a bit lazy, while the liberal left think they are a bit intolerant and ignorant, but these left libertarian types think the white working class are both lazy and morally bad.

    I once had a dream that Philip Legrain get lost while on holiday in Italy, and “accidently” got trampled on by a mob of SS Lazio fans. I wonder if Philip’s nightmares parallel my dreams?

  49. @anon

    The gentry left hates the white working class, and the white working class know it.
     
    Yes, they really do - quite odd really. I can think of various logical reasons for how the gentry left are behaving as well but at the end of the day there does seem to be a distinct element of simple hatred.

    I don't think the bulk of the working class did realize it until recently though and even now it is still an ongoing process but yes it's happening.

    My current theory is it's from being bullied at school by early puberty blue collar kids but only because I can't think of anything else.

    If the upscale Labour voters are like SWPLs in the US, then most of them did not attend schools with a sizable number of blue collar students.

    • Replies: @anon
    That's probably true now but 40 years ago when the average politician was in school I think it was different. Bear in mind the UK is physically much smaller so kids going to the nice school might still often travel on the same bus as the kids going to the rough school.

    .

    Another possibility is the Marxist element read all these books about the heroic proletariat and then get involved in politics and find the proletariat are mostly meatheads. I like meatheads personally but I'm guessing a bookish Marxist intellectual type would hate every second.

    In a way Marxism brings together two groups of people - intellectuals and meatheads - that really ought to be kept separate.
  50. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    My gut feeling is that the character and personality of Ed Miliband- a gurgling, gabbling, spluttering, weak faced milquetoast of a man, was simply unelectable to a broad swathe of the British public, as compared to the smoothie, bully Etonian ‘Flashman’ ‘born to rule’ Cameron.

    That said, the electoral arthimetic was on a knife edge. The British voting system, which, remember Tony Blair promised to reform, but refused to do so once in office, is punishingly brutal to small parties. UKIP got nearly 4 million votes but only one parliamentary seat.
    All previous political calculations assumed a Labour Scotland. And as the article states, UKIP nibbled crucial Labour support at the fringes.
    Put it this way, if Scotland stayed loyal to Labour, Labour had a more credible leader and that if Labour weren’t to so unbelievably shitheaded over immigration, Labour would have won. The Conservatives didn’t win – Labour lost.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Calls to mind Churchill's description of Clement Attlee, "a sheep in sheep's clothing".
    , @slumber_j
    Not to put too fine a point on it, but Cameron's also the less Jewish of the two. I've wondered whether that may have figured in people's voting behavior--perhaps even only at a subconscious level.
    , @claude
    "UKIP got nearly 4 million votes but only one parliamentary seat."

    If you've got 4M votes, who needs elections. Half of those 4M only need appear once together in public to right their country immediately.
  51. @Alex M
    Be very wary of what Frum is selling you. Replace the flow of hordes of Mexicans with a flow of hordes of Indians (Whites still being replaced), and a doubling down of America kowtowing to Israel and their foreign policy interests(Greater loss of blood & treasure). He is as radical a Jewish activist as their can be.

    **there**

  52. @Ted
    Steve-

    Any thoughts about the rather obviously fradulent polls before the election? Weren't the Torries supposed to lose?

    Also, what about the massacre north of Hadrian's wall? The SNP went from 6 seats to 56 seats, out of only 59. This, only a few months after they supposedly lost their independence refferrendum by 11%. Could it be that the Scotts just suddenly remembered that they've been fighting for their independence since before the birth of Christ? Or could there have been a little Chicago style counting in last year's vote?

    British polls are counted by hand in public and are quite hard to falsify. Electoral fraud is mainly a problem in Moslem areas where postal votes are collected by powerful local figures before they can be filled in by the recipient. I am British and I have lived in both Scotland and England. Not everyone who votes SNP voted for independence. Lots of local factors come into play in rural Scotland. The only part of Scotland that did vote for independence was Glasgow, a long-term Labour fiefdom. The Labour Party was destroyed by the need to campaign against independence when many of its followers passionately supported it. Scotland and England have a long and complicated relationship. Americans are too influenced by Braveheart. Many Prime Ministers have been Scottish and the union came about initially because the Scottish King James inherited the English throne when Elizabeth I died childless. The Scottish parliament then voted for union in 1707. The Highland Rebellions were not supported by most lowland Scots who saw the Highlanders as uncivilized brigands. Since then the two countries have been united and at peace and there has never been a terrorist movement north of the border.

    Catholic Ireland and Britain most certainly did have the kind of relationship you describe. Britain was a product of the Protestant Reformation and Catholic Ireland never fitted in.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    The last three prime ministers have had Scottish surnames:

    - Cameron's paternal ancestor got rich and moved to England a long time ago

    - Brown is very Scottish

    - Blair is fairly Scottish (he went to high school in Scotland), although his nature and nurture are too complicated for me to remember (there was an adoption somewhere along the line) and he spent some childhood years in Australia or NZ.

    All in all, a small country has done pretty well for itself through union over the last 308 years.

    I suspect Cameron would like to get rid of Scotland to boost the Tories. That might not be a bad thing for both nations, but PMs have too much power to do things that long term in a hurry.
  53. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @anon
    If the upscale Labour voters are like SWPLs in the US, then most of them did not attend schools with a sizable number of blue collar students.

    That’s probably true now but 40 years ago when the average politician was in school I think it was different. Bear in mind the UK is physically much smaller so kids going to the nice school might still often travel on the same bus as the kids going to the rough school.

    .

    Another possibility is the Marxist element read all these books about the heroic proletariat and then get involved in politics and find the proletariat are mostly meatheads. I like meatheads personally but I’m guessing a bookish Marxist intellectual type would hate every second.

    In a way Marxism brings together two groups of people – intellectuals and meatheads – that really ought to be kept separate.

  54. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factor"] says:

  55. @syonredux
    Posted this on another thread, but it seems germane:


    Frum gives his thoughts on what the Republicans can learn from the Tory victory.Reading between the lines, he seems to basically be pointing out ways that the Republicans can attract more Jews:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/05/republicans-british-election-conservatives/392852/


    Quite a bit of protesting/rioting in the UK in the wake of the recent election:

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/anti-tory-protests-live-updates-5670515

    http://www.bbc.com/news/election-2015-32678518

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3074951/Socialist-siege-Downing-Street-Hard-left-activists-clash-police-following-David-Cameron-s-triumphant-return-Number-10.html

    Quite a bit of protesting/rioting in the UK in the wake of the recent election:

    If a white candidate (especially a white Republican) actually manages to win in 2016, I wonder if we’ll be in for serious riots in the US. Typically America does not have post-election riots, but we’ve never replaced a black president with a non-black before.

  56. @ben tillman

    The gentry left hates the white working class, and the white working class know it.
     
    I disagree. The gentry are well-born. It's the parvenus who despise the working class because they know they might be confused for them.

    I think gentry left is just a sociological term for the current cultural elites, eg Joel Kotkin refers to ‘gentry liberals’ http://www.newgeography.com/content/00630-democrats-could-face-internal-civil-war-gentry-and-populist-factions-square-off

  57. @Anonymous
    My gut feeling is that the character and personality of Ed Miliband- a gurgling, gabbling, spluttering, weak faced milquetoast of a man, was simply unelectable to a broad swathe of the British public, as compared to the smoothie, bully Etonian 'Flashman' 'born to rule' Cameron.

    That said, the electoral arthimetic was on a knife edge. The British voting system, which, remember Tony Blair promised to reform, but refused to do so once in office, is punishingly brutal to small parties. UKIP got nearly 4 million votes but only one parliamentary seat.
    All previous political calculations assumed a Labour Scotland. And as the article states, UKIP nibbled crucial Labour support at the fringes.
    Put it this way, if Scotland stayed loyal to Labour, Labour had a more credible leader and that if Labour weren't to so unbelievably shitheaded over immigration, Labour would have won. The Conservatives didn't win - Labour lost.

    Calls to mind Churchill’s description of Clement Attlee, “a sheep in sheep’s clothing”.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    The British system doesn't always need a PM who is Presidential Timber. You can have an Attlee who served sort of like a university department chairman presiding over more ministers more high-powered than himself. The postwar Labour government under Attlee was famously effective at getting done a lot of what it wanted done (such as nationalizations and National Health), even though nobody remembers Attlee.
  58. @Anonymous
    So the leftists rioted but it was UKIP that was totally ripped off in parliament representation.

    Why didn't UKIP supporters riot?

    Because, like the Right everywhere, they are lame submissives.

    The leftist rioting was miniscule, not even rioting in fact. If anything it’s reminded a lot of people why they didn’t vote Labour.

    The election has raised the issue of proportional representation yet again. In a system with three, four or even five major parties running in some seats, straightforward first past the post voting seems ever more unfair. The Tories only got 36% plus of those who voted.

    Unfortunately Labour, as the second largest party still won’t endorse PR, they may have lost now, they may lose in five years again but one day they will win under FPTP and then it will be their boot stamping on the country’s face and that thought will sustain them through the hard times as it did from 1979 – 97. In fact just as it sustained the Tories from 1997 to 2010.

    Under PR the Tory majority would have been greatly reduced and UKIP up to 87 seats. In fact probably even more. The theory is that many people panicked and voted Tory at the last moment to defeat Labour but if they were confident in UKIP success they would have voted that way instead.

    The situation in Scotland has arisen also partly through FPTP. Millions of Tory voters have been disenfranchised for decades in Scotland, now add that to millions of Labour, UKIP and LD voters.

    (I voted UKIP, a forlorn hope where I am, as the local Tory has a big majority)

    • Replies: @David R. Merridale
    The election has raised the issue of proportional representation yet again. In a system with three, four or even five major parties running in some seats, straightforward first past the post voting seems ever more unfair. The Tories only got 36% plus of those who voted.

    The only way PR will get implemented is if some way can be found to strip likely UKIP voters of their franchise. The entire non-UKIP political class loathes UKIP and will do nothing to increase the number of UKIP MPs. They'll go as far as saying, "Hmm... 4 million votes for one seat... that seems... disproportionate." But they'll go no farther.
  59. Whatever party you vote for, you get cultural Marxism:

    March of the Tory women: Cameron to make third of his new Cabinet female as he bids to shake off party’s ‘pale, male and stale’ image

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3075981/March-Tory-women-Cameron-make-new-Cabinet-female-bids-shake-party-s-pale-male-stale-image.html

  60. @James Kabala
    Could you expand on this? From my American view it seems as if the Tories are at least as bad if not worse than the Republicans. The only difference seems to be that Republicans create bad policies indirectly, through bad Supreme Court appointments, whereas Tories openly vote for such policies (e.g., Cameron personally and directly brought gay marriage to Britain).

    No the Conservatives are well to the right of the Republicans, Jeff Sessions would be mainstream on immigration and Rand Paul listened to on foreign policy. UKIP will also keep the party honest.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    As an American anglophile, I concur. As wacky left as the Brits can be on a host of (primarily free-speech subjects), legitimate debate on immigration is far more accepted over there.
  61. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    During Labour’s long, long wilderness years following Thatcher’s epochal victory of 1979, the Labour Party essentially ditched socialism as its core philosophy. That’s it. Just like a drowning man doing anything possible to survive, Labour basically renounced its core, central ideological belief, its whole raison d’etre.
    Blairism was really Conservatism, going as far as being Thatcher-lite – incidentally, that’s why the Scots turned on Labour – with a bit of trendy Democrat/Economist modish bull-poopy such as uncontrolled immigration thrown in.
    Anyway, my point is that if a Labour Party can and will ditch socialism to survive, then ditching immigrationism is a mere minor matter.
    Expect the new Labour leader, whoever he may be to eventually unfold immigration proposals to the right of Nigel Farage.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Miliband played around a little in 2011 with the Orwell-like left nationalism of Maurice Glasman. Here's the opening to my 2011 VDARE article:

    Maurice Glasman, Ed Miliband And The Rapid Rise And Faster Fall Of Blue Labour’s Immigration Patriotism
    By Steve Sailer on July 25, 2011, 9:00 am

    Immigration’s sacred cow status makes it a central stumbling block to intellectual progress. This was illustrated again last week with the implosion of the U.K. Labour Party’s ground-breaking “Blue Labour“ policy group.

    The new idea man of the Labour Party, Baron Glasman, was widely denounced for making some allegedly shocking (but actually sensible) remarks about Britain’s need to restrict immigration, such as “Britain is not an outpost of the UN. We have to put the people in this country first.”

    Labour leader Ed Miliband’s chances of becoming Prime Minister have risen this month with his skillful whipping up of the Murdoch phone hacking brouhaha. So it’s useful to inquire into the thinking of those to whom he listens.

    Last November, Miliband had the Queen elevate to the House of Lords Maurice Glasman, an obscure London academic and community organizer who had coined the term “Blue Labour” in 2009. Miliband’s hope was that Glasman could come up with a coherent ideology to replace the grand strategy of the old New Labour of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown: invite-the-world, invade-the-world, and in-hock-to-the-world. (Sound familiar?)

    That Miliband respects Glasman, a strikingly heterodox thinker who advocates a sort of patriotic-family-values leftism, a conservative socialism that would have appealed to George Orwell, is encouraging.

    Unfortunately, however, the outraged response by Britain’s keepers of the conventional wisdom to Glasman’s pointing out that “itinerant finance” (of which he’s deeply suspicious) profits more from “itinerant labor” than do British workers demonstrates once again that the old left-right paradigm is obsolescent.

    Lord Glasman has found himself on the less privileged side of the central ideological divide of the 21st Century—a gap that sprawls across the more familiar ideological chasms of the 20th Century. The crucial question is no longer capitalism vs. communism, but globalism v. localism, imperial centralization v. self-rule, cosmopolitanism v. patriotism, elitism v. populism, diversity v. particularism, homogeneity v. heterogeneity, and high-low v. middle.

    Barack Obama, for example, epitomizes the first side of these dichotomies, especially the high-low coalition. By being half-black, he enjoys the totemic aura of the low, but has all the advantages of the high. He has never, as far as anyone can tell, had a thought cross his mind that would raise an eyebrow at a Davos Conference.

    In contrast to the President, Glasman is certainly an original thinker. But anybody on his side of these new dichotomies faces a tactical disadvantage.

    http://www.vdare.com/articles/maurice-glasman-ed-miliband-and-the-rapid-rise-and-faster-fall-of-blue-labour-s-immigration

  62. The Ed Miller Band ran an Obama style campaign without US demographics to justify it. Only worked in London where they ok.

    Plus the Britain has a multi party system, people have someone else to vote for.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    So the SNP makes all sorts of noises about wanting more immigration (because they haven't had much yet), but it's really the party of people like Sean Connery who mostly just like being Scottish?
  63. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    *The* fundamental constant of postwar British life is that the non white population doubles in size every 15 years or so.
    It is currently around 12 million strong.
    Another fundamental constant is that it is overwhelmingly Labour voting.
    So, by simple arithmetic alone, I stand by earlier ‘predictions’ I made here about permanent Labour Party rule in Britain.
    Scotland, and a residual UKIP spoiler effect have only delayed it for a generation.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Perhaps it's less "controversial" for Cameron to dump Scotland from the UK than to crack down on immigration?
  64. @Dave Pinsen
    Calls to mind Churchill's description of Clement Attlee, "a sheep in sheep's clothing".

    The British system doesn’t always need a PM who is Presidential Timber. You can have an Attlee who served sort of like a university department chairman presiding over more ministers more high-powered than himself. The postwar Labour government under Attlee was famously effective at getting done a lot of what it wanted done (such as nationalizations and National Health), even though nobody remembers Attlee.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Steve, that was in the pre-TV age.
    , @Kylie

    The postwar Labour government under Attlee was famously effective at getting done a lot of what it wanted done (such as nationalizations and National Health), even though nobody remembers Attlee.
     
    I do, with loathing.

    Of course, here as elsewhere, I'm a nobody.
  65. @22pp22
    British polls are counted by hand in public and are quite hard to falsify. Electoral fraud is mainly a problem in Moslem areas where postal votes are collected by powerful local figures before they can be filled in by the recipient. I am British and I have lived in both Scotland and England. Not everyone who votes SNP voted for independence. Lots of local factors come into play in rural Scotland. The only part of Scotland that did vote for independence was Glasgow, a long-term Labour fiefdom. The Labour Party was destroyed by the need to campaign against independence when many of its followers passionately supported it. Scotland and England have a long and complicated relationship. Americans are too influenced by Braveheart. Many Prime Ministers have been Scottish and the union came about initially because the Scottish King James inherited the English throne when Elizabeth I died childless. The Scottish parliament then voted for union in 1707. The Highland Rebellions were not supported by most lowland Scots who saw the Highlanders as uncivilized brigands. Since then the two countries have been united and at peace and there has never been a terrorist movement north of the border.

    Catholic Ireland and Britain most certainly did have the kind of relationship you describe. Britain was a product of the Protestant Reformation and Catholic Ireland never fitted in.

    The last three prime ministers have had Scottish surnames:

    – Cameron’s paternal ancestor got rich and moved to England a long time ago

    – Brown is very Scottish

    – Blair is fairly Scottish (he went to high school in Scotland), although his nature and nurture are too complicated for me to remember (there was an adoption somewhere along the line) and he spent some childhood years in Australia or NZ.

    All in all, a small country has done pretty well for itself through union over the last 308 years.

    I suspect Cameron would like to get rid of Scotland to boost the Tories. That might not be a bad thing for both nations, but PMs have too much power to do things that long term in a hurry.

    • Replies: @22pp22
    There has been so much intermarriage over the generations that identity is sometimes a matter of choice. Gerry Adams, leader of Sinn Fein, is descended from one of Cromwell's generals. Religious differences played a role in keeping Brits and Irish separate, but if you dig deep enough alot of us have Irish ancestry.

    It is far funkier to be Scottish or Irish than English. The result is that New Zealanders of mixed English/Scottish/Irish ancestry tend to remember the Scottish bits and forget the English bits. That rule even applies in England to a lesser extent.

    I am an English New Zealander and I am always delighted when Scotland loses in rugby - in spite on Scottish ancestry on both sides of my family. If I were American, I would probably call myself Irish.
    , @Reg Cæsar
    Blair's father was born Pearson, and was adopted. Pearson is a Borders name.

    John Major, the UK's George H W Bush, may be the last English PM.

  66. @Anonymous
    *The* fundamental constant of postwar British life is that the non white population doubles in size every 15 years or so.
    It is currently around 12 million strong.
    Another fundamental constant is that it is overwhelmingly Labour voting.
    So, by simple arithmetic alone, I stand by earlier 'predictions' I made here about permanent Labour Party rule in Britain.
    Scotland, and a residual UKIP spoiler effect have only delayed it for a generation.

    Perhaps it’s less “controversial” for Cameron to dump Scotland from the UK than to crack down on immigration?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    No.
    Cameron is an old-fashioned Tory and 'unionist' - not to be confused with Trades Unions, I hasten to add.
    What ever you might say band think about Cameron, he believes in Britain and the historic United Kingdom. Just remember the days before the Independence referendum. There was effectively no price Cameron was not willing to pay to keep Scotland in the UK.
  67. @LondonBob
    The Ed Miller Band ran an Obama style campaign without US demographics to justify it. Only worked in London where they ok.

    Plus the Britain has a multi party system, people have someone else to vote for.

    So the SNP makes all sorts of noises about wanting more immigration (because they haven’t had much yet), but it’s really the party of people like Sean Connery who mostly just like being Scottish?

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    The SNP appears to be pro immigration in order to deflect charges of being anti English, they don't get much immigration anyway so its a safe option. Not that I particularly understand Scottish politics/society, there is the old Catholic/Protestant rivalry, the Anglo Saxon areas etc. The two border seats returned a Conservative MP and the second would have if they hadn't erroneously voted tactically for the Liberal, interestingly enough.
    , @Anonymous
    The irony is that 'Sean Connery' is a quintessential Irish name.
    Yes, I know the Scots came from Ireland and all that.
  68. @Anonymous
    During Labour's long, long wilderness years following Thatcher's epochal victory of 1979, the Labour Party essentially ditched socialism as its core philosophy. That's it. Just like a drowning man doing anything possible to survive, Labour basically renounced its core, central ideological belief, its whole raison d'etre.
    Blairism was really Conservatism, going as far as being Thatcher-lite - incidentally, that's why the Scots turned on Labour - with a bit of trendy Democrat/Economist modish bull-poopy such as uncontrolled immigration thrown in.
    Anyway, my point is that if a Labour Party can and will ditch socialism to survive, then ditching immigrationism is a mere minor matter.
    Expect the new Labour leader, whoever he may be to eventually unfold immigration proposals to the right of Nigel Farage.

    Miliband played around a little in 2011 with the Orwell-like left nationalism of Maurice Glasman. Here’s the opening to my 2011 VDARE article:

    Maurice Glasman, Ed Miliband And The Rapid Rise And Faster Fall Of Blue Labour’s Immigration Patriotism
    By Steve Sailer on July 25, 2011, 9:00 am

    Immigration’s sacred cow status makes it a central stumbling block to intellectual progress. This was illustrated again last week with the implosion of the U.K. Labour Party’s ground-breaking “Blue Labour“ policy group.

    The new idea man of the Labour Party, Baron Glasman, was widely denounced for making some allegedly shocking (but actually sensible) remarks about Britain’s need to restrict immigration, such as “Britain is not an outpost of the UN. We have to put the people in this country first.”

    Labour leader Ed Miliband’s chances of becoming Prime Minister have risen this month with his skillful whipping up of the Murdoch phone hacking brouhaha. So it’s useful to inquire into the thinking of those to whom he listens.

    Last November, Miliband had the Queen elevate to the House of Lords Maurice Glasman, an obscure London academic and community organizer who had coined the term “Blue Labour” in 2009. Miliband’s hope was that Glasman could come up with a coherent ideology to replace the grand strategy of the old New Labour of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown: invite-the-world, invade-the-world, and in-hock-to-the-world. (Sound familiar?)

    That Miliband respects Glasman, a strikingly heterodox thinker who advocates a sort of patriotic-family-values leftism, a conservative socialism that would have appealed to George Orwell, is encouraging.

    Unfortunately, however, the outraged response by Britain’s keepers of the conventional wisdom to Glasman’s pointing out that “itinerant finance” (of which he’s deeply suspicious) profits more from “itinerant labor” than do British workers demonstrates once again that the old left-right paradigm is obsolescent.

    Lord Glasman has found himself on the less privileged side of the central ideological divide of the 21st Century—a gap that sprawls across the more familiar ideological chasms of the 20th Century. The crucial question is no longer capitalism vs. communism, but globalism v. localism, imperial centralization v. self-rule, cosmopolitanism v. patriotism, elitism v. populism, diversity v. particularism, homogeneity v. heterogeneity, and high-low v. middle.

    Barack Obama, for example, epitomizes the first side of these dichotomies, especially the high-low coalition. By being half-black, he enjoys the totemic aura of the low, but has all the advantages of the high. He has never, as far as anyone can tell, had a thought cross his mind that would raise an eyebrow at a Davos Conference.

    In contrast to the President, Glasman is certainly an original thinker. But anybody on his side of these new dichotomies faces a tactical disadvantage.

    http://www.vdare.com/articles/maurice-glasman-ed-miliband-and-the-rapid-rise-and-faster-fall-of-blue-labour-s-immigration

  69. London’s Tory mayor Boris Johnson is an articulate and even relatively honest proponent of The Economist’s orthodoxy: he’s not a public servant for the benefit of people currently subjects of the Queen; instead, he’s looking out for the interests of all the high IQ hard-chargers who might someday move to London from who knows where.

    That’s why Michael Bloomberg talks about trading jobs with Boris.

    That’s a viewpoint that deserves representation, and Boris does it well. But the opposite side deserves representation too. It seems to have more representation in Britain at present than in America.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Boris Johnson is a very very astute and intelligent man - he is someone definitely to watch.
    From observing him over the years, I'm fairly convinced he'd dump immigrationism in a heartbeat if was a vote loser.
  70. @Harry Baldwin
    From the article: Labour’s shadow chancellor, Ed Balls, lost his seat in Leeds to the Tories.

    From the comments: My current theory is it’s from being bullied at school by early puberty blue collar kids. . .

    Yes, it's a fair bet that a guy named "Ed Balls" was probably bullied at school.

    Good God, you don’t imagine Ed Balls attended the sort of school where there are many “blue collar kids” do you? They couldn’t have afforded the fees.

  71. @Maj. Kong
    Written constitutions are for slackers

    “Written constitutions are for slackers”: well they’re certainly not for Americans, except as an item of worship.

  72. @Steve Sailer
    The last three prime ministers have had Scottish surnames:

    - Cameron's paternal ancestor got rich and moved to England a long time ago

    - Brown is very Scottish

    - Blair is fairly Scottish (he went to high school in Scotland), although his nature and nurture are too complicated for me to remember (there was an adoption somewhere along the line) and he spent some childhood years in Australia or NZ.

    All in all, a small country has done pretty well for itself through union over the last 308 years.

    I suspect Cameron would like to get rid of Scotland to boost the Tories. That might not be a bad thing for both nations, but PMs have too much power to do things that long term in a hurry.

    There has been so much intermarriage over the generations that identity is sometimes a matter of choice. Gerry Adams, leader of Sinn Fein, is descended from one of Cromwell’s generals. Religious differences played a role in keeping Brits and Irish separate, but if you dig deep enough alot of us have Irish ancestry.

    It is far funkier to be Scottish or Irish than English. The result is that New Zealanders of mixed English/Scottish/Irish ancestry tend to remember the Scottish bits and forget the English bits. That rule even applies in England to a lesser extent.

    I am an English New Zealander and I am always delighted when Scotland loses in rugby – in spite on Scottish ancestry on both sides of my family. If I were American, I would probably call myself Irish.

    • Replies: @yaqub the mad scientist
    There's a group of us who are a blend of English/Irish/Ulster Scots-Borders/Welsh in the US. We simplify things by calling ourselves "Southerners".
    , @IBC

    There has been so much intermarriage over the generations that identity is sometimes a matter of choice. Gerry Adams, leader of Sinn Fein, is descended from one of Cromwell’s generals. Religious differences played a role in keeping Brits and Irish separate, but if you dig deep enough alot of us have Irish ancestry.
     
    Good point, but the converse can also be true. For example, I was amused to learn that only one member of the band U2, is an actual Irish Catholic. Bono was raised as an Anglican and even shares his last name (Hewson) with one of Cromwell's officers who participated in the infamous Siege of Drogheda and who also signed the death warrant for King Charles --a Catholic to whom the native Irish were at least nominally loyal. However, Bono's father was also a Catholic and may have no connection with John Hewson, the Puritan regicide. The two other members of the band, Adam Clayton and the Edge, were both born in England and don't appear to be of Irish descent, though they did grow up in Ireland and identify with it today. I'm not trying to detract from Irish artistic achievement or to foment religious rivalry, it's just that those aren't the biographies that I would have expected.

    It is far funkier to be Scottish or Irish than English. The result is that New Zealanders of mixed English/Scottish/Irish ancestry tend to remember the Scottish bits and forget the English bits. That rule even applies in England to a lesser extent.
     
    And notice how the modern Scottish identity relies so heavily on the Highland mythos even though most Scots are Lowlanders whose ancestors may have even fought against the Highlanders? Without the romance of the Highlands, modern Scottish identity would be much more vanilla. I think that in some circumstances and certainly when you have other options, identifying as "English" is almost like declaring that you like white bread --not that there's anything really wrong with that or that I'm criticizing people who do so.

    As a counter-example, remember that many of the most famous pirates were English, from places like Bristol. How many people actually think to question why old-time pirates are always depicted as grinding their "r's" like that? It's a caricature, but it's of something that's just as "English" as Downton Abbey.

    , @PV van der Byl
    The commander of the Provisional IRA between 1969 and 1972 had no Irish Catholic ancestry at all, as far as I can tell. Only one of his grandparents was Irish and she was an Ulster Protestant. He was born and raised in London and did his national service in the RAF. He joined Sinn Fein and the IRA in London in the early 1950s and took part in raids on British armouries in Britain. Only afterwards did he move to Ireland, where Gailicised his name from John Stephenson to Sean Mac Stiofain.
  73. Was it equally apparent to people inside the UK, as it was to us outside, that the Milibands had no political talent? The only time I’d see them “getting the message out” it was either an unforced gaffe about somebody’s St. George flags on his house or a pointless squabble with Len McCluskey or other grandees of the workers federations (who wield insane clout within Labour while managing to be totally irrelevant to the other parties). Blair’s heirs have a knack for picking the dumbest issues to talk up incessantly– how much media oxygen was consumed by that excise tax on rich people’s fancy houses? It bore some resemblance to the U.S. ’14 election’s sleepwalkers like Mark Udall and Wendy Davis who’d somehow turn every campaign event into a salute to abortion laws. And then that brilliant last-ditch stratagem of promising to “outlaw Islamophobia” — great timing there, Ed!

  74. @Steve Sailer
    So the SNP makes all sorts of noises about wanting more immigration (because they haven't had much yet), but it's really the party of people like Sean Connery who mostly just like being Scottish?

    The SNP appears to be pro immigration in order to deflect charges of being anti English, they don’t get much immigration anyway so its a safe option. Not that I particularly understand Scottish politics/society, there is the old Catholic/Protestant rivalry, the Anglo Saxon areas etc. The two border seats returned a Conservative MP and the second would have if they hadn’t erroneously voted tactically for the Liberal, interestingly enough.

  75. It’s going to congeal quite soon that Ed Miliband was the Worst Politician Ever so if he did in fact possess any smidgen of street cred with you O.G. Anglos, now would be an excellent time to get that out on the table. I don’t think of the UK as naturally “center-right” so this degree of four-quadrant cock-up deserves a decent analysis distinguishing the party’s legacy problems from the “perfect storm” meme that implies the Conservatives were doing something right. Actually you wouldn’t know it from the lambasting of American right-wing bloggers but I always suspected Cameron’s phoniness was less grating on the domestic audience who are capable of respecting a public-school smoothie pained to affect the common touch (think: “I’ll march with you, comfortable shoes,” etc. in Obama’s lame folksy accent) and who always pays respect to the local media gods e.g. diversity, up-to-dateness, telegenic mastery, and of course the proper worship of the hard-working immigrant businessman such as your Kahshoggis, Abramovichs, Robert Maxwells

    • Replies: @anon

    It’s going to congeal quite soon that Ed Miliband was the Worst Politician Ever so if he did in fact possess any smidgen of street cred with you O.G. Anglos, now would be an excellent time to get that out on the table.
     
    It's a bit esoteric but Ed Miliband ending up as the Labour leader was the result of many years of Gordon Brown's supporters allegedly destroying all the viable alternative leader candidates to Gordon Brown after Blair stood down so when Gordon Brown crashed and burned in 2010 the cupboard was very empty.

    Miliband isn't the worst of them by a long way but obviously not suited to being a party leader.
  76. @Steve Sailer
    The British system doesn't always need a PM who is Presidential Timber. You can have an Attlee who served sort of like a university department chairman presiding over more ministers more high-powered than himself. The postwar Labour government under Attlee was famously effective at getting done a lot of what it wanted done (such as nationalizations and National Health), even though nobody remembers Attlee.

    Steve, that was in the pre-TV age.

  77. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Perhaps it's less "controversial" for Cameron to dump Scotland from the UK than to crack down on immigration?

    No.
    Cameron is an old-fashioned Tory and ‘unionist’ – not to be confused with Trades Unions, I hasten to add.
    What ever you might say band think about Cameron, he believes in Britain and the historic United Kingdom. Just remember the days before the Independence referendum. There was effectively no price Cameron was not willing to pay to keep Scotland in the UK.

  78. 48% of Labour Party members are from London. There is a very clear irreconcilable difference being exposed between the Northern white working class block (still dominant) and the ethnic minority/lefty urban middle class. The latter is not strong enough yet whilst the first is in fear of UKIP. Many think UKIP will disappear, I suspect not and they will in due course start picking up seats, but as I have pointed out you don’t need seats to exercise influence. Its a contradiction that has not been solved yet and will flair up in the selection of their next leader.

    Interesting is how right wing 18-24 year olds are, almost the anti baby boomer generation which electorally and culturally was the bedrock of the Tony Blair era. Interesting times.

    Another thing I note is that I read the Times of London, mouthpiece of the establishment. They are very hardline on the Mediterranean crisis, see their leader opinion piece today, very different from their usual pro immigration stance. They seem to get it, what is the motivation I do not know but be thankful that they do.

    • Replies: @Ed
    Young whites in America have also drifted right and oddly enough so have young black men. Romney won 20% of black men under 30.
  79. @Steve Sailer
    So the SNP makes all sorts of noises about wanting more immigration (because they haven't had much yet), but it's really the party of people like Sean Connery who mostly just like being Scottish?

    The irony is that ‘Sean Connery’ is a quintessential Irish name.
    Yes, I know the Scots came from Ireland and all that.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    Glasgow is full of Irish Catholics. So is Liverpool, the only majority Catholic city in England. There are many Irish immigrants in London.
  80. @Steve Sailer
    London's Tory mayor Boris Johnson is an articulate and even relatively honest proponent of The Economist's orthodoxy: he's not a public servant for the benefit of people currently subjects of the Queen; instead, he's looking out for the interests of all the high IQ hard-chargers who might someday move to London from who knows where.

    That's why Michael Bloomberg talks about trading jobs with Boris.

    That's a viewpoint that deserves representation, and Boris does it well. But the opposite side deserves representation too. It seems to have more representation in Britain at present than in America.

    Boris Johnson is a very very astute and intelligent man – he is someone definitely to watch.
    From observing him over the years, I’m fairly convinced he’d dump immigrationism in a heartbeat if was a vote loser.

    • Replies: @Anonymous Nephew
    "I’m fairly convinced he’d dump immigrationism in a heartbeat if was a vote loser."

    I'm totally convinced Boris would dump the entire UK in a heartbeat if he thought it would be good for Boris. Entertaining, bright, witty, good company, totally unprincipled.

    "I wouldn't trust him with my wife or my wallet" said Max Hastings.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2215342/If-Boris-Johnson-Prime-Minister-Im-plane-Britain-says-Max-Hastings.html

    (But then you might have said the same about David Lloyd George, Britain's WW1 Prime Minister.)
  81. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Just days after the election, and with fortuitous timing, David Cameron has been handed to him a golden opportunity to make his mark.
    You see, the EU Commission has just announced plans to impose ‘quotas’ of ‘migrants’ on EU states, based on their populations. So finally, the long heralded enrichment of central band eastern Europe will commence. Germany, which runs the EU has put its full weight behind it.
    Now, here’s the chance not only for David Cameron to make his anti EU anti immigration UKIP bones, but to position himself as the leader of an alliance of a goodly number of central and eastern European states, not to mention west European states, who are utterly aghast at the proposal, and to take on Germany – and win.

  82. @syonredux
    Posted this on another thread, but it seems germane:


    Frum gives his thoughts on what the Republicans can learn from the Tory victory.Reading between the lines, he seems to basically be pointing out ways that the Republicans can attract more Jews:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/05/republicans-british-election-conservatives/392852/


    Quite a bit of protesting/rioting in the UK in the wake of the recent election:

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/anti-tory-protests-live-updates-5670515

    http://www.bbc.com/news/election-2015-32678518

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3074951/Socialist-siege-Downing-Street-Hard-left-activists-clash-police-following-David-Cameron-s-triumphant-return-Number-10.html

    Quite a bit of protesting/rioting in the UK in the wake of the recent election:

    That right there encapsulates the reason the old left’s core voters have been backing off. When the country elected a right-wing party and left-wing protestors or rioters go off the handle, it scares anyone who dared to vote for the right, who correctly interpret it as a personal threat, and turns off anyone who didn’t but who believed the election was the moment to make his voice heard.

  83. @Ezra
    Actually, the text of the article was about as iSteve-ish as you could possibly want. In the writers opinion, Labour's appeal to working class unity got crushed by the greater appeal of nationalism in Scotland and discomfort with immigration in northern England. Lesson: Labour either needs to be a Blair-ite yuppie party or figure out how to address immigration.

    Some editor in New York couldn't grok this off-message point and wrote a headline as if the story fit the Narrative.

    Americans should notice the difference between the Tories and the GOP. The Conservatives are an organized political party who are looking to exploit the contradictions of the left in order to win elections. The Republicans are a shell for a corrupt gang who are trying to put as much money into their own pockets before they get chased out of town. The only brake on their subservience to billionaires and financiers is the need to be plausible challengers to the Democrats. The GOP will respond to any weaknesses on the left by larding even more unpopular and destructive favors on their paymasters. If Hilary Clinton emerges on the campaign trail healthy and focused on moderate quality of life issues, the Republicans will have to respond in kind sufficient to lose 51-49. If Hil declares herself a Marxist-Leninist and is obviously suffering from dementia, Marco Rubio will declare himself in favor of negative capital gains taxes paid for by cancelling Medicare and lose 51-49.

    you wrote:

    The GOP will respond to any weaknesses on the left by larding even more unpopular and destructive favors on their paymasters.

    Yes, but to put that another way–the more that the Left/Dems demonize whites and especially white males and/or the more the Left/Dems idolize nonwhites/gays, the more that the GOP can pander to the rich.

    The driving dynamic is Dem/Left demonization of the whites/idolization of the nonwhites/immigrants. Thus the Dems/Left determine how much the GOP can pander to the rich.
    As Dem demonization/idolization increases–>GOP pandering increases.

    If Jim Webb were to get the Dem nomination, what with his already expressed distaste for demonization of white males, he could destroy this established (and destructive) dynamic. He could represent a paradigm shift.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    "Yes, but to put that another way–the more that the Left/Dems demonize whites and especially white males and/or the more the Left/Dems idolize nonwhites/gays, the more that the GOP can pander to the rich."

    This is very cynical I'm almost starting to think that both parties serve the interests of the rich in a complementary manner, but somewhat differently from how you state it. The Democrats support positions that weaken social institutions that typically provide stability and strength to the middle class, thus making the middle class less of a political obstacle to the wealthy, among other social policies that help the rich, while the Republicans pass tax cuts and support the wars that the rich want - both policies that Democrats couldn't vote for because they would be contradictory to the other platforms they supposedly stand for. This leaves us with a two-party system that serves the interests of the very rich while only giving lip service to the concerns of the other voters who make up the two parties.

    In fact, I'm almost starting to think that the primary people behind the push for Obamacare were those who run corporations, so that they would no longer have to deal with the costs or administrative responsibilities related to offering healthcare to employees, instead of the more noble goal of helping the uninsured or underinsured or reducing health care costs.

    , @Kevin O'Keeffe
    "If Jim Webb were to get the Dem nomination, what with his already expressed distaste for demonization of white males, he could destroy this established (and destructive) dynamic. He could represent a paradigm shift."

    That's about the only plausible scenario by which America begins the process of national revitalization via electoral means. Its feels a little weird switching my registration to Democrat, but Jim Webb is worth it.
  84. Most of the Labour losses were to the Scottish National Party not the Tories. The SNP would be a partner of Labour anyway. The Tories mostly stole all the MP’s from their partner the Liberal Democrats.

    Milliband did succeed in unseating George Galloway, which is the most important thing any British party leader can do.

    Just before the election Labour started peddling a ‘Controls on Immigration’ / I’m Voting Labour RED coffee mug.

    Labour’s immigration mug: changing Britain for the better?
    http://www.channel4.com/news/labour-mug-immigration-controls

    Buy one here:
    https://shop.labour.org.uk/products/pledge-4-mug-controls-on-immigration-551/

  85. @EriK
    I can't read Frum, but thanks for repeating yourself.

    I can’t read Frum, but thanks for repeating yourself.

    It’s all a matter of location…..

  86. @Alex M
    Be very wary of what Frum is selling you. Replace the flow of hordes of Mexicans with a flow of hordes of Indians (Whites still being replaced), and a doubling down of America kowtowing to Israel and their foreign policy interests(Greater loss of blood & treasure). He is as radical a Jewish activist as their can be.

    Be very wary of what Frum is selling you.

    I’m wary of everyone.As for Frum, I’m linking to him because he provides a level of insight into one branch of neo-con thinking.Best to know what is circulating in the aether….

  87. @22pp22
    The key is the northern donkey vote. My grandfather would have voted Labour if they had required him to sacrifice his first-born. For him, it was a statement of religious faith. Few non-Brits will have much experience with these people. They still justify their world view in terms of Tory toff mine owners sending men to their deaths because they were too tight-fisted to take the most elementary safety measures. People from their families who don't vote Labour are ostracised as "traitors". That has happened among my own relatives. The donkey vote still refuses (quite wilfully) to notice that the Labour grandees are toffs themselves. If the strength of this religion (for that is what it is) is ever properly broken, then Labour support in the North of England will drain away like water through a dam. These people would rather disembowel themselves than vote Tory, but they might vote UKIP, if UKIP can survive only winning one seat on four million votes. However, never undersestimate the pig-headedness of a donkey voter.

    The Labour party is being attacked in the far north by the SNP and near north by UKIP .

    Here is a nice map of Labour’s vote and former coalfields:

    Labour’s strong gains in London (but still not strong enough to overpower the Tories) is no doubt due to the ethnic minority vote; Sadiq Khan wants to run as Mayor of London.

    I think this election has proven what a vigorous and healthy democracy Britain actually is. A couple of more points:

    (1.) Nigel in resigning said something that triggered a passing thought; he said “UKIP is now the party of working women.” This squares in line with my observation a lot of middle class and working class women are gravitating to UKIP because UKIP isn’t a right party but more like a “white party”. It’s policies are going to evolve from Tory Libertarian to basically something like the DUP; Unionist, collectivist and nationalist.

    (2.) North of Hadrian’s Wall, politics in Scotland (and eventually Wales who knows maybe even Cornwall one day) is going to follow the Northern Irish model, the deadlock between Unionists and anti-Unionists. Remember Orkney and the Shetland Islands are strongly Unionist territories and the United Kingdom unravelling won’t be good for these islands.

    (3.) Britain won’t leave the EU. I would like it to but come referendum time I know I’ll be voting to stay in. Cameron is going to press hard to negotiate a fairer deal in line with other sympathetic blocs in Europe.

    (4.) Immigration and EU are hot button issues but pale in comparison to the economy. I do *feel* immigration has slowed down since New Labour but I seem to be wrong – http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article50256.html.

    (5.) The Tory government needs to become “One Nation”, dismantling the welfare state is a big mistake. The idea of social-national compact is very important to contemporary British (and even English identity). The Tory government should effect boundary reform but keep FPTP; smaller parties need to find ways to survive and evolve (if the Greens & UKIP aren’t able to maintain national or regional infrastructures then why not merge into their larger groups).

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    The Tory government needs to become “One Nation”, dismantling the welfare state is a big mistake.

    ==

    Ayn Rand was never elected to public office in Britain or the UK. Not many starboard parliamentarians have advocated 'dismantling the welfare state' here or there. Ronald Reagan did not and even Barry Goldwater was dubious. What they did advocate was boundaries to common provision encompassing form and dimension.

    You can have an ethic of common provision without public ownership of housing, rent control, subsidies to mundane expenditure, a command economy in medical care, a command economy in primary and secondary schooling, public enterprise operating in what could be competitive markets, or having the labor relations regime under the thumb of characters like Arthur Scargill. Vouchers, insurance, allowances, mandatory savings plans, a negative income tax, mutual aid societies, and company unions can do as well as the current British welfare regime.
    , @Anonymous Nephew
    "Cameron is going to press hard to negotiate a fairer deal in line with other sympathetic blocs in Europe."

    But an EU functionary was declaring today that free movement of labour inside the EU was not negotiable - which is the big grouch UK voters have. Cameron won't be able to deliver this, so there'll continue to be an oversupply of labour, low wages and high profits.
  88. @Anonymous
    My gut feeling is that the character and personality of Ed Miliband- a gurgling, gabbling, spluttering, weak faced milquetoast of a man, was simply unelectable to a broad swathe of the British public, as compared to the smoothie, bully Etonian 'Flashman' 'born to rule' Cameron.

    That said, the electoral arthimetic was on a knife edge. The British voting system, which, remember Tony Blair promised to reform, but refused to do so once in office, is punishingly brutal to small parties. UKIP got nearly 4 million votes but only one parliamentary seat.
    All previous political calculations assumed a Labour Scotland. And as the article states, UKIP nibbled crucial Labour support at the fringes.
    Put it this way, if Scotland stayed loyal to Labour, Labour had a more credible leader and that if Labour weren't to so unbelievably shitheaded over immigration, Labour would have won. The Conservatives didn't win - Labour lost.

    Not to put too fine a point on it, but Cameron’s also the less Jewish of the two. I’ve wondered whether that may have figured in people’s voting behavior–perhaps even only at a subconscious level.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    You're probably right.

    Miliband looked and spoke 'distinctively un-English'.
    Apparently his ethnicity is 'Polish Jewish'. But he is discernably 'swarthy', much more so than any Briton, Pole or indeed Polish Jew. I hazard a guess that he has Sephardic ancestry.
    Many British political and entertainment personalities came from continental European stock. But somehow none of them looked as strongly 'unEnglish' than Ed Miliband.
  89. @Steve Sailer
    Much more of the world imitates the British system of government rather than the vaunted American system.

    Much more of the world imitates the British system of government rather than the vaunted American system.

    The French, with their semi-presidential system, are an interesting exception to the rule.Interesting to note how the the office of president in both the USA and France was designed to more or less fit the character of the man who would be the first chief executive (Washington in the USA, de Gaulle under the 5th Republic).

    US vs UK: Two points to bear in mind:

    1.The American Constitution was essentially designed to preserve the English Constitution as it was before the executive (the Crown) became purely ceremonial.Hence, separation of powers in the USA, but not in the UK.

    2.The American system is designed not to function very well.The Founders had a dislike for the smack of firm government.

    • Replies: @leftist conservative
    you wrote:

    2.The American system is designed not to function very well.The Founders had a dislike for the smack of firm government.

     

    Yeah, I guess that is why the founders went behind the back of the populace and created a federal government where there was none before.

    As for how the american gov't was designed and for what purpose, let us see what James "The Father of the Constitution" Madison had to say about that:


    In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.

     

    Ah, minority of the opulent. Like Madison, who inherited 100 mill in today's dollars. Yes, the founding plutocrats did indeed cripple democracy via the creation of a deliberately gridlocked and undemocratic system. And in fact today that same system allows the elite to flood the labor supply via mass immigration and affirmative action. How do you feel about that?

    “Extend the sphere and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength and to act in unions with each other.”

     

    In other words, make it impossible for the majority to govern. Like, um, the white majority of america today.

    Federalist 10 : “...the most common and durable source of factions has been the...unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society.”
     
    There we go. The USA fedgov structure was always about letting the rich people stay rich and get richer. And that same govt allows the rich to control the govt and import millions of third worlders and give them the jobs and college admissions that should go to more deserving whites, the better to flood the labor supply, depress wages, drive up housing prices, increase corporate profits and revenues, all while destroying the cultural fabric of America. And thanks to the inherently undemocratic structure of FedGov, the "faction of the majority" can do nothing about it.

    How do you feel about that?

    , @Art Deco
    The American system is designed not to function very well.

    No, it doesn't function very well, as it is poorly adapted to its social circumstances. It wasn't designed to function poorly, merely to protect certain minority interests.

    The range of functions the central government takes on was not anticipated in 1788; much dates from 1933-39 and another bloc from 1965-69. The hypertrophy of judicial review was unknown until about 60 years ago. The witless parliamentary rules which are such a problem have some pedigree (dating from the 1st decade of the 19th c) but two crucial stupidiites - indefinite holds on nominees and the 'cadillac' filibuster are only about 40 years old.

    , @SFG
    "Interesting to note how the the office of president in both the USA and France was designed to more or less fit the character of the man who would be the first chief executive (Washington in the USA, de Gaulle under the 5th Republic)."

    That's a really interesting thought, and it makes a lot of sense. Could you elaborate?
  90. @syonredux

    Much more of the world imitates the British system of government rather than the vaunted American system.
     
    The French, with their semi-presidential system, are an interesting exception to the rule.Interesting to note how the the office of president in both the USA and France was designed to more or less fit the character of the man who would be the first chief executive (Washington in the USA, de Gaulle under the 5th Republic).


    US vs UK: Two points to bear in mind:

    1.The American Constitution was essentially designed to preserve the English Constitution as it was before the executive (the Crown) became purely ceremonial.Hence, separation of powers in the USA, but not in the UK.

    2.The American system is designed not to function very well.The Founders had a dislike for the smack of firm government.

    you wrote:

    2.The American system is designed not to function very well.The Founders had a dislike for the smack of firm government.

    Yeah, I guess that is why the founders went behind the back of the populace and created a federal government where there was none before.

    As for how the american gov’t was designed and for what purpose, let us see what James “The Father of the Constitution” Madison had to say about that:

    In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.

    Ah, minority of the opulent. Like Madison, who inherited 100 mill in today’s dollars. Yes, the founding plutocrats did indeed cripple democracy via the creation of a deliberately gridlocked and undemocratic system. And in fact today that same system allows the elite to flood the labor supply via mass immigration and affirmative action. How do you feel about that?

    “Extend the sphere and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength and to act in unions with each other.”

    In other words, make it impossible for the majority to govern. Like, um, the white majority of america today.

    Federalist 10 : “…the most common and durable source of factions has been the…unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society.”

    There we go. The USA fedgov structure was always about letting the rich people stay rich and get richer. And that same govt allows the rich to control the govt and import millions of third worlders and give them the jobs and college admissions that should go to more deserving whites, the better to flood the labor supply, depress wages, drive up housing prices, increase corporate profits and revenues, all while destroying the cultural fabric of America. And thanks to the inherently undemocratic structure of FedGov, the “faction of the majority” can do nothing about it.

    How do you feel about that?

    • Replies: @syonredux

    Yeah, I guess that is why the founders went behind the back of the populace and created a federal government where there was none before.
     
    Better than the Articles of Confederation, dear fellow

    Ah, minority of the opulent.
     
    They always rule, dear fellow.The pressing question is how patriotic they are.At present, not at all.

    Like Madison, who inherited 100 mill in today’s dollars.
     
    Not in cash, though...

    Yes, the founding plutocrats did indeed cripple democracy via the creation of a deliberately gridlocked and undemocratic system. And in fact today that same system allows the elite to flood the labor supply via mass immigration and affirmative action. How do you feel about that?
     
    I would have preferred a parliamentary system, dear fellow.Organic growth.

    In other words, make it impossible for the majority to govern. Like, um, the white majority of america today.
     
    Of course, when we have a non-Anglo White majority in 2060, I suppose that I will rather like these limitations.Good for the goose, good for the gander.

    There we go. The USA fedgov structure was always about letting the rich people stay rich and get richer.
     
    Better than the converse, one supposes

    And that same govt allows the rich to control the govt and import millions of third worlders and give them the jobs and college admissions that should go to more deserving whites, the better to flood the labor supply, depress wages, drive up housing prices, increase corporate profits and revenues, all while destroying the cultural fabric of America.
     
    Probably has more to do with the decay of patriotic sentiment than anything else

    And thanks to the inherently undemocratic structure of FedGov, the “faction of the majority” can do nothing about it.
     
    Does the majority want to do anything about it?As near as I can tell, they are listless and apathetic

    How do you feel about that?
     
    About the decay of patriotism? I'm against it
    , @Whiskey
    Leftist Conservative, it has been the considered opinion of writers in antiquity and modern times that having a landed aristocracy with interests aligned with that of the people is vital to preventing domestic tyranny, foreign invasion, or both.

    Consider, if most of the aristocracy (every society WILL have one) has their wealth tied up in land, they would not invite half the Third World in now would they? Since a mass of landless people with alien ways, race, and feelings would soon appropriate their wealth. Consider, also that only an aristocracy can constrain and check a sovereign. China after Mao had considerable efforts along those lines to constrain any future leader to avoid purges particularly of the upper classes like themselves. President Xi may be breaking this mold and starting a civil war. Landed upper classes famously constrained King John at Runnymeade with the Magna Carta, and again with Cromwell and Parliament against King Charles. It was the failure of the upper classes, the Roman nobility that allowed three oligarchs to seize power in the Triumvirate, and later after fighting the heir of one to seize absolute power.

    Ordinary people lack power, money, social standing, social connections, political connections, military service of distinction, and other means to stop a tyranny or foreign invasion before it is too late.

    The frustration is seeing far too many on the Alt Right who ought to know better, adopt a Leftist viewpoint of human nature that all that is needed is for the "right" people of pure morality to rule. Steve does great work but IMHO too often like Peter Brimelow (also does great work) asks for super-human nobility and morality. And men like George Washington only come around every thousand years or so.

    People in aggregate will ALWAYS be venal, short-sighted, status-driven, stupid, looking for a quick payoff, and so on. It was the genius of the Founding Fathers to create a system not for Angels or people of superior morality but the worst; relying on checks and balances of self interest and explicitly a landed gentry jealous of both foreign domination and a Man on a White Horse.

    Our elites are rotten to the core because their wealth is not aligned with that of ordinary people. If it was land, factories, railroads, airlines, etc.; things easily seized and distributed by a hungry, alien mass as in Venezuela, Cuba, etc. they'd act in accordance with the White Middle Class. Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Bill Clinton, Brian Williams, Jeff Bezos, and Tim Cook all laugh at the Castros. THEIR wealth is so mobile, offshore, hard to seize, there is no possibility of it even being taken from them and given to a great Tribune to trickle down in crumbs to peasants as in the Chavez/Maduro style Monarchies.
    , @Hibernian
    "Like Madison, who inherited 100 mill in today’s dollars."

    I realize there's been a lot of inflation since then, but do you have him confused with Washington, Haym Solomon, or Robert Morris?
  91. @22pp22
    There has been so much intermarriage over the generations that identity is sometimes a matter of choice. Gerry Adams, leader of Sinn Fein, is descended from one of Cromwell's generals. Religious differences played a role in keeping Brits and Irish separate, but if you dig deep enough alot of us have Irish ancestry.

    It is far funkier to be Scottish or Irish than English. The result is that New Zealanders of mixed English/Scottish/Irish ancestry tend to remember the Scottish bits and forget the English bits. That rule even applies in England to a lesser extent.

    I am an English New Zealander and I am always delighted when Scotland loses in rugby - in spite on Scottish ancestry on both sides of my family. If I were American, I would probably call myself Irish.

    There’s a group of us who are a blend of English/Irish/Ulster Scots-Borders/Welsh in the US. We simplify things by calling ourselves “Southerners”.

  92. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @slumber_j
    Not to put too fine a point on it, but Cameron's also the less Jewish of the two. I've wondered whether that may have figured in people's voting behavior--perhaps even only at a subconscious level.

    You’re probably right.

    Miliband looked and spoke ‘distinctively un-English’.
    Apparently his ethnicity is ‘Polish Jewish’. But he is discernably ‘swarthy’, much more so than any Briton, Pole or indeed Polish Jew. I hazard a guess that he has Sephardic ancestry.
    Many British political and entertainment personalities came from continental European stock. But somehow none of them looked as strongly ‘unEnglish’ than Ed Miliband.

    • Replies: @Anonymous Nephew
    Miliband's grandfather, Samuel, was Polish but fought for the Red Army against Poland in 1921-2. Not surprisingly he ended up outside Poland, in Belgium. Son Adolph (Ralph) was born in Belgium but ended up (not unreasonably) in England in 1940.

    Grandson David lost the Labour Party leadership election, and promptly moved to the States to head up some International Rescue-type organisation. Who knows where Ed may land ?
  93. @Vestulia
    An interesting part of the British elections is that once it is decided and there is a changeover, the power exchange and change of residence happen two hours later. We Americans have to wait about 70 days.

    They have the ministerial positions allocated beforehand. Also, there are not many personnel changes. There are (last I heard) about 3,000 discretionary appointments in the U.S. government and all the consequential ones require senatorial advice and consent. In a British ministry, you have a minister and a parliamentary undersecretary arriving and that’s about it.

  94. @Ezra
    Actually, the text of the article was about as iSteve-ish as you could possibly want. In the writers opinion, Labour's appeal to working class unity got crushed by the greater appeal of nationalism in Scotland and discomfort with immigration in northern England. Lesson: Labour either needs to be a Blair-ite yuppie party or figure out how to address immigration.

    Some editor in New York couldn't grok this off-message point and wrote a headline as if the story fit the Narrative.

    Americans should notice the difference between the Tories and the GOP. The Conservatives are an organized political party who are looking to exploit the contradictions of the left in order to win elections. The Republicans are a shell for a corrupt gang who are trying to put as much money into their own pockets before they get chased out of town. The only brake on their subservience to billionaires and financiers is the need to be plausible challengers to the Democrats. The GOP will respond to any weaknesses on the left by larding even more unpopular and destructive favors on their paymasters. If Hilary Clinton emerges on the campaign trail healthy and focused on moderate quality of life issues, the Republicans will have to respond in kind sufficient to lose 51-49. If Hil declares herself a Marxist-Leninist and is obviously suffering from dementia, Marco Rubio will declare himself in favor of negative capital gains taxes paid for by cancelling Medicare and lose 51-49.

    If Hil declares herself a Marxist-Leninist and is obviously suffering from dementia, Marco Rubio will declare himself in favor of negative capital gains taxes paid for by cancelling Medicare and lose 51-49.

    I not only laughed out loud, but for a good 15 seconds.

  95. @Steve Sailer
    Much more of the world imitates the British system of government rather than the vaunted American system.

    Not so much anymore.

    1. Prior to 1917, just about every European country of any dimension (bar Switzerland and France) had a monarchy. Reconciling democratic institutions and monarchy is readily done with a parliamentary system, not with separation of powers. Switzerland has long had an idiosyncratic local system and France eventually adopted a hybrid system seen initially in Finland.

    2. Canada, the Antipodes, and the anglophone Caribbean states were all British dependencies, as were a swatch of insular states in the Pacific and the Indian Ocean, as was India, as were the Malay states.

    3. Taiwan and Korea have hybrid systems and Indonesia a variant of separation of powers. Ceylon formally adopted a hybrid system about 35 years ago. Japan and Thailand are monarchies.

    4. Separation of powers is now the mode among African countries with some history of electoral politics (e.g. Senegal). One exception is South Africa, which lacks the distinction between the head of state and head of government you see in parliamentary systems but whose ‘president’ is a parliamentary executive.

    5. Separation of powers is bog standard in Latin America (where electoral politics has been omnipresent since 1990).

    6. The East European states restoring constitutional systems in 1989-92 tended to split their preferences between hybrid systems and Westminster systems. IIRC, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, and East Germany elected Westminster systems while the rest did not.

    7. Constitutional states in the Arab world have tended to be executive monarchies like Kuwait.

  96. @syonredux

    Much more of the world imitates the British system of government rather than the vaunted American system.
     
    The French, with their semi-presidential system, are an interesting exception to the rule.Interesting to note how the the office of president in both the USA and France was designed to more or less fit the character of the man who would be the first chief executive (Washington in the USA, de Gaulle under the 5th Republic).


    US vs UK: Two points to bear in mind:

    1.The American Constitution was essentially designed to preserve the English Constitution as it was before the executive (the Crown) became purely ceremonial.Hence, separation of powers in the USA, but not in the UK.

    2.The American system is designed not to function very well.The Founders had a dislike for the smack of firm government.

    The American system is designed not to function very well.

    No, it doesn’t function very well, as it is poorly adapted to its social circumstances. It wasn’t designed to function poorly, merely to protect certain minority interests.

    The range of functions the central government takes on was not anticipated in 1788; much dates from 1933-39 and another bloc from 1965-69. The hypertrophy of judicial review was unknown until about 60 years ago. The witless parliamentary rules which are such a problem have some pedigree (dating from the 1st decade of the 19th c) but two crucial stupidiites – indefinite holds on nominees and the ‘cadillac’ filibuster are only about 40 years old.

  97. @BigGaySteve
    With a motto of "We will make police ignore the gang rapes of underage white British girls by 3rd world savage moslems" they have the gang rapist vote locked in.

    With a motto of “We will make police ignore the gang rapes of underage white British girls by 3rd world savage moslems” they have the gang rapist vote locked in.

    By definition there are more gang rapists than gang rape victims, so yeah makes sense.

  98. @Steve Sailer
    "People despise those whom they mistreat."

    You can see that with English nationalists like George Orwell and Paul Johnson, who really couldn't forgive the Irish for being abused by the English for all those centuries.

    You can see that with English nationalists like George Orwell and Paul Johnson, who really couldn’t forgive the Irish for being abused by the English for all those centuries.

    I’ll concede the gross mistreatment, but, still, no one beats a certain type of Irish nationalist for passive-aggressive self-pity and resentment, what my wife calls “congenital Irishness.” It’s a hard trait to like.

  99. OT: . Incoming Boston University African-American Studies professor tweeted anti-white comments. Saida Grundy is a pretty, ostensibly half-white, youngish woman.

    • Replies: @Romanian
    Wow, that's very forward

    "why is white America so reluctant to identify white college males as a problem population?".
     
    The racism is strong with this one. Then again, women are already 60% of the graduates. Maybe they won't really have that many white men to contend with soon enough. God knows, I hate myself. I'm glad that everybody's so obsessed with CEO positions and political roles, which are very few, that they won't touch the real bastions of male privilege - mining, homelessness, garbage collecting, undiagnosed depressions and suicides.

    And who jumps to her defense?

    Noor Toraif, a junior studying neuroscience and philosophy, said she and a student group called the People of Color Coalition are all standing firm with Grundy. “I don’t think reverse racism against white folks is a thing,” Toraif said. “You need to have institutional and systemic power in order to be racist. People of color like Professor Grundy don’t have that. ... I’m 100 percent supportive of her and excited for her to come to campus.”
     
    People of Color Coalition? Is this the 1920s? Also, I may be dense, since I didn't go to school in the US, but isn't a University also an institution, with a lot of leeway in how it handles its system?
  100. @Lurker
    The leftist rioting was miniscule, not even rioting in fact. If anything it's reminded a lot of people why they didn't vote Labour.

    The election has raised the issue of proportional representation yet again. In a system with three, four or even five major parties running in some seats, straightforward first past the post voting seems ever more unfair. The Tories only got 36% plus of those who voted.

    Unfortunately Labour, as the second largest party still won't endorse PR, they may have lost now, they may lose in five years again but one day they will win under FPTP and then it will be their boot stamping on the country's face and that thought will sustain them through the hard times as it did from 1979 - 97. In fact just as it sustained the Tories from 1997 to 2010.

    Under PR the Tory majority would have been greatly reduced and UKIP up to 87 seats. In fact probably even more. The theory is that many people panicked and voted Tory at the last moment to defeat Labour but if they were confident in UKIP success they would have voted that way instead.

    The situation in Scotland has arisen also partly through FPTP. Millions of Tory voters have been disenfranchised for decades in Scotland, now add that to millions of Labour, UKIP and LD voters.

    (I voted UKIP, a forlorn hope where I am, as the local Tory has a big majority)

    The election has raised the issue of proportional representation yet again. In a system with three, four or even five major parties running in some seats, straightforward first past the post voting seems ever more unfair. The Tories only got 36% plus of those who voted.

    The only way PR will get implemented is if some way can be found to strip likely UKIP voters of their franchise. The entire non-UKIP political class loathes UKIP and will do nothing to increase the number of UKIP MPs. They’ll go as far as saying, “Hmm… 4 million votes for one seat… that seems… disproportionate.” But they’ll go no farther.

    • Replies: @Anon7
    Jack Sen, former UKIP candidate, implied quite the opposite. His experience seems to have been that UKIP is a City of London stalking horse designed to siphon disgruntled voters from more extreme parties.

    They are rubber stamped by the UK and globalist elite, and all condemnation is strictly for public consumption.
    , @Art Deco
    In lieu of 1st past the post you could implement ordinal balloting with tallies conducted according to the conventions of the alternate vote. Donald Horowitz old articles on alternatives for South Africa would be instructive. In each constituency, you rank-order your choices. They tally the first preference votes; then the ballots of candidates failing to meet a threshold are redistributed to their highest subsequent preference and the tally re-calculated. At that point, the trailing candidate is eliminated and his ballots re-distributed each to the highest subsequent preference. Rinse, repeat, until there are two candidates left and the one with the highest tally wins.
  101. Another very notable takeaway from this election is that it’s more evidence that British classism is breaking down. Time was the conventional wisdom was that the BNP bled votes away from Labour and UKIP bled votes away from the Tories. What we saw this time is UKIP bleeding votes from the Tories and Labour about the same and even some from the LDs.

    • Replies: @Anon7
    In both the UK and the US, the white working class has always been suspicious of the Marxist left.

    Recently, they've entered full panic mode, as they sense they are in real trouble but they cannot discern the root cause.

    Chaos will surely reign.
  102. @Steve Sailer
    Much more of the world imitates the British system of government rather than the vaunted American system.

    Does any country have a government that is substantially like ours? Our system of government is as peculiar as our system of weights and measures.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Separation of powers with federalism is on the books in Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico. The position of the judiciary is likely unique.
  103. SFG says:
    @syonredux

    Much more of the world imitates the British system of government rather than the vaunted American system.
     
    The French, with their semi-presidential system, are an interesting exception to the rule.Interesting to note how the the office of president in both the USA and France was designed to more or less fit the character of the man who would be the first chief executive (Washington in the USA, de Gaulle under the 5th Republic).


    US vs UK: Two points to bear in mind:

    1.The American Constitution was essentially designed to preserve the English Constitution as it was before the executive (the Crown) became purely ceremonial.Hence, separation of powers in the USA, but not in the UK.

    2.The American system is designed not to function very well.The Founders had a dislike for the smack of firm government.

    “Interesting to note how the the office of president in both the USA and France was designed to more or less fit the character of the man who would be the first chief executive (Washington in the USA, de Gaulle under the 5th Republic).”

    That’s a really interesting thought, and it makes a lot of sense. Could you elaborate?

    • Replies: @syonredux

    “Interesting to note how the the office of president in both the USA and France was designed to more or less fit the character of the man who would be the first chief executive (Washington in the USA, de Gaulle under the 5th Republic).”

    That’s a really interesting thought, and it makes a lot of sense. Could you elaborate?
     
    Sure.


    France: Main thing to bear in mind is that the 5th Republic's strong President is a departure from the 3rd and 4th Republics, which were parliamentary democracies with purely ceremonial presidents.This innovation can only be understood in light of the breakdown of the 4th Republic in 1958 under the weight of the Algerian Revolt.De Gaulle swoops in and is granted the power to rule by decree while a new constitution is being drafted.Everyone knows that de Gaulle will be the 5th Republic's first President, and the job is tailored to his personality. De Gaulle, after all , thought of himself as the living embodiment of France (allegedly, he even saw himself as the reincarnation of Joan of Arc).Such a man would never stand for being either a mere PM (power but no pomp of office) or a figurehead president (pomp of office but no power).Hence, the 5th Republic's strong presidency.


    USA: Rather similar.Everyone knew that Washington would be the first president.Indeed, they were rather afraid that he wouldn't take the job*.No one wanted to imagine what that would mean.Hence, the 1787 Convention devised the office with Washington's desires in mind.


    *Cf how the elections of 1788 and 1792 were essentially uncontested.No one ran against Washington.They simply ran to see who would be Vice-President.
  104. @Anonymous
    My gut feeling is that the character and personality of Ed Miliband- a gurgling, gabbling, spluttering, weak faced milquetoast of a man, was simply unelectable to a broad swathe of the British public, as compared to the smoothie, bully Etonian 'Flashman' 'born to rule' Cameron.

    That said, the electoral arthimetic was on a knife edge. The British voting system, which, remember Tony Blair promised to reform, but refused to do so once in office, is punishingly brutal to small parties. UKIP got nearly 4 million votes but only one parliamentary seat.
    All previous political calculations assumed a Labour Scotland. And as the article states, UKIP nibbled crucial Labour support at the fringes.
    Put it this way, if Scotland stayed loyal to Labour, Labour had a more credible leader and that if Labour weren't to so unbelievably shitheaded over immigration, Labour would have won. The Conservatives didn't win - Labour lost.

    “UKIP got nearly 4 million votes but only one parliamentary seat.”

    If you’ve got 4M votes, who needs elections. Half of those 4M only need appear once together in public to right their country immediately.

  105. IBC says:
    @22pp22
    There has been so much intermarriage over the generations that identity is sometimes a matter of choice. Gerry Adams, leader of Sinn Fein, is descended from one of Cromwell's generals. Religious differences played a role in keeping Brits and Irish separate, but if you dig deep enough alot of us have Irish ancestry.

    It is far funkier to be Scottish or Irish than English. The result is that New Zealanders of mixed English/Scottish/Irish ancestry tend to remember the Scottish bits and forget the English bits. That rule even applies in England to a lesser extent.

    I am an English New Zealander and I am always delighted when Scotland loses in rugby - in spite on Scottish ancestry on both sides of my family. If I were American, I would probably call myself Irish.

    There has been so much intermarriage over the generations that identity is sometimes a matter of choice. Gerry Adams, leader of Sinn Fein, is descended from one of Cromwell’s generals. Religious differences played a role in keeping Brits and Irish separate, but if you dig deep enough alot of us have Irish ancestry.

    Good point, but the converse can also be true. For example, I was amused to learn that only one member of the band U2, is an actual Irish Catholic. Bono was raised as an Anglican and even shares his last name (Hewson) with one of Cromwell’s officers who participated in the infamous Siege of Drogheda and who also signed the death warrant for King Charles –a Catholic to whom the native Irish were at least nominally loyal. However, Bono’s father was also a Catholic and may have no connection with John Hewson, the Puritan regicide. The two other members of the band, Adam Clayton and the Edge, were both born in England and don’t appear to be of Irish descent, though they did grow up in Ireland and identify with it today. I’m not trying to detract from Irish artistic achievement or to foment religious rivalry, it’s just that those aren’t the biographies that I would have expected.

    It is far funkier to be Scottish or Irish than English. The result is that New Zealanders of mixed English/Scottish/Irish ancestry tend to remember the Scottish bits and forget the English bits. That rule even applies in England to a lesser extent.

    And notice how the modern Scottish identity relies so heavily on the Highland mythos even though most Scots are Lowlanders whose ancestors may have even fought against the Highlanders? Without the romance of the Highlands, modern Scottish identity would be much more vanilla. I think that in some circumstances and certainly when you have other options, identifying as “English” is almost like declaring that you like white bread –not that there’s anything really wrong with that or that I’m criticizing people who do so.

    As a counter-example, remember that many of the most famous pirates were English, from places like Bristol. How many people actually think to question why old-time pirates are always depicted as grinding their “r’s” like that? It’s a caricature, but it’s of something that’s just as “English” as Downton Abbey.

    • Replies: @HA
    "...many of the most famous pirates were English...How many people actually think to question why old-time pirates are always depicted as grinding their “r’s” like that?"

    Some would say the real question is why the rest of the English are not depicted grinding their R's the same way.

    ...the English of Shakespeare and the King James Bible...the way they spoke it would sound to us more like a mix of Irish and pirate.
     
    http://theweek.com/articles/545166/what-english-shakespeare-beowulf-king-arthur-actually-sounded-like
    , @whorefinder

    For example, I was amused to learn that only one member of the band U2, is an actual Irish Catholic. Bono was raised as an Anglican and even shares his last name (Hewson) with one of Cromwell’s officers who participated in the infamous Siege of Drogheda and who also signed the death warrant for King Charles –a Catholic to whom the native Irish were at least nominally loyal. However, Bono’s father was also a Catholic and may have no connection with John Hewson, the Puritan regicide. The two other members of the band, Adam Clayton and the Edge, were both born in England and don’t appear to be of Irish descent, though they did grow up in Ireland and identify with it today. I’m not trying to detract from Irish artistic achievement or to foment religious rivalry, it’s just that those aren’t the biographies that I would have expected.
     
    A dirty (clean?) little secret about U2 is that Bono and co. originally wanted it to be a straight Christian rock band.

    Bono was and probably still is very religious and evangelical, and all but one of the members (forgot which one) were pretty strident in their religion. But they decided that they wouldn't get very far and have limited appeal, and so agreed that they would make their Christian more subtle than the average Christian rock band. If you listen to their music as if it were coded Christian evangelical talk, suddenly a lot of the references are explained and mystery go away.

    I think the fight really was that one member (again, forgot which one, but not Bono) really wanted to start "living the rock star lifestyle" while the others were appalled at such debauchery. They compromised somehow, although it's never really been explained.
    , @22pp22
    The R grinding is usually a bad inpersonation of a West Country accent.
    , @PV van der Byl
    Fascinating about U2 members.

    John, Paul, and George were Irish Catholics born and raised in Britain. Dunno about Ringo.
    , @Anonymous
    And notice how the modern Scottish identity relies so heavily on the Highland mythos even though most Scots are Lowlanders whose ancestors may have even fought against the Highlanders?

    And this mythos, especially and specifically the tartan kilt, is due in turn to one of the most famous Lowlanders: Sir Walter Scott. King George IV was visiting Edinburgh, maybe the first time the King had come North since Bonnie Prince Charlie and the Jacobite uprising?, and Scott worked overtime to unify Scotland ahead of the visit around a common symbol. This would be like if everyone in some Southern state adopted the mullet ahead of a Presidential visit.

    There is actually a statue of King George wearing the tartan somewhere in Edinburgh.
  106. @Steve Sailer
    "People despise those whom they mistreat."

    You can see that with English nationalists like George Orwell and Paul Johnson, who really couldn't forgive the Irish for being abused by the English for all those centuries.

    England dissolving her armed forces hastened this trend. Western officers feel an almost paternal affection for their (blue collar) enlisted troops. Especially in Britain where officership was almost exclusively a function of social class, this brought the upper classes closer to the lower classes, and fostered some kinship between them, as you can see in Goodbye To All That and other books about the Great War.

  107. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Grumpy Old Man
    The gentry left hates the white working class, and the white working class know it.

    There’s a great interview with Jack Sen on http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net . He’s a former UKIP candidate who was drummed out of the party for ruffling the feathers of the UKIP elite.

    “Making matters worse was the fact that I’d merely stated what most of Liverpool also thought about [Labour candidate] Berger — that she was not an ‘authentic Labour’ candidate due to the fact that she had been parachuted into Liverpool by the Labour Party elite, was born and raised in wealthy West London, educated at an all-girls boarding school in Hertfordshire and groomed for the job by Lord Greville Janner, the Zionist Jewish peer who has been investigated for paedophilia on numerous occasions. Berger having “divided loyalties” stemmed from the fact that she had professionally lobbied for our money to be sent overseas while serving as the Director of Labour Friends of Israel.”

    How much does this read like the typical leftist formula in the UK, and the US as well.

    Look at Bernie Sanders, Brooklyn Jew and Vermont Senator, if you need further evidence.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    British parliamentary candidates are routinely assigned by their parties to seats where they don't live. It's always been like that.

    In contrast, Bernie Sanders has lived in Vermont for close to a half-century. Similarly, Howard Dean of Park Avenue originally had lived in Vermont for 30 or 40 years by 2004, just as Ronald Reagan had lived in California since the 1930s.

  108. @Steve Sailer
    The British system doesn't always need a PM who is Presidential Timber. You can have an Attlee who served sort of like a university department chairman presiding over more ministers more high-powered than himself. The postwar Labour government under Attlee was famously effective at getting done a lot of what it wanted done (such as nationalizations and National Health), even though nobody remembers Attlee.

    The postwar Labour government under Attlee was famously effective at getting done a lot of what it wanted done (such as nationalizations and National Health), even though nobody remembers Attlee.

    I do, with loathing.

    Of course, here as elsewhere, I’m a nobody.

  109. @Steve Sailer
    The last three prime ministers have had Scottish surnames:

    - Cameron's paternal ancestor got rich and moved to England a long time ago

    - Brown is very Scottish

    - Blair is fairly Scottish (he went to high school in Scotland), although his nature and nurture are too complicated for me to remember (there was an adoption somewhere along the line) and he spent some childhood years in Australia or NZ.

    All in all, a small country has done pretty well for itself through union over the last 308 years.

    I suspect Cameron would like to get rid of Scotland to boost the Tories. That might not be a bad thing for both nations, but PMs have too much power to do things that long term in a hurry.

    Blair’s father was born Pearson, and was adopted. Pearson is a Borders name.

    John Major, the UK’s George H W Bush, may be the last English PM.

  110. @LondonBob
    No the Conservatives are well to the right of the Republicans, Jeff Sessions would be mainstream on immigration and Rand Paul listened to on foreign policy. UKIP will also keep the party honest.

    As an American anglophile, I concur. As wacky left as the Brits can be on a host of (primarily free-speech subjects), legitimate debate on immigration is far more accepted over there.

  111. @countenance
    Another very notable takeaway from this election is that it's more evidence that British classism is breaking down. Time was the conventional wisdom was that the BNP bled votes away from Labour and UKIP bled votes away from the Tories. What we saw this time is UKIP bleeding votes from the Tories and Labour about the same and even some from the LDs.

    In both the UK and the US, the white working class has always been suspicious of the Marxist left.

    Recently, they’ve entered full panic mode, as they sense they are in real trouble but they cannot discern the root cause.

    Chaos will surely reign.

  112. @David R. Merridale
    The election has raised the issue of proportional representation yet again. In a system with three, four or even five major parties running in some seats, straightforward first past the post voting seems ever more unfair. The Tories only got 36% plus of those who voted.

    The only way PR will get implemented is if some way can be found to strip likely UKIP voters of their franchise. The entire non-UKIP political class loathes UKIP and will do nothing to increase the number of UKIP MPs. They'll go as far as saying, "Hmm... 4 million votes for one seat... that seems... disproportionate." But they'll go no farther.

    Jack Sen, former UKIP candidate, implied quite the opposite. His experience seems to have been that UKIP is a City of London stalking horse designed to siphon disgruntled voters from more extreme parties.

    They are rubber stamped by the UK and globalist elite, and all condemnation is strictly for public consumption.

  113. Regarding UKIP’s electoral under-performace, this BBC documentary possibly played a role:

    Certainly, if I lived in Thanet I’d be furious at Farage and his circus for turning my community into a national laughing-stock.

    I wonder how many UKIP supporters watched this and decided the Tories would be a safer choice.

    • Replies: @22pp22
    BBC bias has finally been called out. Any group of more than ten people contains oddballs. The BBC choose to focus on UKIP oddballs. They missed Greville Janner and friends for twenty years. The documentary was blatant interference in the electoral process as was a Channel 4 mockumentary screened earlier in the year.

    Ed Milliband was actually put in front of a hostile audience for the first time in his life and he looked utterly lost.
    , @fnn
    A classic John Derbyshire column:

    http://www.johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/USPolitics/ronpaul.html

    It is a fact, a sad but a true one, that grass-roots political activism, the heart and soul of any democracy, attracts a lot of lunatics. I used to be a constituency activist for the Tory party in Kings Cross, London. Of the twenty or so people who turned up regularly to meetings, four or five were noticeably deranged (or, as an elderly fellow-Tory was wont to murmur in my ear when one of these cranks sought the meeting's attention, "not quite sixteen annas to the rupee"). One or two were barking mad. My favorite was a gent with an Albert Einstein hairstyle and a permanent ferocious glare who, at every darn meeting, would try to advance his pet project for a law against class discrimination. (This was at a time, in the early 1980s, when laws against racial discrimination were being passed, to much controversy.)

    If it's like that in the Tory party, one of the Anglosphere's oldest and solidest, at the heart of an ancient metropolis, I can imagine how thing are further away from the political center. A friend of mine, a brilliant, charming, and highly civilized man I shall call X, runs a fringe political group here in the U.S. He invited me to one of the group's annual conferences. Not sure what to expect, I asked a mutual friend, name of Y, who had attended a previous year's conference. "Well," said Y, "there are a dozen or so people like X, thoughtful and well-informed — people you'd be happy to hang out with. And around them buzzes this big cloud of latrine flies." I decided not to take up X's invitation.
     
    , @Lurker
    But not furious at the BBC for the stunt?
  114. What people are calling the ‘gentry left’ is a well-established phenomenon:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_class

  115. @leftist conservative
    you wrote:

    2.The American system is designed not to function very well.The Founders had a dislike for the smack of firm government.

     

    Yeah, I guess that is why the founders went behind the back of the populace and created a federal government where there was none before.

    As for how the american gov't was designed and for what purpose, let us see what James "The Father of the Constitution" Madison had to say about that:


    In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.

     

    Ah, minority of the opulent. Like Madison, who inherited 100 mill in today's dollars. Yes, the founding plutocrats did indeed cripple democracy via the creation of a deliberately gridlocked and undemocratic system. And in fact today that same system allows the elite to flood the labor supply via mass immigration and affirmative action. How do you feel about that?

    “Extend the sphere and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength and to act in unions with each other.”

     

    In other words, make it impossible for the majority to govern. Like, um, the white majority of america today.

    Federalist 10 : “...the most common and durable source of factions has been the...unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society.”
     
    There we go. The USA fedgov structure was always about letting the rich people stay rich and get richer. And that same govt allows the rich to control the govt and import millions of third worlders and give them the jobs and college admissions that should go to more deserving whites, the better to flood the labor supply, depress wages, drive up housing prices, increase corporate profits and revenues, all while destroying the cultural fabric of America. And thanks to the inherently undemocratic structure of FedGov, the "faction of the majority" can do nothing about it.

    How do you feel about that?

    Yeah, I guess that is why the founders went behind the back of the populace and created a federal government where there was none before.

    Better than the Articles of Confederation, dear fellow

    Ah, minority of the opulent.

    They always rule, dear fellow.The pressing question is how patriotic they are.At present, not at all.

    Like Madison, who inherited 100 mill in today’s dollars.

    Not in cash, though…

    Yes, the founding plutocrats did indeed cripple democracy via the creation of a deliberately gridlocked and undemocratic system. And in fact today that same system allows the elite to flood the labor supply via mass immigration and affirmative action. How do you feel about that?

    I would have preferred a parliamentary system, dear fellow.Organic growth.

    In other words, make it impossible for the majority to govern. Like, um, the white majority of america today.

    Of course, when we have a non-Anglo White majority in 2060, I suppose that I will rather like these limitations.Good for the goose, good for the gander.

    There we go. The USA fedgov structure was always about letting the rich people stay rich and get richer.

    Better than the converse, one supposes

    And that same govt allows the rich to control the govt and import millions of third worlders and give them the jobs and college admissions that should go to more deserving whites, the better to flood the labor supply, depress wages, drive up housing prices, increase corporate profits and revenues, all while destroying the cultural fabric of America.

    Probably has more to do with the decay of patriotic sentiment than anything else

    And thanks to the inherently undemocratic structure of FedGov, the “faction of the majority” can do nothing about it.

    Does the majority want to do anything about it?As near as I can tell, they are listless and apathetic

    How do you feel about that?

    About the decay of patriotism? I’m against it

    • Replies: @leftist conservative

    Yeah, I guess that is why the founders went behind the back of the populace and created a federal government where there was none before.

    Better than the Articles of Confederation, dear fellow

    Ah, minority of the opulent.

    They always rule, dear fellow.The pressing question is how patriotic they are.At present, not at all.
     
    Do be a good lad and fetch us some Grey Poupon
  116. @Zachary Latif
    The Labour party is being attacked in the far north by the SNP and near north by UKIP .

    Here is a nice map of Labour's vote and former coalfields:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CEjit34WMAA0ohE.jpg:large

    Labour's strong gains in London (but still not strong enough to overpower the Tories) is no doubt due to the ethnic minority vote; Sadiq Khan wants to run as Mayor of London.

    I think this election has proven what a vigorous and healthy democracy Britain actually is. A couple of more points:

    (1.) Nigel in resigning said something that triggered a passing thought; he said "UKIP is now the party of working women." This squares in line with my observation a lot of middle class and working class women are gravitating to UKIP because UKIP isn't a right party but more like a "white party". It's policies are going to evolve from Tory Libertarian to basically something like the DUP; Unionist, collectivist and nationalist.

    (2.) North of Hadrian's Wall, politics in Scotland (and eventually Wales who knows maybe even Cornwall one day) is going to follow the Northern Irish model, the deadlock between Unionists and anti-Unionists. Remember Orkney and the Shetland Islands are strongly Unionist territories and the United Kingdom unravelling won't be good for these islands.

    (3.) Britain won't leave the EU. I would like it to but come referendum time I know I'll be voting to stay in. Cameron is going to press hard to negotiate a fairer deal in line with other sympathetic blocs in Europe.

    (4.) Immigration and EU are hot button issues but pale in comparison to the economy. I do *feel* immigration has slowed down since New Labour but I seem to be wrong - http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article50256.html.

    (5.) The Tory government needs to become "One Nation", dismantling the welfare state is a big mistake. The idea of social-national compact is very important to contemporary British (and even English identity). The Tory government should effect boundary reform but keep FPTP; smaller parties need to find ways to survive and evolve (if the Greens & UKIP aren't able to maintain national or regional infrastructures then why not merge into their larger groups).

    The Tory government needs to become “One Nation”, dismantling the welfare state is a big mistake.

    ==

    Ayn Rand was never elected to public office in Britain or the UK. Not many starboard parliamentarians have advocated ‘dismantling the welfare state’ here or there. Ronald Reagan did not and even Barry Goldwater was dubious. What they did advocate was boundaries to common provision encompassing form and dimension.

    You can have an ethic of common provision without public ownership of housing, rent control, subsidies to mundane expenditure, a command economy in medical care, a command economy in primary and secondary schooling, public enterprise operating in what could be competitive markets, or having the labor relations regime under the thumb of characters like Arthur Scargill. Vouchers, insurance, allowances, mandatory savings plans, a negative income tax, mutual aid societies, and company unions can do as well as the current British welfare regime.

  117. @SFG
    "Interesting to note how the the office of president in both the USA and France was designed to more or less fit the character of the man who would be the first chief executive (Washington in the USA, de Gaulle under the 5th Republic)."

    That's a really interesting thought, and it makes a lot of sense. Could you elaborate?

    “Interesting to note how the the office of president in both the USA and France was designed to more or less fit the character of the man who would be the first chief executive (Washington in the USA, de Gaulle under the 5th Republic).”

    That’s a really interesting thought, and it makes a lot of sense. Could you elaborate?

    Sure.

    France: Main thing to bear in mind is that the 5th Republic’s strong President is a departure from the 3rd and 4th Republics, which were parliamentary democracies with purely ceremonial presidents.This innovation can only be understood in light of the breakdown of the 4th Republic in 1958 under the weight of the Algerian Revolt.De Gaulle swoops in and is granted the power to rule by decree while a new constitution is being drafted.Everyone knows that de Gaulle will be the 5th Republic’s first President, and the job is tailored to his personality. De Gaulle, after all , thought of himself as the living embodiment of France (allegedly, he even saw himself as the reincarnation of Joan of Arc).Such a man would never stand for being either a mere PM (power but no pomp of office) or a figurehead president (pomp of office but no power).Hence, the 5th Republic’s strong presidency.

    USA: Rather similar.Everyone knew that Washington would be the first president.Indeed, they were rather afraid that he wouldn’t take the job*.No one wanted to imagine what that would mean.Hence, the 1787 Convention devised the office with Washington’s desires in mind.

    *Cf how the elections of 1788 and 1792 were essentially uncontested.No one ran against Washington.They simply ran to see who would be Vice-President.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    5th Republic’s strong President is a departure from the 3rd and 4th Republics, which were parliamentary democracies with purely ceremonial presidents.
    --
    The 3d Republic's constitutional legislation allowed the President discretionary powers which fell into desuetude after 1879. Regarding the 5th Republic, it has been more convention than precise constitutional provisions which allowed the function of chief executive to migrate to the presidency ("wherever de Gaulle sits is the head of the table"), conventions which do not apply when you have a cohabitation ministry. The most consequential innovations concerned the electoral system (p.r. replaced with single-member districts and two-round elections wherein runoff ballots were held among candidates who achieved a certain threshold), parliamentary practice (no-confidence votes have to be slow-walked), and ministerial qualifications (deputies appointed to the ministry have to resign their seats). The changes in the electoral system promoted a consolidation of political parties and the changes in parliamentary practice inhibited the liquidation of ministries by the assembly.
    , @Ivy
    De Gaulle is a fascinating historical figure and was generally emblematic of France along with the Eiffel Tower. He was critical to France's WWII success, and his Fifth Republic has endured better than prior regimes.

    One truism is that his ego matched his height. He had a difficult time being excluded from the Big 3 meetings of FDR, Churchill and Stalin. That was likely an influence in the Suez crisis, and a decade later in withdrawing from NATO and having them exit France.

    One of his famous quotes could apply just to France, or with variations to any number of countries.

    "How can you govern a country which has two hundred and forty-six varieties of cheese?"

    Colorful characters like De Gaulle don't come around very often. Will subsequent generations think of, say, Scott Walker and varieties of cheesehead?
  118. @David R. Merridale
    The election has raised the issue of proportional representation yet again. In a system with three, four or even five major parties running in some seats, straightforward first past the post voting seems ever more unfair. The Tories only got 36% plus of those who voted.

    The only way PR will get implemented is if some way can be found to strip likely UKIP voters of their franchise. The entire non-UKIP political class loathes UKIP and will do nothing to increase the number of UKIP MPs. They'll go as far as saying, "Hmm... 4 million votes for one seat... that seems... disproportionate." But they'll go no farther.

    In lieu of 1st past the post you could implement ordinal balloting with tallies conducted according to the conventions of the alternate vote. Donald Horowitz old articles on alternatives for South Africa would be instructive. In each constituency, you rank-order your choices. They tally the first preference votes; then the ballots of candidates failing to meet a threshold are redistributed to their highest subsequent preference and the tally re-calculated. At that point, the trailing candidate is eliminated and his ballots re-distributed each to the highest subsequent preference. Rinse, repeat, until there are two candidates left and the one with the highest tally wins.

    • Replies: @Kevin O'Keeffe
    "In each constituency, you rank-order your choices. They tally the first preference votes; then the ballots of candidates failing to meet a threshold are redistributed to their highest subsequent preference and the tally re-calculated. At that point, the trailing candidate is eliminated and his ballots re-distributed each to the highest subsequent preference. Rinse, repeat, until there are two candidates left and the one with the highest tally wins."

    That's also how the mayoral elections in San Francisco, Oakland, and Minneapolis, are conducted.
  119. @syonredux

    “Interesting to note how the the office of president in both the USA and France was designed to more or less fit the character of the man who would be the first chief executive (Washington in the USA, de Gaulle under the 5th Republic).”

    That’s a really interesting thought, and it makes a lot of sense. Could you elaborate?
     
    Sure.


    France: Main thing to bear in mind is that the 5th Republic's strong President is a departure from the 3rd and 4th Republics, which were parliamentary democracies with purely ceremonial presidents.This innovation can only be understood in light of the breakdown of the 4th Republic in 1958 under the weight of the Algerian Revolt.De Gaulle swoops in and is granted the power to rule by decree while a new constitution is being drafted.Everyone knows that de Gaulle will be the 5th Republic's first President, and the job is tailored to his personality. De Gaulle, after all , thought of himself as the living embodiment of France (allegedly, he even saw himself as the reincarnation of Joan of Arc).Such a man would never stand for being either a mere PM (power but no pomp of office) or a figurehead president (pomp of office but no power).Hence, the 5th Republic's strong presidency.


    USA: Rather similar.Everyone knew that Washington would be the first president.Indeed, they were rather afraid that he wouldn't take the job*.No one wanted to imagine what that would mean.Hence, the 1787 Convention devised the office with Washington's desires in mind.


    *Cf how the elections of 1788 and 1792 were essentially uncontested.No one ran against Washington.They simply ran to see who would be Vice-President.

    5th Republic’s strong President is a departure from the 3rd and 4th Republics, which were parliamentary democracies with purely ceremonial presidents.

    The 3d Republic’s constitutional legislation allowed the President discretionary powers which fell into desuetude after 1879. Regarding the 5th Republic, it has been more convention than precise constitutional provisions which allowed the function of chief executive to migrate to the presidency (“wherever de Gaulle sits is the head of the table”), conventions which do not apply when you have a cohabitation ministry. The most consequential innovations concerned the electoral system (p.r. replaced with single-member districts and two-round elections wherein runoff ballots were held among candidates who achieved a certain threshold), parliamentary practice (no-confidence votes have to be slow-walked), and ministerial qualifications (deputies appointed to the ministry have to resign their seats). The changes in the electoral system promoted a consolidation of political parties and the changes in parliamentary practice inhibited the liquidation of ministries by the assembly.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    The 3d Republic’s constitutional legislation allowed the President discretionary powers which fell into desuetude after 1879.
     
    The dates to bear in mind:

    1870: 3rd Republic proclaimed


    1875: The Constitutional laws are passed

    1877: MacMahon crisis.Decisive shift to a Parliamentary system of government.

    So, for the overwhelming bulk of its history, the 3rd Republic was ruled under a parliamentary system.

    Regarding the 5th Republic, it has been more convention than precise constitutional provisions which allowed the function of chief executive to migrate to the presidency (“wherever de Gaulle sits is the head of the table”), conventions which do not apply when you have a cohabitation ministry.
     
    Sure, the President's powers are reduced when he does not have support in the Assembly.That's why it's a semi-presidential system.
  120. OT but very iSteve:

    Probably 90% of the crimes on the “Florida Man” twitter feed are committed by nonwhites, but what picture does the Profile show, and what is selected for the article?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/11/us/both-hapless-and-harebrained-florida-man-enlivens-internet.html

    • Replies: @Lurker
    The Agenda™ at work!

    http://nwioqeqkdf.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/The%20Agenda%E2%84%A2
  121. Cameron is a strong unionist and deeply committed to keeping Scotland in the UK as are the bulk of the Tories. The official name of the party is the Conservative and Unionist Party. If Scotland had voted to secede, he would have been expected to resign.

    The disparaging remarks attributed to Churchill re Attlee are fictional, he respected Attlee’s business-like and straight forward attitude. Even Thatcher admired Attlee, calling him all substance and no show.

    Ed Balls had a constituency in Morley, only some one with no knowledge of the UK would confuse it with Leeds.
    Wd Ed

  122. OT__
    Michelle Obama uses Tuskegee speech to tell how she has been wronged as a black
    Examiner · 5 minutes ago
    First Lady Michelle Obama spoke at the graduation ceremony at Tuskegee University in Tuskegee, Alabama on Saturday. Once again, she chose to …

    ***** It is a very strident, angry, blame whitey commencement speech. Theme is, the only reason you have problems reaching your fully potential is the white man keeping you down and not appreciating your talents. That the white man has been keeping down a race of beautiful geniuses

  123. Ivy says:
    @syonredux

    “Interesting to note how the the office of president in both the USA and France was designed to more or less fit the character of the man who would be the first chief executive (Washington in the USA, de Gaulle under the 5th Republic).”

    That’s a really interesting thought, and it makes a lot of sense. Could you elaborate?
     
    Sure.


    France: Main thing to bear in mind is that the 5th Republic's strong President is a departure from the 3rd and 4th Republics, which were parliamentary democracies with purely ceremonial presidents.This innovation can only be understood in light of the breakdown of the 4th Republic in 1958 under the weight of the Algerian Revolt.De Gaulle swoops in and is granted the power to rule by decree while a new constitution is being drafted.Everyone knows that de Gaulle will be the 5th Republic's first President, and the job is tailored to his personality. De Gaulle, after all , thought of himself as the living embodiment of France (allegedly, he even saw himself as the reincarnation of Joan of Arc).Such a man would never stand for being either a mere PM (power but no pomp of office) or a figurehead president (pomp of office but no power).Hence, the 5th Republic's strong presidency.


    USA: Rather similar.Everyone knew that Washington would be the first president.Indeed, they were rather afraid that he wouldn't take the job*.No one wanted to imagine what that would mean.Hence, the 1787 Convention devised the office with Washington's desires in mind.


    *Cf how the elections of 1788 and 1792 were essentially uncontested.No one ran against Washington.They simply ran to see who would be Vice-President.

    De Gaulle is a fascinating historical figure and was generally emblematic of France along with the Eiffel Tower. He was critical to France’s WWII success, and his Fifth Republic has endured better than prior regimes.

    One truism is that his ego matched his height. He had a difficult time being excluded from the Big 3 meetings of FDR, Churchill and Stalin. That was likely an influence in the Suez crisis, and a decade later in withdrawing from NATO and having them exit France.

    One of his famous quotes could apply just to France, or with variations to any number of countries.

    How can you govern a country which has two hundred and forty-six varieties of cheese?”

    Colorful characters like De Gaulle don’t come around very often. Will subsequent generations think of, say, Scott Walker and varieties of cheesehead?

  124. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @leftist conservative
    you wrote:

    The GOP will respond to any weaknesses on the left by larding even more unpopular and destructive favors on their paymasters.

     

    Yes, but to put that another way--the more that the Left/Dems demonize whites and especially white males and/or the more the Left/Dems idolize nonwhites/gays, the more that the GOP can pander to the rich.

    The driving dynamic is Dem/Left demonization of the whites/idolization of the nonwhites/immigrants. Thus the Dems/Left determine how much the GOP can pander to the rich.
    As Dem demonization/idolization increases-->GOP pandering increases.

    If Jim Webb were to get the Dem nomination, what with his already expressed distaste for demonization of white males, he could destroy this established (and destructive) dynamic. He could represent a paradigm shift.

    “Yes, but to put that another way–the more that the Left/Dems demonize whites and especially white males and/or the more the Left/Dems idolize nonwhites/gays, the more that the GOP can pander to the rich.”

    This is very cynical I’m almost starting to think that both parties serve the interests of the rich in a complementary manner, but somewhat differently from how you state it. The Democrats support positions that weaken social institutions that typically provide stability and strength to the middle class, thus making the middle class less of a political obstacle to the wealthy, among other social policies that help the rich, while the Republicans pass tax cuts and support the wars that the rich want – both policies that Democrats couldn’t vote for because they would be contradictory to the other platforms they supposedly stand for. This leaves us with a two-party system that serves the interests of the very rich while only giving lip service to the concerns of the other voters who make up the two parties.

    In fact, I’m almost starting to think that the primary people behind the push for Obamacare were those who run corporations, so that they would no longer have to deal with the costs or administrative responsibilities related to offering healthcare to employees, instead of the more noble goal of helping the uninsured or underinsured or reducing health care costs.

    • Replies: @anon

    This is very cynical I’m almost starting to think that both parties serve the interests of the rich in a complementary manner, but somewhat differently from how you state it.
     
    Welcome to the end of the road.

    There are many variations on the theme of exactly how it has got this way; mine is...

    if there are naturally occurring power-sociopaths who primarily crave power (and who mostly gravitate to the political "Left") and money-sociopaths who primarily crave wealth (who mostly end up on the "Right") what end result might suit both their desires?

    Moving towards a plantation economy (rich minority, poor majority with no middle) combined with democracy could potentially suit them both at least in the short term as the money-sociopaths get the cheap labor while the power-sociopaths get increasing electoral power.
  125. @Anonymous
    You're probably right.

    Miliband looked and spoke 'distinctively un-English'.
    Apparently his ethnicity is 'Polish Jewish'. But he is discernably 'swarthy', much more so than any Briton, Pole or indeed Polish Jew. I hazard a guess that he has Sephardic ancestry.
    Many British political and entertainment personalities came from continental European stock. But somehow none of them looked as strongly 'unEnglish' than Ed Miliband.

    Miliband’s grandfather, Samuel, was Polish but fought for the Red Army against Poland in 1921-2. Not surprisingly he ended up outside Poland, in Belgium. Son Adolph (Ralph) was born in Belgium but ended up (not unreasonably) in England in 1940.

    Grandson David lost the Labour Party leadership election, and promptly moved to the States to head up some International Rescue-type organisation. Who knows where Ed may land ?

  126. @Zachary Latif
    The Labour party is being attacked in the far north by the SNP and near north by UKIP .

    Here is a nice map of Labour's vote and former coalfields:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CEjit34WMAA0ohE.jpg:large

    Labour's strong gains in London (but still not strong enough to overpower the Tories) is no doubt due to the ethnic minority vote; Sadiq Khan wants to run as Mayor of London.

    I think this election has proven what a vigorous and healthy democracy Britain actually is. A couple of more points:

    (1.) Nigel in resigning said something that triggered a passing thought; he said "UKIP is now the party of working women." This squares in line with my observation a lot of middle class and working class women are gravitating to UKIP because UKIP isn't a right party but more like a "white party". It's policies are going to evolve from Tory Libertarian to basically something like the DUP; Unionist, collectivist and nationalist.

    (2.) North of Hadrian's Wall, politics in Scotland (and eventually Wales who knows maybe even Cornwall one day) is going to follow the Northern Irish model, the deadlock between Unionists and anti-Unionists. Remember Orkney and the Shetland Islands are strongly Unionist territories and the United Kingdom unravelling won't be good for these islands.

    (3.) Britain won't leave the EU. I would like it to but come referendum time I know I'll be voting to stay in. Cameron is going to press hard to negotiate a fairer deal in line with other sympathetic blocs in Europe.

    (4.) Immigration and EU are hot button issues but pale in comparison to the economy. I do *feel* immigration has slowed down since New Labour but I seem to be wrong - http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article50256.html.

    (5.) The Tory government needs to become "One Nation", dismantling the welfare state is a big mistake. The idea of social-national compact is very important to contemporary British (and even English identity). The Tory government should effect boundary reform but keep FPTP; smaller parties need to find ways to survive and evolve (if the Greens & UKIP aren't able to maintain national or regional infrastructures then why not merge into their larger groups).

    “Cameron is going to press hard to negotiate a fairer deal in line with other sympathetic blocs in Europe.”

    But an EU functionary was declaring today that free movement of labour inside the EU was not negotiable – which is the big grouch UK voters have. Cameron won’t be able to deliver this, so there’ll continue to be an oversupply of labour, low wages and high profits.

  127. HA says:
    @IBC

    There has been so much intermarriage over the generations that identity is sometimes a matter of choice. Gerry Adams, leader of Sinn Fein, is descended from one of Cromwell’s generals. Religious differences played a role in keeping Brits and Irish separate, but if you dig deep enough alot of us have Irish ancestry.
     
    Good point, but the converse can also be true. For example, I was amused to learn that only one member of the band U2, is an actual Irish Catholic. Bono was raised as an Anglican and even shares his last name (Hewson) with one of Cromwell's officers who participated in the infamous Siege of Drogheda and who also signed the death warrant for King Charles --a Catholic to whom the native Irish were at least nominally loyal. However, Bono's father was also a Catholic and may have no connection with John Hewson, the Puritan regicide. The two other members of the band, Adam Clayton and the Edge, were both born in England and don't appear to be of Irish descent, though they did grow up in Ireland and identify with it today. I'm not trying to detract from Irish artistic achievement or to foment religious rivalry, it's just that those aren't the biographies that I would have expected.

    It is far funkier to be Scottish or Irish than English. The result is that New Zealanders of mixed English/Scottish/Irish ancestry tend to remember the Scottish bits and forget the English bits. That rule even applies in England to a lesser extent.
     
    And notice how the modern Scottish identity relies so heavily on the Highland mythos even though most Scots are Lowlanders whose ancestors may have even fought against the Highlanders? Without the romance of the Highlands, modern Scottish identity would be much more vanilla. I think that in some circumstances and certainly when you have other options, identifying as "English" is almost like declaring that you like white bread --not that there's anything really wrong with that or that I'm criticizing people who do so.

    As a counter-example, remember that many of the most famous pirates were English, from places like Bristol. How many people actually think to question why old-time pirates are always depicted as grinding their "r's" like that? It's a caricature, but it's of something that's just as "English" as Downton Abbey.

    “…many of the most famous pirates were English…How many people actually think to question why old-time pirates are always depicted as grinding their “r’s” like that?”

    Some would say the real question is why the rest of the English are not depicted grinding their R’s the same way.

    …the English of Shakespeare and the King James Bible…the way they spoke it would sound to us more like a mix of Irish and pirate.

    http://theweek.com/articles/545166/what-english-shakespeare-beowulf-king-arthur-actually-sounded-like

  128. @Anonymous
    Boris Johnson is a very very astute and intelligent man - he is someone definitely to watch.
    From observing him over the years, I'm fairly convinced he'd dump immigrationism in a heartbeat if was a vote loser.

    “I’m fairly convinced he’d dump immigrationism in a heartbeat if was a vote loser.”

    I’m totally convinced Boris would dump the entire UK in a heartbeat if he thought it would be good for Boris. Entertaining, bright, witty, good company, totally unprincipled.

    “I wouldn’t trust him with my wife or my wallet” said Max Hastings.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2215342/If-Boris-Johnson-Prime-Minister-Im-plane-Britain-says-Max-Hastings.html

    (But then you might have said the same about David Lloyd George, Britain’s WW1 Prime Minister.)

    • Replies: @Lurker
    Immigrationism is a vote loser. But as long as both major parties maintain their immigrationism they can't be punished.

    That to me was the point of UKIP, if they could make enough headway, get even a small group of MPs then anti-immigrationism would be 'in play'.
  129. CCR says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    The gentry left hates the white working class, and the white working class know it.

     

    The left in its entirety hates the white working class. But they offer, and will always offer greater benefits, so a big portion of that class will always vote for it.

    And don't tell the right to compete on benefits. The right is bound by truth, by reality. The left is not.

    The welfare state's bargain is stated pretty succinctly in Matthew 4: 8-9.

    That’s the difference between the U.K. multi-party system and the U.S. (basically) two party system. In the UK they have UKIP which is left economically but anti-immigrant and anti-crime. So, they’ve managed to separate those votes from Labor. In the U.S., Dem members who are anti-crime and anti-immigrant can’t make the leap to the Republican party because it is too right economically.

  130. @Mr. Anon
    Does any country have a government that is substantially like ours? Our system of government is as peculiar as our system of weights and measures.

    Separation of powers with federalism is on the books in Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico. The position of the judiciary is likely unique.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico - our peers among the nations.

    Well they will be, soon enough.
  131. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Scotty G. Vito
    It's going to congeal quite soon that Ed Miliband was the Worst Politician Ever so if he did in fact possess any smidgen of street cred with you O.G. Anglos, now would be an excellent time to get that out on the table. I don't think of the UK as naturally "center-right" so this degree of four-quadrant cock-up deserves a decent analysis distinguishing the party's legacy problems from the "perfect storm" meme that implies the Conservatives were doing something right. Actually you wouldn't know it from the lambasting of American right-wing bloggers but I always suspected Cameron's phoniness was less grating on the domestic audience who are capable of respecting a public-school smoothie pained to affect the common touch (think: "I'll march with you, comfortable shoes," etc. in Obama's lame folksy accent) and who always pays respect to the local media gods e.g. diversity, up-to-dateness, telegenic mastery, and of course the proper worship of the hard-working immigrant businessman such as your Kahshoggis, Abramovichs, Robert Maxwells

    It’s going to congeal quite soon that Ed Miliband was the Worst Politician Ever so if he did in fact possess any smidgen of street cred with you O.G. Anglos, now would be an excellent time to get that out on the table.

    It’s a bit esoteric but Ed Miliband ending up as the Labour leader was the result of many years of Gordon Brown’s supporters allegedly destroying all the viable alternative leader candidates to Gordon Brown after Blair stood down so when Gordon Brown crashed and burned in 2010 the cupboard was very empty.

    Miliband isn’t the worst of them by a long way but obviously not suited to being a party leader.

  132. @LondonBob
    48% of Labour Party members are from London. There is a very clear irreconcilable difference being exposed between the Northern white working class block (still dominant) and the ethnic minority/lefty urban middle class. The latter is not strong enough yet whilst the first is in fear of UKIP. Many think UKIP will disappear, I suspect not and they will in due course start picking up seats, but as I have pointed out you don't need seats to exercise influence. Its a contradiction that has not been solved yet and will flair up in the selection of their next leader.

    Interesting is how right wing 18-24 year olds are, almost the anti baby boomer generation which electorally and culturally was the bedrock of the Tony Blair era. Interesting times.

    Another thing I note is that I read the Times of London, mouthpiece of the establishment. They are very hardline on the Mediterranean crisis, see their leader opinion piece today, very different from their usual pro immigration stance. They seem to get it, what is the motivation I do not know but be thankful that they do.

    Young whites in America have also drifted right and oddly enough so have young black men. Romney won 20% of black men under 30.

  133. @Art Deco
    5th Republic’s strong President is a departure from the 3rd and 4th Republics, which were parliamentary democracies with purely ceremonial presidents.
    --
    The 3d Republic's constitutional legislation allowed the President discretionary powers which fell into desuetude after 1879. Regarding the 5th Republic, it has been more convention than precise constitutional provisions which allowed the function of chief executive to migrate to the presidency ("wherever de Gaulle sits is the head of the table"), conventions which do not apply when you have a cohabitation ministry. The most consequential innovations concerned the electoral system (p.r. replaced with single-member districts and two-round elections wherein runoff ballots were held among candidates who achieved a certain threshold), parliamentary practice (no-confidence votes have to be slow-walked), and ministerial qualifications (deputies appointed to the ministry have to resign their seats). The changes in the electoral system promoted a consolidation of political parties and the changes in parliamentary practice inhibited the liquidation of ministries by the assembly.

    The 3d Republic’s constitutional legislation allowed the President discretionary powers which fell into desuetude after 1879.

    The dates to bear in mind:

    1870: 3rd Republic proclaimed

    1875: The Constitutional laws are passed

    1877: MacMahon crisis.Decisive shift to a Parliamentary system of government.

    So, for the overwhelming bulk of its history, the 3rd Republic was ruled under a parliamentary system.

    Regarding the 5th Republic, it has been more convention than precise constitutional provisions which allowed the function of chief executive to migrate to the presidency (“wherever de Gaulle sits is the head of the table”), conventions which do not apply when you have a cohabitation ministry.

    Sure, the President’s powers are reduced when he does not have support in the Assembly.That’s why it’s a semi-presidential system.

  134. @Anonymous
    OT: . Incoming Boston University African-American Studies professor tweeted anti-white comments. Saida Grundy is a pretty, ostensibly half-white, youngish woman.

    Wow, that’s very forward

    “why is white America so reluctant to identify white college males as a problem population?”.

    The racism is strong with this one. Then again, women are already 60% of the graduates. Maybe they won’t really have that many white men to contend with soon enough. God knows, I hate myself. I’m glad that everybody’s so obsessed with CEO positions and political roles, which are very few, that they won’t touch the real bastions of male privilege – mining, homelessness, garbage collecting, undiagnosed depressions and suicides.

    And who jumps to her defense?

    Noor Toraif, a junior studying neuroscience and philosophy, said she and a student group called the People of Color Coalition are all standing firm with Grundy. “I don’t think reverse racism against white folks is a thing,” Toraif said. “You need to have institutional and systemic power in order to be racist. People of color like Professor Grundy don’t have that. … I’m 100 percent supportive of her and excited for her to come to campus.”

    People of Color Coalition? Is this the 1920s? Also, I may be dense, since I didn’t go to school in the US, but isn’t a University also an institution, with a lot of leeway in how it handles its system?

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    People of Color Coalition? Is this the 1920s?
     
    People of color is progressive, while colored people is bigoted if not racist.
  135. @leftist conservative
    you wrote:

    2.The American system is designed not to function very well.The Founders had a dislike for the smack of firm government.

     

    Yeah, I guess that is why the founders went behind the back of the populace and created a federal government where there was none before.

    As for how the american gov't was designed and for what purpose, let us see what James "The Father of the Constitution" Madison had to say about that:


    In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.

     

    Ah, minority of the opulent. Like Madison, who inherited 100 mill in today's dollars. Yes, the founding plutocrats did indeed cripple democracy via the creation of a deliberately gridlocked and undemocratic system. And in fact today that same system allows the elite to flood the labor supply via mass immigration and affirmative action. How do you feel about that?

    “Extend the sphere and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength and to act in unions with each other.”

     

    In other words, make it impossible for the majority to govern. Like, um, the white majority of america today.

    Federalist 10 : “...the most common and durable source of factions has been the...unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society.”
     
    There we go. The USA fedgov structure was always about letting the rich people stay rich and get richer. And that same govt allows the rich to control the govt and import millions of third worlders and give them the jobs and college admissions that should go to more deserving whites, the better to flood the labor supply, depress wages, drive up housing prices, increase corporate profits and revenues, all while destroying the cultural fabric of America. And thanks to the inherently undemocratic structure of FedGov, the "faction of the majority" can do nothing about it.

    How do you feel about that?

    Leftist Conservative, it has been the considered opinion of writers in antiquity and modern times that having a landed aristocracy with interests aligned with that of the people is vital to preventing domestic tyranny, foreign invasion, or both.

    Consider, if most of the aristocracy (every society WILL have one) has their wealth tied up in land, they would not invite half the Third World in now would they? Since a mass of landless people with alien ways, race, and feelings would soon appropriate their wealth. Consider, also that only an aristocracy can constrain and check a sovereign. China after Mao had considerable efforts along those lines to constrain any future leader to avoid purges particularly of the upper classes like themselves. President Xi may be breaking this mold and starting a civil war. Landed upper classes famously constrained King John at Runnymeade with the Magna Carta, and again with Cromwell and Parliament against King Charles. It was the failure of the upper classes, the Roman nobility that allowed three oligarchs to seize power in the Triumvirate, and later after fighting the heir of one to seize absolute power.

    Ordinary people lack power, money, social standing, social connections, political connections, military service of distinction, and other means to stop a tyranny or foreign invasion before it is too late.

    The frustration is seeing far too many on the Alt Right who ought to know better, adopt a Leftist viewpoint of human nature that all that is needed is for the “right” people of pure morality to rule. Steve does great work but IMHO too often like Peter Brimelow (also does great work) asks for super-human nobility and morality. And men like George Washington only come around every thousand years or so.

    People in aggregate will ALWAYS be venal, short-sighted, status-driven, stupid, looking for a quick payoff, and so on. It was the genius of the Founding Fathers to create a system not for Angels or people of superior morality but the worst; relying on checks and balances of self interest and explicitly a landed gentry jealous of both foreign domination and a Man on a White Horse.

    Our elites are rotten to the core because their wealth is not aligned with that of ordinary people. If it was land, factories, railroads, airlines, etc.; things easily seized and distributed by a hungry, alien mass as in Venezuela, Cuba, etc. they’d act in accordance with the White Middle Class. Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Bill Clinton, Brian Williams, Jeff Bezos, and Tim Cook all laugh at the Castros. THEIR wealth is so mobile, offshore, hard to seize, there is no possibility of it even being taken from them and given to a great Tribune to trickle down in crumbs to peasants as in the Chavez/Maduro style Monarchies.

  136. @Yo ho ho
    Regarding UKIP's electoral under-performace, this BBC documentary possibly played a role:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fSbpNh9fDY

    Certainly, if I lived in Thanet I'd be furious at Farage and his circus for turning my community into a national laughing-stock.

    I wonder how many UKIP supporters watched this and decided the Tories would be a safer choice.

    BBC bias has finally been called out. Any group of more than ten people contains oddballs. The BBC choose to focus on UKIP oddballs. They missed Greville Janner and friends for twenty years. The documentary was blatant interference in the electoral process as was a Channel 4 mockumentary screened earlier in the year.

    Ed Milliband was actually put in front of a hostile audience for the first time in his life and he looked utterly lost.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The UKIP home site tries to get its revenge in against the incessant attacks by the media in the character of UKIP candidates.
    Some choice and juicy stories are there to be read.
    These include a Welsh Liberal councillor sentenced to 20 years in jail for planting car bombs. Another Liberal councillor 'did bird' for racially abusing a Pakistani shopkeeper. Numerous Labour councillors have been nobbled for paedophilia - for some strange reason -, and a good number of Labour and Tory people have been done for numerous cases of downloading child pornography or hardcore pornography on council computers.
    Add to this many cases of liblabcon theft, corruption, fraud etc.
    None of these stories ever break in the mainstream media, but a fool of a UKIP candidate making a silly remark about 'sluts' and cleaning behind refrigerators makes the national news, for some reason.
  137. fnn says:
    @Yo ho ho
    Regarding UKIP's electoral under-performace, this BBC documentary possibly played a role:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fSbpNh9fDY

    Certainly, if I lived in Thanet I'd be furious at Farage and his circus for turning my community into a national laughing-stock.

    I wonder how many UKIP supporters watched this and decided the Tories would be a safer choice.

    A classic John Derbyshire column:

    http://www.johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/USPolitics/ronpaul.html

    It is a fact, a sad but a true one, that grass-roots political activism, the heart and soul of any democracy, attracts a lot of lunatics. I used to be a constituency activist for the Tory party in Kings Cross, London. Of the twenty or so people who turned up regularly to meetings, four or five were noticeably deranged (or, as an elderly fellow-Tory was wont to murmur in my ear when one of these cranks sought the meeting’s attention, “not quite sixteen annas to the rupee”). One or two were barking mad. My favorite was a gent with an Albert Einstein hairstyle and a permanent ferocious glare who, at every darn meeting, would try to advance his pet project for a law against class discrimination. (This was at a time, in the early 1980s, when laws against racial discrimination were being passed, to much controversy.)

    If it’s like that in the Tory party, one of the Anglosphere’s oldest and solidest, at the heart of an ancient metropolis, I can imagine how thing are further away from the political center. A friend of mine, a brilliant, charming, and highly civilized man I shall call X, runs a fringe political group here in the U.S. He invited me to one of the group’s annual conferences. Not sure what to expect, I asked a mutual friend, name of Y, who had attended a previous year’s conference. “Well,” said Y, “there are a dozen or so people like X, thoughtful and well-informed — people you’d be happy to hang out with. And around them buzzes this big cloud of latrine flies.” I decided not to take up X’s invitation.

  138. @Romanian
    Wow, that's very forward

    "why is white America so reluctant to identify white college males as a problem population?".
     
    The racism is strong with this one. Then again, women are already 60% of the graduates. Maybe they won't really have that many white men to contend with soon enough. God knows, I hate myself. I'm glad that everybody's so obsessed with CEO positions and political roles, which are very few, that they won't touch the real bastions of male privilege - mining, homelessness, garbage collecting, undiagnosed depressions and suicides.

    And who jumps to her defense?

    Noor Toraif, a junior studying neuroscience and philosophy, said she and a student group called the People of Color Coalition are all standing firm with Grundy. “I don’t think reverse racism against white folks is a thing,” Toraif said. “You need to have institutional and systemic power in order to be racist. People of color like Professor Grundy don’t have that. ... I’m 100 percent supportive of her and excited for her to come to campus.”
     
    People of Color Coalition? Is this the 1920s? Also, I may be dense, since I didn't go to school in the US, but isn't a University also an institution, with a lot of leeway in how it handles its system?

    People of Color Coalition? Is this the 1920s?

    People of color is progressive, while colored people is bigoted if not racist.

  139. @syonredux

    Yeah, I guess that is why the founders went behind the back of the populace and created a federal government where there was none before.
     
    Better than the Articles of Confederation, dear fellow

    Ah, minority of the opulent.
     
    They always rule, dear fellow.The pressing question is how patriotic they are.At present, not at all.

    Like Madison, who inherited 100 mill in today’s dollars.
     
    Not in cash, though...

    Yes, the founding plutocrats did indeed cripple democracy via the creation of a deliberately gridlocked and undemocratic system. And in fact today that same system allows the elite to flood the labor supply via mass immigration and affirmative action. How do you feel about that?
     
    I would have preferred a parliamentary system, dear fellow.Organic growth.

    In other words, make it impossible for the majority to govern. Like, um, the white majority of america today.
     
    Of course, when we have a non-Anglo White majority in 2060, I suppose that I will rather like these limitations.Good for the goose, good for the gander.

    There we go. The USA fedgov structure was always about letting the rich people stay rich and get richer.
     
    Better than the converse, one supposes

    And that same govt allows the rich to control the govt and import millions of third worlders and give them the jobs and college admissions that should go to more deserving whites, the better to flood the labor supply, depress wages, drive up housing prices, increase corporate profits and revenues, all while destroying the cultural fabric of America.
     
    Probably has more to do with the decay of patriotic sentiment than anything else

    And thanks to the inherently undemocratic structure of FedGov, the “faction of the majority” can do nothing about it.
     
    Does the majority want to do anything about it?As near as I can tell, they are listless and apathetic

    How do you feel about that?
     
    About the decay of patriotism? I'm against it

    Yeah, I guess that is why the founders went behind the back of the populace and created a federal government where there was none before.

    Better than the Articles of Confederation, dear fellow

    Ah, minority of the opulent.

    They always rule, dear fellow.The pressing question is how patriotic they are.At present, not at all.

    Do be a good lad and fetch us some Grey Poupon

    • Replies: @syonredux

    Do be a good lad and fetch us some Grey Poupon
     
    "Grey Poupon ?" Strictly NOCD
  140. @Anonymous
    There's a great interview with Jack Sen on http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net . He's a former UKIP candidate who was drummed out of the party for ruffling the feathers of the UKIP elite.

    "Making matters worse was the fact that I’d merely stated what most of Liverpool also thought about [Labour candidate] Berger — that she was not an ‘authentic Labour’ candidate due to the fact that she had been parachuted into Liverpool by the Labour Party elite, was born and raised in wealthy West London, educated at an all-girls boarding school in Hertfordshire and groomed for the job by Lord Greville Janner, the Zionist Jewish peer who has been investigated for paedophilia on numerous occasions. Berger having “divided loyalties” stemmed from the fact that she had professionally lobbied for our money to be sent overseas while serving as the Director of Labour Friends of Israel."

    How much does this read like the typical leftist formula in the UK, and the US as well.

    Look at Bernie Sanders, Brooklyn Jew and Vermont Senator, if you need further evidence.

    British parliamentary candidates are routinely assigned by their parties to seats where they don’t live. It’s always been like that.

    In contrast, Bernie Sanders has lived in Vermont for close to a half-century. Similarly, Howard Dean of Park Avenue originally had lived in Vermont for 30 or 40 years by 2004, just as Ronald Reagan had lived in California since the 1930s.

    • Replies: @Lurker
    The problem is if you want to get anywhere you need to be in a winnable or safe seat. Most parliamentary hopefuls have to pay their dues at least once by standing in a forlorn, no hope constituency for their party.

    The local party does have some say though, just blatantly parachuting in an outsider is frowned upon, I think more so amongst the Tories than Labour.

    Of course being local does give one an advantage electorally - my local (Tory) MP is from only a few miles outside the constituency and has lived within it for years now. He's very tight with the local party members, often turns out to vote in local elections and goes to the vote count for these local elections to mix with the party members. As a result his support amongst local party members is pretty unassailable.

  141. Under what conditions will nationalist or identity parties do well?

    – When the nation is under attack, has been beaten or humiliated, and the people want to retaliate.

    – When rival nations seem to be winning in power/status competition.

    – When a national sub-group wants to exert its political strength for its own benefit.

    Under what conditions will non-tribal, policy-oriented parties do well?

    – In times of peace.

    – In times of harmonious relationships between ethnic groups and identity groups within a nation.

    – In times when the nation is not under threat, but new leadership might improve economic conditions.

    – In times of struggle between economic classes as opposed to tribes/nations/ethnic groups.

    Those are just off the top of my head. I think that conditions are turning more favorable for nationalist parties, of which Labour is not one. Labour has support from a hodgepodge of identity groups, but I would not vote for Labour if I thought the whole nation was in trouble.

  142. @IBC

    There has been so much intermarriage over the generations that identity is sometimes a matter of choice. Gerry Adams, leader of Sinn Fein, is descended from one of Cromwell’s generals. Religious differences played a role in keeping Brits and Irish separate, but if you dig deep enough alot of us have Irish ancestry.
     
    Good point, but the converse can also be true. For example, I was amused to learn that only one member of the band U2, is an actual Irish Catholic. Bono was raised as an Anglican and even shares his last name (Hewson) with one of Cromwell's officers who participated in the infamous Siege of Drogheda and who also signed the death warrant for King Charles --a Catholic to whom the native Irish were at least nominally loyal. However, Bono's father was also a Catholic and may have no connection with John Hewson, the Puritan regicide. The two other members of the band, Adam Clayton and the Edge, were both born in England and don't appear to be of Irish descent, though they did grow up in Ireland and identify with it today. I'm not trying to detract from Irish artistic achievement or to foment religious rivalry, it's just that those aren't the biographies that I would have expected.

    It is far funkier to be Scottish or Irish than English. The result is that New Zealanders of mixed English/Scottish/Irish ancestry tend to remember the Scottish bits and forget the English bits. That rule even applies in England to a lesser extent.
     
    And notice how the modern Scottish identity relies so heavily on the Highland mythos even though most Scots are Lowlanders whose ancestors may have even fought against the Highlanders? Without the romance of the Highlands, modern Scottish identity would be much more vanilla. I think that in some circumstances and certainly when you have other options, identifying as "English" is almost like declaring that you like white bread --not that there's anything really wrong with that or that I'm criticizing people who do so.

    As a counter-example, remember that many of the most famous pirates were English, from places like Bristol. How many people actually think to question why old-time pirates are always depicted as grinding their "r's" like that? It's a caricature, but it's of something that's just as "English" as Downton Abbey.

    For example, I was amused to learn that only one member of the band U2, is an actual Irish Catholic. Bono was raised as an Anglican and even shares his last name (Hewson) with one of Cromwell’s officers who participated in the infamous Siege of Drogheda and who also signed the death warrant for King Charles –a Catholic to whom the native Irish were at least nominally loyal. However, Bono’s father was also a Catholic and may have no connection with John Hewson, the Puritan regicide. The two other members of the band, Adam Clayton and the Edge, were both born in England and don’t appear to be of Irish descent, though they did grow up in Ireland and identify with it today. I’m not trying to detract from Irish artistic achievement or to foment religious rivalry, it’s just that those aren’t the biographies that I would have expected.

    A dirty (clean?) little secret about U2 is that Bono and co. originally wanted it to be a straight Christian rock band.

    Bono was and probably still is very religious and evangelical, and all but one of the members (forgot which one) were pretty strident in their religion. But they decided that they wouldn’t get very far and have limited appeal, and so agreed that they would make their Christian more subtle than the average Christian rock band. If you listen to their music as if it were coded Christian evangelical talk, suddenly a lot of the references are explained and mystery go away.

    I think the fight really was that one member (again, forgot which one, but not Bono) really wanted to start “living the rock star lifestyle” while the others were appalled at such debauchery. They compromised somehow, although it’s never really been explained.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    What about Bono's adolescent girlfriends?
  143. @IBC

    There has been so much intermarriage over the generations that identity is sometimes a matter of choice. Gerry Adams, leader of Sinn Fein, is descended from one of Cromwell’s generals. Religious differences played a role in keeping Brits and Irish separate, but if you dig deep enough alot of us have Irish ancestry.
     
    Good point, but the converse can also be true. For example, I was amused to learn that only one member of the band U2, is an actual Irish Catholic. Bono was raised as an Anglican and even shares his last name (Hewson) with one of Cromwell's officers who participated in the infamous Siege of Drogheda and who also signed the death warrant for King Charles --a Catholic to whom the native Irish were at least nominally loyal. However, Bono's father was also a Catholic and may have no connection with John Hewson, the Puritan regicide. The two other members of the band, Adam Clayton and the Edge, were both born in England and don't appear to be of Irish descent, though they did grow up in Ireland and identify with it today. I'm not trying to detract from Irish artistic achievement or to foment religious rivalry, it's just that those aren't the biographies that I would have expected.

    It is far funkier to be Scottish or Irish than English. The result is that New Zealanders of mixed English/Scottish/Irish ancestry tend to remember the Scottish bits and forget the English bits. That rule even applies in England to a lesser extent.
     
    And notice how the modern Scottish identity relies so heavily on the Highland mythos even though most Scots are Lowlanders whose ancestors may have even fought against the Highlanders? Without the romance of the Highlands, modern Scottish identity would be much more vanilla. I think that in some circumstances and certainly when you have other options, identifying as "English" is almost like declaring that you like white bread --not that there's anything really wrong with that or that I'm criticizing people who do so.

    As a counter-example, remember that many of the most famous pirates were English, from places like Bristol. How many people actually think to question why old-time pirates are always depicted as grinding their "r's" like that? It's a caricature, but it's of something that's just as "English" as Downton Abbey.

    The R grinding is usually a bad inpersonation of a West Country accent.

  144. Look at Bernie Sanders, Brooklyn Jew and Vermont Senator, if you need further evidence.

    Bernie Sanders is my second pick after Rand Paul. There is just no one else I can trust not to continue or even expand the security state and neo-con foreign policy.

  145. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @22pp22
    BBC bias has finally been called out. Any group of more than ten people contains oddballs. The BBC choose to focus on UKIP oddballs. They missed Greville Janner and friends for twenty years. The documentary was blatant interference in the electoral process as was a Channel 4 mockumentary screened earlier in the year.

    Ed Milliband was actually put in front of a hostile audience for the first time in his life and he looked utterly lost.

    The UKIP home site tries to get its revenge in against the incessant attacks by the media in the character of UKIP candidates.
    Some choice and juicy stories are there to be read.
    These include a Welsh Liberal councillor sentenced to 20 years in jail for planting car bombs. Another Liberal councillor ‘did bird’ for racially abusing a Pakistani shopkeeper. Numerous Labour councillors have been nobbled for paedophilia – for some strange reason -, and a good number of Labour and Tory people have been done for numerous cases of downloading child pornography or hardcore pornography on council computers.
    Add to this many cases of liblabcon theft, corruption, fraud etc.
    None of these stories ever break in the mainstream media, but a fool of a UKIP candidate making a silly remark about ‘sluts’ and cleaning behind refrigerators makes the national news, for some reason.

  146. UKIP is not “left economically”; certainly it is to the right of the Tories on every economic issue. The kind of working class people who supported them did so because, in general, they are also not “left economically”. In particular, they would be quite happy to see most people on benefits left to scrounge for foods in bins. UKIP do support socialised healthcare, which is a particular British quirk, but so do the Tories. (They are also monetarists so, compared to say, Ron Paul, are leftish in that sense). The bottom line is, however, that they are promising lower spending, lower taxes and lower business regulation than any other British political party.

    Lots of people have fantasies. In this section of the blogosphere some people fantasy about creating a leftish populist party that will sweep away the corrupt globalist consensus. Maybe you’ll get somewhere some day, but not with UKIP.

    • Replies: @leftist conservative
    you wrote:

    UKIP is not “left economically”; certainly it is to the right of the Tories on every economic issue.
     
    Wrong. And here is the proof:
    http://imgur.com/FqDuqmp

    The bottom line is, however, that they are promising lower spending, lower taxes and lower business regulation than any other British political party.

     

    Wrong. And here is the proof:
    http://imgur.com/FqDuqmp

    Lots of people have fantasies. In this section of the blogosphere some people fantasy about creating a leftish populist party that will sweep away the corrupt globalist consensus. Maybe you’ll get somewhere some day, but not with UKIP.

     

    Wrong. It is coming. A populist leftist white revolution is coming. We will overthrow the yoke of affirmative action and multiculturalism imposed on us from above, and we will oust the foriegn invaders, and we will cut off the military industrial complex and the correctional prison state complex, and at the same time we will build a strong welfare state and strong workers rights and benefits.

    It is coming. We will defeat your corporate overlords.

    The proof?
    http://imgur.com/FqDuqmp
  147. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    "Yes, but to put that another way–the more that the Left/Dems demonize whites and especially white males and/or the more the Left/Dems idolize nonwhites/gays, the more that the GOP can pander to the rich."

    This is very cynical I'm almost starting to think that both parties serve the interests of the rich in a complementary manner, but somewhat differently from how you state it. The Democrats support positions that weaken social institutions that typically provide stability and strength to the middle class, thus making the middle class less of a political obstacle to the wealthy, among other social policies that help the rich, while the Republicans pass tax cuts and support the wars that the rich want - both policies that Democrats couldn't vote for because they would be contradictory to the other platforms they supposedly stand for. This leaves us with a two-party system that serves the interests of the very rich while only giving lip service to the concerns of the other voters who make up the two parties.

    In fact, I'm almost starting to think that the primary people behind the push for Obamacare were those who run corporations, so that they would no longer have to deal with the costs or administrative responsibilities related to offering healthcare to employees, instead of the more noble goal of helping the uninsured or underinsured or reducing health care costs.

    This is very cynical I’m almost starting to think that both parties serve the interests of the rich in a complementary manner, but somewhat differently from how you state it.

    Welcome to the end of the road.

    There are many variations on the theme of exactly how it has got this way; mine is…

    if there are naturally occurring power-sociopaths who primarily crave power (and who mostly gravitate to the political “Left”) and money-sociopaths who primarily crave wealth (who mostly end up on the “Right”) what end result might suit both their desires?

    Moving towards a plantation economy (rich minority, poor majority with no middle) combined with democracy could potentially suit them both at least in the short term as the money-sociopaths get the cheap labor while the power-sociopaths get increasing electoral power.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    It's better than fighting WWIII.
  148. @Gabriel M
    UKIP is not "left economically"; certainly it is to the right of the Tories on every economic issue. The kind of working class people who supported them did so because, in general, they are also not "left economically". In particular, they would be quite happy to see most people on benefits left to scrounge for foods in bins. UKIP do support socialised healthcare, which is a particular British quirk, but so do the Tories. (They are also monetarists so, compared to say, Ron Paul, are leftish in that sense). The bottom line is, however, that they are promising lower spending, lower taxes and lower business regulation than any other British political party.

    Lots of people have fantasies. In this section of the blogosphere some people fantasy about creating a leftish populist party that will sweep away the corrupt globalist consensus. Maybe you'll get somewhere some day, but not with UKIP.

    you wrote:

    UKIP is not “left economically”; certainly it is to the right of the Tories on every economic issue.

    Wrong. And here is the proof:

    View post on imgur.com

    The bottom line is, however, that they are promising lower spending, lower taxes and lower business regulation than any other British political party.

    Wrong. And here is the proof:

    View post on imgur.com

    Lots of people have fantasies. In this section of the blogosphere some people fantasy about creating a leftish populist party that will sweep away the corrupt globalist consensus. Maybe you’ll get somewhere some day, but not with UKIP.

    Wrong. It is coming. A populist leftist white revolution is coming. We will overthrow the yoke of affirmative action and multiculturalism imposed on us from above, and we will oust the foriegn invaders, and we will cut off the military industrial complex and the correctional prison state complex, and at the same time we will build a strong welfare state and strong workers rights and benefits.

    It is coming. We will defeat your corporate overlords.

    The proof?

    View post on imgur.com

    • Replies: @Gabriel M
    I dealt with your proof: UKIP support socialised healthcare as does every political party in Britain. They want austerity to exclude the NHS, as does every other political party in Britain.

    The fact is that they promise lower spending, taxes and regulation than every other political party. They have a manifesto, read it.
  149. @anon

    This is very cynical I’m almost starting to think that both parties serve the interests of the rich in a complementary manner, but somewhat differently from how you state it.
     
    Welcome to the end of the road.

    There are many variations on the theme of exactly how it has got this way; mine is...

    if there are naturally occurring power-sociopaths who primarily crave power (and who mostly gravitate to the political "Left") and money-sociopaths who primarily crave wealth (who mostly end up on the "Right") what end result might suit both their desires?

    Moving towards a plantation economy (rich minority, poor majority with no middle) combined with democracy could potentially suit them both at least in the short term as the money-sociopaths get the cheap labor while the power-sociopaths get increasing electoral power.

    It’s better than fighting WWIII.

  150. @leftist conservative

    Yeah, I guess that is why the founders went behind the back of the populace and created a federal government where there was none before.

    Better than the Articles of Confederation, dear fellow

    Ah, minority of the opulent.

    They always rule, dear fellow.The pressing question is how patriotic they are.At present, not at all.
     
    Do be a good lad and fetch us some Grey Poupon

    Do be a good lad and fetch us some Grey Poupon

    “Grey Poupon ?” Strictly NOCD

  151. @IBC

    There has been so much intermarriage over the generations that identity is sometimes a matter of choice. Gerry Adams, leader of Sinn Fein, is descended from one of Cromwell’s generals. Religious differences played a role in keeping Brits and Irish separate, but if you dig deep enough alot of us have Irish ancestry.
     
    Good point, but the converse can also be true. For example, I was amused to learn that only one member of the band U2, is an actual Irish Catholic. Bono was raised as an Anglican and even shares his last name (Hewson) with one of Cromwell's officers who participated in the infamous Siege of Drogheda and who also signed the death warrant for King Charles --a Catholic to whom the native Irish were at least nominally loyal. However, Bono's father was also a Catholic and may have no connection with John Hewson, the Puritan regicide. The two other members of the band, Adam Clayton and the Edge, were both born in England and don't appear to be of Irish descent, though they did grow up in Ireland and identify with it today. I'm not trying to detract from Irish artistic achievement or to foment religious rivalry, it's just that those aren't the biographies that I would have expected.

    It is far funkier to be Scottish or Irish than English. The result is that New Zealanders of mixed English/Scottish/Irish ancestry tend to remember the Scottish bits and forget the English bits. That rule even applies in England to a lesser extent.
     
    And notice how the modern Scottish identity relies so heavily on the Highland mythos even though most Scots are Lowlanders whose ancestors may have even fought against the Highlanders? Without the romance of the Highlands, modern Scottish identity would be much more vanilla. I think that in some circumstances and certainly when you have other options, identifying as "English" is almost like declaring that you like white bread --not that there's anything really wrong with that or that I'm criticizing people who do so.

    As a counter-example, remember that many of the most famous pirates were English, from places like Bristol. How many people actually think to question why old-time pirates are always depicted as grinding their "r's" like that? It's a caricature, but it's of something that's just as "English" as Downton Abbey.

    Fascinating about U2 members.

    John, Paul, and George were Irish Catholics born and raised in Britain. Dunno about Ringo.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    John, Paul, and George were Irish Catholics born and raised in Britain. Dunno about Ringo.

     

    More like half-Irish. Better yet, "just Irish enough". Like baby bear's porridge.

    Richard Starkey is of predominantly English stock. But no one in that part of the world is pure.
    , @James Kabala
    I believe Lennon was actually raised Anglican by his uncle and aunt. His mother and aunt were surnamed Stanley, which hints at an interesting possible distant connection with the Earls of Derby (who despite their title have always been based in the Liverpool area).
  152. @Art Deco
    Separation of powers with federalism is on the books in Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico. The position of the judiciary is likely unique.

    Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico – our peers among the nations.

    Well they will be, soon enough.

  153. @22pp22
    There has been so much intermarriage over the generations that identity is sometimes a matter of choice. Gerry Adams, leader of Sinn Fein, is descended from one of Cromwell's generals. Religious differences played a role in keeping Brits and Irish separate, but if you dig deep enough alot of us have Irish ancestry.

    It is far funkier to be Scottish or Irish than English. The result is that New Zealanders of mixed English/Scottish/Irish ancestry tend to remember the Scottish bits and forget the English bits. That rule even applies in England to a lesser extent.

    I am an English New Zealander and I am always delighted when Scotland loses in rugby - in spite on Scottish ancestry on both sides of my family. If I were American, I would probably call myself Irish.

    The commander of the Provisional IRA between 1969 and 1972 had no Irish Catholic ancestry at all, as far as I can tell. Only one of his grandparents was Irish and she was an Ulster Protestant. He was born and raised in London and did his national service in the RAF. He joined Sinn Fein and the IRA in London in the early 1950s and took part in raids on British armouries in Britain. Only afterwards did he move to Ireland, where Gailicised his name from John Stephenson to Sean Mac Stiofain.

  154. “Ivy says:

    De Gaulle is a fascinating historical figure and was generally emblematic of France along with the Eiffel Tower. He was critical to France’s WWII success,………………..”

    What success? They were beaten and occupied, and then only liberated by foreigners.

    • Replies: @Ivy
    They would've been even further wiped out without a rallying figure, with less cohesion or effectiveness among the Resistance. De Gaulle also helped them recover after the war, during their Trentes Glorieuses. Recall that they were dealing with a country that had lost a significant portion of one generation of young men in WWI (similar to their allies the English, among others), and then faced a lot of further war on their soil. No doubt that the allied forces saved them, but it wasn't all or nothing.
  155. @PV van der Byl
    Fascinating about U2 members.

    John, Paul, and George were Irish Catholics born and raised in Britain. Dunno about Ringo.

    John, Paul, and George were Irish Catholics born and raised in Britain. Dunno about Ringo.

    More like half-Irish. Better yet, “just Irish enough”. Like baby bear’s porridge.

    Richard Starkey is of predominantly English stock. But no one in that part of the world is pure.

  156. @Yo ho ho
    Regarding UKIP's electoral under-performace, this BBC documentary possibly played a role:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fSbpNh9fDY

    Certainly, if I lived in Thanet I'd be furious at Farage and his circus for turning my community into a national laughing-stock.

    I wonder how many UKIP supporters watched this and decided the Tories would be a safer choice.

    But not furious at the BBC for the stunt?

  157. I believe that The Pogues, famously an Irish band – at one stage contained no members born in Ireland.

    Going back a few years Big Country, famously a Scottish band – also at one stage contained no members born in Scotland.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    All four members of Badfinger (at their peak) were Welsh by ancestry, but two were native to Liverpool.

    I was shocked to learn recently that the Irish Rovers were actually Canadian. But I always knew the source of "The Unicorn", because I had the Shel Silverstein original on his LP.
    , @Anonymous Nephew
    Shane McGowan, Pogues frontman, was in the same year at (expensive) Westminster School as the former (as of last Thursday) Deputy PM Nick Clegg.
  158. @Steve Sailer
    British parliamentary candidates are routinely assigned by their parties to seats where they don't live. It's always been like that.

    In contrast, Bernie Sanders has lived in Vermont for close to a half-century. Similarly, Howard Dean of Park Avenue originally had lived in Vermont for 30 or 40 years by 2004, just as Ronald Reagan had lived in California since the 1930s.

    The problem is if you want to get anywhere you need to be in a winnable or safe seat. Most parliamentary hopefuls have to pay their dues at least once by standing in a forlorn, no hope constituency for their party.

    The local party does have some say though, just blatantly parachuting in an outsider is frowned upon, I think more so amongst the Tories than Labour.

    Of course being local does give one an advantage electorally – my local (Tory) MP is from only a few miles outside the constituency and has lived within it for years now. He’s very tight with the local party members, often turns out to vote in local elections and goes to the vote count for these local elections to mix with the party members. As a result his support amongst local party members is pretty unassailable.

  159. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @IBC

    There has been so much intermarriage over the generations that identity is sometimes a matter of choice. Gerry Adams, leader of Sinn Fein, is descended from one of Cromwell’s generals. Religious differences played a role in keeping Brits and Irish separate, but if you dig deep enough alot of us have Irish ancestry.
     
    Good point, but the converse can also be true. For example, I was amused to learn that only one member of the band U2, is an actual Irish Catholic. Bono was raised as an Anglican and even shares his last name (Hewson) with one of Cromwell's officers who participated in the infamous Siege of Drogheda and who also signed the death warrant for King Charles --a Catholic to whom the native Irish were at least nominally loyal. However, Bono's father was also a Catholic and may have no connection with John Hewson, the Puritan regicide. The two other members of the band, Adam Clayton and the Edge, were both born in England and don't appear to be of Irish descent, though they did grow up in Ireland and identify with it today. I'm not trying to detract from Irish artistic achievement or to foment religious rivalry, it's just that those aren't the biographies that I would have expected.

    It is far funkier to be Scottish or Irish than English. The result is that New Zealanders of mixed English/Scottish/Irish ancestry tend to remember the Scottish bits and forget the English bits. That rule even applies in England to a lesser extent.
     
    And notice how the modern Scottish identity relies so heavily on the Highland mythos even though most Scots are Lowlanders whose ancestors may have even fought against the Highlanders? Without the romance of the Highlands, modern Scottish identity would be much more vanilla. I think that in some circumstances and certainly when you have other options, identifying as "English" is almost like declaring that you like white bread --not that there's anything really wrong with that or that I'm criticizing people who do so.

    As a counter-example, remember that many of the most famous pirates were English, from places like Bristol. How many people actually think to question why old-time pirates are always depicted as grinding their "r's" like that? It's a caricature, but it's of something that's just as "English" as Downton Abbey.

    And notice how the modern Scottish identity relies so heavily on the Highland mythos even though most Scots are Lowlanders whose ancestors may have even fought against the Highlanders?

    And this mythos, especially and specifically the tartan kilt, is due in turn to one of the most famous Lowlanders: Sir Walter Scott. King George IV was visiting Edinburgh, maybe the first time the King had come North since Bonnie Prince Charlie and the Jacobite uprising?, and Scott worked overtime to unify Scotland ahead of the visit around a common symbol. This would be like if everyone in some Southern state adopted the mullet ahead of a Presidential visit.

    There is actually a statue of King George wearing the tartan somewhere in Edinburgh.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Sir Walter Scott is one of the most important figures since 1800. He was an extremely reasonable lawyer who figured out rationally how to get everybody else very emotional.
  160. @Lurker
    I believe that The Pogues, famously an Irish band - at one stage contained no members born in Ireland.

    Going back a few years Big Country, famously a Scottish band - also at one stage contained no members born in Scotland.

    All four members of Badfinger (at their peak) were Welsh by ancestry, but two were native to Liverpool.

    I was shocked to learn recently that the Irish Rovers were actually Canadian. But I always knew the source of “The Unicorn”, because I had the Shel Silverstein original on his LP.

  161. @Anonymous Nephew
    "I’m fairly convinced he’d dump immigrationism in a heartbeat if was a vote loser."

    I'm totally convinced Boris would dump the entire UK in a heartbeat if he thought it would be good for Boris. Entertaining, bright, witty, good company, totally unprincipled.

    "I wouldn't trust him with my wife or my wallet" said Max Hastings.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2215342/If-Boris-Johnson-Prime-Minister-Im-plane-Britain-says-Max-Hastings.html

    (But then you might have said the same about David Lloyd George, Britain's WW1 Prime Minister.)

    Immigrationism is a vote loser. But as long as both major parties maintain their immigrationism they can’t be punished.

    That to me was the point of UKIP, if they could make enough headway, get even a small group of MPs then anti-immigrationism would be ‘in play’.

  162. @Anonymous
    And notice how the modern Scottish identity relies so heavily on the Highland mythos even though most Scots are Lowlanders whose ancestors may have even fought against the Highlanders?

    And this mythos, especially and specifically the tartan kilt, is due in turn to one of the most famous Lowlanders: Sir Walter Scott. King George IV was visiting Edinburgh, maybe the first time the King had come North since Bonnie Prince Charlie and the Jacobite uprising?, and Scott worked overtime to unify Scotland ahead of the visit around a common symbol. This would be like if everyone in some Southern state adopted the mullet ahead of a Presidential visit.

    There is actually a statue of King George wearing the tartan somewhere in Edinburgh.

    Sir Walter Scott is one of the most important figures since 1800. He was an extremely reasonable lawyer who figured out rationally how to get everybody else very emotional.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Yes. He was quite simply a genius. In addition to his legal practice, and his novels—Edinburgh named its train station Waverley in homage to his work—he also designed and built his home at Abbotsford overlooking the Tweed.
    , @IBC
    Jokingly, Mark Twain even blamed Scott for starting the Civil War.
  163. @Steve Sailer
    Sir Walter Scott is one of the most important figures since 1800. He was an extremely reasonable lawyer who figured out rationally how to get everybody else very emotional.

    Yes. He was quite simply a genius. In addition to his legal practice, and his novels—Edinburgh named its train station Waverley in homage to his work—he also designed and built his home at Abbotsford overlooking the Tweed.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    I was reading an article about some pioneering Big Data analysis of English literature that looked at re-use of small phrases of words. They wanted to test their program by proving that Shakespeare was the most influential writer ever. But they wound up with the program saying the most influential writers are Jane Austen and Sir Walter Scott.

    Charles Murray's methodology comes out with Scott in the top ten most eminent writers in any language.

  164. @Ezra
    Actually, the text of the article was about as iSteve-ish as you could possibly want. In the writers opinion, Labour's appeal to working class unity got crushed by the greater appeal of nationalism in Scotland and discomfort with immigration in northern England. Lesson: Labour either needs to be a Blair-ite yuppie party or figure out how to address immigration.

    Some editor in New York couldn't grok this off-message point and wrote a headline as if the story fit the Narrative.

    Americans should notice the difference between the Tories and the GOP. The Conservatives are an organized political party who are looking to exploit the contradictions of the left in order to win elections. The Republicans are a shell for a corrupt gang who are trying to put as much money into their own pockets before they get chased out of town. The only brake on their subservience to billionaires and financiers is the need to be plausible challengers to the Democrats. The GOP will respond to any weaknesses on the left by larding even more unpopular and destructive favors on their paymasters. If Hilary Clinton emerges on the campaign trail healthy and focused on moderate quality of life issues, the Republicans will have to respond in kind sufficient to lose 51-49. If Hil declares herself a Marxist-Leninist and is obviously suffering from dementia, Marco Rubio will declare himself in favor of negative capital gains taxes paid for by cancelling Medicare and lose 51-49.

    “The Republicans are a shell for a corrupt gang who are trying to put as much money into their own pockets before they get chased out of town. The only brake on their subservience to billionaires and financiers is the need to be plausible challengers to the Democrats. The GOP will respond to any weaknesses on the left by larding even more unpopular and destructive favors on their paymasters. If Hilary Clinton emerges on the campaign trail healthy and focused on moderate quality of life issues, the Republicans will have to respond in kind sufficient to lose 51-49. If Hil declares herself a Marxist-Leninist and is obviously suffering from dementia, Marco Rubio will declare himself in favor of negative capital gains taxes paid for by cancelling Medicare and lose 51-49.”

    This is just about the best analysis of the GOP’s nature, that I have ever come across.

  165. @leftist conservative
    you wrote:

    The GOP will respond to any weaknesses on the left by larding even more unpopular and destructive favors on their paymasters.

     

    Yes, but to put that another way--the more that the Left/Dems demonize whites and especially white males and/or the more the Left/Dems idolize nonwhites/gays, the more that the GOP can pander to the rich.

    The driving dynamic is Dem/Left demonization of the whites/idolization of the nonwhites/immigrants. Thus the Dems/Left determine how much the GOP can pander to the rich.
    As Dem demonization/idolization increases-->GOP pandering increases.

    If Jim Webb were to get the Dem nomination, what with his already expressed distaste for demonization of white males, he could destroy this established (and destructive) dynamic. He could represent a paradigm shift.

    “If Jim Webb were to get the Dem nomination, what with his already expressed distaste for demonization of white males, he could destroy this established (and destructive) dynamic. He could represent a paradigm shift.”

    That’s about the only plausible scenario by which America begins the process of national revitalization via electoral means. Its feels a little weird switching my registration to Democrat, but Jim Webb is worth it.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    That’s about the only plausible scenario by which America begins the process of national revitalization via electoral means. Its feels a little weird switching my registration to Democrat, but Jim Webb is worth it.

    My ideal scenario is the Republican nominee doubling down on the American core and asking Webb if he'd accept the VP nomination. Who knows if Webb would accept; Walker is probably the only candidate whose policy positions would make it remotely plausible. But, apart from the simple joy of watching leftists suffer a collective stroke, a ticket like that would actually, finally embody a middle-class counter-punch against the hi-lo game that Steve has been writing about for the last 5-10 years.
  166. @Anonymous
    Yes. He was quite simply a genius. In addition to his legal practice, and his novels—Edinburgh named its train station Waverley in homage to his work—he also designed and built his home at Abbotsford overlooking the Tweed.

    I was reading an article about some pioneering Big Data analysis of English literature that looked at re-use of small phrases of words. They wanted to test their program by proving that Shakespeare was the most influential writer ever. But they wound up with the program saying the most influential writers are Jane Austen and Sir Walter Scott.

    Charles Murray’s methodology comes out with Scott in the top ten most eminent writers in any language.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    Charles Murray*’s methodology comes out with Scott in the top ten most eminent writers in any language.
     
    Scott comes out at number 19 in Murray's list for Western Lit (Human Accomplishment, 142).Frankly, the Anglo figures in Murray's list are a bit....odd: Shakespeare (number 1, of course), Byron (9), and Scott (19). This means that Byron trumps, for example, Milton, Pope, Keats, Wordsworth, Shelley, Coleridge, Tennyson, Eliot, Frost, Dickinson, etc, while Scott beats out Dickens, Melville, Henry James, Thackeray, Hawthorne, Hardy, Joyce, Woolf, Faulkner, etc.

    If we were simply talking about artistic excellence, I really can't see very many native English speaking critics claiming that Byron is a better poet than Milton or that Scott is a better novelist than Henry James.

    However, if we are talking in terms of artistic influence, then the high standing accorded to both Scott and Byron makes a good deal of sense. Byron, after all, enjoys the glorious triumph that comes from having one's name become an adjective: Byronic.And Scott was, when all is said and done, perhaps the single most influential novelist of the 19th century.You can see the impact of his work in such disparate authors as Tolstoy, Hawthorne, Thackeray, Hardy, etc


    *Also worth pointing out that Murray was worried about linguistic bias when it came to ranking writers.Painters and composers all work with the same materials, but writers work their art upon a less universal substance.Bearing this in mind, he made a point of evaluating authors using sources that were not written in the same language that the authors used.E.g., Scott's ranking was derived from sources that were not written in English.In the main, this is a commendable policy, but I think that it does have certain distorting effects.Byron, for example, seems to be more highly esteemed outside the Anglosphere than he is within it.
    , @Anonymous
    Looks like the guy has published a book on the subject:

    Matthew Jockers, Macroanalysis: Digital Methods and Literary History
    http://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/catalog/88wba3wn9780252037528.html

    The creation of enormous and inclusive databases, the digitization of literary works, and the steady improvement in search engines enable scholars in the digital humanities to ask very big questions. Using computational analysis to retrieve key words, phrases, and linguistic patterns across thousands of texts in digital libraries, researchers can draw conclusions based on quantifiable evidence regarding how literary trends are employed over time, across periods, within regions, or within demographic groups, as well as how cultural, historical, and societal linkages may bind individual authors, texts, and genres into an aggregate literary culture.

    In this volume, Matthew L. Jockers introduces readers to large-scale literary computing and the revolutionary potential of macroanalysis--a new approach to the study of the literary record designed for probing the digital-textual world as it exists today, in digital form and in large quantities. Moving beyond the limitations of literary interpretation based on the "close-reading" of individual works, Jockers describes how this new method of studying large collections of digital material can help us to better understand and contextualize the individual works within those collections.
     
  167. @Art Deco
    In lieu of 1st past the post you could implement ordinal balloting with tallies conducted according to the conventions of the alternate vote. Donald Horowitz old articles on alternatives for South Africa would be instructive. In each constituency, you rank-order your choices. They tally the first preference votes; then the ballots of candidates failing to meet a threshold are redistributed to their highest subsequent preference and the tally re-calculated. At that point, the trailing candidate is eliminated and his ballots re-distributed each to the highest subsequent preference. Rinse, repeat, until there are two candidates left and the one with the highest tally wins.

    “In each constituency, you rank-order your choices. They tally the first preference votes; then the ballots of candidates failing to meet a threshold are redistributed to their highest subsequent preference and the tally re-calculated. At that point, the trailing candidate is eliminated and his ballots re-distributed each to the highest subsequent preference. Rinse, repeat, until there are two candidates left and the one with the highest tally wins.”

    That’s also how the mayoral elections in San Francisco, Oakland, and Minneapolis, are conducted.

  168. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Kevin O'Keeffe
    "If Jim Webb were to get the Dem nomination, what with his already expressed distaste for demonization of white males, he could destroy this established (and destructive) dynamic. He could represent a paradigm shift."

    That's about the only plausible scenario by which America begins the process of national revitalization via electoral means. Its feels a little weird switching my registration to Democrat, but Jim Webb is worth it.

    That’s about the only plausible scenario by which America begins the process of national revitalization via electoral means. Its feels a little weird switching my registration to Democrat, but Jim Webb is worth it.

    My ideal scenario is the Republican nominee doubling down on the American core and asking Webb if he’d accept the VP nomination. Who knows if Webb would accept; Walker is probably the only candidate whose policy positions would make it remotely plausible. But, apart from the simple joy of watching leftists suffer a collective stroke, a ticket like that would actually, finally embody a middle-class counter-punch against the hi-lo game that Steve has been writing about for the last 5-10 years.

    • Replies: @Kevin O'Keeffe
    "My ideal scenario is the Republican nominee doubling down on the American core and asking Webb if he’d accept the VP nomination. Who knows if Webb would accept; Walker is probably the only candidate whose policy positions would make it remotely plausible. But, apart from the simple joy of watching leftists suffer a collective stroke, a ticket like that would actually, finally embody a middle-class counter-punch against the hi-lo game that Steve has been writing about for the last 5-10 years."

    An interesting scenario, but if we're going to go somewhat far-fetched, why not make it a Sessions/Webb ticket? The Republicans actually have a shot at a deadlocked national convention, so the nominee might actually be someone who didn't run in the primaries.

    Is Senator Sessions sound on foreign policy, I wonder?
  169. @leftist conservative
    you wrote:

    UKIP is not “left economically”; certainly it is to the right of the Tories on every economic issue.
     
    Wrong. And here is the proof:
    http://imgur.com/FqDuqmp

    The bottom line is, however, that they are promising lower spending, lower taxes and lower business regulation than any other British political party.

     

    Wrong. And here is the proof:
    http://imgur.com/FqDuqmp

    Lots of people have fantasies. In this section of the blogosphere some people fantasy about creating a leftish populist party that will sweep away the corrupt globalist consensus. Maybe you’ll get somewhere some day, but not with UKIP.

     

    Wrong. It is coming. A populist leftist white revolution is coming. We will overthrow the yoke of affirmative action and multiculturalism imposed on us from above, and we will oust the foriegn invaders, and we will cut off the military industrial complex and the correctional prison state complex, and at the same time we will build a strong welfare state and strong workers rights and benefits.

    It is coming. We will defeat your corporate overlords.

    The proof?
    http://imgur.com/FqDuqmp

    I dealt with your proof: UKIP support socialised healthcare as does every political party in Britain. They want austerity to exclude the NHS, as does every other political party in Britain.

    The fact is that they promise lower spending, taxes and regulation than every other political party. They have a manifesto, read it.

  170. @Mr. Anon
    "Ivy says:

    De Gaulle is a fascinating historical figure and was generally emblematic of France along with the Eiffel Tower. He was critical to France’s WWII success,...................."

    What success? They were beaten and occupied, and then only liberated by foreigners.

    They would’ve been even further wiped out without a rallying figure, with less cohesion or effectiveness among the Resistance. De Gaulle also helped them recover after the war, during their Trentes Glorieuses. Recall that they were dealing with a country that had lost a significant portion of one generation of young men in WWI (similar to their allies the English, among others), and then faced a lot of further war on their soil. No doubt that the allied forces saved them, but it wasn’t all or nothing.

  171. fnn says:

    A worthless pseudo-reform:

    http://www.futurity.org/ranked-choice-voting-does-the-math-add-up/

    Opponents point out that voters whose choices are repeatedly eliminated effectively get to vote several times, and moreover the process gives equal value to a person’s third-place ranking of a candidate and someone else’s top-choice vote.

    But, Devlin points out, there are other problems. “For example, with ranked-choice voting, you can get a winner who is the first choice of only a relatively small minority of the voters.

    “Undesirable outcomes such as this can arise,” he explains, “because the candidates are eliminated and their votes reassigned one after another, and the order in which that happens can make a huge difference.

    “A shift of a large block of votes in an early round can eliminate a candidate who would have gone on to win had she survived until a later round and then picked up more votes to boost her tally.”

    Devlin’s example is not a just theoretical possibility. In the 2010 race for supervisor in San Francisco’s District 10, the eventual winner received just 11.8 percent of the first-place votes, ultimately edging out the candidate who had the most first-place votes, according to reports in the San Francisco Chronicle.

    http://www.electology.org/#!tactical-voting/coiw

    Instant Runoff Voting/Ranked Choice Voting
    IRV is a ranked voting method. Proponents of IRV commonly claim that it is highly resistant to tactical behavior. Our extensive analysis finds quite the opposite. IRV fails the Favorite Betrayal Criterion, meaning it can punish voters for sincerely ranking their favorite candidate in first place. This incentivizes a type of exaggeration which causes it to degenerate approximately into ordinary Plurality Voting (aka First Past the Post). Moreover, naive voter exaggeration means that voters commonly utilize this strategy, without even being aware of the mathematical basis for it.

  172. @Steve Sailer
    I was reading an article about some pioneering Big Data analysis of English literature that looked at re-use of small phrases of words. They wanted to test their program by proving that Shakespeare was the most influential writer ever. But they wound up with the program saying the most influential writers are Jane Austen and Sir Walter Scott.

    Charles Murray's methodology comes out with Scott in the top ten most eminent writers in any language.

    Charles Murray*’s methodology comes out with Scott in the top ten most eminent writers in any language.

    Scott comes out at number 19 in Murray’s list for Western Lit (Human Accomplishment, 142).Frankly, the Anglo figures in Murray’s list are a bit….odd: Shakespeare (number 1, of course), Byron (9), and Scott (19). This means that Byron trumps, for example, Milton, Pope, Keats, Wordsworth, Shelley, Coleridge, Tennyson, Eliot, Frost, Dickinson, etc, while Scott beats out Dickens, Melville, Henry James, Thackeray, Hawthorne, Hardy, Joyce, Woolf, Faulkner, etc.

    If we were simply talking about artistic excellence, I really can’t see very many native English speaking critics claiming that Byron is a better poet than Milton or that Scott is a better novelist than Henry James.

    However, if we are talking in terms of artistic influence, then the high standing accorded to both Scott and Byron makes a good deal of sense. Byron, after all, enjoys the glorious triumph that comes from having one’s name become an adjective: Byronic.And Scott was, when all is said and done, perhaps the single most influential novelist of the 19th century.You can see the impact of his work in such disparate authors as Tolstoy, Hawthorne, Thackeray, Hardy, etc

    *Also worth pointing out that Murray was worried about linguistic bias when it came to ranking writers.Painters and composers all work with the same materials, but writers work their art upon a less universal substance.Bearing this in mind, he made a point of evaluating authors using sources that were not written in the same language that the authors used.E.g., Scott’s ranking was derived from sources that were not written in English.In the main, this is a commendable policy, but I think that it does have certain distorting effects.Byron, for example, seems to be more highly esteemed outside the Anglosphere than he is within it.

  173. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer
    I was reading an article about some pioneering Big Data analysis of English literature that looked at re-use of small phrases of words. They wanted to test their program by proving that Shakespeare was the most influential writer ever. But they wound up with the program saying the most influential writers are Jane Austen and Sir Walter Scott.

    Charles Murray's methodology comes out with Scott in the top ten most eminent writers in any language.

    Looks like the guy has published a book on the subject:

    Matthew Jockers, Macroanalysis: Digital Methods and Literary History
    http://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/catalog/88wba3wn9780252037528.html

    The creation of enormous and inclusive databases, the digitization of literary works, and the steady improvement in search engines enable scholars in the digital humanities to ask very big questions. Using computational analysis to retrieve key words, phrases, and linguistic patterns across thousands of texts in digital libraries, researchers can draw conclusions based on quantifiable evidence regarding how literary trends are employed over time, across periods, within regions, or within demographic groups, as well as how cultural, historical, and societal linkages may bind individual authors, texts, and genres into an aggregate literary culture.

    In this volume, Matthew L. Jockers introduces readers to large-scale literary computing and the revolutionary potential of macroanalysis–a new approach to the study of the literary record designed for probing the digital-textual world as it exists today, in digital form and in large quantities. Moving beyond the limitations of literary interpretation based on the “close-reading” of individual works, Jockers describes how this new method of studying large collections of digital material can help us to better understand and contextualize the individual works within those collections.

  174. @PV van der Byl
    Fascinating about U2 members.

    John, Paul, and George were Irish Catholics born and raised in Britain. Dunno about Ringo.

    I believe Lennon was actually raised Anglican by his uncle and aunt. His mother and aunt were surnamed Stanley, which hints at an interesting possible distant connection with the Earls of Derby (who despite their title have always been based in the Liverpool area).

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    I think most people would agree that Lennon and Mc Cartney are recognizably Irish names.
  175. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The Labour Party knows full well that immigrationism is an extremely unpopular policy with the British electorate, to the extent that it mist likely cost them the last two elections, and might very well, ultimately, cast them into political oblivion, at least for a generation.
    Make no mistake, Labour high command does an enormous amount of polling and research.
    So, it’s fair to say that immigrationism will be ditched and repudiated by Labour in the near future.
    Political careers depend on it – that’s the ultimate motivation.

  176. @Lurker
    I believe that The Pogues, famously an Irish band - at one stage contained no members born in Ireland.

    Going back a few years Big Country, famously a Scottish band - also at one stage contained no members born in Scotland.

    Shane McGowan, Pogues frontman, was in the same year at (expensive) Westminster School as the former (as of last Thursday) Deputy PM Nick Clegg.

    • Replies: @Lurker
    It's indisputable that Nick has better teeth.
  177. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Immigrationism was pushed by New Labour for purely ideological and ideological reasons alone.
    Absolutely no serious academic study could identify even the most barely significant economic benefit accruing to the existing British population from immigrationsim. New Labour must have been aware of that fact, and if not they were mosquito brained idiots unfit to govern.
    It is for that reason I’ve got a strong belief that the next Labour leader will repudiate immigrationism in startling terms.
    The personal cost in smashed political careers – after all political careers are what politics is all about, and not policies or representation – is just simply too high to pay, to defense what is, after all, a purely idealistic and non essential political policy.

  178. @Steve Sailer
    Sir Walter Scott is one of the most important figures since 1800. He was an extremely reasonable lawyer who figured out rationally how to get everybody else very emotional.

    Jokingly, Mark Twain even blamed Scott for starting the Civil War.

  179. @anon

    The gentry left hates the white working class, and the white working class know it.
     
    Yes, they really do - quite odd really. I can think of various logical reasons for how the gentry left are behaving as well but at the end of the day there does seem to be a distinct element of simple hatred.

    I don't think the bulk of the working class did realize it until recently though and even now it is still an ongoing process but yes it's happening.

    My current theory is it's from being bullied at school by early puberty blue collar kids but only because I can't think of anything else.

    It seems to be part of modern electoral strategy for party leaders to display uncalled-for rudeness towards their traditional supporters. Blair, Brown and Cameron have all been guilty of it, and leaks strongly suggest that the contempt is genuine. The graphic towards the end of this item http://tinyurl.com/p277arw indicates that UKIP poached upper blue collar votes from Labour and lower white collar votes from the Tories – exactly the groups the respective leaderships went out of their way to disparage.

    Cameron’s rudeness is no great mystery. His family background is old money, not far short of upper class, he is plainly tone deaf to the nuances which distinguish one segment of the little people from another, and he does not know who his core voters are.

    Labour attitudes to the working class have changed a lot in my lifetime in a way which is harder to explain. Thirty years ago they were the party of the thick and they knew it. Student opinion in my day was riven by the miners’ strike of 1984, which was all about IQ. Left wing students hated the Conservatives for their willingness to treat uneducated people as enemies, while the Thatcher youth wanted revenge on the left for using stupid, ignorant people to humiliate them.

    The miners were defeated and still Labour could not muster enough working class votes to win an election. The Blairite generation seem to have persuaded themselves that the proles, deceived by the tabloid newspapers, are too dim to see through Conservative propaganda. They increasingly started sneering that the working classes are right wing, and framing conservative opinions as a mark of stupidity. Data on the educational status of conservative voters show this to be quite untrue, but the left have always been good at believing their own nonsense. I find it a pity that many right wing commentators have come to believe it too.

  180. I’m not sure about the idea that the miner’s strike was all about IQ.

    The working class used to be very powerful, because it (via the unions) controlled heavy industry, transportation, energy production, and could shut down the entire country on a whim. This came to an end in the 1980s, for several reasons, not all to do with Thatcher and the Tories.

    In other words, The Revolution wasn’t going to come out out of the working class. It would have to be sought elsewhere.

  181. @Anonymous
    The irony is that 'Sean Connery' is a quintessential Irish name.
    Yes, I know the Scots came from Ireland and all that.

    Glasgow is full of Irish Catholics. So is Liverpool, the only majority Catholic city in England. There are many Irish immigrants in London.

  182. @leftist conservative
    you wrote:

    2.The American system is designed not to function very well.The Founders had a dislike for the smack of firm government.

     

    Yeah, I guess that is why the founders went behind the back of the populace and created a federal government where there was none before.

    As for how the american gov't was designed and for what purpose, let us see what James "The Father of the Constitution" Madison had to say about that:


    In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.

     

    Ah, minority of the opulent. Like Madison, who inherited 100 mill in today's dollars. Yes, the founding plutocrats did indeed cripple democracy via the creation of a deliberately gridlocked and undemocratic system. And in fact today that same system allows the elite to flood the labor supply via mass immigration and affirmative action. How do you feel about that?

    “Extend the sphere and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength and to act in unions with each other.”

     

    In other words, make it impossible for the majority to govern. Like, um, the white majority of america today.

    Federalist 10 : “...the most common and durable source of factions has been the...unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society.”
     
    There we go. The USA fedgov structure was always about letting the rich people stay rich and get richer. And that same govt allows the rich to control the govt and import millions of third worlders and give them the jobs and college admissions that should go to more deserving whites, the better to flood the labor supply, depress wages, drive up housing prices, increase corporate profits and revenues, all while destroying the cultural fabric of America. And thanks to the inherently undemocratic structure of FedGov, the "faction of the majority" can do nothing about it.

    How do you feel about that?

    “Like Madison, who inherited 100 mill in today’s dollars.”

    I realize there’s been a lot of inflation since then, but do you have him confused with Washington, Haym Solomon, or Robert Morris?

  183. @whorefinder

    For example, I was amused to learn that only one member of the band U2, is an actual Irish Catholic. Bono was raised as an Anglican and even shares his last name (Hewson) with one of Cromwell’s officers who participated in the infamous Siege of Drogheda and who also signed the death warrant for King Charles –a Catholic to whom the native Irish were at least nominally loyal. However, Bono’s father was also a Catholic and may have no connection with John Hewson, the Puritan regicide. The two other members of the band, Adam Clayton and the Edge, were both born in England and don’t appear to be of Irish descent, though they did grow up in Ireland and identify with it today. I’m not trying to detract from Irish artistic achievement or to foment religious rivalry, it’s just that those aren’t the biographies that I would have expected.
     
    A dirty (clean?) little secret about U2 is that Bono and co. originally wanted it to be a straight Christian rock band.

    Bono was and probably still is very religious and evangelical, and all but one of the members (forgot which one) were pretty strident in their religion. But they decided that they wouldn't get very far and have limited appeal, and so agreed that they would make their Christian more subtle than the average Christian rock band. If you listen to their music as if it were coded Christian evangelical talk, suddenly a lot of the references are explained and mystery go away.

    I think the fight really was that one member (again, forgot which one, but not Bono) really wanted to start "living the rock star lifestyle" while the others were appalled at such debauchery. They compromised somehow, although it's never really been explained.

    What about Bono’s adolescent girlfriends?

  184. @James Kabala
    I believe Lennon was actually raised Anglican by his uncle and aunt. His mother and aunt were surnamed Stanley, which hints at an interesting possible distant connection with the Earls of Derby (who despite their title have always been based in the Liverpool area).

    I think most people would agree that Lennon and Mc Cartney are recognizably Irish names.

  185. @Anonymous
    That’s about the only plausible scenario by which America begins the process of national revitalization via electoral means. Its feels a little weird switching my registration to Democrat, but Jim Webb is worth it.

    My ideal scenario is the Republican nominee doubling down on the American core and asking Webb if he'd accept the VP nomination. Who knows if Webb would accept; Walker is probably the only candidate whose policy positions would make it remotely plausible. But, apart from the simple joy of watching leftists suffer a collective stroke, a ticket like that would actually, finally embody a middle-class counter-punch against the hi-lo game that Steve has been writing about for the last 5-10 years.

    “My ideal scenario is the Republican nominee doubling down on the American core and asking Webb if he’d accept the VP nomination. Who knows if Webb would accept; Walker is probably the only candidate whose policy positions would make it remotely plausible. But, apart from the simple joy of watching leftists suffer a collective stroke, a ticket like that would actually, finally embody a middle-class counter-punch against the hi-lo game that Steve has been writing about for the last 5-10 years.”

    An interesting scenario, but if we’re going to go somewhat far-fetched, why not make it a Sessions/Webb ticket? The Republicans actually have a shot at a deadlocked national convention, so the nominee might actually be someone who didn’t run in the primaries.

    Is Senator Sessions sound on foreign policy, I wonder?

  186. […] Steve Sailer: “Appeal to Dwindling Core Proves Costly for Labour Party in Britain” […]

  187. @McFly
    OT but very iSteve:

    Probably 90% of the crimes on the "Florida Man" twitter feed are committed by nonwhites, but what picture does the Profile show, and what is selected for the article?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/11/us/both-hapless-and-harebrained-florida-man-enlivens-internet.html
  188. @Anonymous Nephew
    Shane McGowan, Pogues frontman, was in the same year at (expensive) Westminster School as the former (as of last Thursday) Deputy PM Nick Clegg.

    It’s indisputable that Nick has better teeth.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS