Is the realignment happening already?

Is the realignment happening already?
By Keir Martland
(26th June 2016)

At about midnight, the globalists in the Parliamentary Labour Party began their coup. Blairite Hilary Benn told socialist anti-interventionist Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn that he had no confidence in his leadership and the latter had no option but to give him the sack. Today we have seen a string of resignations, with half the Shadow Cabinet allegedly ready to resign to remove Corbyn. At the moment, Corbyn seems ready to put his own name forward to fight off the leadership challenge, but this may change if it becomes apparent that he doesn’t have the confidence of his Parliamentary Party. You do need the support of your MPs if you are to lead your Party.

The challenge to Corbyn is very interesting. What may be happening is a long overdue realignment in British politics. Of course, all of this is taking place following a vote from the British people to leave the European Union, and following Jeremy Corbyn’s own insistence that this vote should be respected. Since roughly 90 per cent of the Parliamentary Labour Party are determined to keep Britain in the European Union, this cannot have been taken well by people like Hilary Benn. 

At the same time, the Conservative Party has just lost David Cameron, or is set to lose him. This means that the pro-EU and essentially Blairite direction in which the Conservative Party has been taken for some time may be reversed. For those who find it hard to believe that the current Conservative Party is essentially Blairite, let me explain.

In 2003, the Conservative Party removed the right-wing patriot Iain Duncan Smith as leader to usher in Michael Howard, the caretaker leader who smoothed the way for David Cameron. Cameron has since hollowed out the party, with free thinkers no longer given positions of importance, and with its annual conferences highly stage-managed and business-like. Men of quality, especially Cameron’s leadership rival David Davis, were side-lined and an appeal was made to Liberal Democrat supporters instead of traditionalist conservatives. Cameron’s closest ally Chancellor George Osborne even calls Tony Blair, “The Master.” Every major policy of the Conservative-Lib Dem Coalition and now the Conservative majority Government has been a continuation of the Blair “Reforms”, whether the extension of academies and free schools, the restructuring of the NHS, the introduction of “Gay Marriage” following on from Civil Partnerships for same-sex couples, the even higher levels of net migration, and of course the disastrous interventionist foreign policy record of the Cameron Government in Libya and Syria.

However, all this may be about to change. Conservative MPs who campaigned to leave the European Union like Iain Duncan Smith are adamant that a new Conservative leader should be someone who also campaigned to leave. While globalist and therefore pro-EU in the past, former London Mayor Boris Johnson did an about-turn some months ago and his rhetoric has been right-wing and populist for the duration of the campaign. Now, most educated observers have seen through this; it is obvious that this man will say anything to become Prime Minister. Johnson had a better sense of which way the wind was blowing than David Cameron and so Johnson decided to campaign to leave. Thus Johnson was a bellwether rather than a sincere and convinced Eurosceptic.

Even so, Johnson or one of his ‘Vote Leave’ colleagues will most likely succeed David Cameron as Leader of the Conservative Party and Prime Minister. This, with any luck, will bring to an end the sorry period of neoconservatism, internationalism, and cultural leftism which has characterised the Conservative Party for far too long. Even if not entirely sincere, if the Conservative Party elects a right-wing patriot as leader, the Conservative Party will no longer be the party of choice for the profoundly illiberal and anti-British ruling class. That title will then be one up for grabs by the Labour Party once again.

If the Parliamentary Labour Party pushes Corbyn out, then a Blairite like Hilary Benn will take over and turn Labour once again into the Globalist Party. As I have already said, they are hoping to do this partly in the expectation that post-Cameron the Conservatives will abandon Globalism. Does the Labour Party know something that we do not? Perhaps Johnson actually will turn to ‘Trumpism’ in office; the Labour Party top brass certainly seem to think so, and are wasting no time in planning for it. Another reason they want Corbyn out is because he was very strongly against the Iraq War, while many of them were not, and the Chilcot Report is (finally) due on 6th July. Do the globalist warmongers in the Labour Party really want a leader who is not only hostile to the EU, but also to their designs on the Middle East?

If the referendum turns out to have given us a broadly nationalist party and a broadly globalist party, then it will have done us an awful lot of good. The European Union referendum will have turned out to be the great litmus test that many of us had hoped it would be.

Indeed, during the referendum campaign itself we did see some very positive signs. Early on in the campaign, we saw from ‘Grassroots Out’ some entirely benign co-operation between the likes of Nigel Farage, George Galloway, David Davis, and Simon Heffer. I think George Galloway summed everything up when he said at the beginning of his speech on 19th February:

Nigel [Farage] and I agree on hardly anything at all. But we do agree at least on one thing…It is the demand that Britain should be an independent, sovereign, and democratic country and that means leaving the European Union!

This is, I hope, a sign of things to come. With any luck, the national debate has now permanently shifted and the debate at the next General Election will be about nationalism vs. globalism, controlled borders vs. Open Borders, free markets vs. corporatism, self-defence and non-interventionism vs. making the world safe for democracy and “humanitarian interventionism”, British values vs. universal values, historic English freedoms vs. Big Brother and the Nanny State, direct democracy and decentralisation vs. “representative democracy” and centralisation, conservatism vs. “Progress”, the natural order vs. the New World Order and the welfare-warfare state.

The best possible outcome over the coming years will be the emergence of an anti-Political Class and anti-neoconservative alliance of the Left and the Right, an alliance of the Tony Benns and the Enoch Powells. This today means a new political force, comprising left-wingers like George Galloway and right-wingers like Nigel Farage. Now, there have already been signs that some in the Conservative Party do not want this to happen. Nigel Farage, after all, has been shut out of the ‘Brexit’ negotiations. Therefore, the continued existence of UKIP is very important. If the Conservative Party does not deliver, a new, more confident, and bolder UKIP must take its place once and for all. For, as Peter Hitchens says, this referendum campaign has exposed the two main parties for what they are, “Political corpses propping each other up with their own rigor mortis.”

Some of us had believed that Jeremy Corbyn would have much more success with the Labour Party and would have taken it in a broadly “Bennite” direction. It has now become apparent that Corbyn’s days are numbered and that the Labour Party will soon enough be back to its old tricks. Therefore it has well and truly lost its right to exist. The second the Conservative Party deviates from the direction I have outlined above, it too will have lost its right to exist.

We live in exciting times. While very few of our politicians these days are “conviction politicians”, we are moving once again to a period of conviction politics at the very least. Our here-today-gone-tomorrow bellwether politicians are going to be influenced more by those of us who have been shut out of the debate for the last 43 years, and that can only be a Good Thing.

Who will cast the earth over the Political Class?

Forasmuch as it hath pleased Almighty God of his great mercy to take unto himself the soul of our dear brother here departed: we therefore commit his body to the ground; earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust; in sure and certain hope of the Resurrection to eternal life, through our Lord Jesus Christ; who shall change our vile body, that it may be like unto his glorious body, according to the mighty working, whereby he is able to subdue all things to himself.





  • Hilary Benn is not a Blairite

    • Explain how he is not?

    • He’s certainly not a Bennite either.

    • I agree that while Benn’s positions resemble those of a Blairite, he is not himself a Blairite if that is taken to mean somebody who is an enthusiastic acolyte of Blair. He is not any ‘ism’ really. He is just a machine politician, the type who is ambitious and will work for whichever personality cult happens to be in power.

      • We are splitting hairs here

        • Yes, but it wasn’t a criticism of you. I was just responding to a message above, and I treated it as an isolated point. I realise it doesn’t affect what you say in your piece.

          The importance of the point can be explained in a comparison between Benn and Corbyn. It’s not just their views that differ, but their whole approach to politics – one, I would argue, is a machine politician; the other is deeply principled. They probably don’t have much understanding of each other.

          • Or to put it another way, I think calling some of these people ‘Blairites’ dignifies them. Most of them believe in – nothing, nothing at all.

  • I couldn’t stomach voting Tory. I never have and never will, so my hope is that the Conservatives remain globalist and that both Labour and the Conservatives stick to what they do best, which is representing the urban, multi-cultural elites and whichever gullible client groups they can win raw electoral support from.

    I think meaningful re-alignment will only happen with new parties. I no longer feel any connection to Scotland now, given their vote for Remain, so for me any notion of British Nationalism is out the window. The non-whites and refugees can move north of the Border, and best of luck with that.

    I would be happy for ethno-nationalist parties to emerge for the different constituent nations, with a view to a break-up of the UK. Maybe even a party for the Northern English to campaign for a Northern Assembly and regional federalism. I think parties that reflect both identity and class concerns could make the most headway.

    • I agree that, given the way the Scots have deteriorated over the last generation or so, “British nationalism” is a dead duck. The Scots of the era of Salmond and Sturgeon are not the same people as those of the era of Hutcheson and Hume, not to mention Adam Smith. It’s time they went their own way.

  • One final word about Jeremy Corbyn.

    I’m convinced that Corbyn threw the referendum and I think that is the real reason these bastards are removing him. Corbyn will have done it for ‘socialist’ reasons, rather than nationalist, but even so, I think he knew what he was doing.

    I may be painting a romantic picture of him that calls back to my own left-wing socialist days, but I imagine him to be an English patriotic socialist in the model of George Orwell. I’m not of that point-of-view any more now myself. I am an English national-socialist, but I believe Corbyn was genuinely thinking of his country, he wanted us out of the EU, and he did the only thing he could in the difficult circumstances he was placed in, which was do nothing with Labour’s resources and thus frustrate a deeply unjust cause. For that reason, as far as I am concerned Jeremy Corbyn is a national hero.

    I’ve always liked him anyway, even though he is a very misguided man and he probably would never understand why he is a hero. But he is, in my eyes.

    I think he is going down now – but he is a very brave man and he will not be forgotten.

  • I can certainly buy several of the items on your laundry list, Keir. Free markets, non-interventionism, the end of Big Brother and the nanny state, decentralization, the natural order and ditching the capital P “Progressives.”

    But I think it’s an over-simplification to see nationalism and globalism/internationalism as polar opposites. In economic terms, internationalism and globalism are good things. In political terms, they are bad things, as exemplified by the EU and the UN. Myself, I want to live in a world of the largest possible unit in economic terms – i.e. global free trade, and the smallest possible units in political terms. Right down to the family and, ultimately, the individual. What I want to see is de-centralization of “political” decisions right down to the lowest possible level.

    • Maybe one day, but civilisations never achieve absolutes and attempts to do so tend to lead to tyranny. As I’ve said before, I believe that where we are now is in a direct kulturkampf against the Progressives, just as Libertarians were fighting Socialists/Marxists for much of the last century. This is the task for us.

    • And I want a pure private law society and a strict adherence to the “N.A.P” as much as any libertarian. But we will get nowhere if we don’t adapt our philosophy to circumstances.

      • No Keir, you’re wrong here.

        Tactics for making a free-er world must, of course, again and again be adjusted to circumstances. Even strategy must be dictated by what we are facing in a particular time and place. So far, I agree with you. But it makes no sense to try to adapt your philosophy, your core beliefs and goals, to a particular situation or situations. Learning from experience is, of course, good and necessary – when you have the ability and the power to make your ideas happen. If they don’t work, that’s when you change your philosophy. But when you don’t have that ability or power, when you are the object of subjection (as we are today), then your core beliefs are all you have.

        Human beings are individuals. Each of us is, in some sense, equal. We have rights. We need to be free in order to fulfill ourselves. And yet, we are social too; Aristotle called us the “political animal.” We can disagree on the detail of what those rights are, or on what “equality” or “freedom” mean in practice. And we can (and do) disagree about what kind of social set-up is best. But we mustn’t ever compromise on our core philosophy. Which, for freedom lovers, is – if I may be so bold as to state it – maximum freedom for every (every!) individual in the world, within the limits of civilized human behaviour.

        I realize this probably comes over like a homily or sermon. I apologize for that; but it’s important. More important than analyzing the minutiae of any political debate, anyway.

        • When the problems change, the remedy may have to change too.

          • Yes, but the objective does not.

            • It’s rarely a straight path to any objective. I think our enemies understand that better than we do. They are highly adaptable and expert at manipulating structure. They are a moving target. We have to learn from them in that regard.

  • I hear that all those who have formally resigned were Labour MPs at the time of the Iraq War….and that the Chilcott Report comes out next week….

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s