Blog

Guest soothsayer, Pete North, provides a parting shot as the corpse of this exhausted government twitches its last. It will not be missed. People ask me why I put so much effort into analysing Reform instead of attacking the other parties. It's simple. I actually want the right to win. By trade, I'm a software analyst. It's my job to find faults. I'm good at it too. Without my work, companies would end up shipping bad software that doesn't work, and they'd lose money. You have to be self-critical to stay in business.&nbsp;The same is true of politics. The Tories never addressed the fundamental flaws, and look what happened to them. As with software, sometimes you just have to admit that the code is so badly corrupted or poorly structured that it's better to simply scrub it and start over.I could have spent the entire election attacking Labour or the Tories, but I don't need to. It's all on record. I've spent more time analysing energy and immigration policy than most of you combined. You agreed with me then, you just don't like what I'm saying now.&nbsp;We also know why the Tories are going to lose, and we know roughly what kind of disaster Labour will be. Nobody's voting Labour because they like their policies. Moreover, I don't have a stake in either party. I don't care if they both die and I rather hope they do. What interests me is how we take back power.&nbsp;To that end I asked myself if Reform can succeed and whether it was worth backing. It can't, and it isn't. That's my considered opinion as a long time policy analyst and political writer, and someone (unlike you) with a functioning long term memory. Much of my analysis is centres of Farage and his all-too-predictable behaviours.&nbsp;I don't deny the man is the best communicator in the business. I don't even disagree with much of what he says. He's just a very poor leader and an even worse strategist. Most of what people say he's about is pure projection, largely because he's a symbol of hope to many. But that's why I find this all so depressing. He will dash those hopes.&nbsp;People say I should stop "being negative" and "get on board", which is really just code for "shut up". I know you don't want to hear it. It even costs me to say it. My Substack hits are way down this month because I'm not telling you what you want to hear. But I have always been in the business of telling people what they want to hear. There are plenty of right wing YouTube ranters who sing the songs you like to hear, telling you what you already know about wokery, Net Zero and gender, and I couldn't compete with them even if I wanted to. My conscience could not bear it.&nbsp;As it happens, my analysis very much is "getting on board". I have written, at length, what corrective actions should be taken. I have travelled the country to talk to people at my own expense, with money I don't have, and taken to X to produce original content that many of you tell me is too long to bother reading. Well, fine. That's more a reflection of you than me.&nbsp;Where I don't want to be in 2029 or 2034, is in this same rut, with nobody to vote for and without a political pot to piss in. That's what motivates me. That's what drives me. I have concluded that there is no future in Reform, it is incapable of becoming anything more than what it is, cannot break through the inherent ceiling that goes with lazy populism, and the barrier to developing it into something sustainable is its leader (and his notorious aversion to detail and consistency).As such, I'm not prepared to throw good money after bad, or invest my energies in something that cannot succeed. I know roughly how this exercise ends, and it leads us back to square one. You might not care to learn from experience, but we've already seen from Vote Leave and Boris Johnson how this goes. When you delegate the details and delivery to someone else, you end up back where you started.&nbsp;That Boris Johnson squandered Brexit is not in the least bit surprising to me. I gave the same warnings at the time, but was again told to stop being "negative" and to "get on board". And here we are, with the Tories about to lose by a landslide - to the worst iteration of Labour there has ever been. How d'ya like them apples?<h3>I take no pleasure in the fact I will be vindicated eventually. That's why I'm so despondent. But I will go on saying it how I see it, because I know some are listening, and they're the ones who will have a voice in building the alternative. In the meantime, if you don't like what I do, take your mithering elsewhere. I don't owe you anything, especially not conformity.</h3><a href="https://x.com/FUDdaily/status/1808856206552814051" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-mce-href="https://x.com/FUDdaily/status/1808856206552814051">Pete's post on X - comment here...</a>

Being cruel to be kind

<figure id="figure-dmvxchdqdsly7f9rpd" data-full-width="" class=""><iframe id="dmvxchdqdsly7f9rpd" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/al0yjeXj8d4" class="w-full bg-gray-100 rounded-2xl md:rounded-3xl lg:rounded-4xl" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9;" allowfullscreen="" data-url="https://youtu.be/al0yjeXj8d4" data-corners="large" data-fullwidth="true" data-mce-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/al0yjeXj8d4" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9;"></iframe></figure>Nigel talks to Jordan about UK politics and government since Blair. There is very little that is uplifting in this analysis. <h3>"What the hell were they thinking?" sums it up. </h3>We also need to review of every one of the major hoaxes of the past ten years that have been shaping the misleading and costly policies driving climate, health, defence, education, law and farming. Especially the malign influence of Big Pharma pumping us full of their untested potions.... there is no so much more we can do with AI to organise trials and evaluate medical research data.&nbsp;But how could any sentient being watching Joe Biden - the man with the atomic launch codes - being allowed to stumble along, without being shocked? Surely this proves that Reagan's "fascist liberals" have overtaken Western democracy..&nbsp; what is going on?How deep does this lunacy run in our society?

Jordan Peterson talks to Nigel ...

<h3>&nbsp;Chris Martz is a climate ninja, he introduces himself here ..</h3>Chris is the complete antithesis to Greta Thunberg and her "congregation". Primarily, his approach to science is scientific, not hysterical. He happily takes on all comers via his Twitter account&nbsp; (link below), since as you would expect, he has attracted a fair number of critics from the priesthood of the Cult of Carbon. "... Here's my story.I have been studying climate change for over six-years, and became so interested in it that I decided to pursue a meteorology degree which I complete next year.When I first embarked on this journey, I started out as a casual believer in the mainstream narrative. I wouldn't have called myself a “climate doomer” per se, but if not that, I was certainly an alarmist. I thought that climate change was a very serious problem. I was worried about the weather, thinking that it was more extreme than it has ever been in history. I thought that wickedly warm December in 2015 was unprecedented, living in blissful ignorance of the fact similarly mild Decembers occurred in 1889, 1932, 1964, 1965 and 1982. I thought Hurricane Harvey was also unprecedented, not knowing that we have had far more intense hurricane strikes in the past such as Camille (1969) and Labor Day (1935). I was a total dork blindly accepting whatever was spoon-fed to me.Then one day, I came across my friend Tony Heller's YouTube channel. Soon after, Joe Bastardi's page. The two of them know our weather history better than anyone else and it's not even close. And, I sat down, I listened to what they had to say, and they put things into some much-needed perspective. I then, and only then, began to question what I was taught about the weather becoming more extreme as a result of carbon dioxide emissions. Then I began to think for myself, I began to research. I didn't divert my thinking to other people, I dove headfirst into the data. Bought books, read through the literature (not the Washington Post headlines) and I educated myself.&nbsp;The weather we observe today is really no different than it was 30, 50 or 100-years ago and the coupled, non-linear ocean-atmosphere system is far more complex than many scientists make it out to be. The more I research, the less concerned I am. Sure, we impact the environment around us, and that includes the climate. But, this idea that we're in a “climate crisis” just isn't a scientifically supportable statement. The human condition has never been better than it is today, and that is largely thanks to fossil fuels. And, life without reliable and affordable energy such as oil and natural gas is cold, dark and short.And, perhaps a more startling revelation is that most climate activists are Marxists masquerading as environmentalists. They advertise as being “green” on the outside, but in reality, they are red on the inside. Watermelons, if you will. It wasn't apparent to me at first, but through my interactions with these green energy scammers on this platform and in real life, I've come to find that the entire movement is just smoke and mirrors for an authoritarian agenda that my values do not align with. I made the mistake of thinking that these people had a common goal of finding truth by means of the scientific method. I gave them an inch, they demand a mile. There's no meeting in the middle with these people. They are champions of DEI until it comes to diversity of opinion. They're disgusting, vile and dangerous.Ever since becoming vocal about my position, I have faced threats from hundreds of climate activists. They write into my university emailing my professors trying to get me kicked out before I finish my undergraduate degree. They engage in extortion trying to get me to absorb back into the fold, or else they'll make sure my career is ruined. They've been unsuccessful, and I'm not concerned. But, it just goes to show the lengths these people will go to in order to achieve the outcome they want. They see me, a 21-year-old college student, as a threat to their house of cards. They don't like that someone so young can see through their buIIshit and is actively educating young people on these matters.If there is anyone out there who is on the fence on the issue, I encourage you to keep an open mind. Get your information from a wide array of sources and follow people with differing perspectives, and form your own educated conclusion. But, remain open to new ideas. I am told that my judgement is clouded, but my views changed upon a second close examination of the data. I encourage others to do the same.@chrismartzwx Blog https://chrismartzweather.com/

...introducing Chris Martz

The Tory right is as much of a problem as the One Nation wets. They're the ones who backed the lunatic<a data-mce-href="https://patrickminford.net/" href="https://patrickminford.net/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> minford agenda</a> of unilaterally eliminating all defensive tariffs. Thatcherism on steroids. They were completely unconcerned about what the impact might have been on the British auto industry, steel and agriculture.&nbsp;This, in my view, is the exact opposite of what Brexit demanded. Nobody voted for Brexit to deindustrialise further and make ourselves even more reliant on deregulated financial services.&nbsp;It is, however, something of a supreme irony that the Tory wets were the ones to destroy British steel, agriculture and car making by way of their bone-headed Net Zero ideology. As such, if there are conservatives in that party, they've kept a very low profile.&nbsp;All the same, we should be hugely suspicious of "Popular Conservatism" because it's MAGA infused zombie Thatcherism. It should also be noted that this is the remnant of the Tory party the Reform crew see as allies, and potential merger partners.If we have learned anything in the last few years, it is that Britain's national resilience has utterly collapsed. Our farms are going bankrupt, we can't make the steel with which to make weapons and new nuclear plants. The owners of Vauxhall are threatening to quit the UK. Our community resilience is collapsing thanks to mass immigration and sectarianism. Our democracy in tatters and local democracy no longer exists. <h2>This calls for a fundamental reform of British governance. &nbsp;</h2>To that end, we need a serious party, with serious policies, recognising that the age of neoliberalism is dying. The nation does not want re-heated Thatcherism, and thinks that their water authority, among other things, should not be owned by a Singaporean wealth fund. This is a country that wants to be self-sufficient in energy, and one that wants to be able to feed itself and defend itself. The people want a government that works in the national interest.&nbsp;This is why I'm not going to vote for the Tory party. This is also why I'm not going to vote for a dog-whistle populist that rubs shoulders with the ERG. The closest we have to a real conservative party in this election is the SDP.&nbsp;The British right are so far from conservatism they've forgotten what it even is. Economic liberals are not conservative by any stretch of the word. Nor are "one nation" liberal internationalists.&nbsp;<h3>British (c)onservatism is really just the desire for a functioning state that does well the things it's supposed to do, and lets private enterprise do what it's good at. We want accountable politicians. We do not want functions of government run for profit. We want government to be as big as it needs to be to ensure the proper enforcement of the law, but no larger. We want public services that work; Police who will investigate burglaries and prosecute shoplifters. We want ambulances to turn up when we fall. We want prompt hospital appointments. We want intelligent, sustainable immigration policy. We want good jobs, good homes, and strong defence.</h3>Britain is at its best when all of these things are in balance. We do not want an intrusive state imposing its values on us. We don't want Serco run services. We don't want foreign ownership of British institutions. We ant to make things and export them. We want a patriotic state, and thriving economy.&nbsp;The populists of Reform have no real answers to our problems. They have no vision, no policies, and no plan. They wouldn't have the first idea how to achieve half the things they promise. One minute they talk about destroying the Tory party, the next they flirt with joining it. I can't work out exactly what the game is because it changes by the day. They make superficially pleasing speeches, but there's no substance to any of it.&nbsp;<h3>Currently, there is only one party that really gets what Britain wants, and where we need to be - and that's the SDP. Labour offers only gimmicks and more of the same recycled, failed ideas. The Tories have nothing but obsolete economic liberalism and globalism to offer. And like Johnson, Farage wouldn't know how to useful wield power even if he could win.&nbsp;</h3>In the SDP there is a basis for a *British conservative* party that is closer to the economic and social values of the British people than any of the other parties. Britain won't vote for a tawdry populist party, but they will vote for a party when they see themselves reflected in it. Dignity and decency will win.<a data-mce-href="https://sdp.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/SDP_Manifesto_2024.pdf" href="https://sdp.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/SDP_Manifesto_2024.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SDP 2024 manifesto</a>

Pete gets off the fence

In which Peter&nbsp; eads the entrails of the roadkill that was the right wing of British politics ... It's pretty normal to be politically homeless right now. I've been a political vagrant for since 2015. I voted Tory to secure an in/out referendum on the EU, and I've had nothing to vote for ever since. I seem to end up living in Tory safe seats where there is no viable alternative, so there's been no outlet for my political energies.&nbsp;In 2021, I re-joined Ukip on the back of its manifesto because, to date, it's still the most intellectually coherent party, and it still has a dedicated top team. It also has a sizable social media reach. Running it as an academic exercise seemed like a useful way to pressure Reform into getting its act together. Beating up Reform over its woolly Net Zero policies resulted in a subtle change of policy. I think Ukip can claim credit for that.&nbsp;As such, I have no animosity to Ukip, but I don't think it will ever be a serious force in politics again, There's too much baggage. Maybe with a rebrand and a cash injection it could find a role for itself, but there's too much sentimental attachment to the brand. I am no longer sure what function it serves and I'm not taken with the new leadership. All that's left is to wish them well.&nbsp;More recently, in search of a new home, I decided to take a second look at Reform. What struck me first and foremost was the lack of coherence. It was, and still is, a generic populist party with no intellectual depth. It could withstand mediocre leadership under Tice if they were developing a movement, but they weren't doing any of that work.&nbsp;This was abundantly obvious from various by-election results. In Blackpool and Wellingborough the Tory vote collapsed but it didn't find its way to Reform. Until recently, Reform was a fading star, and I don't think anything could have revived it. As a party it was run from the centre, with no ground operation, and with no strategy to speak of. It seems that Tice was just keeping the pilot light in in case of Farage's return, and that was the sole purpose.&nbsp;Under Farage, we see that none of the structural problems are likely to be addressed. Reform is having a glow up, but none of the work is being done to build a foundation. As such, it is a single use entity to punish the Tories.&nbsp;Obviously the Tories do need to be punished. The last three years have been an act of demographic vandalism that Britain may never recover from. The new sectarianism we're seeing in this election is here to stay and it's only going to get worse. Without more robust immigration policies, it's not fixable. And Reform won't go that far even if it was a serious party.&nbsp;What muddies the waters, though, is that Peter Hitchens is not wholly wrong. An unopposed Labour party is a dangerous thing. Reform supporters are determined to wipe the Tories of the map, but in doing so, they ensure there is nothing to be salvaged from the wreckage. I would have more sympathy for Reform's position if Reform was being forged into a replacement vehicle, but it just isn't. Reform is not poised to make a big breakthrough, and it will not be allowed to merge with the Tory party. It is a dead strategy. &nbsp;That said, I'm now of the view that it doesn't matter either way. I've taken a closer look at the Tory party and spoken to a lot of local activists. The impression I get is that the party's infrastructure is either dead or on life support from CCHQ, and as such, the party is already in a death spiral, with or without Reform. I doubt the result would be much different if Reform didn't exist.Some are of the view that Reform could merge with the Tory right after the election, to become a new force in politics, but I'm not sure there will even be a Tory right after this election. Moreover, Steve Baker has shown us their true nature. They'll say anything to save their own skins.In any case, the Tory wets are not the whole of the problem. The Tory right, such as it is, is made up of profoundly unserious people, and the nation simply does not want MAGA infused zombie Thatcherism. That Liz Truss is the leading light of "popular conservatism" should tell you all you need to know.This means that by next week, the right will be more or less vanquished from British politics. Farage will have his day in the sun, but it's all downhill from there. Reform might muster a repeat performance in 2029, but will not be able to break through the inherent barrier that goes with dog-whistle populism.&nbsp;By way of Labour's unpopularity, the zombie Tory party might recover some ground, and depending on how awful Labour is, we could end up with a hung parliament in which Starmer has to go cap in hand to the Islamist contingent - to become more dangerous than ever.&nbsp;By my reckoning, then, we have ten years to build an alternative. That alternative must be a coherent party with strong local roots. Anything else will be a flash in the pan, probably born from within the establishment, essentially courting the same base as Reform - which will go nowhere for similar reasons.&nbsp;My current thinking, therefore, is that with so little time to develop something from scratch, the SDP is the obvious candidate for further development. It has a coherent intellectual foundation, it can steal votes from Labour and the Tories, it is building locally and its growth is not contingent on media exposure and flamboyant leadership. We have to build something that can withstand the departure of its leader.&nbsp;I am aware the SDP has certain shortcomings, but you can't expect to 100% agree with any party. What it does have, where the others do not, is growth potential - which is the single most important factor.&nbsp;As a party it recognises the danger of unfettered free trade in a multi-polar world, it rejects neoliberalism, and recognises the need to govern Britain as a homeland, thus rejects the new sectarianism. It also proposes a complete freeze on immigration. As a start, that's good enough. More to the point, it's all we've got - unless you know different.

Life after death

I am starting to despair.&nbsp;This election has been as unedifying as any I can recall. And I can just about recall Harold Wilson's "Go with Labour" campaign from the 60s.&nbsp; His government introduced a £50 max foreign travel allowance, income taxes at 90% and cut the voting age from 21 to 18. &nbsp;The "colourful" &nbsp;<a data-mce-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Driberg" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Driberg" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tom Driberg</a> was a featured Labour politician (Party chairman) of the time. &nbsp;Driberg made no secret of his homosexuality, which he practised throughout his life despite its being a criminal offence in Britain until 1967; his ability to avoid any consequences for his risky and often brazen behaviour baffled his friends and colleagues.&nbsp;The Wilson government's liberalisation of divorce, gay relationships and abortions provided the foundations of the permissive society.&nbsp; It was a typical "Rome burns" administration with precious little attention paid to wealth creating&nbsp; industrial or financial matters, and it all left the UK in hock to the <a data-mce-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnomes_of_Zurich" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnomes_of_Zurich" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gnomes of Zurich </a>for years.&nbsp;We entered the sixties as post-war world leaders in jet engine and nuclear technology. We had a major car industry. We had a serious global reach with the BBC and our creative industries. The various V bombers: Vulcan Victor Valiant were a credible deterrent in the Cold War. The TSR2 was well ahead of its US rivals. But they all ended up scrapped or costing fortunes. Although the iconic Vulcan carried on into the Falklands conflict, and was an absolutely awesomely inspiring sight at air shows that reminded the punters that at least some of their taxes were being spent with style. But Labour handed the UK defence industry to the USA, and gave it the Harrier VTOL technology.And just as Keith Starmer prefers not to go into detail, Harold Wilson never said where to "go with Labour". The answer was apparently "to hell in a hand cart".It seems that by 1997 we had long forgotten the disaster Labour years of Wilson and Callaghan, and were ready to roll the dice again when Tony Blair convinced us things "could only get better".&nbsp; He was able to take advantage of a solid financial starting point with inflation and interest rates under control, after the solid growth of the 80s as a financial services economy had been invented in the City of London.The idea that switching now from Conservatives to Labour amounts to any sort of real change is tenuous, when both are beholden to WEF principles and influences. And both are too scared to admit that climate and energy extremism is mostly a hoax built on a hypothesis that still nobody has been able to prove. The truth of the covid pandemic and vaccine hysteria is leaking out, but nobody has the honesty to come clean and hold a full enquiry.&nbsp; Still no one has addressed the immigration situation by telling France they are getting all their invaders back.

WOTE.uk

Blog: the Revolution starts here...

Being cruel to be kind

Jordan Peterson talks to Nigel ...

...introducing Chris Martz

Pete gets off the fence

Life after death

How bad can it get?