A New Place Of Exile

Richard Hutton

Category: Uncategorized

The Right-Minded View: The Prime Minister’s vision of a Shared Society.

Now when Prime Minister May saw the crowds of journalists, she went up on a podium and she began to teach them:

“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is a redefined definition of poverty.

Blessed are those who hunger, for they shall be satisfied by the local foodbank.

Blessed are the meek, for those who know their place, and play by the rules, shall benefit from a cut to inheritance tax.

Blessed are you when you make handsome, if discreet, donations; rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in the House of Lords.

Blessed are the hedge fund managers, for they shall reap what others sow.

Blessed are the healers, who are willing to work seven days a week, for five-days’ worth salary.

You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, this only breeds dependency. It’s high-time that your neighbours learned to stand on their own two legs, and pulled themselves up by the bootstraps.

Ask for a handout, and it will no longer be given. Which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? All of you should, if you want to impart a valuable life-lesson in self-sufficiency.

Ensure that you practice your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have a reward from your admirers in the press.

Do not think that I have come to uphold the Laws; I have not come to fulfill, but to abolish them. Specifically those concerning human rights.

You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ But I say to you, sometimes it’s expedient to be creative with the truth. Let what you say be simply ‘it means what it means’, or ‘I do not accept that'”.

And when the Prime Minister finished these sayings, the journalists were astonished, for she was teaching them as one who had a teleprompter, and had not just replicated her predecessor’s pabulum on the same theme. Then the sick and the lame were brought to her, and put through a work capability assessment; consequently they were declared fit and healthy once more.

Afterwards, the Prime Minister entered a temple, and congratulated the wealth-creators within for their free enterprise – praising their aspirations. The high rates of usury, and the absence of red-tape – which the Prime Minister had guaranteed – ensured that they would not take their business elsewhere.

They’re Not Like Us (A Reverse Poem)

They’re not like us
So do not be naive enough to think that
We will find them to be like us
With only a bit of thought and friendship
They’re so unwilling to adopt our way of life
Is it any wonder
If people are distrustful and unwelcoming
It makes everyone afraid
Knowing strangers might hate you and hurt you
They’re not like us
Is it fair to say
Our behaviour might be the problem
When we find their customs and ways so strange
They keep to their own
So is it unreasonable that
We keep to our own
Why do people think they’re not like us
It’s not difficult to answer the question
Hearing a strange language seeing strange clothes
In the middle of a crowd with strange faces
How can you expect to feel at home
When you’re no longer surrounded by people you know
It hardly fills you with confidence
Complaining all the time about our country
Hearing people
Who don’t fit in
Always moaning about those
Ordinary British things like tea and chips or
All the things that make Britain what it is
When you think of
People coming here and changing our culture
The British way of life has always been about
What is unique to us
What is normal and ordinary
But when you think about it
They’re not like us
There’s nothing wrong with saying
How they are
It’s not too much to ask them
To fit in with us
Ordinary Britons
Who see little but resentment from
These people
How can we expect
To feel at home in our country anymore
And no-one ever asks them
To move half way around the world
They’ve managed
To take jobs and houses too
People around them would have needed
That can’t be right
If they don’t like our ways at all
Why do they move to our country
These people are so strange
So do not tell me
It isn’t fair to assume the worst
It isn’t right to be called names
You’re only judging by what you see
Which is so out of the ordinary
What do foreigners bring with them into Britain
If you think about it
All sorts of things which seem peculiar
Sometimes people fear
These things are not so simple but
Please think on
Do not be too quick to judge
When somebody says they’re not like us

[Now read from bottom to top]

A Pledge of Allegiance To British Values



I pledge allegiance to Britain and its resplendent jams (and magnificent biscuits),
Salute the Royal Yacht,
Support Brexit,
Oppose casual littering,
Believe strongly that you should be able to hear the lyrics in modern music
(too often you can’t, I say),
And object to the general absence of moral fibre in the young these days.
Also, you get far too many leaflets posted through your front door.
As far as I’m concerned it really is not on –
The council ought to crackdown on this racket, as a matter of urgency.
Bring back national service.
Lest we forget.

The Right-Minded View: The Richmond Byelection – Farewell, Zac Goldsmith


I am not a supporter of the Conservative Party, myself – though I do invariably vote for them in elections; I merely believe in fairness, and giving people their due. On that tack, I say it is only right to extol the many virtues of Mr Zac Goldsmith.

As a man of conviction, Mr Goldsmith took a principled approach to the London mayoralty contest, by noting the distinct similarity between the surnames of the Labour candidate, Sadiq Khan, and famed Mongol Horde chieftain: the warlord Mr Genghis Khan.

As a point of order, Mr Goldsmith bravely demanded that the one Mr Khan clarify any possible links to the other Mr Khan; and confirm that he had no plans to lay waste to Central Asia in like manner. I, for one, do not doubt for a moment that this was a genuine point of concern for Mr Goldsmith’s part.

It was perhaps this peerless repository of personal integrity which saw Goldsmith romp home to an impressive second-place finish, overall. Indeed, had the London Mayoralty contest been an Olympic event, this would have garnered a silver medal, no less. Something to bear in mind for future contests.

On much the same tack of, well, thing, (about fairness and dues etc), the Liberal Democrats warrant a fittingly fulsome encomium; as is only proper.

As their formidable leader, Mr Tim Farron, has noted, there is little to no discernible difference between Zac Goldsmith on the one hand, and Mr Jeremy Corbyn on the other. Whereas Goldsmith engaged in populism (sometimes mis-spelled these days as ‘racism’) for personal gain; Mr Corbyn has never done or said anything derogatory about anyone. You simply cannot tell the two men apart, in my view.

What’s more, unlike sundry latte-sipping Leftists, who live in out of touch parts of the country like Islington, Richmond represents the pulse beating at the very heart of the nation’s corpse.

While Richmond may be more affluent than Islington, and more exclusive, and less socio-economically diverse, with a much less varied array of ethnicity and nationalities among its inhabitants – and for that matter, geographically indistinct – it clearly represents something or another; which proves that whatever political interpretation is attached to this byelection result is not merely of national significance, but is also indisputably correct. And you can’t say better than that, now, can you?

Farewell then Zac Goldsmith – a true gentleman and scholar of British politics. Welcome, in turn, a ninth Parliamentary member for the propitious Liberal Democrats – easing themselves into position as a sort of political suppository for the softening of Brexit.

The Right-Minded View: Ukip’s New Leader, Paul Nuttall


I, for one, welcome the new leader of the UK’s foremost independence party.

You only need to know one thing about UKIP’s new leader, Paul Nuttall: he has neither confirmed, nor denied, having sex with a dead pig. That is the kind of caliber honest British patriots expect – no, demand – from their political representatives in this day and age.

It should not be taken as a potential flaw in the man’s character. After all, much the same could be said about David Cameron himself – and it didn’t prevent him rising to the ranks of Prime Minister, no less; without ever once accounting for such matters, publicly.

On a related note, Mr Nuttall is one of the few Liverpudlians who are not too proud to read The Sun newspaper. I say that both of these facets put him squarely in tune with the hopes and aspirations of ordinary voters.

What truly motivates Mr Nuttall can be summed-up quite simply, however: Britain. Indeed, Mr Nuttall works tirelessly for our country’s benefit – so much so that he placed a respectable 736th out of 756 Members of the European Parliament, in terms of parliamentary attendance. What’s more, he once finished a credible second – as the Conservative candidate – during the Sefton council election. Several years later, he improved on this – standing as a Ukip candidate in Bootle: successfully finishing fourth. Four is a higher number than two, as I’m sure we can all agree.

Mr Nuttall is by no means parochial, however. On the contrary, he takes bold inspiration from the continent: favouring the kind of robust immigration policies endorsed by successive German Chancellors, between the years 1932 and 1945.

It is in fact this very topic which forms the nexus of Mr Nuttall’s political philosophy. Nothing could be dearer to Ukip than the well-being of ordinary Britons. To that end, it is high-time to restore proper order to things, and enforce strict controls on immigration.

The influx of migration to British shores is not a recent phenomenon, by any means. On the contrary, the absence of border controls is a problem which has bedeviled Britain since the beginning of time – right back when foreign fish first left the ocean, and began walking on our land.

Many ordinary working-class trees and shrubs had very real concerns about these walking fish invading our shores. If you ask Mr Nuttall, he would rightly – no, proudly – aver that migrating fish should have stayed in their own prehistoric seas. This is not due to prejudice, for his part – but concern, for the past aquatic prosperity of foreign oceans.

Britain may not have had any walking fish of our own; but it was overcrowded with grains of sand, innumerable blades of grass, and far too many leaves to mention in one sitting. Allowing any old fish to walk straight into Britain was simply not cricket. Native species of plants sensed what was coming – their jobs, as organic features of the landscape, would be taken from them by the marauding shoals of amphibious creatures. Many millions of years later, this prospect remains no more or less plausible. 

And when you think about it, what possible benefits has migration ever had for Britain? Take Jewish Russians fleeing persecution back in the 19th century, for instance; who found a safe-haven in Britain, and set themselves up as tailors or shoe-makers, before creating trade unions. It’s not like any true-born Briton has ever had need of footwear, clothing, or employment protections, now, is it?

During the 18th century – right around the time when most of Mr Nuttall’s opinions had their genesis, as it should happen – numerous African migrants moved to Britain; with free transport on British-owned ships. Not a passport in sight. As Ukip would rightly have complained, had they been contemporary witnesses, migratory Africans subsequently undercut British wages, through working without pay.

Back in the 17th century there were the Huguenots – what with their silk-weaving, and copper-engraving, and Bank-of-England-founding, and all that. Well, what was wrong with the time-tested practice of simply burying money in your garden; and waiting for the coins to sprout into money-trees? Nothing, that’s what.

In fact, the list of detrimental impacts migrants have had upon Britain is almost endless. From Germanic tribes coming over here, and forcing us to speak their language – English; through Vikings, creating the entities of England and Scotland; all the way up to Normans, and their ‘judicial system’. When was the last time anyone had use for a judiciary, I ask you. Not in a month of Sundays.

And don’t get me started on the Romans. They should have stayed in their own country, instead of coming here, and introducing roads, and coins; towns and cities; words, and phrases. What was wrong with simply pointing and gesturing? A good, earthy grunt never let anyone down. Nothing wrong with living in a cave, either, if you ask me. As for money and transportation routes – when has the like ever been needed? Pish posh, I say.

Even the ice age wasn’t free from political correctness – nobody was allowed to mutter a word in anger against hunter-gatherers coming to Britain after the ice began to melt; let alone the first farmers refusing to integrate into the British hunter-gathering way of life, and sticking to their own agricultural ways instead. Admittedly, nobody else lived here at the time to make a complaint; but that is beside the point. Had anyone been present, you can rest assured no letters to the Daily Telegraph would have been allowed.

Indeed, for many centuries now, migrants have been pouring into Britain and influencing our nation’s language, cuisine, and economy. Well, it’s not on; and Mr Nuttall will ensure that the betterment of British life stops here.

There is simply no need for the foreign influence. None at all. Take Indians, for instance; coming to our country, and making us jalfrezis, and such like – what was wrong with an honest bowl of tepid water? If you want the sensation of spice, instead of importing foreign nonsense – like chilli – people can simply chew a nettle. Never did me any harm. It’s all well and good for the political cartel in Westminster to order tagliatelle and the like; but you can’t get a decent sheep’s head broth in a British cafe these days, for love nor money.

In sum, I welcome Mr Nuttall’s ascendancy. What has Johnny Foreigner ever done for us Britons? For our culture, heritage, and way of life? Nothing on a par with Ukip’s bold scheme to restore the proper order of things, by bringing back smoking in pubs; along with capital punishment.

The Right-Minded View: Donald Trump & Nigel Farage.

This week has witnessed one small step for Donald Trump; one giant step forward for humankind. Donald Trump is not merely the first ethnically-vermilion person to become US president, but the only President-elect to date who intends to govern for the broad array – if not quite the full gamut – of American people.

That is, after all, what Mr Trump’s ascendancy reflects: a popular uprising against the status quo. Many ordinary people were very angry at the establishment – run, as it is, overwhelmingly in the interests of wealthy white males; and the only sensible solution was to elect somebody who embodies those identical traits.

Much like homeopathy – whereby contagious ailments are treated by introducing a toxic property into one’s gullet. Whether all of this results in a hard Trump, or a soft Trump, remains to be seen.

However, if you ask me, Donald Trump is taking the first tentative steps towards what all fair-minded observers will surely agree is no more than a commonsense presidency. On the one hand, standing up to the elite, by reducing their taxes; while on the other hand, standing up for the little guy by removing their healthcare and employment protections – thereby allowing them to compete on wages and life-chances with the inhabitants of Malaysia, overseas; and closer to home, the denizens of local cemeteries.

The reason for this is quite simple: Mr Trump is a fellow of robust business nous – exemplifying a style of thinking often mischaracterised as “stupid”. What nefarious left-leaning sorts fail to realise, however, is that this is actually a compliment. President-elect Trump has the necessary moxy to puncture the pretensions of so-called intellectuals; and strike deals, left, right, and centre, thereby restoring America to its former glory.

For example – China has a Great Wall. So, thanks to Trump, America will have a greater wall – albeit part fence. While some express scepticism about the necessity of all this, I have to say that they need to imbibe a dose of reality.

Only recently, in fact, I encountered some chip-wrapping in my front garden – no doubt casually bestrewn there by a young, knife-wielding hoodlum; with at least two chips clinging to the inside of the paper, and very possibly a third (I didn’t care to investigate too closely, in case I developed Stockholm syndrome). Therefore, I immediately ordered some fencing from a local timber-merchant – a bit of the old wattle and daub later, and there it was, in all its glory. Not a chip-wrapper in sight, since. I see no reason why America cannot manage likewise; and prosper accordingly.

What’s more, nothing could give greater cause for confidence than the patronage of Nigel Farage; who, as luck would have it, has already volunteered to mend fences on behalf of his American counterparts. Admittedly, the Republican Party perhaps lags behind the more intellectually sophisticated confines of Ukip, in some respects, and has some catching-up to do on the score of etiquette and breeding; but nobody could contest its historical achievements in office.

It took a firm but fair approach to the old terrorism lark, for example. While it’s true that the Bush administration ignored warnings from defence experts about a planned attack on America – opting to put their faith in predicting the future through the interpretation of chicken entrails instead – it is equally true that they persevered, and continued to reduce both the tax burden and the homeland security budget throughout the entirety of those dark days; never pausing for a moment. Just the sort of risk and reward approach which will make America great again.

While Mr Trump may have no more time for experts and their expertise than the average person, he is only too eager to welcome the finest brexperts and their brexpertise that money can buy – this is where Nigel Farage comes in: a fulsome harbinger of the sentiments held by the common man (or woman, where applicable); who can advise the incoming President on the pros and cons of tea and crumpets, and many more things besides.

In return, as an older man – experienced in the ways of business and the world – President Trump can serve as a mentor to the young Nigel: keeping him on the straight and narrow. I have seen so many up and coming fellows in my time come a cropper just for a lack of avuncular edification in the early stages of their careers; and that is what Farage is embarking upon today.

In more ways than one, Farage would be ideal as an under-secretary for something or another in the way of congeniality between Britain and America. While it is true that he has never actually been elected into municipal office; that is merely the sort of trifling detail that only the most embittered of souls would consider pertinent to a role in government.

Judge the book by its cover, I say. Just as the pilgrims once landed on Plymouth rock, Farage admirably crawled out from beneath it: ready and waiting to serve, at the whims of his master; in a manner unequaled since Mr Renfield performed similar duties on behalf of his liege.

And therein lies the nub: what Mr Trump embodies is the fact that we can all rise to the very top, regardless of whether we possess anything by way of charm, talent, or ability; while Nigel Farage proves that there really is such a thing as a free-lunch, just as long as you’re prepared to travel – and have a generous expenses account.

Between these two men, I am confident that something worthwhile can be achieved for our two countries.

Many Politicians Have Very Real Concerns About Immigration


These days, many marginalised and ignored politicians have very real, legitimate concerns about immigration.

The problem, of course, is that politicians can’t talk about the problems of immigration anymore without being labelled ‘opportunists’; or worse, find themselves being called racist – just for expressing anxiety about the threat migration poses to the continued supremacy of the white majority, in our society.

For too long, the public has been ignoring the subject of immigration, by reading about it constantly in the newspapers; instead of listening to politicians when they express their very real concerns. When a politician says ‘immigrants take all the jobs and only come here to claim unemployment benefits’ members of the public have tended to dismiss this as paradoxical nonsense. Whenever a politician writes an article about migrants siphoning away peoples’ bath water, in order to extol the merits of a new, tougher deportation system – disbelief, if not scepticism, is the most commonplace response among their audience.

Image result for farage poster

In my view, ordinary people need to be more attentive to the concerns of the political class. Many politicians blame the EU for the squeeze on living standards; and an increasing number of MPs say that immigration is to blame for social problems – such as the government’s failure to adequately fund local services; or the prevalence of low wages in those areas of employment which low-skilled and poorly educated people tend to depend upon. A failure to acknowledge the concerns politicians express about these issues, means that the public hasn’t earned the right to be heard on other topics – such as the shortage of available jobs in a local economy; or the absence of affordable housing, nationwide.

While we should celebrate the contribution that migrants have made to British politics, we should not overlook the fact that many Members of Parliament simply do not want to raise taxes on their more affluent voters, or address long-standing economic dysfunctions; and politicians should be able to say that immigration is to blame for these problems, without being ignored by members of the public in response.

What’s more, many MPs have very real concerns about losing their jobs, through being displaced by foreign-born candidates in elections; and are emotionally concerned about the downward pressure on their Parliamentary expenses, caused by MPs who grew up in poverty overseas, yet do not avail themselves of public finance, just because it happens to be on offer.


The simple fact is, no British politicians are born racist; but immigration which reaches levels beyond a Parliament’s willingness to invest in the necessary social infrastructure to support it can lead to racism in politics – and we can all agree that racist policies are distasteful.

Worse still, people often think that anti-immigration politics is a bit old-hat, if not faintly unfashionable: the preserve of those Parliamentarians who hold antediluvian views on a variety of issues – from the putative relationship between same-sex marriage and inclement weather; to a woman’s freedom to bare her ankles in public. Or else, those habitues of Westminster who happen to have no particular desire to share bathrooms, and eating facilities, with colleagues who possess more than a modicum of foreign extraction. As a consequence, ordinary members of the public often refuse to even dignify, let alone support, politicians who espouse an aversion towards immigrants.

The problem is that, as far as ordinary members of the public are concerned, all immigrants should feel welcome in Britain – no matter what language they speak, or ethnicity they belong to; and without regard for their religious or political commitments. All that matters, they say, is that migrants are human; and that any politician who suggests otherwise is being illiberal. But this ignores the very real concerns politicians have over the scale of migrants arriving in Britain from the EU; putting pressure on MPs to invest in public services.


Anyone who spent a lot of time talking to politicians during the recent EU referendum, particularly in a constituency like mine, cannot fail to appreciate how strongly MPs have grown to feel about freedom of movement in the weeks following the result; and why, whatever the economic disadvantages of leaving the Single Market may be for ordinary people, politicians are frankly not willing to even engage in a conversation about that reality unless there is a recognition of their concerns about the ability of Parliament to manage immigration. To take but one example, the huge number of refugees from war-torn countries such as Iraq, Syria, or Libya, makes it difficult for politicians to deport them straight back to these areas, en masse.

How then do we stop this situation from arising? How can we create a migration system, which assuages the concerns and anxieties of Britain’s politicians?

There is a simple solution to this conundrum: instead of investing in industry, or creating employment opportunities, and building homes, what we should pursue instead is a managed system of immigration. More specifically, we can turn Parliament into an arrangement based on work permits – that is, a points-based scheme for MPs. This can be carefully calibrated so that a politician’s skills and qualifications are measured against the need for their abilities in Parliament.

For instance, is somebody with a background in banking really needed to manage the National Health Service? Is someone with an interdisciplinary degree in Philosophy, Politics and Economics really necessary for the job, when the post being offered is head of environmental policy? It seems fair to wager not.


What’s more, it is common knowledge that wages often drive down immigration – that is to say, the more poorly a job pays, the less likely somebody will travel across a continent to do it. Therefore, we simply need to ensure that all Members of Parliament are paid on a results basis; which will all but guarantee that they receive no more than the minimum, in the majority of cases. This will mean that very few migrants opt to become Members of Parliament – pursuing instead the traditional careers of newcomers to Britain’s shores; in the fields of medicine, nursing, and education, for example.

But what of politicians who wish to enact anti-immigration policies; yet still want to call themselves contemporary, liberal, and relevant to the economic internationalism of the twenty-first century? The answer is easy: merely invest anti-immigration policies with progressive values.

So then, what would a progressive anti-immigration approach look like in practice? Well, rather than the fairly stuffy, antiquated ‘death to traitors’ variety of anti-migrant sentiment; the public could vote for an eco-friendly, environmentally-sustainable version instead.

For example, if a large crowd of MPs were to authorise the forcible expulsion of a refugee, on a no-questions-asked-about-their-pregnancy basis, deportation officers could be issued with truncheons which have wooden handles all sourced from certified, sustainable forestry; and with cans of pepper-spray, fairly traded from co-operatively owned cayenne plantations.

Moreover, if a Home Secretary wanted to justify bypassing their legal obligations to somebody under the age of 16, and needed a convenient anecdote about someone’s pet cat preventing their deportation, then they could ensure that the reference is to a cat from a rescue centre. This offers a feel-good approach to refoulment; which we can all share in.

And lastly, ordinary people foregoing their right to freedom of movement really has to be a red line in a post-Brexit UK – otherwise we will be holding our country’s MPs in contempt. If ordinary Britons agree to give up their liberty to live and work in EU countries, then we can avoid driving the social tensions which lead to outbreaks of racism among a minority of politicians: resulting in entities such as Yarl’s Wood being erected, for example; or else undertaking wars in the middle east continuously and indifferently.

In sum, the best way to keep Britain the open and non-racist country it has always been, is to no longer allow ordinary people from the wrong sort of countries to enter it; where they could frighten elected representatives, and disquiet easily perturbed members of Parliament.

The Right-Minded View: Traingate


Everything we had been told to believe turned out to be a lie. There was no crowded carriage. There were no passengers, seated in aisles. There was no train. There was no floor.

We were told that Mr Corbyn had a copy of Private Eye. It was said that the train had walls. In reality, it was all an elaborate ruse to cover up the terrible, shocking truth…that the Corbyn train picture was faked using the same studio which was employed to simulate the moon landings.

Wake up people!!!!!

Thankfully, however, commonsense prevailed. The owner of a private train company arbitrated this dispute in an entirely neutral and fair-minded manner, to the satisfaction of all concerned: reaffirming that his profit-making enterprise is entirely free from problem – which is particularly reassuring, given the fact that Mr Corbyn has mentioned something or another about returning the railways to public ownership.

And to think, Corbyn would have gotten away with it all, too; had it not been for Richard Branson and his talking dog.

The truth is out there.

Trust no-one.


The Right-Minded View: Reds Under The Beds

In my view, the British press is quite right to warn the general public that as many as a handful of people were once involved with a faintly left-wing political group, before joining the Labour Party.

Now, many naysayers have scoffed at such a suggestion – dismissing it as the febrile maundering of overheated imaginations; with no more than a tiny number of people ineligibly joining Labour.

What they fail to realise, however, is that this is no ordinary bout of entryism – it is, instead, a development of homeopathic infiltration: all it takes is one Red under every four thousand or so beds for Britain to fall prey to….


The true scale of this problem is simply astounding, despite its non-existence; and should not be underestimated, merely because it is mathematically impossible. Even the British media, which routinely struggles to find any racists in our country – and wasn’t able to locate a single Labour supporter who voted to remain in the EU, even though the overwhelming majority of them did – is having no trouble at all finding communists galore.

It turns out that a cult of Trotskyites – cunningly disguised as teenagers, disabled people, and pensioners – has been lying in wait for years. Waiting, watching; perched, poised. Allowing every previous opportunity for their insurrection to pass – and only now revealing themselves, shorn of disguise; just to annoy a few people in the Labour Party.

And what is behind this menace? Well, we all know the answer to that. As one Labour source told somebody or another: “Jeremy Corbyn has clearly been fixated by the political ideology and tactics of Leon Trotsky for quite some time. Mr Corbyn brutally enforces his own Soviet-style leadership, through the devious ploy of getting a majority of members and supporters to vote for him. Quite frankly, it’s outrageous that in this day and age that sort of thing should be going on. Auction the Labour Party on Ebay, I say. Let it be sold to the highest bidder – without any of this ‘democracy’ nonsense”.

Of particular pertinence here is the influx of youthful sorts into the Labour Party – who are initially enticed by the alluring calls to build more council houses; only to fall prey to the forceful seductions of Trotskyism. If young people these days can have their virtues tempted by anything, it’s doctrinal ideology. The attention-span of teenagers, in particular, is famously inexhaustible. Once they have imbibed prolix essays from the 1920’s, they are then taken to a secret dungeon, and force-fed quinoa until they pledge allegiance to the Communist God Of Fashionable Grains.

Of course, the Labour leader – Mr Corbyn – denies all of this: asking people to take empirical reality into account, instead of subscribing to hearsay; and apply reason, while maintaining a clear sense of proportion. Sounds like something Stalin would say, in my opinion.

What I propose, therefore, is a simple method of testing whether somebody is a Trotskyite Entryist, or not. A sort of show-trial, if you will. First, the accused’s limbs should be bound; before being promptly pitched into the Thames (or the nearest available river, if travel is not an option). If the suspect floats, well, that proves their commitment to social-change by non-democratic means.

If they should sink however; and – to use the overly emotive language favoured by those on the left of the spectrum – drown, well, that demonstrates that they are innocent of all charges; and will be welcome to join the Labour Party, as soon as a proxy – such as a local mortician – fills out the correct paperwork on their behalf. This is just commonsense.

And you can’t apply too much commonsense when it comes to Trotskyites. As many as six currently hold office in the Irish Parliament – and we all know that Ireland has been a communist worker’s republic for many a year, now. According to one well placed source, who managed to escape recently – by taking a week’s vacation in Britain: “Irish cats are now forced to say ‘Mao’ instead of ‘miaow'”.

We all know where that leads:


Thanks to these goings on, respectable people now live in a state of perpetual fear. When I asked a Labour source about this, they replied “what on earth are you talking about? That’s a complete load of nonsense”. Clear evidence that they were being intimidated. You see, it may very well be a complete load of nonsense; but it’s Corbyn’s fault that it’s a complete load of nonsense.

Stay vigilant. You can’t be too careful when faced with the prospect of Reds Under Beds. You really can’t.




Has The Labour Party Been Inundated With ‘Trotsky Entryists’? The Evidence Indicates Otherwise.

A claim which has been made repeatedly by critics and opponents of Jeremy Corbyn is that his leadership of the Labour Party has resulted in it being deluged with entryism, by people affiliated with far-left political parties. Only recently, the Labour Deputy Leader contended that “Trotsky entryists” were “caucusing and factionalising and putting pressure” on young supporters of Labour; supposedly leaving the party itself prone to a ‘hard-left’ takeover.

However, the same allegation has been made repeatedly ever since Corbyn became the front-runner in the initial leadership contest; and during the months immediately after he had been elected to lead the party.

So does the evidence support or contradict this claim? On the basis of numbers alone, it’s impossible to conclude that the claim is accurate. Moreover, the individual examples cited by various media publications fail to support the overall allegation.

Firstly, let’s look at the actual data. The articles writing about this supposed phenomenon cite three main sources of entryism into Labour – the Socialist Workers Party, the Socialist Party (which is the modern permutation of the group Militant), and the Communist Party of Britain. The number of votes cast for these three parties indicates plainly how many people support them.

Both of the two socialist parties currently contest elections as part of the Trade Union and Socialist Coalition. At the last General Election, in May 2015, they gained a total of 36,368 votes.

There are in fact several communist parties in Britain. At the same General Election in 2015, the party simply entitled ‘Communist’ gained the most support with 555 votes. The Communist Party of Britain received 275. The Communist League had 174 votes. The Scottish Communist Party received 136.

Let’s rest on the basis that all of these people joined Labour in the wake of Corbyn’s election; and add that to the number of people who voted for the TUSC in the General Election of 2015. The total number of people who supported these particular far-left parties in 2015 was therefore 37,508.

The current total membership of the Labour party, in August 2016, is 515,000 people. So, on the off-chance that every single last voter for the TUSC and the various communist parties have joined Labour, ‘Trotsky Entryists’ would now comprise c. 7% of the Labour Party’s membership. Needless to say, even if the entire quotient of these voters have joined Labour, it could barely be deemed significant.

Let’s test this thoroughly, however. Given the paucity of voters who support the communist parties, they can be left aside here. 36,368 people voted for the TUSC in May 2015. So are there signs that this support has reduced significantly since Corbyn was elected to lead the Labour party – which would indicate their supporters defecting to Labour? No – in fact, quite the contrary. The TUSC contested the local council elections, in May 2016 – although the turnout for these was not the same as during the General Election, it would nonetheless indicate whether every single TUSC voter had switched their allegiance to Labour. So how many people voted for TUSC in 2016? According to the TUSC themselves:

“Overall TUSC candidates won a total of 43,309 votes in these elections, comprised of 3,540 votes in Scotland, 2,040 votes in Wales, 6,826 votes in the two mayoral contests, and 30,903 in the English council elections.”

Leaving aside the mayoral contests, this is almost the exact same number as voted for them the previous year: 36,483. So, it’s reasonable to conclude that any possible decamping of these voters to the Labour Party has been minimal, to non-existent.

In fact, the idea that this group of voters has joined Labour is actually defied by the very increase in Labour’s membership, since May 2015. The number of Labour Party members began to rise immediately, following the General Election of 2015. As reported in the Mirror Newspaper, during August 2015:

“Figures shown to Mirror Online suggest there are now around 270,000 fully-fledged Labour members – up more than a third from 194,000 before the General Election. The numbers do not include another 70,000 or so people who’ve signed up to vote for Labour’s next leader without joining the party itself”.

So, an increase of 76,000 members after May 2015, and before Corbyn was elected to lead Labour in September 2015. As of October 2015, however, a further 50,000 people had joined the Labour party. By December 2015, it had 388,000 members. During a 48 hour period, in July 2016, 183,000 people joined the Labour party. As noted, its membership currently stands at 515,000. Suffice to say, these numbers simply cannot be explained by supporters – let alone members – of the socialist/communist parties joining Labour. It is a physical impossibility.

Has there been any entryism at all, then? There was evidently some, during the Labour Party’s leadership contest in 2015. As Michael Crick noted, 1,200 people had been removed from the leadership ballot by the Labour Party:

“Of the 1,200, almost 300 people have been identified as people who’ve stood in the recent past as candidates for other parties. Labour tell me this includes 214 Green candidates in recent elections, 37 people who stood for the Trades Union and Socialist Coalition (TUSC), 13 Conservatives, 7 Ukip candidates, and one BNP. Oh, and a man who stood at some election or other for the Morecambe Bay Independents.”

Needless to say, perhaps, but these people were all removed; and the scale of their attempted entryism was evidently minimal. However, Crick also demurred presciently that “the various Trots and Greens would like you to believe they made a crucial difference. And journalists love it as a story too.” Indeed.


As a narrative, the claims about Trotskyite entryism clearly aren’t based on numerical evidence. However, do the reports of sinister incidents involving supposed entryists withstand more scrutiny? Not really. If anything, what seems to emerge is a distinct narrative being applied; which exaggerates matters quite considerably.

Writing in the Huffington Post, Owen Bennett makes a number of claims on this theme, which are contradicted by the actual evidence. In response to Tom Watson’s allegation of entryism, Bennett contends:

“Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn hit back at the claims, accusing Watson of “patronising members and peddling baseless conspiracy theories”. But just last week The Socialist Party – known as Militant in the 1980s – was boasting of receiving a round of applause at a meeting of Labour supporters when it called for the deselection of MPs”.

As it happens, it wasn’t Corbyn who said this; but rather a member of his leadership campaign team. However, Bennett’s second claim would appear to be accurate. Is it quite what it seems from Bennett’s write-up, though? No. What appears to have happened is that among the hundreds of Labour Party members reputedly attending the meeting, one Socialist Party member supposedly stood up and called “for the deselection of all Blairite politicians, including cuts-making councillors”, and “received strong applause” in response. While this would indicate that a Socialist Party member had attended an unofficial meeting of Labour supporters, it evidently does not provide evidence of anything widespread – let alone particularly untoward – occurring. It is one person attending a public gathering. That’s if their own claims are actually true to begin with. Nothing seems to corroborate them.

Moreover, the constituency Labour party had been banned from holding an official meeting in the wake of the Parliamentary coup; on the pretext that Angela Eagle had received threats – ostensibly from Labour supporters. People were obviously unhappy enough about this situation to attend a conference protesting against it. Presupposing that the Socialist Party’s fairly self-serving claim is accurate, it is obviously far from consequential.

One person standing up in a meeting of hundreds, being applauded in the present circumstances for objecting to problematic MPs and Councillors, is a trifling incident, to say the very least. If they really did gain applause from those present, it was surely for nothing more than voicing an opinion many of the Labour supporters already held of their own accord. To suggest as one of Bennett’s own – predictably anonymous – sources does that this is evidence of infiltration, subverting the local Labour party, is implausible. By all accounts, the person in question had not become a member of the Labour Party – but simply attended one of its membership’s meetings.

The Guardian newspaper followed much the same suit – contending that the “Leader of expelled leftwing group Militant expects readmission to Labour”. As it outlines:

“Peter Taaffe, the veteran leader of Militant – the hard-left group pushed out of Labour in the 1980s and now renamed the Socialist party – expects to be readmitted to Labour if Jeremy Corbyn wins September’s leadership election”.

Suffice to say, Taaffe cannot join Labour, because he is a member of a different political party: the aforementioned Socialist Party. Moreover, he and his cohort have had a year to join the Labour Party since Corbyn was elected to lead it; and have evidently not done so. The suggestion that they could, or will, join Labour in the event of Corbyn winning the current leadership contest therefore seems to be completely baseless. It also flatly disproves the claim that the Momentum group is somehow coterminous with Militant; as has been suggested, previously. How could that be the case, when the bona fide Militant are openly acknowledging that they do not currently occupy any place within the Labour Party?


The figure currently at the centre of these claims, of course, is Tom Watson. Following the furore which erupted in the aftermath of his initial claims, Watson addressed a public letter to Jeremy Corbyn; supposedly compiling proof of his allegations. So how does this evidence measure up against his accusations?

The allegations themselves were made in the Guardian. Namely that:

“There are Trots that have come back to the party, and they certainly don’t have the best interests of the Labour party at heart. They see the Labour party as a vehicle for revolutionary socialism, and they’re not remotely interested in winning elections, and that’s a problem. But I don’t think the vast majority of people that have joined the Labour party and have been mobilised by the people that are in Momentum are all Trots and Bolsheviks.

Some of these people are deeply interested in political change, in building a more equal society, and are just on a journey in politics that they’re new to, and I don’t want them to feel that I’m labelling them because I’m not. But there are some old hands twisting young arms in this process, and I’m under no illusions about what’s going on. They are caucusing and factionalising and putting pressure where they can, and that’s how Trotsky entryists operate”.

In the public letter he has written, however – published in the Huffington Post– Watson changes his claims slightly. Firstly, he writes that “there is no denying that tightly organised factions are also organising within Momentum and the party”. He then states: “there has been an increase in members of proscribed organisations attempting to join the party”.

These are two quite different statements. Unsuccessfully attempting to join the party is not the same as doing so, undetected. In fact, Watson then refers to people who have been “excluded from the party” – and mentions attaching a document, “drawn up using publicly available information” which shows that members of proscribed organisations “are joining Labour”.

To what extent are these slightly contradictory claims true? In his dossier, Watson cites five categories of entryism. The first of these is under the heading ‘organising within Momentum branches to influence local Labour branches’. While on the surface the three examples he cites appear to support his case, they prompt more questions than answers. To take the initial one, Watson refers to an organisation called Red Flag, derived from a previous “Trotskyist group” called Worker’s Power. According to Watson, Red Flag “is encouraging organising within Momentum branches and CLPs – urging supporters to pass a model motion against the PLP”. Well, this is not quite accurate to begin with – the motion in question is quite specific in referring to “rebels in the PLP” who “have organised a vote of no confidence and a leadership contest to overthrow Jeremy Corbyn”.

However, regardless of its goal, how influential is this likely to have proven? It’s difficult to say, because the URL Watson provides simply contains the template for a motion, intended to be handed-out at Momentum meetings. Was it actually distributed? It’s not possible to answer without evidence; and Watson provides none. That said, it appears not to have been shared by anybody online, to judge by the five share-icons at the right-hand side of the webpage; all of which currently read zero. More to the point, perhaps, but how widespread is membership of Red Flag? It’s a fairly tenuous indicator, but at the present-time of writing, the Red Flag organisation has 64 followers on Twitter. It’s Facebook account is no more popular. It seems fair to conclude that if this group really has engaged in entryism, it is on an extremely limited scale.

This is no less true of the second example Watson cites – whereby a group called Labour Party Marxists supposedly encouraged “supporters to pass a model motion at Momentum branches calling for mandatory reselection of MPs”. The URL Watson provides is a PDF file:


which seems to no longer exist. In fact, the group itself appears to have been no more popular than Red Flag, to judge by its Facebook account. Given its recent lack of notices, it’s questionable whether it is even still active.

However, the third example Watson gives is the Alliance for Worker’s Liberty. This is a larger group than either of the previous two. So, has it engaged in large-scale entryism? As far as the public record shows, almost certainly not. The Guardian published an article in October 2015, noting that four members of Labour had been expelled on the grounds of previous involvement in the Alliance For Worker’s Liberty. A further former member of the AWL was expelled from Labour in February 2016. At the time of writing, this seems to be the sum total of AWL ‘entryists’ into the Labour Party. If anything, this would undermine the notion of entryism being a significant problem, given that these five people were disbarred from Labour.

More to the point, perhaps, but the examples from the AWL website don’t quite support what Watson alleges. Rather than discussing entryism into Labour, the first actually seems to encourage entryism into Momentum:

“This time we must use the new upsurge around and influx into Momentum groups to put our organisation on a stronger footing (etc)”

This is even more apparent in the second example Watson gives:

” Join Momentum and get involved with it’s campaigning. Set up constituency left caucuses and discuss the politics on which to fight for a Corbyn vote: free movement of labour; rebuild the NHS; fight the cuts and a new, renewed right-wing Tory government.”

So, the issue herein is not entryism into the Labour Party; but entryism into Momentum. This evidently poses a different problem. It remains impossible to say whether any of this has actually happened or not, however. Has it? Watson doesn’t say.

Other incidents Watson cites follow much the same suit. Under the heading ‘far-left entryism’, he provides three excerpts from Socialist Party webpages. Watson prefaces one quote with a reference to the Socialist Party organising meetings “to ‘defy’ Labour’s NEC”. However, the passage itself simply states that:

“Local parties should defy these edicts and continue meeting, or #Keep Corbyn meetings should be organised independently, including by trade union branches – and involving Corbyn supporters inside and outside the Labour Party”.

As the webpage it comes from notes, this was in response to the moratorium on local Labour Party meetings. This does not comprise entryism. It doesn’t seem to amount to anything at all, beyond a vague suggestion being made.

The other two examples are more discernible. In the first case, Momentum supposedly colluded with the Socialist Party to organise a demonstration in support of Jeremy Corbyn, in the wake of the Labour Coup:

“Around 250 people gathered at short notice to demonstrate their support for Jeremy Corbyn in Leeds. The demonstration was called by Momentum after discussion with the Socialist Party and others from trade unions and campaigning groups around Leeds.”

There is no evidence to support this suggestion of cooperation, however. In fact, it is rendered unlikely – as the author notes: “it is regrettable that the Socialist Party was not permitted a speaker at the demonstration despite our support and help initiating it”. So, even if they did help organise this demonstration, they evidently were not an altogether welcome presence. This is reaffirmed by a further reference to another demonstration; noting that “disappointingly, Momentum once again refused to allow Socialist Party members to speak”.

This is also in evidence in the second example Watson cites here. He quotes the following in his dossier:

“Socialist Party member Iain Dalton was also able to address the rally, unlike recent ones in nearby Leeds (*see footnote).

Footnote: This sentence was amended online on 15.7.16 to remove an inaccurate reference to Socialist Party members not being able to address previous Momentum meetings in York; the participation of Socialist Party members has in fact been welcomed in York Momentum”.

This was an impromptu rally, held in York. However, the same webpage includes references which expressly note that at other Momentum rallies, Socialist Party members were a unwanted guests:

“At a meeting of Tower Hamlets Momentum a few months ago, Jon Lansman made it clear that I and other Socialist Party members would not be welcome to participate”.


“It was disappointing therefore that Momentum Plymouth members attempted to prevent Socialist Party members from handing out leaflets”.

If anything, these indicate that Socialist Party members have tried to participate in Momentum initiatives; without very much success.

The rest of Watson’s examples are of a piece, really – nebulous aspersions, which rest upon taking the unreliable boasts of a self-promoting fringe political group at face-value. Some do not even meet that standard. For instance, Watson alludes to “Momentum campaign sessions for Corbyn open to anyone outside of party”; but provides as proof a Momentum advert which states “the meeting/session is open to members of Momentum, volunteers and supporters of Jeremy Corbyn”. So what does that indicate? It was simply an advert for a phone-bank session, organised by Momentum. In fact, the advert itself indicates that Watson has omitted a key word. It states plainly (and in full):

“The meeting/session is open to members of Momentum, volunteers and supporters of Jeremy Corbyn only. Local trade unions will also be invited”.

More concrete is Watson’s reference to Jill Mountford – one of the five former AWL members -who was expelled from Labour in February 2016; “running phonebanks for Corbyn”. Watson then provides a copy of Mountford’s comment to that effect on Twitter: “Created logins for 60 Lewisham @PeoplesMomentum supporters to do phone bank work for JC whenever & wherever fitting around work & kids etc”. Not to put too fine a point on matters, but this clearly does not amount to entryism. Mountford was banned from the Labour Party – but there’s nothing to say she can’t organise phonebanks for Momentum.

All told, Watson’s claims of entryism are very nebulous; and the examples he provides are – at best – petty incidents. They seem not to centre on the Labour Party itself, for the most part; but revolve around the Momentum group instead. What evidence is publicly available fails to support Watson’s case that anything untoward is happening on any significant scale, however. There is certainly nothing to support Watson’s original claim that ‘arm-twisting’ of any kind has taken place. If anything, the examples he himself compiled indicate how ineffectual efforts at ‘entryism’ have proven – not least of all when Socialist Party members found themselves unwelcome at Momentum events.

Moreover, at least one claim Watson makes in his letter is – to say the least – implausible. He finishes his missive, by noting “I have attached a document that I am reliably informed is being shared between Momentum members with links to far-left parties”. In reality, the quotation in question turns out to be a blogpost, written by the Labour group, Progress; reviewing Michael Crick’s book Militant. It seems unlikely that far-left operatives have infiltrated the Labour Party, with sufficient stealth to avoid any detection; in order to circulate copies of a book review.

In fact, the actual political agenda behind Watson’s claims have been generally overlooked, in favour of the furore surrounding his reference to Trotsky entryism. In the Guardian interview which quoted his initial allegation, Watson went on to explain his intention to reintroduce the electoral-college system for electing Labour party leaders; which would end the one-member, one-vote system introduced by Ed Miliband; consequently granting a disproportionate level of influence to Parliamentary MPs and Unions in choosing a leader. This represents a far more troubling prospect for internal party democracy, than an extremely minimal number of left-wing political activists attempting – and on the basis of all presently-available evidence, failing – to influence another group of left-wing political activists.

As a final note, it would be remiss not to point out that these ‘Trotsky Entryists’ all reputedly joined the Labour party immediately after Corbyn was elected to lead it in September 2015; and yet, according to the very same sources, they apparently didn’t join it after all – but will only do so from now on.