Before I get to the second part of quoting the points made by Matt Goodwin in his essay – you can read the first part here – let’s take a quick glance at the news presented by the MSM and compiled by ‘staff’: “Newspaper headlines: ‘Ten chances’ to stop Letby and ‘How many more?’” (link): if this is true then I hope that finally some of the untouchable NHS admin heads will roll. Doctors had raised concerns about this ‘nurse’ but it wasn’t acted upon (my emphasis):

“Medics who had raised concerns about Letby were also at one point instructed to write to her and formally apologise, or attend mediation with her.” (paywalled link)

I am absolutely speechless but not really surprised because this is a horrible example of ‘feminism’ in action, according to which a female nurse cannot possibly have done wrong and the male doctors better apologise.

Apologies for this excursion. Now let’s look at points Four and Five raised by Matt Goodwin in his essay, the ‘Reply to Cummings’. Again, I’ve left the links but be aware that some lead to paywalled articles. Also, it’s Goodwin himself who emphasises some words and expressions using Capital Letters:

“Fourth. Identity. Pledge to preserve and promote Britain’s distinctive identity, culture, and history which many voters —white or otherwise— now worry are being swept away by a relentless tide of bland, hyper-global, liberal universalism. They want leaders who will stand up to the concerted cultural revolution that is now underway to sweep away Britain’s proud history, identity, and culture and repackage it as a bland celebration of “diversity” and other elite values. Voters are not idiots. They can both see and sense this unfolding project and they really don’t like it. This is not misguided nationalism. It’s about giving the country a much stronger and more unified STORY about who we are and what holds our increasingly diverse and now unravelling society together. And that story, about our HOME, is the only one capable of uniting an increasingly fragmented and divided population. The Left’s identity politics and the Right’s status-conscious aversion to anything with the word “national” in it will both lead us into a total nightmare —an atomised society where nobody feels they belong to anything and everybody is pitted against everybody else. Britain was and is an incredibly special, unique, and positive place. Whoever says that, whoever demonstrates that, unlike much of SW1, they actually believe in Britain, will also be rewarded at the ballot box. End of story.” (paywalled link)

I am sure this sounds very familiar to most of us, as our reader J.Butties pointed out in a comment post yesterday. Let’s finish with Goodwin’s final, fifth point:

“Fifth. Economic populism (read: not redistribution). Masses of voters, put simply, are sick and tired of big global corporates, the 1%, and High Net Worths taking the p*ss when it comes to tax avoidance, evasion, dominating and corrupting the property market, and viewing Britain as a private playground rather than a national community to which they have a sense of responsibility and obligation. One big reason why somebody like Jeremy Corbyn cut through, as I pointed out at the time, was not so much because of his call for radical economic redistribution but his sense that “the many”, economically, are utterly sick and tired of having to pick up the bill for “the few”. The Panama Papers. Bankrupt councils. Carillion. Obscene executive pay. The cost of rail tickets. The BHS pension scandal. Widespread and systematic tax avoidance. The way in which hyper-globalisation has battered Western workers and non-graduates. And the more general rise of what Charles Murray once called “unseemliness” in modern society —perhaps best symbolised by the behaviour of many of our recent leaders as soon as they left public office. The British voter will not side with a “bash the rich” campaign, largely because they are aspirational and would one day like to be well off themselves. But when the economic system is deemed to be rigged against them, when it is deemed to be violating their core sense of “fair play”, then there emerges enormous space for a party that is both free of the donor class and willing to speak both loudly and directly to this.” (paywalled link)

Indeed, these five points are nothing ‘new’. Goodwin only describes the opinions people have expressed. What is ‘new’ is that they cannot be brushed aside as silly utterances by some ignorant peasants, to be disregarded or vilified by the Westminster elite. Goodwin has the data to show that these points are what the majority of the electorate wants. 

Can these points be translated into a ‘New Party’, a Party which might sweep into the HoC and sweep out all that’s horrible in Westminster and Whitehall? Goodwin proposes a two-stage process:

“Stage one. Ensure the Tories lose in 2024. Stage two. Fill the Space with something new. Personally, I think the New Party, the People’s Party, whatever it’s called, would need to run, say, fifty candidates in demographically receptive seats to increase its visibility and influence, and start attracting (DECENT AND ALIGNED) MPs who are going to lose their seats anyway but might like to go out with a bang by helping get something new off the ground. 

This will allow the New Party to present its core principles, it’s New Labour pledge card, to the public, get attention, get money, and attract good people.” (paywalled link)

I think his hopes for some ‘decent MPs’ aligning themselves with this New Party are a bit blue-eyed, but we know that such things do happen … Next:

“Stage two would then need to see an all-out assault against BOTH Left and Right in order to fill the space that will be left by a moribund and intellectually lost Tory party that, knowing the Tory party, will probably idiotically conclude in the aftermath of defeat that somebody like Penny Mordaunt is the answer. 

I keep saying to Conservatives who want something new “why are you calling yourselves conservatives?” There is a very visible 20-25% of the Labour vote and 80-90% of the “None of the Above” vote that would be instinctively receptive to, say, a People’s Party or a People’s Movement. Why limit yourselves in this way, by pitching to only one slice of the political pie?” (paywalled link)

I would add that the same could be said about the current Labour Party which has evolved into a Party for bourgeois ‘clients’ rather than representing the original working class. Finally, the concluding paragraphs of this essay:

“Without local elections and European Parliament elections the New Party would certainly struggle. Life for new entrants today is MUCH harder than it has been at any other time in modern political history. 

The New Party would have to fill this space with alternative, non-traditional activities which can sustain momentum and continue to attract publicity […] The first serious election test would not arrive until the local elections in 2025 and then, in theory, not until the next general election circa 2028.

Difficult? Yes. 

A bit mad? Totally. 

Possible? Absolutely.” (paywalled link)

I concur: this is possible, but only if we can get the many of our acquaintances, friends and families to also get off their backsides and engage. All of us who’ve been in the EU Referendum trenches know full well the work involved. Still, this time it’s about taking back our country from the strangulations of the Westminster Ruling classes, made up of the HoC, Whitehall and the MSM, therefore attracting more people.

That’s all I have for today. Let’s not succumb to the defeatist attitude which declares that it’s too difficult and therefore cannot be done. Let’s at least try and have a go, hard work as it will be. We do know about ‘grassroot movements’, don’t we! Have a good weekend.



Print Friendly, PDF & Email