A base-born man either resembles in character his father, or his mother, or both; he can never conceal his real nature. Even if a man, born in a great family, sprang from criminal intercourse, he will certainly possess the faults of his father, be they small or great. But that kingdom in which such bastards, sullying the purity of varna, are born, perishes quickly together with its inhabitants.

Mānavadharmaśāstra [Laws of Manu], 10, 59-61, translated by George Bühler in 1886


To any organisation – any political party -looking for a product to sell – any political party – I recommend the following:

(1) Adopt the key part of Labour’s rejected Clause IV.

(1.1.1) The original aim of the Labour Party, in its Constitution drafted by Sidney and Beatrice Webb in 1918, was to ‘secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry’.

(1.1.2) You will notice that Corbyn’s Labour Party has not restored Clause IV.

The Labour Party of 2019 no longer represents workers and wealth creators.


(1.2) The original Fabians of the 1880s and 1890s and Edwardian era, if they came back now, would be standing agape and aghast, holding their heads in their hands  (rather like the audience at the end of Mel Brooks’s The Producers), looking at the Labour Party, and groaning – ‘This is NOT… AT ALL… what we had in mind…’

Emily Thornberry does not represent the working man!


(1.3.1) Notice what they say.

They never talk of wealth creators – as did, for example, Tony Benn or Margaret Thatcher or Arthur Scargill or Norman Tebbit. The emphasis is now on extorting wealth out of the wealth creators, and redistributing it amongst the wealth consumers.

(1.3.2) Corbyn’s Labour party is no more than a re-branding and reincarnation of the old Claimants Union.

The Claimants Union became a de facto offshoot of the Socialist Workers Party, and was concocted, in 1970, to intimidate staff at Social Security offices. The TUC regarded it, not as a real union, but as a collection of deadbeats and parasites, and would have nothing to do with it.

(1.3.3) Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party is NOT a return to old Labour; and I wish people would stop saying it is.

(1.3.4) It cannot be overemphasised – The Labour Party of 2019 is the Claimants Union under a different name.


(1.4.1) I was a teenager in the 1970s.

I grew up in what you might call ‘Old Fashioned’ industrial Manchester: in the Gorton constituency. It was one of the safest Labour seats in the country – maybe the safest.

All of my neighbours were manual workers. They read the Daily Mirror; they voted Labour. Many of them could remember the Great Depression of the 1930s. And – believe it or not – some of them wore cloth caps!

They had real jobs; and they voted Labour because they wanted to be rewarded fairly for their industry – they wanted more money in their wage packets. They were what used to be called the respectable, or aspirational, Working Class.

(1.4.2) The type of people Corbyn and Thornberry and Abbott and Lammy and Jess Philips and Angela Rayner and Owen Jones and Eddie Izzard and James O’Brien and Dawn Butler and Kevin Maguire and the rest of them represent were (and I’d better watch the language here!) were regarded as being the dregs of society – the dregs of humanity. This was the position of the original Fabian Society.

(1.4.3) The original Fabians didn’t want to tolerate them – they wanted to sterilise them! And this was generally the position of the pre-World-War-I intellectual Left. H. G. Wells, G. B. Shaw, Bertrand Russell, Keynes, et al were of the same mind.


(1.5.1) There’s a big difference between the pre-WWI intellectual, and what passes for an intellectual now.

(1.5.2) What began as a call for eradication became a call for toleration, and has now turned into the demand for propagation.

Fair is foul, and foul is fair.

It’s as if a horde of Hogarthian grotesques have risen from their cesspits, and are chasing us down the street.

There is such a thing as society; and they are a burden on it.


(1.6.1) The creators of wealth, the workers by hand or by brain, still want a proper slice of the wealth they create – the full fruits of their industry.

(1.6.2) Clause IV – the main part of it – would, I think, be a powerful weapon in any anti Labour Party argument.


(2) Adopt a logically rigorous environmental position.

(2.1.1) At the beginning of the 1980s, in his book Seeing Green, Jonathan Porritt wrote:

“There seems to be something about the sensibilities of all good liberals that makes it extremely uncomfortable for them to cope with population matters. It’s obviously a problem, so obviously something’s got to be done, but exactly what, by whom and in what way are emotive and controversial issues. So it remains a taboo subject.”

(2.1.2) The position of the Green Left (call them) does not add up.

(2.1.3) They’ve spent the last sixty or seventy years calling for the starving millions to be fed, for a more equal distribution of wealth, for active re-distribution of wealth.

(2.1.4) Now, they’re emphasising over-consumption, and calling for a decrease in it.

They are campaigning for a decrease in the consumption of food and for a decrease in the consumption of raw materials. That is – they’re calling for a decrease in the application and employment of wealth.


(2.2.1) In 1960, the world’s population was around 3 billion (most not having a penny to scratch their backsides with). In 2019, the world’s population is more than 7 billion.

(2.2.2) That increase of more than 4 billion has not been in the countries industrialized pre-1945 (let’s put it that way).

(2.2.3) The Green Left still equate development with re-distribution.

(2.2.4) Crude example:

Imagine one man having £1,000,000 and one kettle; and 999 people having no money and no kettles.

If we redistribute the wealth so that 1,000 people have £1,000 each, we’ll probably end up with 1,000 kettles exploiting 1,000 times the raw materials and energy used by the one millionaire.

The Green Left seem to be incapable of understanding basic arithmetic.


(2.3.1) The European landmass (the European Commission and Parliament is not Europe any more than the 60 people on Hounslow Council are Hounslow) the European landmass is the most densely populated area on the planet.

(2.3.2) The Green Left still call for unconstrained migration into the pre-1945 industrialized countries.

(2.3.3) Increased population and increased consumption through increased wealth and wealth redistribution would lead to increased use of natural resources and increased burdens on infrastructure.

(2.3.4) The Green Left’s position is self-contradictory and self-defeating to the point of being suicidal.

(2.3.5) This may not be that famous nightmare exactly as foretold by Malthus, but it’s as near as damn it.


(2.4.1) We might call our sensible environmentalism ‘scientific’ or ‘biological’.

( We obviously have a problem, as Porritt says, so what is to be done, by whom and in what way should not be taboo subjects simply because they involve emotive and controversial issues.

( And dealing with plastic straws in the ocean is… erm… a piss in the ocean.

(2.4.3) I won’t insult the reader’s intelligence by explaining exactly what I’m getting at here.


[To be continued tomorrow in Part II]


Print Friendly, PDF & Email