Join the Populist Party today. Send a cheque or postal order to our HQ at... 11 The Orchards, Landkey, North Devon. EX32 0QP.

 Or pay us by B.A.C.S. sort code 20-98-57

Account Number 20332798.  It is only £5 per year, though extra donations on top are welcome....

 All of the Tories' woes are based upon their attempts to modernise to chase the "progressive" vote.

Be it the MPs of Wakefield or Bridgend and their sexual preferences or Boris and Carrie's great green reset or Sunak's millions, there is a common theme.

The Tories are not socially conservative and they embrace multiculturalism. Half the MPs in their parliamentary party probably wouldn't be there if they rejected "modernity" and stood for old fashioned British social conservativism. And half the scandals may also have been avoided (though the party has always been fairly "bent" it seems more so with the added aspect of arguments about "minority" issues)...

 The French Pesidential Election earliers this year showed that 42% of those who voted (probably more, but these are the "official" figures) backed a candidate who largely rejects the mainstream.

That's a lot of people. If we consider how the Remainers kept banging away after the Referendum we should NOT give up. They had 48% of the votes cast. Have they simply surrendered? No. They keep on insisting we rejoin the EU.

This seems to be a feature of "the Right". Defeatism, the idea that each win for the opponents of traditional ideas can never be overturned. The idea that in order to beat them, you have to become them (the Tory way, with their LGBTQ committees and pandering to the BAME vote).

Le Pen got as far as she has because she understands that "capitalism" isn't "right wing". It can be "left-wing" and virtue-signalling. So, she supports an economic model of the centre-left, of localism and opposing big business.

But in the UK, UKIP and Reform UK cling to the "Anglo-Saxon model of economics" (free trade, free markets, laissez-faire) and voters quite rightly think "we like them on identity issues but don't trust them to not sell off the NHS or offer tax breaks to the rich at the expense of the poor".

Must this only happen in France and other Catholic nations (bearing in mind that they are more in tune with concepts like Distributism and Protectionism) or can we achieve it here?

If we can capture the white working class Labour vote (those who would NEVER vote Tory under any circumstances, rather than the fabled Red Wall voters that did) then we have a chance to create a new opposition. By splitting Labour in half. Because one of the old parties has to collapse before a new one can emerge. And if it is to be a party "of the Left" lets make sure it has "socially conservative and nationalist" values to add to the left-of-centre economics.

Much research has been done over the past few years on this. The left-right axis is not clear cut. One can be a socially conservative anti-capitalist or a socially liberal opponent of socialism as much as the old idea that people should be consistently left wing or right wing on every subject.

So, we can win, but only by ditching free marketism and forcing the "Left" to decide what they oppose more - Tory "global capitalism" or Populist "left economics nationalism"...

 "Right to buy"?

"Boris Johnson wants to give millions of people the right to buy the homes they rent from housing associations in a major shake-up inspired by Margaret Thatcher."

"The Prime Minister ordered officials to develop the plans in the last fortnight after becoming convinced the idea would help “generation rent”, The Telegraph can reveal."

"The proposal is intended to give the 2.5 million households in England who rent properties from housing associations the power to purchase their homes at a discounted price."

-- Thus reducing the number of homes available to rent and pushing up rents for those who continue to rent (because inadequate supply means extra demand).

 Spoiled ballot papers v abstention.

A spoiled ballot paper: It will just be placed in a tray with the other spoiled ballots. No one will ever see what you wrote, other than the counters (briefly) and perhaps those who you rejected. When I've been at counts, the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems look at comments with statements like "none of them" and simply laugh arrogantly, rather than taking any notice of the sentiment.

Abstention: It shows a lack of support for the choices on your ballot paper, but also shows that you reject the system. Each spoiled ballot is a vote cast, but an abstention is a vote not cast. That is more powerful than spoiling.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Conclusion: Even if 90% of us did either though the 10% who didn't would still elect one of those on that ballot paper, sadly.

The law needs changing so that council seats that fail to attract 50% of the voter turnout are left vacant and new candidates and parties re-contest them until someone wins with a majority of the voters taking part. That's the only way that the old guard will sit up and take notice. The cost of elections and the chance that failing to get a 50% turnout the first time could open it up for a new party in a second ballot.

The same with spoiled papers. If the number of spoiled papers were higher than votes cast for candidates then the election should be null and void. Perhaps a "None of the Above" option.

The fact that there are no penalties for failing to attract people to vote is why the system carries on and why neither abstention or ballot spoiling are any kind of protest - because there are no consequences for the candidates standing in said election....

And compulsory voting would simply force people to vote for the lesser of the evils even more (to paper over the cracks).

 The reason that the Reform UK party will not say anything about the Ukraine is because they support NATO and throwing money to Ukraine is a NATO policy. WE need to leave NATO if we are to stop involving ourselves in foreign wars.

UKIP, the SDP etc support NATO so they are unable to comment without being seen as hypocrites.

The Populist Party, on the other hand, condemns this handout, especially at a time when people are facing inflation hikes to the cost of living. We need the money here. And, like the EU, NATO is a bottomless hole of money doled out to foreign nations.

The Populist Party says leave NATO. Join the Populist Party.

https://www.populistparty.co.uk/

 Trump would not have pushed for Ukraine to join NATO, meaning that Putin would not have invaded Ukraine, and therefore it can be concluded that liberalism is a threat to peace.

 You've gotta laugh at the CivNat "Right".

In 2016 people voted for Brexit largely to prevent the influx of people from Eastern Europe (including those who like Eastern Europeans - and I don't harbour any grudge against them).

There were too many coming in, not matched by people living here moving to Poand, Hungary etc.

Nigel Farage spoke of being on a train in Hither Green and not hearing any English conversations. The liberals condemned him, but most understood his comment. He spoke of the effect on infrastructure - on schools, on housing, on all public amenities. About jobs being harder to get for local workers.

Housing them in the UK meant a hike in rents as landlords had a glut of people seeking a place to live in certain towns with above average EU born foreign residents.

YET, here we are in 2022, and often the same people are saying that we must house Ukranians. As if the aforementioned issues don't apply to THEM. As if a Pole or Romanian coming here takes up space, uses infrastructure, but a Ukranian doesn't.

Notwithstanding that, the Ukranians (as refugees) won't even be allowed to work and put into the economy or provide any value that the Poles and Romanians did in Starbucks, Pret A Manger etc. So it is even worse. Money spent without anything put back in. Sure, the argument will be made that "at least they are not taking our jobs" but I'm not sure that the rules won't be bent on that too.

And then we have the spectacle of rose-tinted glasses liberals in leafy suburbia being paid £350 to house them. But consider this. Their neighbours in the same road have found themselves mortgaged to the hilt to live there, but due to this invasion they then find said road changes into a mini-Kiev or Odessa overnight.

Tories and other civic-nationalists say that:

1. These are genuine refugees.

2. Unlike Islamicists they are unlikely to be terrorists..

3. Because of points one and two they should not be sent to Rwanda...

So, suddenly all the points made about refugees and immigrants taking space, altering our cultural mix, affecting infrastructure seem no longer valid. That all the points made about free movement in the 2016 Referendum don't apply to Ukranians, only to Poles and others who came here during our time in the EU!

Why can they not go to Rwanda? Do they not take up space, use resources? Or is it because they look more like us?

Here's the point. If we can allow Ukranians into the UK in their thousands then some bright spark will realise at that rate we could open our doors once more to all those Polish, Czechs etc who had free movement to the UK while we were in the EU....

Lack of consistency is a hallmark of liberals and yet we see supposed "social conservatives" backing mass immigration from Ukraine as if Farage's comments on free movement are no longer valid....

They say that Ukranians wish to return home, but the history of refugees to the UK would suggest otherwise. How many Huguenots, Jews, Ugandans, Poles and Hungarians, Iraqis etc returned home when it was deemed safe to do so? Very few - because each month, each year in the UK means developing new ties, even marriage to an English person in many cases and once the roots are planted here, they are here to stay.

IF you opposed free movement in 2016 you must support closing the doors to refugees.....

 Red Wall Leave voters (whether they voted Tory or Labour in 2019) showed their vote could change the result of an election IF they voted en masse when they voted Leave in the 2016 Referendum.

But many of them hold similar views that are left-of-centre on economics and right-of-centre on social (law and order, immigration etc).

The old gang RELY upon them being divided between red and blue so their power is divided. But united they would be a formidible force (and a lot of current non-voters in their seats would be activated to tip the balance).