Is the party over? (The Labour Party, a.k.a. the feminist party, that is)

All British political parties today have feminists within their ranks, such is the degree to which this ideology has come to dominate the political process. Despite its extreme left-wing origins, feminism has displayed an almost unique ability to transcend traditional political leanings, and insert itself into thinking across the political spectrum.

However, it is the British Labour Party that has always been the nurturing parent of feminism (for obvious reasons: Marxism is its pulsing heart), and I think the party will be over for it – in all senses of that saying – because of the recent referendum over Scotland’s independence.

The cultural and political al Qaeda1The Arabic word qaida ordinarily means ‘base’ or ‘foundation – it is also used for ‘groundwork’ and ‘basis’. of feminism in Britain, might be on the brink of the abyss. The society-sapping, family-destroying cult of the woman could be losing its main political power base. Now wouldn’t that be an amazing thing?

From its inception in 1900, out of a coalition of left-wing interests represented by seventy different organisations, mostly trades unions (the Trades Union Movement hosted its first ever meeting in London’s Memorial Hall), Labour has always had a strongly rebellious female spirit within its ranks. Marxist women, marching in solidarity with Marxist men, worked tirelessly throughout the 20th century to overthrow our ‘bourgeois’ capitalist society, and introduce socialism into Britain.

The idea of solidarity of men and women being equals comrades, living in peace and harmony that classic communist principle, finds a resonance in women, as does the spirit of socialism and togetherness Labour professes (the ‘sisterhood’ of feminism reflects the ‘brotherhood’ of Marxist organised labour). Women have always been solidly behind Labour’s left-wing aims, and they have shaped its agendas, policies and tactics throughout its 100 years’ history.

From the start, the Labour Party has always attracted radical women, and it has more than its fair share of pretty rabid feminists in parliament today. We need only look at Harriet Harman, current deputy leader, and Yvette Cooper, the present shadow Home Secretary, to see the most obvious examples.

Despite unity and brotherhood being Labour’s chant; however, the degree of dis-unity it has suffered throughout its history has cost it dear at the polls. The degree of infighting that has taken place in the 100 years or so of its existence has undoubtedly accounted for the fact that the party has held office for only twenty-three of its first 100 years and, with two significant exceptions, 1945 and 1997, it has mostly struggled with inhibiting narrow majorities.

That notwithstanding, whenever Labour did manage to gain power with a strong enough majority it implemented radical social agendas. It did that from July 1945 under Clement Attlee who gained a landslide victory in the polls on the promise of change at the end of the Second World War, until the electorate decisively kicked him out in 1950.

Then, after decades of languishing in its left-wing utopian dreamworld throughout the time when British industry was imploding under the undermining rebellion of the Labour movement on the shop floors of the factories, Labour was only able to regain power by publicly deserting its core Marxist principle – the ownership of the means of production by the workers.

In 1997, under Tony Blair, ‘New Labour’ (for which read ‘Feminist Labour’), finally regained power with a strong-enough majority that allowed the feminist bigots to truly get out of their cages and sally forth to do some serious, and lasting, damage to Britain.

Blair was a clever politician. He ditched the old clothing of Clause 4 – that the workers should own the means of production – and substituted another form of Marxist collectivist doctrine – feminism. Labour’s fundamental Marxism remained, but this time it wore a skirt, and the Blair victory at the polls in 1997 heralded a period of the most extreme feminism ever seen.

New Labour appeared new, but underneath the gloss was another Marxist doctrine – feminism – and it emerged with a vengeance.

There is no doubt in my mind that Blair simply swapped one doctrinaire policy: one that was wholly unacceptable to the people of Britain for another – feminism – dressed up as equality. He did a bait and switch on the British people, and then unleashed a storm of feminist ideology on us.

When he was elected with his 101 women MPs, he and Alistair Campbell, his wily press officer, presented them to the world, receiving the epithet ‘Blair’s Babes’ from the media. They were paraded to the media in stylised publicity events, with Blair at centre stage on the photographs and footage. This was the spin – the gloss on what was about to happen.

In 2002, long after she had left office, and in her seventies, Margaret Thatcher was asked what was her greatest achievement. She replied, ‘Tony Blair and New Labour. We forced our opponents to change their minds’.

Almost single-handedly, Thatcher held Labour’s Marxist doctrines at bay throughout the 1980s, and her dogged resistance to socialism did force Labour to change, but after she left office the feminist Marxists came back with a vengeance, attacking the family with a raft of policies designed to break up the conventional nuclear family with a father at its head.

Harman made her Marxist agenda about the family abundantly clear in 1990 in the IPPR report “The Family Way,” which she co-authored, and in which she stated

‘It cannot be assumed that men are bound to be an asset to family life, or that the presence of fathers in families is necessarily a means to social cohesion’.

In May 2008 she drove this home in an interview she gave to the think-tank Civitas in which she said:

[There is] ‘no ideal type of household in which to bring up children.’

Harman and her feminist cronies were also behind the despicable Sexual Offences Act 2003 – a masterpiece of pure feminist fantasy that inter alia made a clumsy, perhaps drunken sexual encounter between a man and a woman, where both are acting stupidly, thoughtlessly, or maybe in pure lust, where consent cannot be clearly defined, result in the man being accused of rape. And finally, to cap it, all the Equality Act 2010 that favoured equality – if you are a woman that is.

Margaret Thatcher is also famously on record as saying; ‘The feminists hate me don’t they? I don’t blame them. It is poison!’ The poison to which she referred was feminism’s Marxist underpinning ideology. She was nobody’s fool. She knew that feminism is inimical to everything the British people really stand for.

The Labour government of 1997-2010 wreaked the most enormous, long-lasting damage to Britain, but – and this is the point of this article – it might now be facing its end as a political force in the aftermath of the referendum of the Scottish people, which happened on 18th September 2014.

This was not a hung result by any means, although it certainly looked as though it would be only two weeks earlier when the ‘Yes’ campaign suddenly surged in the opinion polls. The result was a resounding ‘No’ to independence: by a majority of 55% to 45% in a massive turnout of the electorate that even exceeded the size of the poll that kicked out Labour in 1950.2The turnout of voters, in the 1950 general election was 83.9%. This week in the Scottish referendum, it was 84.5%, and in some areas, it exceeded an astonishing 90%

The prospect that the ‘Yes’ vote might prevail caused panic in Westminster and all parties, including Labour, came together to save the union. In fact, it was to save themselves.

Had the Scots voted ‘Yes’, David Cameron would have had to resign. He is, after all, the leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party. He would have gone down in history as the Tory leader who lost the union. Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, would have been thrust into the unenviable position of having to field candidates in Scottish constituencies in the 2015 general election, only to find them rendered out of a job less than two years later as those constituencies reverted purely to Scotland on Independence Day.

That would have meant a very substantial part of Labour’s power base, Scottish working-class people, being removed at a stroke, and the party’s power in Westminster irretrievably reduced to the level where it could not regain a sufficient majority to give it power.

So, the result of this panic was a last minute offer by the combined Westminster politicians of what has come to be called ‘Devo-Max’ – maximum devolution of power to Scotland, just short of independence. It worked, and the Scots decided to stay in the Union.

However, David Cameron, Prime Minister for the present, has announced that, concomitant with Devo-Max being granted to Scotland, Scottish MPs in the Westminster parliament should not be allowed to have any say in what happens in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. In a nutshell, it would be wrong to have Scottish MPs voting on taxation, for example in England, when English MPs would not be able to vote on taxation in Scotland. This is the ‘West Lothian Question’. 3The term was first coined by Enoch Powell when referring to the issue being raised by Tam Dalyell, the then Westminster MP for West Lothian in 1977

Should Cameron have his way, it would put Labour almost back to where it would have been had Scotland become an independent nation. The desperate attempts of senior Labour Party figures campaigning in the strongest Labour heartlands of Glasgow and elsewhere, desperately trying to keep their supporters on side and away from the Scottish Nationalists’ attempt to break free, might have preserved the Union, but the entire exercise now appears to be ready to backfire.

A time may be coming when the Labour Party is totally emasculated on both sides of the border, with an insufficient critical mass in Westminster because, even if it secures enough MPs to form a government, god forbid, a substantial number of those may be unable to vote in much of the business of the House of Commons. It is an amazing constitutional conundrum.

But wouldn’t that be a day if the Labour Party – the Feminist Party – was effectively politically neutralised? No more Harriet Harman and her loathsome like. No more Yvette Cooper and her communist (a.k.a. feminist) cant. No more rabid feminists working in solidarity, and in power to destroy the family and emasculate men as fathers.

All that then would be left would be to see David Cameron, the feminist Prime Minister, kicked out to make way for a new man (although; hopefully, not by Theresa May who is a declared feminist). It couldn’t get much better than that in the present climate, at least.

An anti-feminist man can dream, can’t he?

   [ + ]

1. The Arabic word qaida ordinarily means ‘base’ or ‘foundation – it is also used for ‘groundwork’ and ‘basis’.
2. The turnout of voters, in the 1950 general election was 83.9%. This week in the Scottish referendum, it was 84.5%, and in some areas, it exceeded an astonishing 90%
3. The term was first coined by Enoch Powell when referring to the issue being raised by Tam Dalyell, the then Westminster MP for West Lothian in 1977

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

  • Paul Jackson

    I sincerely hope that you’re right!

  • CitymanMichael

    Yep, I can see where you are going with this. Tories will no longer have to court the female vote (the largest demographic) to oppose Labour and they may start making laws which make sense & which are not heavily female biased – I can dream also. Finally, Boris may be the new man in No. 10.

    • Herbert Purdy

      I hadn’t thought that one through yet. You’re right of course. Boris in No 10 plus Nigel F holding the balance of power. Now that would disrupt the feminist-dominated political class who hold the power today, wouldn’t it?

      Then there is the fact that, apparently, Miliband is more disliked in Scotland now than even Cameron is, and the SNP are going hard at the traditional Labour vote which will further weaken Labour’s power base. Next May will be fascinating to watch I think.