Published On: Sat, Jun 8th, 2019

Brexit Party fulfils its primary role after all: by-election turnout improves at Peterborough

Share This
Tags

Even while the author was explaining, in other articles to the FBEL audience, that the Brexit Party was an operation, all the baloney about them was such that he suspected that there would be a win for Farage’s snakeoil selling outfit at the Peterborough by-election [in actuality carried off, with a very slim margin, by Labour]. Apart from foolishly falling for the seductive hype, what convinced was the way that Fiona Onsanya, the previous MP for the constituency, was removed from the seat because someone made a claim on her behalf (which is what the wording in the Wiki entry on the case implies†), in response to a notice to prosecute a speeding offense, that the vehicle in question was actually driven by a Russian – who couldn’t have been driving because he was in Russia at the time. It’s completely too implausible. Having watched these things for some time, the author believes that there is a case to make that by-elections are generated artificially to occur at important moments in the development of a psychological manipulation to test how it is being received by the public, or to demonstrate some reinforcement of whatever it is the public is being asked to conceive. At some point, some time and space will be set aside to pursue this hypothesis.

Of course, in retrospect, it makes absolute sense that the Brexit Party didn’t live up to the hype produced by the polls because, A) it would have to walk the walk, and B) it is only meant to be a temporary arrangement while the Tories overcome their tarnished-by-Theresa-May difficulties, hence while seats at the European parliament are ten-a-penny, any won in the commons risks creating an illusion of permanence. [And not forgetting (because evidently it is quite easy to), C) those opinion polls were exercises in perception-shaping.]

Be that as it may, the author was thoroughly expecting a Brexit Party win in the face of the evident common sense, and so this article was prepared in order to talk about the wilful blindness of the voter when asked to invest into office the shyster cut to a slightly different pattern in preference to the one made of the old material which has grown worn-weary after constant usage. Something was going to be said about the lack of discernment in the voter so that one shyster is more worthy than another because of the wrapping it comes in. As it happens, it doesn’t matter that the Brexit Party candidate didn’t win, because we still get to see that the only difference between the Brexit Party – which claims to be outside the Establishment and thus having politics thrust upon it – and the legacy parties is that its attempt to heave a shyster on the gravy train is done in the name of being against that sort of thing.

Unbeknownst to yours truly, Jeremy Corbyn called Nigel Farage a purveyor of snakeoil at the beginning of May. Corbyn, however, doing his own bit of snakeoil salesmanship, took liberties with meaning, because he talked as if snakeoil was poison, and Farage’s brand specialised in affecting thoughts and feelings about Brexit: Farage was a “bad actor”, to use the parlance in fashion. While, historically, the ingredients of snakeoil may have been dubious, the potion has never been about engendering health, good or bad. It is an object that people don’t need and will not perform for them as promised when it was sold. Additionally, it is sold through exploitation by playing on fear or greed, or other negative emotions. Snakeoil is officially and succinctly defined as “devious marketing”, and frankly, the Brexit Party candidate for Peterborough looked to the author like he would know a thing or two.

From the little that could be found, what Mike Greene appears to do for a living is to act as a middle man between investors and businesses that are starting up or are new and believe that they are in need of assistance. Additionally, he then consults with these funding sinks, in the main, about – let us call it – the public relations aspect of their business.

Being a producer of (potentially) earning physical capital [potentially – because the FBEL audience won’t pay in return for consuming the material, and like everyone else in the socialised British public, doesn’t understand that they have to, as individuals, invest in small capital creators as good practice for re-establishing a system of true capitalism], the author has a dim view of anything in the service sector that is or verges on consultancy: he views it as grandma receiving instruction on how to suck eggs in return for bags of money. True, a vast swathe of British industry, and economy, would vanish if there was no such thing, but that doesn’t make it normal on principle or desirable in a cogent civilisation and viable economy. Indeed, not only does charging too much for what is in fact nothing over-extend the economic house of cards (as investigated here), but selling that which is not a material thing always presents scope for abuse.

So when one reads an article, stacked with buzzwords, trying to make sense of what Greene does – “‘It’s not just about giving a business a loan, like a bank. It’s about being investment ready and mentoring management team and boards to develop and deliver against clear strategic plans’” – and then the subject arises of government funding for start-ups – “Government support for innovative SMEs [small and medium-size enterprises] is an enabling factor too”, a question suddenly begs answering: does the faculty that Greene offers for finding investment involve applying on behalf of clients for tax payers money? If so, while it wouldn’t be illegal, it is the thin edge of corporate-cronyism where the thick edge, for instance, is Government ladling out huge amounts of tax-payers’ money to construction companies through help-to-buy.

The point is this, one minute Greene is ducking and diving in ways laymen can barely understand (which, one feels, is an objective to be achieved, through blarney, vocabulary and its confident usage, vital for the practice), giving no indication that he has any Brexit credentials whatsoever (the man was what we might call an obstinate Tory all the while UKIP has existed), and the next moment there are 9,801 people trying to give him a leg-up to that infamous teat-of-state that is a parliamentary seat because, frankly, their distress about the state of Brexit has been preyed upon. Isn’t it an extension of the art of attracting an investment by deployment of B(ull)S(***)? Farage apparently likes to say that Brexit Party candidates will not be politicians, but people who have had politics thrust upon them – but isn’t politics talking for a living too? So, the example that is Peterborough has been important because we get to ask the question, is this the best that the Brexit Party can do so that one only gets a deeper impression of charlatanism? And yet, there will be voters beguiled, desperate for the remedy offered by the snakeoil; voters who are led back into engagement with a system that is incapable of producing the change they require, and can only be changed through non participation. Quite neatly, the Peterborough by-election has seen the Brexit Party realise what it was supposed to do in the European elections: enhance voter turnout; to have those disillusioned by the British body-politic volunteer still to be a part of it, and perform acts of futility at the ballot box instead of investing energy into action that will hurt Government. This is the snakeoil that Brexit Party was supposed to sell – it’s nothing to do with Corbyn’s idea about poison (but then Corbyn wouldn’t tell that truth, would he?) In Peterborough, it didn’t make a blind bit of difference if the Brexit Party won or lost – as long as it satisfied the role intended for it.

The turnout figure for the Peterborough by-election was 48.4%. Now, this is still a long way short of the 67.5% turnout for the constituency in the 2017 General Election (itself the highest turnout since 1997), and it looks like the lowest turnout in the history of the seat, but it is still a marked improvement in the rate of engagement that occurred at other recent by-elections (figures for comparison can be found in the article, Newport West and the EU elections; Part Three: another charlatan claims to represent the peoplehere).

By taking part in the election, nearly 50% of the electorate in Peterborough endorsed the winning Labour candidate, for whom only 10,484 people cast their votes – about one-seventh of the total electorate; (when a mere 9,308 voted for the Labour candidate at Newport West, it was said hereabouts that to describe it with the term “farce” was an understatement). This is what the Brexit Party achieved – another farce, but a slightly better supported one in the round. And if nearly 50% in a by-election signals recovery in engagement in the unfixable British politics (in contrast to other recent results), then it has the Brexit Party to thank for it.

It has been observed before with regard the EU elections, it would have been much better for Farage to have told the 9,801 that voted for his candidate not to bother. The turnout would then have been 34%, and dismal. Farage could have pointed to the result and declared that it was the start of the end of the system, as he intended to lead more people out of it – unless certain demands were met. This is much better leverage than having an MP – which didn’t transpire in any case. But of course, Farage and the Brexit Party are not in the arena to do anything remotely like this – quite the contrary. Indeed, while the Brexit Party exists – so Peterborough now informs – it will be UKIPian in its also-ran characteristics, with people who want change being led by the nose as that elusive election win is always just around the corner. Instead, it never materialises (Carswell and Reckless for UKIP do not count), because in the end, the electorate is always manipulated to vote tactically against the insurgent, or the Government just plain cheats. If you, dear reader, are a person who thinks that the Brexit Party is a genuine threat to Government, then please realise that if it were true, the party would never be allowed to win like you think it might or should. In fact, the candidate would not be neglected by corporate-media, diligently assisted by big “leftist” social media personalities, in the same way that Mike Greene has been. One only has to revisit the witch hunt of Paul Nuttall, who stood for UKIP in the 2017 Stoke Central by-election, to understand what the Government does to stop a real threat from winning a seat in parliament. The Brexit Party’s candidate at Peterborough wasn’t a threat.

 

† The interesting wording in question is “A Notice of Intended Prosecution was returned to the police in her name”.

It's important to donate to FBEL - please see here to find out why
A PayPal account not required.
Displaying 1 Comments
Have Your Say
  1. Barney says:

    During the run up to the general (s)election a few years ago, nearly everyone who expressed an opinion, even down to people we’d meet in the street, said they were going to vote UKIP. Imho UKIP won that (s)election easily – or would have if the votes had been counted honestly.

    What happened? UKIP were granted just ONE seat, and Nigel Farage rolled over and accepted the insult. Had he been what he claims to be, he would have challenged the official result, but then he’d have “had a heart attack” like the one Robin Cook had when he dared to tell the truth about “al qaeda”.

    What are we supposed to be voting for anyway? Britain hasn’t had a government since our country was given to a foreign power (the EUSSR). That act of treason made parliament and the so-called “royals” redundant, so how can they justify the salaries WE pay them to make their farmyard noises in the commons and elsewhere?

    A “government” that can’t govern because they’ve given their jobs away. “Lawmakers” that no longer have the power to make laws.