Published On: Sat, Jan 15th, 2022

Don’t vote in the Birmingham Erdington by-election

If the reader knows if the alternative media has covered the sudden and unexpected death of Labour MP, Jack Dromey, please leave a description in the comments, otherwise the author will assume that the order has gone down through Mi7 to leave the subject well alone. In that case, one wonders how Her Majesty’s Alternative Media will be able to continue not noticing that Jack Dromey has died come the time of the by-election to replace him if UK Government decides (mistakenly, as the case may be) that it can incorporate the event into its current and ongoing operation of Tory-bashing.

As has been explained in these pages before, the Tory Party is mired in “Covid-19”, and UK Government (an amalgam of the City of London and military intelligence) now wants to replace it in the office of the executive branch with Kier Starmer’s Labour Party. However, it has a problem.

UK Government is hobbled by a self-inflicted injury, and a new inability to manipulate an electorate. It caused this ruining of its own powers, at first, by its machinations to have Britain remain in the EU, and ultimately by overseeing the treasonous conduct of the Commons in Parliament when it captured itself (against those it is supposed to represent) for the purpose of Fake Brexit (i.e. continued parallel development with the EU), and secondly, rapidly on the heels of the first travesty, it perpetrated the unimaginably criminal Coronahoax fake pandemic as cover for the imposition of an economic blockade (war) on the British people.

Both the Tories and Labour have suffered a loss in support that comes at the same time as a broader loss in faith. At one level, people are just alienated because the one agenda of UK Government that is always contrived to be implemented (irrespective of party in “power”) is simply not wanted. At another level, people have begun to see the essential parts that Labour and the Tories always play in the charade that is British politics, where a great show of combativeness according to supposed political differences (causing division of the population against itself) is phony.

Of the two of them, it appears to be the case that Labour has lost the most support, going by election results since and including 2017. Indeed, it is perhaps not to exaggerate to say that Labour has experienced a collapse, and this explains why UK Government has failed to take advantage of umpteen opportunities at Parliamentary by-elections in 2021 to create the appearance of an irresistible blazing trail of success for Starmer on what should have been sold as a momentous trajectory to becoming Prime Minister. That being said, this failure is one reinforced by sheer refusal to play along by people who might have voted Tory, and who UK Government perhaps identified as being a potential boon for Labour if only they could be influenced into changing their allegiance.  To date, it appears, there has been no great switch by these people, so that absent Labour votes could become a less undermining issue, no matter how badly Boris Johnson has been savaged.

Indeed, currently experiencing yet another party-during-lockdown scandal, Johnson’s woes have been a central element in trying to turn would-be Tory voters to Keir Starmer. In fact, Johnson has somewhat been the sole whipping boy, for what amounts to the suspiciously artificial production of evidence seeming to betray Tory fatigue and tiredness of being in office, so that his continuing position of leader, on the same basis that a loose tooth must fall out when wiggled too much, does look fragile when countless corporate-media articles asks its audience to question it.

However, if Johnson’s term as Prime Minister is forcibly ended prematurely, it will not necessarily have been what UK Government has been trying to achieve, but only a by-product.

How hard do you imagine, reader, it is for UK Government to invent a crisis to engulf any successor of Boris Johnson’s in order to maintain its operation to undermine the Tories, and shore up Labour, at election?

It doesn’t matter who the Tory Prime Minister is, as long as he presides over a shambles – and in fact who could be more suited to this than Boris Johnson? And what could look more shambolic for the party in office than to have its leader fumble from one crisis to another beset with calls for him to resign?

As unsophisticated as the method for this evident operation to change the colour of government appears to be, as a rule such an enterprise is a thing of great finesse. In fact, it took some delicate surgery in the incidence of 2017, when the general election wasn’t about changing the party in executive power, but reducing its MPs and giving it a pretext to compromise for the purpose of producing the Fake Brexit.  As this site has pointed out previously:

All it would have needed, in 2017, to make circumstances favourable for a British Government plotting to bring about Fake Brexit was one or two critical seats changing from Tory to Labour.

Generally, it appears that it has been perfectly possible to engineer a general election result as desired, using a gamut of tools, including, but not restricted to opinion polls, media coverage (positive or negative as required), targeted campaigning, and of course cheating. In fact, on every occasion of a general election since 1950, viewers of dedicated TV broadcasts have been confronted with the very matrix by which UK Government is capable when they are shown sets of constituency seats on a display that flips from one colour to another at increasing levels of swing: a representation of the basis for understanding and calculating outcomes; i.e. sets of seats grouped by being more or less likely to turn from one party to another. With behaviour and tendency of the body politic thus being sufficiently understood, UK Government, in order to effect a change in governing party, merely had to cause an action so as to prevail on target seats as far down the scale of resistance as required to achieve the desired depth of changeover. For example, the 1997 Labour election landslide came after years of determined anti-Tory propaganda.

Although the situation has changed† so there is all too evidently no longer a predictable political landscape that UK Government can adjust at will, there are still features that can be counted on. Estimated low Labour turnout at the next general election will mean that various Tory seats will be safe, so certain Tory MPs in constituencies that won’t need to change colour can be dissidents at this time against their leadership in relation to “Covid-19” – because there is no risk in it. And the risk is managed in the following way: if the contrariness alienates would-be voters in a rebel’s constituency, then no matter – Labour still has a too-large a gap in support to overcome. On the other hand, party supporters in the same constituency might appreciate the rebellion if they are principally opposed to “lockdown”.

Moreover, such rebels are more broadly useful. It is quite within the bounds of reason that UK Government will have to abandon mandatory “Covid-19 vaccines” for NHS personnel on account of a looming staffing crisis when people are driven out of the work for not being jabbed. UK Government doesn’t like to be seen to being defied and beaten by those it governs, so having Tory rebels in place by which to explain a climb-down is ideal for the sake of better public relations: it can be said of them that they were the cause for the change of policy. In fact, general backtracking in any element of implementation of the fake pandemic can be blamed on the threat of MP rebellion when in fact we might suspect it to be caused by increasing rejection of the political system – which is the very real phenomenon being reported in multiple FBEL pieces, and again in this one.

Which brings us full circuit to the problem for UK Government, in that it is losing grip of how it can manipulate the electorate, and the problem in that it is hindered, therefore, in portraying Starmer as an ascending star on its way to a political zenith – now with the new thorny element of having to stage a by-election to replace the suddenly dead Jack Dromey.

At this stage, any reader who has been following FBEL’s study of Parliament’s legitimacy crisis should understand why a by-election, at this time, where Labour needs to hold a seat is exactly the sort of contest that is not ideal when the objective is to create an idea of Tory disarray – exactly because the old Labour vote cannot be counted on as it used to be. And while Tory turnout also suffers in this Fake Brexit epoch, it doesn’t do it enough – and this is how the Tories accidentally won the 2021 Hartlepool by-election (see here).

One only has to look at the figures of that contest to know that Dromey’s Birmingham Erdington constituency is at risk. In 2019, in Hartlepool, the Labour candidate won the seat by 3,595 votes from the Tories. Turnout was 57.9% – that’s 41,037 ballots cast. At the 2021 by-election, the Tory candidate had overtaken Labour to win by 6,940. Turnout was 42.7% (29,993 votes).

In comparison, in 2019, Jack Dromey won his seat by 3,601 votes, with a turnout of 53.3% – equating to 35,229 voters. So, it is crystal clear how, in the current climate, there is a real prospect of Labour losing Birmingham Erdington – unless, of course, UK Government, through its intelligence schemes involving, for instance, the coming to light of drinking parties – or works-dos – albeit held months ago, but when the public were restricted from likewise activity, causes enough umbrage in Erdington voters that they are motivated at last to punish Boris Johnson. Naturally, that sense of déjà vu that the reader may be experiencing in respect of this manipulation is due to the fact that we have all been here before, ahead of the North Shropshire by-election to be exact (see the article The Reason For The Battering Of Boris Johnson – And, Will There Be Cheating?).

Consequently, seeing the pattern being repeated, this time perhaps more frenziedly than before (denoting, perhaps, the scale of the work that needs to be done to have Erdington vote for Labour as required), any one who was keen to scupper UK Government’s scheme might appeal to potential Labour voters at that by-election to “hold their nose and vote Tory”, but not the author. At FBEL, people are urged to stop voting altogether and let the cards fall where they may. What fundamentally upsets the schemes of UK Government, as we are now seeing, is low turnout across the board – one figure, regardless of which end of the political spectrum contributed to it, that becomes drastically lower than it was before, and which keeps becoming lower. Inversely proportional is the illegitimacy of the UK Government.


† In 2019, reflecting how UK Government must have been aware of the changing dynamic, the Brexit Party was deployed to bolster a win for the Tories, as illustrated in the article, The Brexit Party Has Repositioned, Is Selling Something New, But Its Primary Role Continues To Be To Generate Election Turnout

It's important to donate to FBEL - please see here to find out why
A PayPal account not required.
Displaying 2 Comments
Have Your Say
  1. Barney says:

    In a democracy (something we’ve never had), we’d have the option to vote against one or all candidates in our area.

    As things stand, if only three people voted, one for Ronnie Kray and two for his brother Reggie (no choice at all), Reggie would then claim to have won “by the will of the majority”.

    We’ve had enough of government by criminals, but we’re not given a way to get the crooks out, other than by violent revolution, something so bloody that few would really want it.

    We may not have a choice though.

    • P W Laurie says:

      But Reggie will have no legitimacy, and that’s the beginning of the end for both of them. See Delegitimising Parliament: Why “We The People” Must Stop Voting (link), and other FBEL articles. (Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner, is it not? Or the mob voting for socialism. So yes, we’ve had it, and it is has been essential for UK Government’s very long term (Victorian) plan).

      Let’s differentiate between violence and force, shall we? The former (violence) is the choice that UK Government and its agents promote and encourage because they’ve got an endgame for it, and it is a dead end. Using force in defence against UK Government might become unavoidable, but by that time, it will be being used lawfully and appropriately, and proportionally.

      On the usage of the word “revolution”: to remove and replace a government with something that is worse. Or do “we” create another thing completely different that does not intrude between man and law as a creaming-off legal layer? With no place in it for them, would that be the same thing those at the top of UK Government hierarchy could want?