Last week's election for the UK Parliament was overall positive.
At least we've avoided another Labour government, which was an impending threat.
Before the election the then Labour party leader Ed Miliband had said that he wanted to be Britain’s first Jewish Prime Minister.
As so many good Jews, Ed’s is a family of good radical Leftists. His late father Ralph Miliband was a self-proclaimed Marxist who had devoted his life to the communist revolution.
This was the first UK general election in which all three candidates for the Prime Minister’s post had various degrees of Jewish ancestry.
The incumbent, David Cameron, proudly told the Israeli Parliament about his Jewish roots.
Nick Clegg is a cousin of Michael Ignatieff, the Jewish leader of the Canadian Liberal Party.
But only Miliband is fully ethnically Jewish and his family has deep roots in Britain’s Marxist world. There is some speculation that Ed Miliband’s father Ralph might have been a KGB stooge; apparently he seemed to like the company of KGB agents. Francis Carr Begbie relates:
There is no question that in the sixties, intellectual Ralph Miliband moved in the same circles as many Marxist Jews of Russian background. There is equally no question that Britain’s security services were deeply concerned because of their KGB links, especially about a Russian attache called “Lev”, a frequent visitor to the Miliband Hampstead home who was not slow to throw money and gifts around when it came to getting what he wanted. David Horowitz remembers a ham-fisted attempt to recruit him in the sixties.He also says:
In the end this is all history and is overshadowed by one simple salient fact — the Friends of Israel lobby groups are the most powerful in British politics and eighty per cent of Conservative MPs are members of Conservative Friends of Israel.
Was Ed Miliband’s Trotskyist grandfather involved in the liquidation of White Russians who were opposed to communism? This intriguing question was asked by one of Vladimir Putin’s closest advisors eight years ago and has never been satisfactorily answered. Kremlin insider Geb Pavlovsky even said that Ed Miliband may have “inherited” his hatred of Russia from his Polish-born grandfather Samuel.Going back to the election results, two big factors of revolutionary change have appeared in good, old and stale British politics, which for a long time had remained more or less the invariable system of the same two parties alternating in power, just slightly and superficially touched by the third presence of the useless Liberal Democrats.
The Milibands have always played down their family’s Bolshevik past.
The first factor is the Scottish factor, which has produced the meteoric rise of the Scottish National Party (SNP).
The second is the UK Independence Party earthquake, created by the enormous impact of unlimited immigration and multiculturalism on British society.
That's where Labour got it wrong. Ed Miliband's admission of his party's guilt for the hugely irresponsible open-door immigration policies of the Blair era and his opposite attitude of refusing to admit that Labour had overspent have paradoxically produced on the public the same negative, alienating effect.
For admitting to a mistake that cannot be reversed - unrestricted immigration and the creation of a multiculturalism that are invading, flooding, overwhelming and destroying traditional British society - has no redeeming feature.
This recognition merely served to remind and confirm to people who was to blame for the tragic predicament the British Whites find themselves in.
But nobody really believes that Third World invasion and its accompanying multiculturalism can be rolled back in any foreseeable future, or that migration numbers can be kept to an acceptable, nay tolerable, limit.
So, the Labour leader's admission to this fault of his party in this area not only didn't help him to get votes in recognition of his honesty and as a sign of change of policy, but also it brought home more forcefully than ever that Labour was to blame - and therefore to punish - for this horrendous multiculti mess that is every day making British cities increasingly closer to the hellholes of Pakistan and Somalia, Bangladesh and Nigeria.
On the other hand, the previous Labour government's vast overspending of taxpayers' money, that created a national debt of trillions of pounds and almost bankrupted the country, is a disaster about which something can be done: it can be reversed and the economy can be improved, as the Coalition government showed.
So, in this respect an admission of guilt would have been beneficial to Labour, as a sign of the party's having learned its lesson from its own past mistakes and as a positive predictor of not repeating them in the future.
But that admission never came.
All this is an ominous sign of how Miliband awfully and completely misread the British public and could have never been Prime Minister.
Even monstrous politicians like Tony Blair must be able to be on the same wavelength as the people, must somehow understand them.
The ghost of the Unions, with the spectre of a repeat of the '70s and the country being reduced to a standstill produced by the enormous and badly used power of the Trade Unions holding Britain to ransom, may have also been a factor in the electorate's decision to keep this Marxist-headed hydra away from government again.
The opinion polls preceding the elections - giving the two main parties, Conservatives and Labour, neck and neck, and predicting a tight result - turned out to be all wrong.
The exit polls, which survey people as they exit from the voting booths, thus crucially taken after they have voted and therefore relying on the declaration of a fact rather than taken before the vote and therefore relying on the declaration of an intention, have been proven right.
If exit polls have erred, it's been only in being too close to the opinion polls' results: the distance between the two main parties has revealed itself to be even greater than that predicted by the exit polls, which were putting the Tories as the largest party to come out of the election but still without an overall majority.
The Conservative Party, instead, did get an overall majority of 12 seats and can govern on its own.
The Liberal Democrats, as well as Labour, have been treated too well by the exit polls: these predicted 10 seats for them, but only 8 materialised. They've lost as many as 49 seats. They are a dead party walking.
So, despite the news that polls conducted by the parties themselves were closer to predicting the real vote results, the opinion polls of the days before the election in the end created a lot of confusion and false leads and tracks, with parties frantically trying to follow the suggestions mistakenly indicated by them.
It's a deserved punishment, I think. Politicians these days rely by far too much on opinion polls, not to mention focus groups.
They don't have the courage of their convinctions. Even closer to the truth, they don't have convictions.
With rare exceptions. One of whom is Nigel Farage.
After the resignation which he had promised if he hadn't got elected and which he tendered, I hoped that he would reconsider. When he announced that during the summer he would decide whether to run as a candidate in the UKIP's leadership contest due in September, I hoped he would decide to do so and be re-elected as leader, that his fellow Ukippers would realise that no-one else can achieve what he did for their party.
Now things have gone even better: they have rejected his resignation and he's staying on.
He shouldn't even have resigned, in my view. Unlike the various Milibands and Cleggs, he didn't do anything wrong and has taken UKIP from strength to strength.
UKIP is now the country's third party in terms of share of the vote, with 3,881,129 votes, 12.6% of the vote. But it's got only one seat. It's not the UKIP which is at fault, even less Farage: it's the electoral system. That will have to change in favour of proportional representation.
Farage said that he had liked the First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) system but now he didn't. I used to think, cynically: yes, you liked it because it's typically "British" and non-continental, but now that you suffer the consequences of this method which ruthlessly punishes small and new parties, you don't like it. But in fact what he added as the reason for his change of mind is true: FPTP used to deliver overall majorities and stable one-party governments, but now it doesn't do even that, doesn't offer even that benefit.
It seems to me that almost everyone agrees that FPTP must be replaced. The problem, and the disagreement, is with which. This could be the reason why the referendum on this issue didn't deliver a solution to the question mark of the British electoral system.
Another monstrosity created by which, along with that of UKIP being the third party but having only one seat, is the other great novelty and revolution of this election: the astronomical growth of the Scottish National Party (SNP).
With 4.7%, a bit over a third of UKIP's share of the vote, it got 56 seats in the House of Commons. FPTP favours parties whose voters are are highly concentrated in the same constituencies, like the SNP, rather than scattered all over the country, like the UKIP which has come second in over 100 constituencies and third in hundreds more.
The reality of the matter, though,is that, in the same way as the SNP's number of seats doesn't represent and is not sustained by a corresponding number and percentage of votes, similarly those 56 seats are an overestimate of the real power that the party will have in the British Parliament.
Cameron, strong in his new absolute majority, can easily ignore the ridiculous demands of this small party that doesn't have the interests of the country, but only of a part of it, Scotland, at heart.
He knows he has the English electorate behind him. Some Scottish politicians and commentators say he doesn't have a mandate from the Scottish people. But herein lies the paradox and the contradiction of the Scots.
They rejected independence in a referendum but then voted almost unanimously (56 out of 59 Scottish seats), also helped by the nonsensical FPTP, for a party that wants and has been fighting for that very same independence. How can they say that the Tories have no mandate to govern over Scotland, if Britain is united and especially after they are responsible for having decided to keep it united in a referendum?
Now they're using their massive vote for a Scottish independentist party as an excuse to refuse a mandate for Cameron, but they can't because they also voted to recognise that mandate, by remaining part of the country over which that mandate exists.
They want their cake and it. This is where their contradiction lies. And the cake is the amount of money that England pays to Scotland:
It is hard to compute exactly how much the Scots cost the English. But according to figures published today by the Institute of Fiscal Studies, total public spending was around 11 per cent higher per person in Scotland than in the UK as a whole in 2011-12.I may be wrong, but prima face it would appear that the Scottish voters said no to independence in the referendum because they don't want to renounce the English money. But they do want independence, hence they overwhelmingly voted for the SNP.
Official figures from the previous year suggest Scotland spent £62 bn but raised just £45 bn — an annual subsidy from the English taxpayer of at least £17 bn.
Also, research in 2007 showed almost one in three Scots workers had a taxpayer-funded job. [Emphasis added]
England and Scotland are now going in politically opposite directions, reflecting who's footing the bill. The Scots want to receive more and more money, so they voted "anti-austerity", "anti-cuts" SNP. The English, who disproportionately pay for benefits and the like, have finally sobered up, showing that people are not so stupid after all.
They've realised that the country cannot keep spending money it hasn't got, and have probably at last started thinking of their children and grandchildren saddled with an ever-expanding, crushingly onerous debt. Hence their clear preference for the Conservatives, a party of better fiscal responsibility. The Scots are prodigal with public money they receive, the English are prudent with public money they give.
It seems obvious that Scotland and England are politically irreconcilable now, one going to the extreme Left and the other to the Centre-Right, and that they cannot easily remain in the same type of union. Maybe they'll form a federation.
If the Scots want independence, they should be prepared to pay for their autonomous choices and autonomous budget. What they may want, though, is independence without its cost.
It's also unsustainable that the Scots have two Parliaments and the English one. Scottish MPs can vote on English laws but not vice versa. This is clearly unfair.
How can those 56 SNP MPs fight for Scotland’s interests when they have been elected to the British Parliament, so they should fight for the interests of all the British people? It seems borderline unconstitutional.
At any rate, the UK is going through a political revolution, an earthquake. I hadn't seen anything like it before, the old system - that seemed unshakeable - has gone forever.
It goes to show how sometimes change is just around the corner and we didn't see it coming.