reform uk Archives -

Danny Kruger and the Kiss of Death

This article is re-posted from the website of the Libertarian Alliance, which gives a blanket permission to do so, subject to certain provisions. The original article can be found at https://libertarianism.uk/2025/09/16/danny-kruger-and-the-kiss-of-death/

Dr Sean Gabb

It is no surprise that Danny Kruger, the Member of Parliament for East Wiltshire, has crossed the floor to Reform UK. The Conservative Party is finished, and every backbencher with a nervous constituency association is now scrambling for a new flag of convenience. Mr Kruger’s most fitting alternative to a party endorsement at the next election is probably to be pushing trolleys round a Tesco car park. Club subscriptions must be kept in good order, and I do not condemn him for preferring a Commons seat to a fluorescent tabard. Rationality has its place in politics.

I do, however, condemn Reform UK for admitting him. Here is a man who has sat on the Conservative benches since 2019. During that time, he did not resign the whip when Britain’s departure from the European Union was sabotaged. He did not resign during the two lockdowns, when the State chained the population indoors and closed the economy. He did not resign when state employees were compelled to inject themselves with vaccines already suspected to be harmful, and which increasing numbers now regard as a disastrous experiment. He did not resign over the Online Safety Act, or over the highest levels of borrowing and state spending since 1945, or over the highest inflation since the 1970s. He did not resign when the Conservative Party promoted leftists throughout every institution of state, nor when immigration reached record levels despite solemn promises it would be cut. He did not resign when the Government stumbled into a shadow war with Russia, in which perhaps several million men have been killed to keep the City banks solvent.

Any man of honour would have resigned in April 2020, when it became plain that the Johnson Government had turned Britain into a police state. Mr Kruger did not. He has sat tight, drawing his salary and pension entitlements, waiting for the day when the brand “Conservative” ceased to guarantee employment. That day has now arrived, and he has decided that “the Conservative Party is over, over as a national party, over as the principal opposition to the left.” Time to move on.

It is not only dishonourable, it is dangerous. He resembles not a defector but a carrier of plague, leaving one infected city for another, contagion festering in his baggage. Reform UK should have turned him away with loud scorn. His acceptance by Nigel Farage is proof that Reform is no vehicle of national salvation but a fraud—another holding pen for discontent, another safety-valve to channel fury back into safe channels.

Labour at least is honest in what it stands for. No one supposes Keir Starmer or his Blairite clerks are our friends. The regime they serve does not pretend to share our values. Farage, on the other hand, shouts that he is on our side, that he will restore border controls, rebuild industry, cut the State down to size. Yet his latest act is to welcome into his ranks a man who voted for betrayal after betrayal between 2019 and 2024. If this is his recruiting standard, a Farage government would make John Major look like Lord Salisbury.

The British right does not need another safe house for failed Conservatives. It does not need another talking shop of cast-offs, eager to mutter against immigration while voting for censorship and war. What it needs is a party that understands this country is ruled by a financial oligarchy entrenched in the City of London. It needs a party willing to break the power of that oligarchy, end the surveillance laws, close the borders, and restore a society fit for free men to live in.

Reform UK will not do this. It will stagger forward with its new Tory baggage, bleating about tax cuts, whining about “woke,” but touching nothing essential. It is not an opposition, but an impersonation of opposition. The acceptance of Danny Kruger is not a bold stroke—it is the kiss of death.

Until a real party of the right arises, we are better off under Labour. At least the enemy declares himself. Better a clenched fist than the hand that proffers friendship while fumbling for your throat.

The UK General Election 2024 – Lessons to learn for Racial Nationalists – Part 2

In Part 1 of this series we discussed what the figures behind the votes in the General Election meant for Racial Nationalists. Here, we identify voting patterns and discuss the way ahead.The Immigrant Vote

Britain’s minority ethnics (who probably won’t be a minority for much longer) have traditionally been overwhelmingly Labour voters. But in this election a new trend has developed.

Many of these people, especially Muslims, identify with the Palestinians in their struggle with the Israeli bandit state. The war in Gaza that started on October 7th last year has galvanised this feeling intensely. For that reason, many of them do not support Labour any more. They don’t feel attracted to the Tories either. After all, both Labour and the Tories (and the LibDems) have a “Friends of Israel” section that exercises disproportionate power in the party.

With the non-White population here burgeoning like never before, the time has arrived when they can exercise considerable influence on the result of elections. Many Muslims have abandoned Labour and support the Greens, who are the only party to publicly support the Palestinians against Israel.

The Greens, generally, are more extreme left wing than Labour. Most of them are former Communists, Trotskyists and Anarchists. Their policies on the environment are largely the same as those of the main parties, but taken to their logical conclusion. If given the chance, they would ruin the economy and impose a dictatorship over the general population “to protect the environment”. This is a trend to watch in future elections.

The Negative Vote

Another factor to consider is this. Probably since the 1960s, and possible before, increasing numbers of voters in our country have voted negatively at General Elections. They have given up hope of being able to vote for a candidate or party that truly reflects their own opinions, feels their own fears, and shares their own aspirations. So they vote against the party or candidate they hate the most. This keeps many people voting for the same party in every election.

They daren’t vote for a minority party, even though its policies may reflect their own views more than those of any other party, for fear that it may help the “other lot” get in. Both Labour and the Tories take advantage of this by urging voters not to “waste” their vote on a candidate that “cannot win”.

The two main parties are the main beneficiaries of negative voting. People vote Labour to keep the Tories out, and vice versa. But this may be coming to an end, at last. With the success of Reform UK in getting a foothold in Parliament and replacing the LibDems as the third party nationwide, the stranglehold on British politics that Tory and Labour have enjoyed for so long may be loosening.

Just one more thing to note about negative voting. And that is that by-elections are different. There people can vote for one of the minority candidates (there are often several in a by-election) to give their usual favoured party, particularly if it is the party in government, a “kick up the backside”. And without the danger of really upsetting the applecart.

These are often positive votes, albeit misrepresented by the mainstream media as a “protest vote”. For that reason it is to be hoped that the new Parliament will, in time, provide a healthy number of by-elections where the two main parties can receive a bloody nose. That, at least, is my “negative wish”.

The Way Ahead

I’ve mentioned Reform UK a number of times in this post and the previous one. It would be impossible not to, given their meteoric rise in recent years. They are represented as the chief party of the “far right” by the mainstream media, which is not surprising. Compared to the two main parties and the LibDems, they are “far right”, but only because those other parties are so far to the left. Nigel Farage and the rest of the Reform UK leadership have been careful to distance themselves from genuine racial nationalism, which itself is not necessarily “far right”.

This is from fear that the mainstream media will give them an even worse press, and that the criminal elements of the left will be mobilised against them, as they were against the National Front in the 1970s.

They would have to endure personal physical violence and all the other tricks of the left – cancellation of meeting hall agreements, accusations of “nazi” links, and violence at meetings so as to associate them in the public mind with violence and therefore not a party to vote for.

Hence their softly, softly “populist” approach, talking about “net migration” figures as if the qualities of the migrants coming in every day across the Channel and into our airports are much the same as those of native Britons emigrating out of Britain.

British racial nationalists know better than to fall for that one. Farage and his comrades won’t talk about race or ethnicity. They won’t point out the obvious – that the recent riots in Leeds, Manchester, Southport and East London, for example, are race riots. They won’t talk about how immigrants themselves are “racist”. About how they even wage war against each other based on which group of people they support in their home countries. In East London, for example, the rioters comprised two groups of Bangladeshis fighting each other over events happening in Bangladesh.

If Farage and his team had only been honest, and had the courage to come out and say that race is the issue, they would have had millions more voting for them. They would probably have fifteen or more MPs. The Reform UK voters are voting for immigration to stop. But they are also voting for the existing migrants from the third world that already live here to be repatriated, by force if necessary.

They are saying that they don’t want to disappear from history in a sea of black and brown through miscegenation, or racial interbreeding. They don’t want their grandchildren, or any more remote descendants of theirs, to be anything other than White, just as they are.

More anti-White measures on the way

One last word. It’s already evident that Starmer, even though his party only garnered the support of one in five registered voters, isn’t afraid to throw his weight around in bringing in more anti-White measures. It’s quite possible that Labour’s policy of bringing in quotas, so that every Council in the country has to house a minimum number of migrants, probably in council and social housing that White people themselves need, will, somewhere, some time, provoke some kind of violent reaction from the locals.

In fact that is probably what Labour and the anti-White establishment is hoping for. It will be their excuse to ban all “far right” political parties, on the basis that their existence encourages anti-immigrant violence and is a threat to law and order.

If they do such a thing, it may well be the spark that starts the fire. Our main towns and cities are already tinderboxes waiting to explode into flames. And for that the establishment has nobody to blame except themselves.

But they will blame people like us in a bid to save their own skins, and eliminate all effective opposition to their revolting plans for the final destruction of our country and race.

It will be up to us and all who follow us in the years ahead to out-manouvre these traitors and vermin.

The UK General Election 2024 – Lessons to learn for Racial Nationalists – Part 1

The UK General Election 2024 took place earlier than most people thought it would, but now it is over and the dust has settled it’s time to take a close look at the results.

We all know that Labour romped home with a massive majority, picking up an additional 214 seats, and the Tories lost over 250 seats, including those of several high-profile cabinet ministers.

So that gives Labour not only a comfortable majority in the House of Commons, but a mandate to, in Kier Starmer’s words, “change the country beyond recognition”. That sounds ominous. The country’s already “beyond recognition” compared to what it was just 50 years ago, and not in a good way.

It’s in even more of a shambles, and a most dangerous situation, thanks not least to incompetent and treacherous Labour administrations since 1945. So it’s difficult to conceive just how it could be changed “beyond recognition”, unless he means actually making it a better, more civilised country, something Labour is incapable of doing.

Starmer at the WEF meeting in January 2023

From reading the output of the mainstream media one could be forgiven for thinking that Labour had received millions more votes than in 2019 and had the support of at least a decent majority of voters in the country.

The “loveless landslide”

In fact, Labour received about 544,000 fewer votes than in 2019, when they were commonly regarded as having been soundly rejected by the voters. It’s true their share of the vote rose slightly (33.83 per cent as opposed to 32.08 per cent), but only because the turn-out was the next lowest since 1945, at less than 60 per cent.

So only 20 per cent (0.6 x 0.3383) of eligible voters voted Labour. And how many did so just to teach the Tories a lesson we shall never know. Hardly a ringing endorsement of their policies, let alone a mandate to bring in substantial changes to anything. Nigel Farage has dubbed it a “loveless landslide”, which you may think is an apt description.

The mechanics of the voting system, the “first past the post” (FPTP), have often in the past produced surprising results, at odds with the general feeling in the country. This was even more pronounced than ever before in this election.

For example, Reform UK had the third largest share of the votes, at 4.103 million. That was 14.28 per cent. Yet they won only five seats in the Commons. The LibDems, however, won 71 seats, but with only 3.501 million votes (12.18 per cent) – over 600,000 fewer than Reform.

The DUP won the same number of seats – five – with only 172,000 votes. Sein Fein won two more than Reform with less than 211,000 votes.

The Greens won four seats with a total vote of well under half of those won by Reform.

But the most telling statistic is that the combined vote of Labour and Conservative amounted to only 16.55 million (57.57 per cent of the total votes cast and just 34.54 per cent of eligible voters). Yet, between them they won 533 of the 650 seats available. That’s eighty two per cent.

It’s safe to say that FPTP is here to stay for a long while. No matter how unfair it is, it’s still “democratic”. But there is an alternative.

Time for Proportional Representation?

Let’s take a look at what the result would have looked like if we had a system of Proportional Representation (PR) in place.

Labour would still have the largest number of Commons seats, but it would hardly be a “landslide”. In fact they would be a minority government, with just 219 seats – not much more than half their actual number. Everyone else, except the minority parties that polled only a few hundred thousand votes, would have considerably more seats than they do now.

Everyone else, that is, except the LibDems, who would have 79 seats – only eight more than they actually won this time round. The LibDems have campaigned for PR in the past, when they held just a handful of Commons seats. Somehow I doubt that they will be quite so keen on it now.

It’s clear that the two main parties are more than happy with FPTP. Even though it keeps them out of office for years at a time, it does deliver to them for the rest of the time the ability to govern for up to five years in a way that does not have the support of the majority in the country. They have a majority in the House of Commons, and that is what counts. We thereby have a “stable” system of government.

The only thing that could upset the status quo here would be if one of the minority parties – Reform UK (or whatever it will be called by then) or the Greens, for example – managed to become the second largest party in the House of Commons and able, somehow, to create a constitutional crisis over the issue. But by that time it’s possible that FPTP would actually benefit the parties that it now penalises. So who knows what may happen?

Comparisons with the 2019 General Election

It’s always interesting to compare the results of a General Election with the previous General Election. The turnout was only 59.9 per cent, compared with 67.3 per cent in 2019, and 68.9 per cent in 2017. Labour increased its percentage of the vote by only 1.73 per cent, yet won 209 more seats – nearly a third of the total seats in the Commons. The Conservatives haemorrhaged votes, losing 7.142 million – more votes than they actually won, and more than half the number they won in their 2019 “landslide”. Their percentage of the vote almost halved – down to 23.74 per cent from 43.6.

We all know why the Conservatives did so badly. It wasn’t just because of their complete failure to stem the tide of immigration, both legal and illegal. It was also because of the chaos that came to be associated with their style of government. By that I mean the charade we witnessed when Boris Johnson resigned as Prime Minister, and the short-lived premiership of Liz Truss.

Then there’s also the hypocrisy of the Johnson administration in imposing lockdowns on the general population, supposedly to stem the Covid 19 pandemic, while at the same time attending wild parties themselves, where they could forget about masks, social distancing, and all the other constraints the rest of us had to abide by or risk prosecution.

And overshadowing everything else was the Brexit betrayal, covered in this blog in some detail. It became clear that all the Tories cared about here was that they could, by promising to abide by the Referendum result, steal Labour votes, particularly in the “red wall” of Labour’s traditional strongholds in the north.

Once that was done they could let the EU stifle our struggle for independence, and party on. Now it seems likely that Starmer, as soon as he thinks he can get away with it, will take us back into the EU, or at least sign up to a series of “protocols”, “agreements” and the like that will, by stealth and over time, result in our being subjugated all over again to the diktats of the European Commission.

In Part 2 of this series we will take a look at the Immigrant vote and the Negative vote, and discuss the way ahead.