Not millions, not billions, but trillions. That’s how much the neo-Cohen war in Afghanistan cost America. The world’s most powerful and sophisticated military went to war against an ill-equipped band of in-bred Muslim tribesmen in 2001, killed, died and blew things up for twenty years, then left in 2021 having worked a miraculous transformation. America’s once ill-equipped enemy was now very well-equipped indeed. Yes, with high-tech American weaponry. It was a defeat and a debacle on a monumental, a mountainous scale. And it cost trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives!

Historical, humorous, horrific: Flashman (1969) contains excellent advice for would-be invaders of Afghanistan

But America could have avoided all that for the cost of a few cheap paperbacks. So could the Soviet Union before its own doomed invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. A novel called Flashman had been published by then, you see. And Flashman (1969), the debut by the late great White writer George MacDonald Fraser (1925—2008), offers some excellent advice to any superpower that plans to invade Afghanistan. The advice runs like this: “Don’t!” That’s because it’s about an earlier superpower’s doomed invasion of Afghanistan. The mighty, militarily advanced nation of Britain tried it in 1839 and, like the Soviet Union and the United States in centuries to come, experienced utter defeat and debacle at the hands of the in-bred Muslim tribesmen. The novel Flashman is three things: historical, humorous and horrific. Its protagonist, a cowardly but cunning British officer called Harry Flashman, sees the culture and customs of Afghanistan up close. In the process, he almost loses one or both of the two things that are precious to him above all else: his life and his genitals.

Ancient Afghan traditions

And why are his genitals at risk? Because he’s threatened with slow castration when he falls into the hands of an Afghan warlord, Gul Shah, whose wife Narreeman he has earlier raped. Shah gloatingly informs Flashman that Narreeman is “delicately skilled” in torture and will castrate him with “infinite artistry” as he hangs in chains in a gloomy Afghan dungeon. Shah goes on: “Afterwards, we may have you flayed, or perhaps roasted over hot embers. Or we may take out your eyes and remove your fingers and toes, and set you to some slave-work in Mogala. Yes, that will be best, for you can pray daily for death and never find it.” That’s authentic Afghanistan: it has one of the cruelest, most callous and most corrupt cultures on Earth. However, either the author or the publisher of the novel concealed one key insight into the vibrancy of Afghan life. Whilst fleeing for his life, the polyglot Flashman authenticates his disguise as a native by singing “an old Pathan song” with the lyrics “There’s a girl across the river / With a bottom like a peach / And alas, I cannot swim.” In fact, the song is about “a boy with a bottom like a peach” and refers to bacha bazi, “boy play,” the “ancient [Afghan] tradition” of pederastic rape.[1] When Flashman narrowly escapes the country alive and uncastrated, he is determined never to return. So what would this fictional character have thought about Britain not only invading Afghanistan again but also importing Afghans afterwards?

Well, Flashman is an unmitigated scoundrel, but he’s also intelligent, observant and insightful. He would have thought the re-invading of Afghanistan utterly insane and the importing of Afghans both insane and evil. But the importing has taken place on an even bigger scale than I knew back in 2021 when I wrote my article “Importing Afghanistan: A Very Stupid Idea with Very Powerful Enablers.” Using the excuse of a “data leak” that put Afghan collaborators “at risk” from the Taliban, the previous Conservative government ran a secret program to infest Britain with thousands of additional Afghans — including actual members of the Taliban and the extra-enterprising individual who had blackmailed the government over the data leak. Like the Taliban members, the blackmailer has probably been accompanied by large numbers of his “relatives.”

Kosher Conservatives

Are you surprised to hear that one of the central figures in this secret program of Afghano-infestation was a corrupt Jewish minister called Grant Shapps (born 1968), who is also an unflinching advocate of feeding ever more goyim into the meat-grinder of the Ukraine War? If you are surprised, you shouldn’t be. Britain is doing insane and evil things like importing Afghans because Britain is currently controlled by insane and evil Jews like Grant Shapps — and like Daniel Finkelstein, another powerful figure in the thoroughly kosher Conservative party. Alarmed by recent signs of White resistance in the Yookay, Finkelstein has written an article for the London Times entitled “There is no future in the politics of victimhood.”

Daniel Finkelstein, high in the hostile elite, tells British goyim not to be angry about non-White invaders

Connor Tomlinson captured all the moral and intellectual depth of Finkelstein’s article in this summary: “Ok, yes, we opened your borders against your wishes, passed laws putting you at the back of the queue for jobs and benefits in your own country, and called you a racist when you complained. But what’s the use in being upset about it?” Yes, Finkelstein thinks that the politics of victimhood should be reserved strictly for Jews and their non-White “natural allies,” not for the White gentile majority whom Jews are dedicated to denigrating, dispossessing and destroying. He says that “Mass migration was a reckless error but encouraging white majority resentment would be calamitous.” He’s lying in the first part of that sentence, truthing in the second. It will indeed be “calamitous” when Whites start fighting back against dispossession. Calamitous for Jews like Finkelstein, that is. Mass migration by hostile, unassimilable non-Whites wasn’t a “reckless error.” No, it was a deliberate policy overseen by Jews and their shabbos goyim not just in Britain but right across the West.

Now Finkelstein is worried that Whites are beginning to rise against the invasion. He’s right to be worried: as described by Edward Dutton at the Occidental Observer, the protests against “migrant hotels” and the raising of blood-red St George’s crosses are portents of fast-approaching civil war in Britain. What Enoch Powell prophesied in 1968 is now at hand. I said this at the Occidental Observer in 2016: “Brexit was only a warning tremor: the real hate-quakes are still to come.” The tremors began again in 2024, when working-class Whites rioted after a Welsh “choirboy” called Axel Rudakubana murdered and mutilated White schoolgirls in the stale pale seaside town of Southport.

Non-White predation pumps Jewish power

In response to the riots, Britain’s Jewish attorney general, Lord Hermer, and Britain’s shabbos-goy prime minister, Keir Starmer, personally oversaw the destruction of fair trials and the imposition of harsh sentences. Our corrupt elite are rightly fearful of an uprising by ordinary Whites. That’s why they’ve operated a two-tier system of justice for so long, treating White thought-criminals with maximal harshness and non-White flesh-criminals with maximal lenience. Thought-crime by Whites, or realism about racial and cultural differences, is very threatening to Jews like Hermer and shabbos goyim like Starmer. Flesh-crime by non-Whites, or murder, rape and other violence, is no threat at all. On the contrary: non-White predation and parasitism strengthen Jewish power, because they impose costs and miseries on Whites that make Whites less willing to have children and less able to organize politically. That’s why Muslim rape-gangs have operated in Britain for so long and with such impunity.

Interestingly enough, you can see this two-tier justice — harshness for Whites, lenience for non-Whites — in another of George MacDonald Fraser’s novels, Flashman in the Great Game (1975). This time Flashman finds himself in the middle of the Indian Mutiny of 1857, the justified uprising against British rule of India that happened in part because the British elite were more frightened of working-class Whites than they were of brown-skinned Indians. Serving in brown-face disguise for the Raj before the Mutiny begins, Flashman overhears a White soldier complaining about two-tier justice: “If they ’ad floggin’ in the nigger army, they’d ’ave summat to whine about — touch o’ the cat’d ’ave them bitin’ each other’s arses, never mind cartridges.[2] But all they get’s the chokey [military jail], an’ put in irons. That’s what riles me — Englishmen get flogged fast enough, an’ these black pigs can stand by grinnin’ at it.” Fraser himself explained further in an endnote:

23. The British were, in fact, more considerate and humane towards their native troops than they were to their white ones. Flogging continued in the British Army long after it had been abolished for Indian troops, whose discipline appears to have been much more lax, possibly in consequence — a point significantly noted by Subedar Sita Ram when he discusses in his memoirs the causes of the Mutiny.

Having overheard the resentful White soldier, Flashman witnesses the fruit of the lax discipline. He’s caught up in the bloody horrors of the Indian Mutiny, which raged for months and was finally suppressed by the courage and skill of the harshly disciplined White troops. That antagonism between officers and lower ranks was — and is — partly genetic. In Victorian times, officers were on average taller and more intelligent than the men they commanded. Why so? It was not just because the officers had better nutrition but also because they had better genes.

Classic chromosomal conflict

Height remained an easy-to-read class-marker for decades to come. At the end of his memoir Going Solo (1986), the tall and aristocratic Roald Dahl describes how, during the London Blitz, a group of soldiers mistook his identity in the blackout: “‘It’s a bloody officer!’ one shouted. ‘Let’s ’ave ’im!’” The soldiers were about to attack when they realized he was wearing an RAF uniform, not an army one, and made off into the darkness. Dahl comments: “It shook me a bit to realize that this was a posse of drunken soldiers prowling around the black streets of London looking for an officer to beat up.” Marxists would rightly identify that as class conflict. But Marxists would wrongly deny that class conflict is also chromosomal conflict.[3]

You can see the same chromosomal conflict in Flashman’s fictional misadventures during the Indian Mutiny. As always, he does much more fighting and much less fornicating than he’d like, but the Mutiny allows him to further burnish his golden — and wholly undeserved — martial reputation. The same happens in the first packet of his Memoirs (as Fraser presented the Flashman novels). He escapes with life and “pecker” intact from Afghanistan thanks to luck, cunning and amoral exploitation. Yes, he exploits Sergeant Hudson, a courageous and competent White working-class soldier who was modelled on the men Fraser had served with as a private in the Second World War. Hudson’s courage and competence save cowardly Flashman and doom Hudson himself, because working-class Hudson always wants to fight and aristocratic Flashman always wants to flee. Accordingly, Hudson dies defending a small fort against the Afghans and Flashman is left alive to claim the undeserved credit. That happens again and again in the Flashman novels: Flashman, the cunning coward from the elite, claims the credit for things won by the courage and competence of men from the White working-class.

The elite sneers arrogantly and unfunnily at working-class Whites who support the Deep-State project known as the Reform Party

George MacDonald Fraser intended the novels to be entertaining and instructive, not allegorical. But I think they work as allegories of modern elite incompetence and exploitation, of modern working-class courage and competence. They also work as portents of impending civil war. Again and again during his unwanted globe-trotting, Flashman sees the truth of the simple formula set out by Chateau Heartiste: Diversity + Proximity = War. That formula is now hard at work in Britain. But who is better prepared for civil war? The effete elite, with its trigger-warnings and trans-lunacy? Or the White working-class whom that elite mocks and maligns? In the twenty-first century, the White working-class has formed the backbone of the British army just as it did in Flashman’s day. Competent and courageous Sergeant Hudson was fictional, but he was based on real men whom Fraser served with in the Second World War. The grandsons and great-grandsons of those real men are now among the protestors outside “migrant hotels” and among the flag-raisers along British streets. Some of them have military training. Some of them have expertise in engineering and electronics. And all of them are getting ever angrier about two-tier justice and non-White invasion.

In effect, they’re getting angry about slow castration, about the decades-long campaign by the hostile elite to destroy their communities, their livelihood and their future. Brexit was a warning tremor. The Southport riots were another. The real hate-quakes are about to hit. When they do, we will see why the minority elite was so right to fear the White majority. And what about the Reform Party, now riding high in the polls and widely predicted to form the next government? I think Reform is the final attempt of the Deep State to deflect, divert and dissipate the anger of ordinary Whites. With its civ-nat leader Nigel Farage, its Muslim chairman Zia Yusuf and its crop-headed, trans-friendly “Justice Advisor” Vanessa Frake, the party is obviously programmed for perfidy. But the hype-machine will not stop the hate-quakes.

---

[1] Note that bacha bazi was banned by the Taliban but flourished again after the American invasion.

[2] When the soldier says “cartridges,” he is referring to the new cartridges that some Hindu and Muslim troops had refused to use, believing false rumors that the cartridges were contaminated with cow or pig fat. Court martials of the disobedient troops were one of the triggers of the Mutiny. In other words, “diversity” was disastrous in the British Raj out as it has been everywhere else.

[3] In the modern British army, ineffectual young officers are nicknamed “Ruperts” by ordinary soldiers, because Rupert is a stereotypically upper-class name (like Tarquin and Sebastian).

Now that immigration has become the greatest concern in the rather archaically named United Kingdom, the name of Enoch Powell is once again a familiar one in what passes for political discourse in Britain. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, in a recent speech intended to show that he is suddenly concerned about illegal immigration, claimed that the UK risked turning into “an island of strangers”. He was immediately charged by the media as “channeling Powell”, who used a similar phrase in his most famous speech. This allegation spooked Starmer, who immediately disowned the speech, claiming to have been tired when he made it, and that he “didn’t really read” the speech his advisers had prepared. Some associations are just too toxic for a modern politician.

For the political Left, of course, John Enoch Powell is the Devil incarnate —he once claimed to have shown Parliament “the cloven hoof” in a debate about devolution—and the epitome of racism, despite (as Powell claimed) never having spoken about race in his life, but only about immigration.

In fact, Powell did mention race on a number of occasions, albeit incidentally and never thematically, but his vision was not what he would have accepted as a “racialist” one. He merely, and accurately, predicted an England “rent by strife, violence and division on a scale for which we have no parallel”. For today’s Parliamentary Right, and despite his status as one of the most famous Conservatives in history, Powell is an untouchable, and it is left to the dissident Right to laud Powell as a prophet without honor in his own land.

Powell did not want an official biography, believing this was the province of film stars, but his Cambridge friend Simon Heffer was accepted by the ageing politician as his biographer on condition that the book not be released in Powell’s lifetime. After Powell’s death in 1996, Heffer’s book came out two years later, a year before Tony Blair’s coronation and the beginning of the future against which Powell warned. Heffer was given access to Powell’s life, although it lacked a diary, the keeping of which Powell regarded as “like returning to one’s vomit”. Heffer added to this treasure trove by interviewing friends and colleagues. Ted Heath, the Conservative Prime Minister who called Powell a “super-egotist” and fired him as a result of the misnamed (and misunderstood) “Rivers of blood” speech, would not speak to Heffer.

Powell is remembered above all for his 1968 speech on immigration in Birmingham, but Heffer paints a broader picture of a man who excelled in everything he did. A classics scholar who took his House of Commons notes in Ancient Greek, an amateur in architecture, a noted poet, a soldier, an academic, and the speaker of half-a-dozen languages by his teenage years, Powell was a polymath who sought to put his learning to good use. Later in life, Powell also became a keen hunter at hounds, taking risks in the field but enjoying the adrenaline as a counter to the intensity of his political life.

Foremost, however, Powell was an exceptional scholar. His mother was a teacher, and Powell’s education—like John Stuart Mill’s—continued at home. His family nicknamed him “the Professor” although always referring to him as “Jack”. At the age of three he had mastered the alphabet, and ten years later, while his peers were doubtless reading comics, Powell was reading J. G. Frazer’s study of comparative religion, The Golden Bough. Later in life, on discovering another John Powell working in classics, Powell became known by his other first name, Enoch, for the rest of his life. Famously an atheist (although he would return to the Church later in life, and always referred to himself as “an Anglican”) Powell decided of the Gospel that “the historical and internal evidence would not support the narrative”. His growing love for German literature, and Nietzsche in particular, did nothing to promote religiosity in the young man. Powell read everything Nietzsche wrote, including his letters, and even admitted that his moustache was a reference to the Lutheran pastor’s son. When he flew to Australia in 1937 to take up a teaching post, the trip was a good deal more onerous than it is today, and Powell took Nietzsche’s eccentric autobiography Ecce Homo for the journey.

Powell went up to Trinity College, Cambridge, to study classics. But, on the advice of a mathematician, he also discovered economics, something which would serve him well as Finance Secretary in Harold MacMillan’s government years later. Powell read Malthus, and was impressed by the writer’s demographic insights. He was reclusive and generally shunned social company, working diligently, writing poetry, and listening to Wagner. There was a lighter side to his amusements, however, and he would mourn the death of Jacques Tati in 1982, the French comedian whose films Powell adored.

After graduating, and in search of an academic post, Powell taught in Australia, having been offered the chair of Greek at the University of Sydney in 1937. Powell was in Australia when, as he put it half a century later, “the House of Commons fawned upon a Prime Minister for capitulating to Hitler”. Two years later, Powell desperately wanted to fight in World War II, but he worried that he was on a list streaming him towards military intelligence. “I was lucky to escape Bletchley”, he observed, referring to Bletchley Park, which housed the famous British code-breaking unit led by Alan Turing and his Enigma machine. It would have been interesting to see what Turing and Powell made of one another. But in 1939 he removed that possibility by enlisting as a private soldier. “One of the happiest days of my life”, Powell recounted, “was on the 20th of October 1939. It was then for the first time I put on the King’s coat”.

As with everything he did, Powell excelled in the army, whether on the barrack square or reading Clausewitz’s On War as a means of understanding the theory of the conflict he yearned to join at the front line. Throughout his life, Powell maintained an almost morbid attachment to the wish to die fighting for his country. He reached the rank of brigadier, a title he retained in public life.

Stationed in India, Powell developed a love for that nation to the same extent he began to foster a lifelong aversion to America, “our terrible enemy”, as he described the world’s most powerful country. Powell’s view was that one of the USA’s primary aims was to end the British Empire, and he would also come to see America’s color problem as the future for Britain if immigration was not addressed. It was in India—already fluent in Urdu—that Powell first realized that his future lay in politics.

Back in England, he was interviewed by the Conservative Party and selected to fight the Parliamentary seat of Wolverhampton South West, where Britain’s housing crisis (which seems to be always with us, for one reason or another) “provided [Powell’s] first public entry into political battle”. After the war, Britain still had the slum areas it had had since the Victorian era, and Powell was determined they should be cleared. The Conservative Party in 1955 had slum-clearance as part of its manifesto, and Powell pressured them to honor that pledge.

Powell won Wolverhampton narrowly, his 20,239 votes providing a margin of victory of just 691, although in the election which followed this margin had increased to 3,196 and would rise further to over 11,000. The people liked what Powell was saying even if his Parliamentary colleagues and the media did not. Powell married his secretary, Pamela Wilson, in 1951, and Winston Churchill offered him the post of under-secretary for Welsh affairs in 1952. He turned down the great war-leader’s offer, and would not hold high office until Harold Macmillan replaced Anthony Eden in 1957 after the latter’s resignation over the Suez debacle. Macmillan made Powell Finance Secretary, perfect for a man who had read and absorbed the Austrian-British economist, Friedrich Von Hayek.

This was a good entrance on the political stage for Powell as “every spending proposal by every department came across his desk”.  Decades before such things as DOGE, Powell was determined to audit and restrain the fiscal extravagance endemic to socialism, and The Daily Telegraph noted his “Puritanic refusal to countenance increased government expenditure”. Powell himself worked with maxims which, although he would review them constantly in the manner of the rigorous academic he was, provided him with a simple formula for controlling the public weal:

What matters most about Government expenditure is not the size of it in millions of pounds, but the rate it grows at compared with the rate our production grows.

Now, in an age in which successive British governments of both parties believe that the answer to all problems is to “throw more money at it”, Powell’s firm grasp of economic principles—particularly the money supply—has long since vanished.

When Powell was made Financial Secretary, the country gained a man whose mother was most worried about Powell’s childhood proficiency in mathematics and science. They were his worst subjects, thought Ellen the teacher, although these things are relative. Powell’s weakest subjects would have been many fellow students’ strongest. As an acolyte of Hayek, Powell wanted low taxes, small government, and the end to financial aid to developing countries. “Don’t give them capital”, he said of these struggling nations, “give them capitalism”. We are reminded of the adage that to give a man a fish is to feed him for a day, whereas to teach him to fish is to feed him for a lifetime. Powell was understandably overjoyed (for him) when Hayek himself suggested in private correspondence that “all our hopes for England rest now on Enoch Powell”. That said, Hayek would question Powell’s mental stability after the Birmingham speech.

It was Harold Macmillan who first brought Powell into his cabinet, during the meetings of which the Prime Minister wryly noted that Powell “looks at me … like Savonarola eyeing one of the more disreputable popes”. Throughout Heffer’s book, it is notable that politicians of the time still had a common reference point in their shared knowledge of history. In today’s UK government of midwit lawyers, no such grounding exists. Powell was given a new role as Health Minister, in which, Heffer writes, “he unquestionably laid the foundations of a modern health service”. But Heffer’s book is always leading inexorably to the turning-point which divided Powell’s political career into two halves.

While Shadow Defence Secretary, Powell forewarned of his upcoming and (in)famous Birmingham speech. “I’m going to make a speech at the weekend”, he said, “that is going to go up ‘fizz’ like a rocket. But whereas all rockets fall to earth, this one is going to stay up”. In this he was, as always, prescient. The transformation of areas of Britain, and England in particular, into enclaves in which the native population were becoming outnumbered by foreigners was increasingly being addressed at government level, and various panaceas mooted, but Powell would prove to be the coalmine canary for attitudes towards this replacement.

Powell’s Birmingham speech in April, 1968, was explosive. His beloved Nietzsche wanted his words to be dynamite, but Powell got closer to detonation than the German philosopher. And yet the blast struck both sides of the social divide. There were two attempts by fellow Members of Parliament to prosecute Powell under the 1965 Race Relations Act (there would be many more), but at the same time dock-workers—solid union men—came out on strike in protest against Powell’s subsequent defenestration. He had a speaking commission in Europe cancelled at the express instruction of the man who invited him, but he also received 4,000 letters to his private, home address, of which just a dozen disagreed with his stance in the Birmingham speech. Former colleagues in the House of Commons disowned Powell while national polling showed 75% of British people agreed with him, while 69% disagreed with Heath’s decision to sack him. Powell had divided the country, not along racial or ideological lines, but rather along class differences. But the classes had changed. Now, there was the political class and everyone else.

Powell’s prescience was not confined to his channeling his constituency in Birmingham in 1968, which he did literally. His much-quoted line about the Black man gaining the “whip-hand” over the White man was actually a comment made by one of his constituents. Powell also foresaw the rise of the Race Relations industry as well as the use that fledgling industry would be put to by the new socialism:

There are those whose intention it is to destroy society as we know it, and ‘race’ or ‘colour’ is one of the crowbars they intend to use for the work of demolition. ‘Race relations’ is one of the fastest-growing sectors of British industry.

Powell recognized that to talk of the “race relations industry” was not analogy. It really was a part of the economy, as it is today, and even more so.

Powell also predicted the arrival of BLM in the UK, which began in 2020 after the death of career criminal George Floyd thousands of miles away in Minneapolis, confessing his surprise that America’s Black Power movement had not crossed the Atlantic, and was not coming after him. Powell’s family home was under constant police surveillance, a rarity in the 1960s. The problem of immigration was moving from statistics to the real world by which those statistics are measured and to which they ultimately apply, as areas including Powell’s own constituency became overwhelmingly non-white. The public response was moving from grumbling in the queue at the butcher to flyers reading, “If you want a nigger neighbour, vote Labour”.

Powell had rushed in where other politicians feared to tread, and had opened Pandora’s jar. (As a consummate classicist, Powell would have known that “Pandora’s box” is a mistranslation). It is only now in Britain that the political class is facing up to the necessity of talking about immigration, and it would be fascinating to know what Powell would have made of the caliber of the modern politician, particularly with so many of them being women. Powell was not really a misogynist, but his regard for women was somewhat limited, viewing them as part of the “rhetoric of poetry” at best, and unteachable at worst due to their propensity to wonder in class whether they might be distracted either by the potential rudeness of the teacher, or whether or not they found him attractive.

Powell perhaps represents the last hurrah for the direct criticism of socialism in the Houses of the British Parliament. Now, it is occasionally alluded to, but only as an embarrassing family incident everyone at the dinner-table has forgotten, so best move on. Socialism remains the greatest enemy to the freedom of those who deserve, by their history, to have that freedom, and Powell knew that. He told the London newspaper, The Evening Standard, his political priority with admirable clarity: “The important thing is to get the case against Socialism heard from every platform, as often as possible”.

A ground-note to the book that sounds on every page is the radical difference in the political class in Britain then and now. Politicians were all men, and generally men of a certain class. Powell was quite a way down the British class ladder, but his formidable intellect intimidated many colleagues into seeing him as their social equal.

Powell turned down a peerage from Margaret Thatcher, with whom his relations were wary on both sides. Asked his reaction to Britain’s first woman PM in 1979, he replied simply; “Grim”. Thatcher later described Powell as the best parliamentarian she had ever seen. His speeches became the stuff of Westminster legend, and Powell understood the power of the speech. In an era when television still played a relatively minor role in political communications, he toured the country like a 1970s rock band, sometimes giving three speeches in different locations on the same day.

His forced retirement from political office meant that he had more time for reading and writing. His poetry had been highly rated by then Poet Laureate John Masefield, as well as Hillaire Belloc, and the academic studies on which he concentrated included translations of the Gospels. He also pursued a longstanding theory that the work of Shakespeare was not that of one man which, although not taken seriously by Shakespeare scholars, was grounded in long and careful study and analysis, as was every aspect of Powell’s life. Powell was modest and frugal in his lifestyle, and would have frowned on the political class’s use of luxury cars in today’s political environment. Until his involvement as Minister for Ulster rendered heightened security necessary for the Minister, Powell always walked and took the underground from Sloane Square to Westminster.

Powell was also a journalist much in demand, writing regularly for the major British newspapers (despite The Times running a leader on the Birmingham speech headed “An Evil Speech”) as well as veteran political publication The Spectator. He was even offered a place on the board of the satirical magazine Private Eye, which he turned down. Again, imagining a great meeting which never happened, it would have been entertaining to see what Enoch Powell would have made of British comedian Peter Cook, who became part-owner of the Eye in 1962.

Powell was acutely aware of the relationship, both ideal and actual, between the politician and the country he is elected to serve. Applying his scholastic standards of reasoning into this relationship, he was able to combine cynicism with accurate observation:

I am a politician: that is my profession and I’m not ashamed of it. My race of man is employed by society to carry the blame for what goes wrong. As a very great deal does go wrong in my country there is a great deal of blame. In return for taking the blame for what is not our fault, we have learned how not to take the blame for what is our fault.

Powell’s Englishness was at the heart of his belief system, and the main cause of his conflicts with both Ted Heath and Margaret Thatcher, the first of whom fired him over Birmingham, and the second of whom credited him as her biggest influence along with Sir Keith Joseph. What became known as “Powellism” was at its center a defense of an England he feared would go the same way as Empire.

What is most remarkable about Powell when compared with the current crop inhabiting—one might say “infesting” —the Mother of all Parliaments is both his sheer intellect, and the application of this gift to solvable problems. He was very aware of his academic skills, and the natural advantage it gave the conscientious politician. “I owe any success I have had”, he said, “partly to an ability to go on thinking about a subject beyond the point where other people might feel they have taken it to the limit”. Now, intellectual achievement has been devalued, but a man who could faultlessly translate Herodotus was also able to render political problems as understandable both to his colleagues and to the public at large.

His health failing, Powell suffered a fall at home which led to a brain clot and delicate surgery. He was diagnosed with the early stages of Parkinson’s Disease which, although not fatal in itself, was debilitating to a man born before World War I.  When he was finally hospitalized, and being fed intravenously, he remarked that it “wasn’t much of a lunch”. He died in February, 1998, and is buried in Warwick. Would that he were living now.

The UK has a severe structural crisis in leadership:  each of the two main parties have defects that do not usually occur in tandem, but, when combined, are highly destructive.  Each is oligarchic, not democratic.  But, in contrast to most oligarchic regimes, each lacks the benefit of stability usually associated with oligarchic regimes — in other words, each are also extremely unstable.

Their oligarchic nature deprives each party of legitimacy with the broader electorate.

The instability derives from organizational defects which set each party literally against itself, and, once in power, sets the Government against itself and the other MP’s of the governing party.  This explains, in part the vacillating and ineffective leadership UK governments have shown in recent years or in times of stress.

A close examination of the electoral and organizational structures of the parties shows the wide gap between the U.S. system and the British system.  From a British point of view, a difference from   the U.S. is not always viewed as bad.  However, the “gap” here is in something crucial:  elections.  From an American point of view, there aren’t any.

Instead of “representative democracy, the term “oligarchy by quango” (with each of the parties’ central administration being the “quango”) might be a better descriptor.  In fact, an American might justifiably conclude that elections for Parliament are far less democratic today than in the times of Henry IV or Charles I.

Structural Instability.  Each party has, to an American eye, a (I) bizarre, convoluted, and highly centralized method of local Parliamentary candidate selection; and (II) since 1980 (in the case of the Labour party) and 1998 (in the case of the Conservative party) Parliamentary party leadership selection:  namely, the Parliamentary leader of the party (think Tony Blair, Boris Johnson) is selected  not by the Labour or Conservative members of Parliament but, rather, in each case by a vote of the “members” of the relevant party at annual conferences or special elections.  Thus the situation could easily arise (and has recently arisen) where the elected head of the Parliamentary party — the Prime Minister, if in government, the Leader of the Opposition, if out of government — could be despised by a large majority of his or her “fellow” Parliamentary party members.  The spectacular destruction of Corbyn, nominally the Parliamentary party leader from 2015–2017, by his own Parliamentary party and the Labour central executive at Southside or Brewers Green (take your pick),¹ is a glaring example.  This goes to the “war against itself” point.

However, the main issue is that none of these actors are elected in any meaningful sense.  So much for “much representative democracy”.

Oligarchy.  Stunning as it may be to an American, the UK voter at large has virtually no say in the selection process of Labour and Tory candidates or party governing officials.  Unlike the U.S., where (in the old days) there were locally organized caucuses which morphed into (in the now days) full scale primary elections, the local voters, even by representation of intermediary bodies (e.g., the state legislature, or, in the UK, local councils) have virtually no say.  The bottom base of each party is not, as in the U.S., those members of the voting public that identify on caucus or primary day (or a few months before via registration) as a Republican or Democrat and can number in the millions or tens of millions.  Instead, it is comprised solely of the “membership” of each of the two parties.  Becoming a member is not an easy process.  It is quite a bit like the process of admission to a good lunch club.  Roughly speaking, “candidates” for membership in each of the parties are proposed by the local constituency but are approved only by the central party leadership in London.  (For the Labour Party, see Rule Book, Appendix 2, Section 1 A. and C. Labour Party Rule Book [skwawkbox.org].   For the Conservative Party, see Section 17.7, Part IV, of the Conservative Party Constitution (amended through 2021), Conservative Party Constitution as amended January 2021.pdf [conservatives.com]). This membership, so selected, has for most of the history of each party, been a miniscule fraction of the population of the United Kingdom.  The Labour party currently boasts about 550,000 members and the Tory party about 350,000 members — a total of 800,000 members for the two main parties that comprise most of the seats in Parliament, compared with a potential UK voting public of 32 million that turned out in the 2019 general election.

Even if these members, through so-called local “constituencies” could freely select their candidates, about 2% of the full potential electorate would be choosing the candidates.  In a sense, one could say that these constituencies “represent” the great voting public of the U.K. in making party selection.  As a comparison, even at its most restrictive, in the 1790’s, the United States permitted (via property qualifications and the like) about 12% of its electorate to vote — directly for the House of Representatives, and indirectly, through popularly elected state legislatures or the Electoral College, for the United States Senate and President, respectively.

But that is not the half of it.  In fact, the constituencies cannot freely elect candidates.  Since the candidates themselves are also subject to central party approval, no one even gets to run before a constituency unless pre-approved by London Central.

And even if the constituencies were able to freely elect any candidate of their choice, since none of the constituancy are elected by the greater voting public, but are chosen by a “lunch club” admission process, one could hardly call candidate selection “democratic” in any case.

Due to the membership selection process, one can see that the idea that anyone could be a member — so that, in theory, millions could pack the membership rolls and democratize the process — is unrealistic.  Careful selection procedures ensure no risk exists that the rabble holding distasteful opinions will be admitted .

To make things worse, each member, once admitted, is subject to expulsion by the central authorities of the party for violating the vague specifications set out in the governing rules of the parties.

In detail, the structure each party, described in seriatim, appears to work as follows.

Labour.

Until the “reforms” instituted by the Right Honorable Sir Anthony Litton Blair (aka, at his own surprising wish, “Tony”) as leader of the Party starting in 1997, the previous method of party control  giving the Trade Unions a virtual veto was changed to reduce significantly the role of organized unions.

As currently constituted, after Blair’s reforms, the Labour party is no more democratic, but, from the capitalist point of view, is in better shape since it is subject to less direct Trade Union control.²

The party is an unincorporated association governed by a “Rule Book”, see Labour Party Rule Book (skwawkbox.org)  that, in turn, sets forth in 15 Chapters the “Constitutional Rules” of the party.  Id.  Appended to this as part of the Rule Book are nine Appendices each with, one presumes, sad to say (given their contents), the force of the main body of the text.

The Labour party has the crippling defect that (I) the head of the party is technically a separate position from that of head of the Parliamentary  party and (II) the head, the Executive, and the National Executive Committee to which the Executive reports, the National Committee, are not selected by the head of the Parliamentary party or by the Parliamentary Party leader, but partly by the Annual Conference vote (theoretically at least the members at large of the party) and partly by certain interest groups (such as trade unions) and the Parliamentary wing of the party.  The Parliamentary wing of the party comprises a minority on the National Committee.  One might almost point to a new Constitutional concept when Labour are in power: “King in Trade Union”.

Tory.

The organization of the Tory party — technically “The Conservative and Union Party” — is somewhat less at odds with itself than that of the Labour Party but is, nonetheless, baroque.

The Constitution of the Conservative Party, as amended through 2021 (the “Tory Constitution”) provides for what appears to be a dual leadership structure.

The “Leader” of the Tory party (a) must be a member of the House of Commons but (b) is elected by the members of the Conservative Party in accordance with the provisions of “Schedule 2” of the Tory Constitution.  When so selected, he is the Prime Minister when in office; out of office, the leader of the opposition.  His principal duty is to “determine the political direction of the Party having regard to the views of Party Members and the Conservative Policy Forum.”  Tory Constitution, Part III (Section 11).

The selection of the Leader operates via a behind-the-scenes process, although less “behind the scenes” than it used to be.  Since 1998, the so-called “1922 Committee” — so named since it first formed in 1922 to defeat the incipient Leadership candidacy of the unfortunate Nathanial Curzon, then Foreign Minister and formerly (and famously, the Viceroy of India) nominates pursuant to its own procedures a slate of nominees — or only one nominee, if it wishes — for the position of Leader.  This slate is then put forth to the Conservative Party membership for a vote, and possibly a run-off vote if no candidate achieves a majority on the first round  (Tory Constitution, Schedule 2).

Historically, before 1965, the Queen selected the party leader, presumably with the informal advice of party “grandees”.  From 1965–98, the parliamentary party controlled.  From 1998 to now, the parliamentary party runs ballots until down to the last two; then the last two go to the party members.  But the “last two” rule is per the 1922 Committee rules, which can be changed.  It would seem under the Constitution that the 1922 Committee could bypass the Parliamentary party members totally and just directly propose a slate of 2, 3 or more.  It could also change its rules so  that the Parliamentary MPs names which the Parliamentary MPs would be whittled down, say, to 5.  The candidate receiving more than 50% of the vote becomes Leader (Tory Constitution, Schedule 2).  It is notable that, although the slate is all of the MP’s selected by “establishment folks” (who are also MP’s), the vote among the candidates is made by a membership some — or in an extreme case — all of whom are not even resident in the United Kingdom and are not UK citizens (Join Us | Conservatives Abroad).   One wonders if the Right Honorable Rushi Sunak, the previous Leader and “one-year” Prime Minister, could have better spent his time recruiting his fellow Gujaratti Indians in the northern subcontinent of India for Tory Party membership, since those in the UK don’t seem interested.  After recruiting a couple hundred million of those (with Hindustani translations on the ballots of course), he could remain Tory Leader for the rest of his life.  He would of course have to tweak the Constitution to provide that the current Leader must always be included on the 1922 Committee’s slate..  But with 200 million adherents….

The Leader, in turn, selects the “other” head of the Conservative Party — the “Chairman” of the Board of the Conservative Party.  The Board is the supreme ruling body of the Conservative Party.  It consists of 19 members, none of whom is the Leader.  The Leader selects at his own discretion 3 members of the Board:  the Chairman (above), one of the two Vice Chairmen, the Treasurer of the Party (who serves as an officer of the Party and as a member of the Board).  In addition, the Leader (a) selects one other person, subject to the approval of the Board and (b) has the right of approval over an additional person selected by the Board, giving the Leader the right to appoint three members and to have a say in the appointment of two more, for a total of five members.  The other members are the Chairman of the Conservative Party Conference, elected by the Membership (he serves as the other Vice President of the Party), the Chairman of the 1922 Committee, the three Chairmen of the English, Welsh, and Scottish Conservative Parties, respectively, and the Chairman of the Conservative Councilors Association.  In addition, a member of the Tory party staff is selected by the Chairman of the Board.  So, essentially, the Board is effectively outside the control of both the Leader and the Parliamentary conservative party.  It is this confusing edifice that has the power of both candidate and membership deselection.

The Board crucially has, under Section 17.7 of the TC, the power in its “absolute discretion” to accept or refuse the membership of any prospective or current member.  The power to “refuse” membership to a current member presumably is a roundabout way of saying the Board has the power to kick out any person from Tory Party membership it wants to, including, presumably, sitting members of parliament.  If that weren’t enough, the TC rubs it in your face.  Under Article 17.22, it has the power over “[t]he suspension of membership or the expulsion from membership of any member whose conduct is in conflict with the purpose, objects and values of the Party as indicated in Part I Article 2 or which is inconsistent with the objects or financial well-being of an Association or the Party or be likely to bring an Association or the Party into disrepute.”  Well, that’s a lot of discretion!

Under  Article 17.5 of the TC, the Board has the power over “the maintenance of the Approved List of Candidates in accordance with Article 19.1 of, and Schedule 6 to, the TC (Article 19 substantially simply refers to Schedule 6).

Under Schedule 6, Sections 14–21, the Board — like its Labour Party counterpart — incredibly has the power to “withdraw” associations — that is, local conservative party constituencies — from membership, thereby disenfranchising all of the members of the local association unless the Board decides otherwise. Schedule 6, Section 20.  In other words, vote the wrong way, propose the wrong candidates, say the wrong thing, yer out, Jack!

The local Conservative “Associations” are no better.  The model rules, attached as Schedule 7 to the TC, state that

[t]he Officers of the Association may move before the Executive Council the suspension or termination of membership of the Association of any member whose declared opinions or conduct shall, in their judgment, be inconsistent with the objects or financial well-being of the Association or be likely to bring the Party into disrepute. Similarly, the Officers may move the refusal of membership of the Association for the same reasons. Following such a motion, the Executive Council may by a majority vote suspend, terminate or refuse membership for the same reason. (Emphasis added.)

Good God.  Even the toniest lunch clubs in New York do not have such discretion to decapitate members.

DISPOSING OF A LEADER

In getting rid of a leader who is Prime Minister, there are two ways:  Parliamentary and Party.

The Parliamentary method is for the Parliament as a whole to vote, apparently by bare majority, that “the Parliament has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government”.  In such a case, there are 15 days in which the existing Parliament can try to find a new government.  If not, a General Election is held.

The second is for the party itself to hold a vote of “no confidence” in the Leader (not the whole government).  In the Tory party, 15% of the Tory members can petition to have a Leader no-confidence vote.  In that case the vote is by the Tory Members of Parliament (not any other Tory party members) only.  If the PM loses, a party election (by party members, not the parliamentary members) for a new leader.  However, apparently under current rules (of the 1922 Committee?), there are preliminary ballots among the Tory Parliamentary party members only (of the whole House, not just the 1922 Committee).  Once the ballot gets down to the final two, a choice between the final two is then put to the Tory party members at large.  If the PM wins, no more “no confidence” votes are permitted for a year.

In the Labor party, there is no such thing as a vote of “no confidence” in the Leader.  One challenges a sitting leader by mounting a candidate to oppose him.  If that candidate gets 20% of the PLP (Parliamentary Labour Party ) membership to support him (note that this is higher than the 15% threshold required for a non-removal election), the contest is on, pursuant to rules to be jerry-rigged by the NEC (National Executive Council) of the party.  Which could be anything.  There is a lack of clarity as to whether the incumbent can automatically run, or must meet the 20% threshold in terms of PLP member nominations.  If the latter, a leader like Jeremy Corbyn could be unseated easily, because he probably would not get the requisite number of PLP member nominations, even though, if ON the ballot, he might win by a Corbynist margin of say 57% to 20% to 13% — a crushing victory among the Labor party membership.  (Corbyn in his initial run got the requisite 20% support on a fluke, mainly from members that actually supported other candidates but assumed he would lose but split the vote in an advantageous way.)  When Corbyn was challenged, barely a year into his leadership term, he obtained a ruling from NEC (which apparently by 2016 he controlled, even though he did not control the Executive Director (McDougal) who actually runs Southside) until 2018 when McDougal was replaced (even his replacement we now know worked against Corbyn) that the incumbent had a right to be on the ballot without meeting the 20% threshold, so Corbyn did not have to do what for him at that time would have been the impossible — namely, get the 51 MP’s necessary for a 20% endorsement.  This ruling has now been affirmed by a High Court ruling that now stands as substantive law effective even in the absence of an NEC ruling to that effect. [1]

Even with the incumbent’s right to run, this is madness.  It means that — as literally was the case     with Corbyn — that a Leader could be elected by the members of the party at large (a) that only 20% (or less — see below on Corbyn) support and thus (b) whose leadership could be easily challenged and subjected to re-vote at a new party conference almost on a continual basis.  Effectively, after Southside had “deselected” enough Corbynist Labour Party at large members, this is exactly what happened to Corbyn. See “What role should party members have in leadership elections?.”

DESTRUCTION OF CORBYN

So, with this as the background instability of the system, it is easier to see how Corbyn was destroyed and how, now, the former leader of Labour is no longer even a member of Labour.

However, the particular details of Corbyn’s demise can be traced in good part to his naivety and weakness.

Weakness.  His weakness was that he was hated by almost the entire membership of the PLP’s — the Labor Party MP’s.  In a normal year he would have been able to secure, at most, say 5% of the PLP’s — 15 points short of getting on an uncontested ballot for Leader.  However, for a number of later-to-be-regretted tactical reasons involving other candidates, a number of his Parliamentary adversaries endorsed him despite despising him — enough to get him over the 20% threshold.

Having thus gotten on the ballot by pure luck, the Party membership — clearly, completely out of tune with the MP’s “representing” them — elected Corbyn by a crushing majority at that year’s Party Conference.  Suddenly this reviled backbencher was Labour Party Leader!

Naivete.  For reasons best known to himself, former GMB executive, Toby McNicol, who at the time of Corbyn’s ascension to the leadership of the Labour party, held the extremely powerful position of General Secretary of the Party, despised Corbyn.  McNicol did not wish to serve under him.  Accordingly, McNicol offered to resign (again, for reasons known only to himself — perhaps a last trace of English gentlemanliness).  This was a huge gift to Corbyn and a huge “own goal” for the “New Labour” Parliamentary Labour Party establishment.  Had Corbyn accepted McNicol’s resignation and packed the Labour Party executive with his own people, Corbyn might still today be Party leader.  However, unbelievably, Corbyn did not take up this gift — he refused.  So Corbyn’s sworn enemy — McNicol — remained as General Secretary.

The result was that the Labour Party executive at Brewer’s Green, then moving offices to Southside, continued to be occupied by either New Labour bureaucrats or others — like McNicol — who apparently hated Corbyn just as much as McNicol.  Since, as noted in numbing detail above, the Party executive has the enormous power of selection and de-selection of candidates and entire constituencies and the power within extremely broad guidelines to set the terms of any leadership election or challenge, this was an enormous “own goal” on Corbyn’s part.

From that moment on, McNicol and the New Labour apparatchiks at Brewer’s Green worked as hard as they could to unseat Corbyn, as did the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP), which, of course despised Corbyn as well.

The first result came in 2016 shortly after the Brexit vote.  The PLP demanded Corbyn resign.  When he refused, a meaningless “vote of no confidence” was held by the PLP, which, predictably, Corbyn lost be a huge margin.  Then PLP member Owen Johnson then got the requisite 20% of the PLP to endorse his challenge to Corbyn.

McNicol used every trick in the book to trip up Corbyn via the broad discretion granted the NEC in the Labour Party rule book.

First, he convened a meeting of the NEC without informing Corbyn that it was for the purpose of making a determination under the Labour Party rules that Corbyn, like any challenger, needed to get endorsements from 20% of the PLP to appear on the ballot triggered by the challenge.  This would have forced Corbyn out, since he would have been unable to obtain that many endorsements.  However, the Labour unions as a block voted with Corbyn, resulting in a rejection of that proposal.  Although the Executive sued to reverse the NEC ruling, the ruling was upheld by the High Court.  See above.

Second, McNicol convinced the NEC to disqualify any Conference Labour Party (“CLP”) members joining within the last six months.  The result was to disqualify about 20% of the CLP, most of whom were the late-entering Corbyn supporters.  The power of the NEC to retroactively disqualify the voting rights of these members was upheld by the Court of Appeal, after first being rejected by the High Court.  See above.

Notwithstanding these maneuvers, Corbyn won a crushing victory among the general membership and retained his leadership position.

Having failed to unseat Corbyn through “behind the scenes” rule jiggering, the PLP, and the press (who also hated Corbyn) formed a new line of attack.  Corbyn had always been a strong supporter of Palestinian rights and a critic of the Israeli occupation of the west bank.  This, and his statements in support of this position were dredged up as evidence of “anti-Semitism”.  Since the Party had foolishly made a rule prohibiting any Member from “anti-Semitism” — whatever that was at any given time — accusations of “anti-Semitism” could be deadly for any Member, including Corbyn.  At first, the Party did not accuse Corbyn directly; rather it attempted to de-select a number of Corbyn’s senior party supporters

As Chris Willimson describes, instead of rejecting these claims out of hand, Corbyn weakly agreed to punish a couple of Party members attacked and agreed to a commission of inquiry to look into these claims.  Of course, the commission would be staffed by the very Brewers Green apparatchiks, including Toby McNicol, who hated Corbyn.  Predictably, this commission was used to smear Corbyn.  In addition, it was used to deselect not only many of Corbyn’s few supporters in Parliament, but to deselect entire constituencies whose statements the Southsde folks did not like, essentially throwing out of the party anyone who supported Corbyn.  This deslection process continued long enough that, by the end of 2019, Corbyn had been fatally weakened in the CLP itself.

So instead of accepting McNicol’s resignation, bringing in a Corbyn supporter at the head of the party, and then ruthlessly expelling from Brewer’s Green its current employees and replacing them with Corbyn supporters, Corbyn now faced a Labor Executive dead set on destroying him through endless “anti-Semitism” hearings.

Notwithstanding all this, Corbyn managed to fend off these attacks to come closer to a Labour victory — in 2017 — than any leader since Blair.  However, after losing the 2019 election, and bloodied beyond belief by the PLP antisemitism war, he resigned as leader under duress.  Very promptly he was literally “deselected” and thrown out of the party, despite being one of the longest serving labor MP’s then in Parliament and having served as its leader since 2015!

Some have blamed Jewish power exclusively for Corbyn’s downfall.  However, although Jewish power may in some sense be blamed for Corbyn’s political demise, the bizarre structure of British politics, in which a man wildly unpopular among the PLP could become leader of the Party due to support by members paying 3 lbs each for the privilege, plus his own naivety and weakness, played even greater roles.

The Sad Conclusion: Support for Israel and Mass Immigraiton by Both Parties

But the implications for the desiccated state of Britain’s vaunted “mother of Parliaments” and its elective representative government albeit under a Monarchy, are dire.  The people who clearly approved Corbyn have no say.  Those who do “have their say” are immediately thrown out of the party.  The result is that, when the 36 million-strong UK electorate gets to choose, they get to choose between two candidates who (a) slavishly support Israel and (b) slavishly support massive immigration, even though polling indicates each of these objects of elite affection are wildly unpopular.

So, no, it’s not “all the Jews’”.  But any time you set up a system so centrally controlled — whether it is with the Tory or Labour parties, BBC, or CBS News, the chance that a small set of anti-social conspirators seize the levers of power for their own ends approaches 100%.

If the conspirators simply want money, then you lose money.

If the conspirators want to destroy the people itself, then the result is the destruction of the country.

That’s where you all are “English-folk”.

_______________________

1/  Brewer’s Green — apparently not Southside — was the labor central party HQ in 2015.  From April, 2012 to December, 2015 the Labor Party hq was at Brewer’s Green.  From December, 2015 to early January, 2023, it was at 105 Victoria Street in Southside, hence called familiarly “Southside”.  See Labour Party headquarters (UK) – Wikipedia .  From January 2023 to today, it has been at a series of two addresses in Southwark — not Southside.  Confusing?  Well, might as well have confusion of addresses to match the confusion in the Rules.

2/  From 1900 to 1978, new leaders chosen by parliamentary party.  In 1978, an “electoral college” method put in, with 1/2rd members, 1/3^rd trade unions, and 1/3^rd parliammentary members.  That apparently lasted until 2014, in which it went to [all members?}  Well it is parliamentary MP ballots to get to the top 5, then those 5 go to the party members.  That is how Corbyn got through because he was 5^th out of 5 on the MP ballot, but then won the party members hands down.

[1]  Nunns, Candidate, at 323 (no citation), OR Books, 2016.  Foster v McNicol and Corbyn, High Court of Justice Queens Bench, Neutral Citation Number: [2016] EWHC 1966 (QB) (July 28, 2016).  The High Court made a substantive ruling that the incumbent need not get any nominations; it did NOT simply issue a ruling affirming NEC’s ruling on either of the grounds (a) that the NEC was the sole judge of the rules or (b) that in this case the vote of the NEC was “reasonable” interpretation of the rules. Ibid. Accordingly, the High Court decision stands as a substantive interpretation of the rules that will bind further decisions of the NEC until if and when the underlying rules are properly amended by vote of the membership.  Note that the court, noting that the Labor Party is an unincorporated association bound solely by a “contract” — namely the Rules — ruled on this as a normal interpretation of contract case.  Id.  Note, in Evangelou v. McNicol, the Court of Appeal (Civil Division), on Appeal from the High Courts of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Neutral Citation Number: [2016] EWCA Civ 817 (August 12, 2016), held that the NEC did have the power to retroactively disenfranchise all constituency members who had joined the party within a period of six months before the date of the NEC ruling, thus disenfranchising about 130,000 new Labor Party members from the vote.