Context, and where is moral outrage over Farage and others claiming to be UK patriots around Tories & Reform (in civil war), far right, Tufton St. and media?
That's right, they have been disappeared to allow focus on 'push', 'wedge' & 'leadership' polling with media to be upon Starmer and the centre, for a pummeling. Meanwhile the centre doing the right's destructive work to create chaos in democracy, and for themselves?
Starmer & team made a suboptimal choice of Mandelson (& McSweeny), but rationale was to have a snake to deal with a snake in the US (both familiar with each other)? It's not a normal US regime and UK has to manage or wriggle free of a relationship developed over generations, with interrelated Trump (Russia), Vance (Thiel), Vought (Koch), Miller (Tanton) & Murdoch (Fox News & RW MSM)?
Has Starmer been linked personally by Epstein and did he know of Mandelson's Epstein links, think no?
Ditto attacks on any Australian Labor government & related by RW MSM and online influencers dog whistling and denigrating to leverage ageing, white, low info and regional voters as their insurgents infused with 'collective narcissism' & 'pensioner populism' (see divisiveness achieved around Brexit, Trump & Murdoch/Koch anti indigenous Voice campaign in Australia)
'Radical right libertarian trap' to denigrate and dog whistle centrist and proxy issuss, but nada on the right; rinse and repeat. Meanwhile, Farage (allegedly MAGA Tanton Network linked via Bannon & Russian asset) is not even being challenged by UK media, wtf?!
Focusing on and shooting (wrong) messengers while missing the 'architecture of influence' eg. UK is still trying to understand Brexit and that was a non dom, Anglo/US and Russian coup vs EU, immigration and liberal democracy.
What is 'like this' dynamic, not interrogated deeply and why hasn't UK media understood Brexit, still delusional viewing as organic 'will of the people'...a non Dom, US & Russian coup?
Why is it only the centre responsible while conservatives through far right are protected and enabled by media?
How long can UK media ignore Farage, Johnson, Murdoch, Lebedev, Tufton St, GB News, BBC et al?
Mandelson, Murdoch, Deripaska & Osborne were cited by Guardian meeting Corfu decades ago.....?
Just as the Australian Labor government is wasting the opportunity of a significant win to do as little as possible for Australians , as they work to appease the demands of America and wealthy corporate donors .
Indeed - important to recognise the scale of the Mandelson scandal compared to those in the Johnson era. And thats before the you get onto the other Johnson era scandals - PPE... etc, etc
What also seems be missed is that this is about far more than just politicians, though of course the media loves to bash them, especially when it is a Labour government. This about political power and financial wealth. The accumulation of extreme wealth used to influence politicians to behave in their interests. Politicians seeking to line their pockets and have their ideologies shared. No surprise that banking and finance are prominent along with tech, as thats where the biggest concentrations of wealth are. The story of Mandelson and Dimon trying to put the squeeze on the UK government will be just one of endless examples buried in those emails. And we have a media mostly now owned by that same group which not surprisingly is avoiding mentioning them.
The sex and paedophilia was just what they did for fun. The real reasons they got together was corruption on a global scale. And fundamentally undermining democracy. Those over mighty, corrupt business leaders need to be taken on and their businesses broken back down to a size where they can be controlled in the interests of wider society. It's a re-run of the Rockefellers in the 1930s
I agree, the Tech Oligarchs have too much power and they are the ones building AI so it will reflect their ideas, god help us! It will be biased against us not for us!
It's a linked continuation of the Rockefeller Standard Oil fossil fuel influence (later Exxon/Chevron) post WWII ZPG Zero Population Growth now Tanton Network* equals e.g. Steve 'great replacement' Bannon who wooed Farage when setting up Breitbart, then proceeded with Kremlin talking points vs EU (regulation), immigration and liberal democracy.
Rockefeller estate hosted 1970s the fossil fuel/auto Club of Rome sponsored by VW and Fiat promoting environmental greenwashing aka 'limits to growth', degrowth etc.; greenwashing of autarky aka pre WWII Germany or post WWII Franco's Spain.....
*In the US share donors with Koch Network, Project 2025 for Trump (see Vought & Miller) and in UK Tufton Street 'junk tanks' (Brexit).
I think some of the issue is that Labour still haven't found a way to adjust to the changing political landscape, where the divides are increasingly defined by values rather than class. This splits their previous voter base down the middle, and they still haven't worked out which half they wish to target. McSweeney is going for low income socially conservative voters to the exclusion of everyone else, which is clearly not working.
I don't see myself as a Labour supporter, but I desperately wanted this government to succeed. It's all the more galling as the current situation is totally self inflicted by what looked on paper to be a very competent cabinet. Despite my strong reservations over some of his more illiberal policies, I hope Starmer rides this out as a leadership contest is not going to help anyone right now.
Sensible comment, think Starmer needs to ditch McSweeny and that ever present whiff of Tufton Street US fossil fueled free market & anti-immigrant 'junk tanks' that infected the political right and media years ago....long game across the Anglosphere (see Nancy MacLean 'Democracy in Chains').
Media are doing a 'Kill Starmer' and pummeling the centre while disappearing the right eg Farage....
Australia witnessed similar several years ago with then opposition Labor leader Bill Shorten, led by Murdoch's ppl, infused with Koch & Tanton Network agitprop & BS.
It wasn't being a hypocrite that did for Johnson. Almost all senior politcians are obvious hypocrites. Most humans are hypocrites at some point in their life. What did for him was breaking the rules that had been forced on everyone else. Not just him, but his whole troop of clowns. He and they took the piss. He almost literally danced on people graves. That was unforgiveable in the context. The context was harsh rules that forced people not to visit their dying relatives, or to attend their funerals And those rules were not popular, but they were accepted as necessary because of the pandemic which was real and visible. It wasn't the hypocrisy of it, it was that he did it at all. He said we all have to make sacrifices, then he spat on everyone that had. It was insult to injury with added mockery.
I am flummoxed that you still haven't understood Starmer. You still think he is a decent man, just a misguided and weak one. No. He has shown us his true character again and again. He's fine with genocide. He's fine with screwing the disabled. He's OK for old people to freeze. He's happy to lock people up for protesting. He thinks the answer to our "cost of living" crisis is to hand contracts to Blackrock and cosy up with billionaire neofascist techbros. He thinks that someone who was a "friend" and frequent visitor of the most notorious paedophile of the age, who even stayed in the man's apartment while he was in prison, is suitable to be an ambassador. - or even to have any public role at all. What kind of person would not see all the warning signs? One who doesn't think it matters. Which makes him NOT decent.
There's a reason he is the most unpopular PM in history. It's not that Johnson or Turss or Sunak were better people than him. It's because he presented himself as dull but worthy and someone who "gets it", and turned out to be dull, utterly lacking in judgement, oblivious, and rotten in petty ways (the specs, the suits, the need for approval from people like Trump). It's the bottomless emptiness and moral vacuum of him that makes people dislike him. He makes their skin crawl because he is bland, weak, unconvincing, lacking any moral fibre, any spine, or any fire, but ready to quietly, undemonstratively and ruthlessly push you into oncoming traffic. He presented as a "safe pair of hands" but he turns out to be all thumbs.
It strikes you that centrists still cannot bring themselves to admit they backed the wrong horse, and desperately seek to find what isn't there. Starmer is a proven liar, and as Private Eye (that great hater of the left) constantly points out, has abandoned every single worthless promise he made in order to pursue policies he actually believes in. He is not some helpless victim of circumstances as many here want to believe, he is carrying out an agenda he chose. Otherwise, why appoint so many ugly characters to pursue that agenda from day one?
On that note, we have the other fallacy, that Starmer was 'conned' by Mandelson, a man that apparently is of the sort he would otherwise despise. Really? Is that why he appointed Mandelson as one of his senior advisors as early as 2020, and maintained him as a key member of his staff for so long? Then we have the other nasty pieces of work in the cabinet and wider party that Starmer, oddly for someone who 'despises them' seems to surround himself with. Tom Watson, the man who bragged he 'brought Tony Blair down', and who made a career of back stabbing and bullying, and made disgusting accusations against a fellow MP that he arrogantly refused to retract.
Then we have Wes 'Spiv' Streeting, a self serving, up to his neck in the trough, chancer who should be nowhere near the NHS, the NHS that is literally collapsing on his watch. Yes, before the excuses start, he did inherit an underfunded mess, but the usual New Labour obsession with headlines rather than the whole, is resulting in hospitals all over the UK failing even to do the basics.
After him, we have Kendall and Cooper, two individuals so right wing even Tory mps said they could not have voted for them after seeing their leadership manifestos, and who's rhetoric and actions in cabinet merely aped the Tories. Lets also end the, 'its just down to bad presentation and bad faith' excuses here too. Both these individuals warned, before the election, just what sort of agenda they, and therefore Starmer's govt, would pursue - and it was no different to the Tories.
Then of course we have the absolutely ghastly new Home Secretary. A vile, bigoted, liar totally willing to toe the pro Zionist line to the extreme, and quite happy to feed the Tory press anti immigrant rhetoric. The thing is, just like her Tory predecessors, she means it, and it isn't just 'playing to the gallery' no matter what centrists think.
Its also no use moaning about McSweeney. Everyone who has ever dealt with him who isn't to the right of Normo Tebs has described him as a nasty piece of work, with zero scruples, and missing a moral compass. That its now been revealed that; a) he is an acolyte of Mandelson, and that b) the two likely worked together to bring down a certain former leader is hardly surprising.
...and finally back to Mandelson. Starmers lies are catching up with him. That equally vile creature Badenough pressed Starmer at the end of last year to admit he knew about Mandelson and Epstein before he was appointed as US Ambassador, and this will surely now come back to bite the PM. As will the fact he claims not to have known, Mandelson, despite his disgraceful track record of deceit, could possibly have lied to him! Cuh! Well I never, a proven liar, lied! Who'd have thought..
Finally, even if by some miracle the establishment lets Starmer step down, nothing will change. Some other nasty piece of New Labour work will step up, and the polls will stay down. The only way to save Labour is to sack the entire cabinet, replace them with decent human beings, stop the various 'blue Labour' groups influence on govt, and ban the likes of McSweeney from Labour for ever. And that, will happen the day I see the horned one skating to work...
The same policies as every neo-liberal govt since 1979. Low direct taxation on wealth, privatisation, no interest in re-nationalisation, cynical watering down of any legislation that might make a positive difference, no increase in investment (in real terms) in our public services, and making himself as popular as he can with the business community ready for his (very soon) post political days. So, no difference between him and every Tory PM of the last fourteen years.
Why isn't alleged Russian asset Farage being interrogated by UK media and commenters vs being protected bybthe same, outrageous?
Is it related to how influencers and assets are demanding sole focus upon Israel & Gaza and blaming centrist western leaders, but not Netanyahu, nor his chums Putin and Trump for doing nothing?
One thing that defines Starmer’s career - both in Law and Politics - is his obsequiousness and a desire to ingratiate himself with those more powerful and wealthy than him. I knew him well as a barrister and as DPP. He was notorious for throwing colleagues and staff under the bus rather than accept responsibility for his mistakes. He adores mingling with the elite and will jump to their tune at the drop of a hat.
That’s how he comes across to me, so it’s …(not sure what the right word is, “reassuring”? not really, “disheartening yet helpful”, perhaps) to have confirmation from someone who knows him personally.
I don’t think dislike is quite how I’d put it. It isn’t personal. I feel that those who put themselves forward to be representatives should be respected, provided they behave in ways that are respectful to the position and to the people they represent. They sometimes have to make difficult decisions, but those decisions should be in the best interest of those they are representing, and where that is not obvious, a clear explanation given as to why a particular choice has been made. If the choices are consistently ones that favour powerful, wealthy, high-status interests over the opposite, while being presented as the reverse, then that is unacceptable to me. It shows contempt for those who elected him and the office itself. Governments should protect the population (and especially the weak, vulnerable and powerless) against those who seek to exploit, disregard or abuse them. That is why we have government.
If you can't bring yourself to loathe someone who not only sells weapons to those carrying out genocide, takes the coin of those carrying out genocide, makes excuses for that genocide, but also does his best to crush any dissent against those perpetrators of genocide, to the extent of allowing his HS to force a Police commissioner (who was just doing his job) to retire early, then clearly no-one can reach that bar.
I cannot disagree with any of the points that you make but I am too old and tired to be angry all the time. I have done my bit condemning Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama as well as Nixon, Bush and Trump; Gordon Brown as well as Thatcher. I doubt if anyone with a pure heart goes into politics.
Likewise. The fact he turned out to have been an acolyte of Mandelson just adds to my loathing. However, Starmer is every bit as bad, as are his cabinet and all those lobby groups who worked to get him in, and who also support a certain nations vile govt that criticising gets you sprayed with that toxic substance 'instant antisemite'.
Excellent, and sobering, post Ian. And I completely agree: "Britain remains a country where standards matter". Also, I sense your huge disappointment that Starmer has not lived up to that "standards matter" promise.
But, I must take issue with your attempt to deflect, by pulling Boris out of the hat. I've said this elsewhere, and I'll say it again: resorting to "Labour aren't as bad as the morally bankrupt Tories" is pretty desperate.
Also, comparing the Mandelson fuck up with Johnson's handling of Covid is a little disingenuous. The Mandelson mess was completely avoidable and totally self-inflicted. Covid was a raging pandemic that was neither. I'm the last person to be defending Boris Johnson, but put yourself, (or anyone!), in his shoes. I'm pretty sure No 10 would have been a disintegrating mess of headless chickens, shitting bricks, no matter who was in charge. Johnson was definitely not the right person to be in charge during Covid. But who was? Who would have managed it without fucking up. Answers on a postcard... and...
I think you may have misread the situation in the country if Reform win the election. The model used by Trump was to remove checks and balances and to cow the opposition and the press into inaction by various nefarious means. He’d set up the judiciary in his first term so it is now compliant in his second. He can do what he likes no matter what the non existent opposition say in the US, Farage will do the same here. Beginning with saying repeatedly that the old system is broken and not fit for purpose he will move on to neuter the civil service and judiciary then any other organs that offer any form of checks and balances. It’s naive to think that we are a reasonable nation who won’t let these things happen, America is full of decent sensible people appalled at what’s happening to their country and there’s not a damn thing they can do about it, save take to the streets where they will be branded as terrorists and dealt with accordingly. Then the third term will somehow seem reasonable etc etc. the same will happen here and we are sleepwalking into it.
You leave me speechless sometimes you Dunt - how do you have the brain space to get the politics right, the language raw, the reading done AND get Sleaford Mods or name check you - fucking legend! Thanks
It is one of the pleasures of my life to listen to you read this out every week Ian - it somehow helps to land the message more effectively for me. Plus I love the “edit as you go strategy”…excellent work, thank you. Oh and I throw you a few quid regularly so I’m glad you’re spending it on something worthwhile. Slainte 🥃
That’s you and O’Brien both drawing attention to the grapes and watermelon disparity in dimensions of Starmer’s hat trick of own goals compared to Johnson setting fire to a packed Wembley stadium. Strange indeed the media coverage is in inverse proportion to the gravity of the incompetence and in Johnson’s case criminal indifference.
Marina Hyde draws attention to the side show nature of the political dimension of the Epstein file revelations. The main show is always the need to identify, investigate and hold to account the wealthy and powerful men who sexually abused the children Epstein trafficked to them. We must never let anyone lose sight of that even if the side show brings down the prime minister or his entire government that would still be a distraction alongside the severity of what was done to each and every child or young woman Epstein and his network abused.
This is top analysis Ian. And two thumbs up for the optimistic final few paragraphs. Really enjoy listening to you read the piece, pronunciations and all.
Another fine summary of the bin fire that is the Starmer administration. And Dorian’s comprehensive Origin Story research into the evolution of Glasman and Blue Labour compliments this post really well and highlights one of Starmer’s many problems in that if the people interested in politics don’t know what he stands for, the average voter never will. This was the case again yesterday when he talked about “British values” without any clarity about what these values actually mean. And re Glasman, having listened to the podcast I think he’s nailed on to be the Labour defector to Reform that Farage keeps talking about.
Thank you for articulating so perfectly my rightful & righteous anger at Labour’s latest & worst binfire.
What a once in a lifetime opportunity this government has wasted…
Driver Andy
Context, and where is moral outrage over Farage and others claiming to be UK patriots around Tories & Reform (in civil war), far right, Tufton St. and media?
That's right, they have been disappeared to allow focus on 'push', 'wedge' & 'leadership' polling with media to be upon Starmer and the centre, for a pummeling. Meanwhile the centre doing the right's destructive work to create chaos in democracy, and for themselves?
Starmer & team made a suboptimal choice of Mandelson (& McSweeny), but rationale was to have a snake to deal with a snake in the US (both familiar with each other)? It's not a normal US regime and UK has to manage or wriggle free of a relationship developed over generations, with interrelated Trump (Russia), Vance (Thiel), Vought (Koch), Miller (Tanton) & Murdoch (Fox News & RW MSM)?
Has Starmer been linked personally by Epstein and did he know of Mandelson's Epstein links, think no?
Ditto attacks on any Australian Labor government & related by RW MSM and online influencers dog whistling and denigrating to leverage ageing, white, low info and regional voters as their insurgents infused with 'collective narcissism' & 'pensioner populism' (see divisiveness achieved around Brexit, Trump & Murdoch/Koch anti indigenous Voice campaign in Australia)
'Radical right libertarian trap' to denigrate and dog whistle centrist and proxy issuss, but nada on the right; rinse and repeat. Meanwhile, Farage (allegedly MAGA Tanton Network linked via Bannon & Russian asset) is not even being challenged by UK media, wtf?!
Focusing on and shooting (wrong) messengers while missing the 'architecture of influence' eg. UK is still trying to understand Brexit and that was a non dom, Anglo/US and Russian coup vs EU, immigration and liberal democracy.
As Duncan Robinson put it in The Economist “If Sir Keir had a purpose, it was stopping things like this.” And he hasn’t.
What is 'like this' dynamic, not interrogated deeply and why hasn't UK media understood Brexit, still delusional viewing as organic 'will of the people'...a non Dom, US & Russian coup?
Why is it only the centre responsible while conservatives through far right are protected and enabled by media?
How long can UK media ignore Farage, Johnson, Murdoch, Lebedev, Tufton St, GB News, BBC et al?
Mandelson, Murdoch, Deripaska & Osborne were cited by Guardian meeting Corfu decades ago.....?
Just as the Australian Labor government is wasting the opportunity of a significant win to do as little as possible for Australians , as they work to appease the demands of America and wealthy corporate donors .
Indeed - important to recognise the scale of the Mandelson scandal compared to those in the Johnson era. And thats before the you get onto the other Johnson era scandals - PPE... etc, etc
What also seems be missed is that this is about far more than just politicians, though of course the media loves to bash them, especially when it is a Labour government. This about political power and financial wealth. The accumulation of extreme wealth used to influence politicians to behave in their interests. Politicians seeking to line their pockets and have their ideologies shared. No surprise that banking and finance are prominent along with tech, as thats where the biggest concentrations of wealth are. The story of Mandelson and Dimon trying to put the squeeze on the UK government will be just one of endless examples buried in those emails. And we have a media mostly now owned by that same group which not surprisingly is avoiding mentioning them.
The sex and paedophilia was just what they did for fun. The real reasons they got together was corruption on a global scale. And fundamentally undermining democracy. Those over mighty, corrupt business leaders need to be taken on and their businesses broken back down to a size where they can be controlled in the interests of wider society. It's a re-run of the Rockefellers in the 1930s
I agree, the Tech Oligarchs have too much power and they are the ones building AI so it will reflect their ideas, god help us! It will be biased against us not for us!
🤷♀️😖😡🤐🤬😤💻❌🤦♀️
It's a linked continuation of the Rockefeller Standard Oil fossil fuel influence (later Exxon/Chevron) post WWII ZPG Zero Population Growth now Tanton Network* equals e.g. Steve 'great replacement' Bannon who wooed Farage when setting up Breitbart, then proceeded with Kremlin talking points vs EU (regulation), immigration and liberal democracy.
Rockefeller estate hosted 1970s the fossil fuel/auto Club of Rome sponsored by VW and Fiat promoting environmental greenwashing aka 'limits to growth', degrowth etc.; greenwashing of autarky aka pre WWII Germany or post WWII Franco's Spain.....
*In the US share donors with Koch Network, Project 2025 for Trump (see Vought & Miller) and in UK Tufton Street 'junk tanks' (Brexit).
Well said 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
https://vimeo.com/7158066
I think some of the issue is that Labour still haven't found a way to adjust to the changing political landscape, where the divides are increasingly defined by values rather than class. This splits their previous voter base down the middle, and they still haven't worked out which half they wish to target. McSweeney is going for low income socially conservative voters to the exclusion of everyone else, which is clearly not working.
I don't see myself as a Labour supporter, but I desperately wanted this government to succeed. It's all the more galling as the current situation is totally self inflicted by what looked on paper to be a very competent cabinet. Despite my strong reservations over some of his more illiberal policies, I hope Starmer rides this out as a leadership contest is not going to help anyone right now.
Sensible comment, think Starmer needs to ditch McSweeny and that ever present whiff of Tufton Street US fossil fueled free market & anti-immigrant 'junk tanks' that infected the political right and media years ago....long game across the Anglosphere (see Nancy MacLean 'Democracy in Chains').
Media are doing a 'Kill Starmer' and pummeling the centre while disappearing the right eg Farage....
Australia witnessed similar several years ago with then opposition Labor leader Bill Shorten, led by Murdoch's ppl, infused with Koch & Tanton Network agitprop & BS.
Hope Starmer reads this.
Me too!
It wasn't being a hypocrite that did for Johnson. Almost all senior politcians are obvious hypocrites. Most humans are hypocrites at some point in their life. What did for him was breaking the rules that had been forced on everyone else. Not just him, but his whole troop of clowns. He and they took the piss. He almost literally danced on people graves. That was unforgiveable in the context. The context was harsh rules that forced people not to visit their dying relatives, or to attend their funerals And those rules were not popular, but they were accepted as necessary because of the pandemic which was real and visible. It wasn't the hypocrisy of it, it was that he did it at all. He said we all have to make sacrifices, then he spat on everyone that had. It was insult to injury with added mockery.
I am flummoxed that you still haven't understood Starmer. You still think he is a decent man, just a misguided and weak one. No. He has shown us his true character again and again. He's fine with genocide. He's fine with screwing the disabled. He's OK for old people to freeze. He's happy to lock people up for protesting. He thinks the answer to our "cost of living" crisis is to hand contracts to Blackrock and cosy up with billionaire neofascist techbros. He thinks that someone who was a "friend" and frequent visitor of the most notorious paedophile of the age, who even stayed in the man's apartment while he was in prison, is suitable to be an ambassador. - or even to have any public role at all. What kind of person would not see all the warning signs? One who doesn't think it matters. Which makes him NOT decent.
There's a reason he is the most unpopular PM in history. It's not that Johnson or Turss or Sunak were better people than him. It's because he presented himself as dull but worthy and someone who "gets it", and turned out to be dull, utterly lacking in judgement, oblivious, and rotten in petty ways (the specs, the suits, the need for approval from people like Trump). It's the bottomless emptiness and moral vacuum of him that makes people dislike him. He makes their skin crawl because he is bland, weak, unconvincing, lacking any moral fibre, any spine, or any fire, but ready to quietly, undemonstratively and ruthlessly push you into oncoming traffic. He presented as a "safe pair of hands" but he turns out to be all thumbs.
This.
It strikes you that centrists still cannot bring themselves to admit they backed the wrong horse, and desperately seek to find what isn't there. Starmer is a proven liar, and as Private Eye (that great hater of the left) constantly points out, has abandoned every single worthless promise he made in order to pursue policies he actually believes in. He is not some helpless victim of circumstances as many here want to believe, he is carrying out an agenda he chose. Otherwise, why appoint so many ugly characters to pursue that agenda from day one?
On that note, we have the other fallacy, that Starmer was 'conned' by Mandelson, a man that apparently is of the sort he would otherwise despise. Really? Is that why he appointed Mandelson as one of his senior advisors as early as 2020, and maintained him as a key member of his staff for so long? Then we have the other nasty pieces of work in the cabinet and wider party that Starmer, oddly for someone who 'despises them' seems to surround himself with. Tom Watson, the man who bragged he 'brought Tony Blair down', and who made a career of back stabbing and bullying, and made disgusting accusations against a fellow MP that he arrogantly refused to retract.
Then we have Wes 'Spiv' Streeting, a self serving, up to his neck in the trough, chancer who should be nowhere near the NHS, the NHS that is literally collapsing on his watch. Yes, before the excuses start, he did inherit an underfunded mess, but the usual New Labour obsession with headlines rather than the whole, is resulting in hospitals all over the UK failing even to do the basics.
After him, we have Kendall and Cooper, two individuals so right wing even Tory mps said they could not have voted for them after seeing their leadership manifestos, and who's rhetoric and actions in cabinet merely aped the Tories. Lets also end the, 'its just down to bad presentation and bad faith' excuses here too. Both these individuals warned, before the election, just what sort of agenda they, and therefore Starmer's govt, would pursue - and it was no different to the Tories.
Then of course we have the absolutely ghastly new Home Secretary. A vile, bigoted, liar totally willing to toe the pro Zionist line to the extreme, and quite happy to feed the Tory press anti immigrant rhetoric. The thing is, just like her Tory predecessors, she means it, and it isn't just 'playing to the gallery' no matter what centrists think.
Its also no use moaning about McSweeney. Everyone who has ever dealt with him who isn't to the right of Normo Tebs has described him as a nasty piece of work, with zero scruples, and missing a moral compass. That its now been revealed that; a) he is an acolyte of Mandelson, and that b) the two likely worked together to bring down a certain former leader is hardly surprising.
...and finally back to Mandelson. Starmers lies are catching up with him. That equally vile creature Badenough pressed Starmer at the end of last year to admit he knew about Mandelson and Epstein before he was appointed as US Ambassador, and this will surely now come back to bite the PM. As will the fact he claims not to have known, Mandelson, despite his disgraceful track record of deceit, could possibly have lied to him! Cuh! Well I never, a proven liar, lied! Who'd have thought..
Finally, even if by some miracle the establishment lets Starmer step down, nothing will change. Some other nasty piece of New Labour work will step up, and the polls will stay down. The only way to save Labour is to sack the entire cabinet, replace them with decent human beings, stop the various 'blue Labour' groups influence on govt, and ban the likes of McSweeney from Labour for ever. And that, will happen the day I see the horned one skating to work...
"Has abandoned every single worthless promise he made in order to pursue policies he actually believes in." Remind me what he believes in/
The same policies as every neo-liberal govt since 1979. Low direct taxation on wealth, privatisation, no interest in re-nationalisation, cynical watering down of any legislation that might make a positive difference, no increase in investment (in real terms) in our public services, and making himself as popular as he can with the business community ready for his (very soon) post political days. So, no difference between him and every Tory PM of the last fourteen years.
Why isn't alleged Russian asset Farage being interrogated by UK media and commenters vs being protected bybthe same, outrageous?
Is it related to how influencers and assets are demanding sole focus upon Israel & Gaza and blaming centrist western leaders, but not Netanyahu, nor his chums Putin and Trump for doing nothing?
Too easy, look over there......
One thing that defines Starmer’s career - both in Law and Politics - is his obsequiousness and a desire to ingratiate himself with those more powerful and wealthy than him. I knew him well as a barrister and as DPP. He was notorious for throwing colleagues and staff under the bus rather than accept responsibility for his mistakes. He adores mingling with the elite and will jump to their tune at the drop of a hat.
That’s how he comes across to me, so it’s …(not sure what the right word is, “reassuring”? not really, “disheartening yet helpful”, perhaps) to have confirmation from someone who knows him personally.
I don't dislike him as much as you do but I understand why he is not popular.
I don’t think dislike is quite how I’d put it. It isn’t personal. I feel that those who put themselves forward to be representatives should be respected, provided they behave in ways that are respectful to the position and to the people they represent. They sometimes have to make difficult decisions, but those decisions should be in the best interest of those they are representing, and where that is not obvious, a clear explanation given as to why a particular choice has been made. If the choices are consistently ones that favour powerful, wealthy, high-status interests over the opposite, while being presented as the reverse, then that is unacceptable to me. It shows contempt for those who elected him and the office itself. Governments should protect the population (and especially the weak, vulnerable and powerless) against those who seek to exploit, disregard or abuse them. That is why we have government.
I don’t disagree with any of that.
If you can't bring yourself to loathe someone who not only sells weapons to those carrying out genocide, takes the coin of those carrying out genocide, makes excuses for that genocide, but also does his best to crush any dissent against those perpetrators of genocide, to the extent of allowing his HS to force a Police commissioner (who was just doing his job) to retire early, then clearly no-one can reach that bar.
I cannot disagree with any of the points that you make but I am too old and tired to be angry all the time. I have done my bit condemning Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama as well as Nixon, Bush and Trump; Gordon Brown as well as Thatcher. I doubt if anyone with a pure heart goes into politics.
Well said 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Fair point
There is no limit to my loathing of, and utter disdain for, McSweeney.
Likewise. The fact he turned out to have been an acolyte of Mandelson just adds to my loathing. However, Starmer is every bit as bad, as are his cabinet and all those lobby groups who worked to get him in, and who also support a certain nations vile govt that criticising gets you sprayed with that toxic substance 'instant antisemite'.
Excellent, and sobering, post Ian. And I completely agree: "Britain remains a country where standards matter". Also, I sense your huge disappointment that Starmer has not lived up to that "standards matter" promise.
But, I must take issue with your attempt to deflect, by pulling Boris out of the hat. I've said this elsewhere, and I'll say it again: resorting to "Labour aren't as bad as the morally bankrupt Tories" is pretty desperate.
Also, comparing the Mandelson fuck up with Johnson's handling of Covid is a little disingenuous. The Mandelson mess was completely avoidable and totally self-inflicted. Covid was a raging pandemic that was neither. I'm the last person to be defending Boris Johnson, but put yourself, (or anyone!), in his shoes. I'm pretty sure No 10 would have been a disintegrating mess of headless chickens, shitting bricks, no matter who was in charge. Johnson was definitely not the right person to be in charge during Covid. But who was? Who would have managed it without fucking up. Answers on a postcard... and...
#VoteGreen
I think you may have misread the situation in the country if Reform win the election. The model used by Trump was to remove checks and balances and to cow the opposition and the press into inaction by various nefarious means. He’d set up the judiciary in his first term so it is now compliant in his second. He can do what he likes no matter what the non existent opposition say in the US, Farage will do the same here. Beginning with saying repeatedly that the old system is broken and not fit for purpose he will move on to neuter the civil service and judiciary then any other organs that offer any form of checks and balances. It’s naive to think that we are a reasonable nation who won’t let these things happen, America is full of decent sensible people appalled at what’s happening to their country and there’s not a damn thing they can do about it, save take to the streets where they will be branded as terrorists and dealt with accordingly. Then the third term will somehow seem reasonable etc etc. the same will happen here and we are sleepwalking into it.
You leave me speechless sometimes you Dunt - how do you have the brain space to get the politics right, the language raw, the reading done AND get Sleaford Mods or name check you - fucking legend! Thanks
It is one of the pleasures of my life to listen to you read this out every week Ian - it somehow helps to land the message more effectively for me. Plus I love the “edit as you go strategy”…excellent work, thank you. Oh and I throw you a few quid regularly so I’m glad you’re spending it on something worthwhile. Slainte 🥃
I agree ! Listening to you as you read ( and correct as you go ) is the icing on the cake 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
That’s you and O’Brien both drawing attention to the grapes and watermelon disparity in dimensions of Starmer’s hat trick of own goals compared to Johnson setting fire to a packed Wembley stadium. Strange indeed the media coverage is in inverse proportion to the gravity of the incompetence and in Johnson’s case criminal indifference.
Marina Hyde draws attention to the side show nature of the political dimension of the Epstein file revelations. The main show is always the need to identify, investigate and hold to account the wealthy and powerful men who sexually abused the children Epstein trafficked to them. We must never let anyone lose sight of that even if the side show brings down the prime minister or his entire government that would still be a distraction alongside the severity of what was done to each and every child or young woman Epstein and his network abused.
I listen to the New Statesman podcast, so can say confidently that their political correspondent's name is pronounced Alva Ray.
Good to see some hope shining through the s**t!
This is top analysis Ian. And two thumbs up for the optimistic final few paragraphs. Really enjoy listening to you read the piece, pronunciations and all.
Another fine summary of the bin fire that is the Starmer administration. And Dorian’s comprehensive Origin Story research into the evolution of Glasman and Blue Labour compliments this post really well and highlights one of Starmer’s many problems in that if the people interested in politics don’t know what he stands for, the average voter never will. This was the case again yesterday when he talked about “British values” without any clarity about what these values actually mean. And re Glasman, having listened to the podcast I think he’s nailed on to be the Labour defector to Reform that Farage keeps talking about.