That Preston Journalist Accuses Starmer of Being a Tory: He’s Right!

The very right wing That Preston Journalist has taken time off from sniping and criticising Nicola Sturgeon, and instead fixed his sights on Keir Starmer. Earlier this evening he posted a video stating very clearly that Starmer was a Tory. The thumbnail for this is a meme which shows a rubber plant on one side, and a Tory plant, Starmer, on the other. It’s very short, just 1 minute 44 seconds. The Journalist’s reason for calling Starmer a Tory was the Labour leader’s statement that the NHS needed reform. Although met with a chorus of criticism, Preston Man believes this is glaringly obvious. I agree. It is obvious, and the real solution would be to renationalise it and clear out the private medical companies and advisors who are a waste of money. But unfortunately I suspect this is not Starmer’s view, and that he really wants to follow his wretched, squalid hero Tony Blair and push the health service’s privatisation even further. But Preston Hack also believes that Starmer’s a Tory because of what he said about being fiscally prudent. Starmer stated that he was against austerity, had always been against austerity, but in government they would be careful about expenditure. They would be prudent. This, you will remember, was Gordon Brown’s mantra when he was chancellor: ‘We will be prudent’. He said this so often that according to Private Eye the assembled gentlemen and women of the press started calling him Dear Prudence after the Beatles song. Personally, I preferred ‘Help’ and ‘Helter Skelter’. As a Chancellor, who kept tight control of expenditure in order to avoid the boom and bust cycle, Brown was successful. That is until the bankers went berserk and almost destroyed capitalism. Brown prevented it by injecting our own reserves, for which he’s been blamed for wrecking our economy. But I really believe there would have been global financial collapse if he hadn’t.

And it remains the case that the bankers’ disastrous antics were exploited by the Tories, keen to push through austerity and punish ordinary people in the name of further enriching the superrich. But we were all in it together, as Cameron lied.

The trouble is, Blair and Brown were both neoliberal pushing through Tory policies of privatisation and welfare cuts. Moreover, by the time Brown got his feet into No. 10, New Labour had outlived any popularity with the British public. They were fed up with its managerialism, the spin, the condescension towards working class voters, Blair’s warmongering, the cuts to welfare services and hospital closures. I think Brown also put people off with his surly demeanour, although how much of that was real and how much an false image manufactured by the right-wing press is open to debate. He did not himself no favours by referring to an elderly lady, objecting to eastern European immigrants, as ‘some bigot’ when he thought the camera and microphone were off. But I think this may have been the last nail in his electoral coffin.

But back to Starmer, it really does look to me that once he’s in power, it’s going to be Blairite Tory politics as normal. Some of the great commenters here have suggested that the best policy would be to get him into power then bash him. At the moment, I think that is the best policy, considering that there are no alternatives and another round of Tory government would destroy this country. But I am not optimistic about Starmer’s government.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

5 Responses to “That Preston Journalist Accuses Starmer of Being a Tory: He’s Right!”

  1. Mark Pattie Says:

    I think this Preston fella’s political leanings would be with Reclaim or Ukip, rather than the Tories. I get the feeling that Starmer will be equally as authoritarian as Johnson- and no, I would not want Johnson back come 2024 (I’m not deluded). Maybe Graham Brady could then become leader of whatever shell is left of the Tory Party by 2025 (as he survived Blair’s 180-seat 1997 landslide, so he will survive Starmer’s 2024 160-seater). That’s the only way I would vote Conservative over Labour.

  2. Brian Burden Says:

    Starmer is dangerous because he has discovered ways of riding roughshod over party democracy. I imagine his legal training has given him the insights as to how to do it. These arbitrary expulsions and suspensions, including the suspension of entire constituency parties and the rejection of candidates they have selected and the expulsion of long-serving party officials appear to be entirely contrary to the rule book as I understand it, but he has evidently found a way to get away with it. How many of his inner council, I wonder, are the same insubordinates who were exposed sending each other toxic e-mails undermining Corbyn and members of his shadow cabinet and losing him the 2017 election? The membership have had just three opportunities to choose their party leader, and I assume Labour members are more intelligent and politically sophisticated than their tory counterparts. I predict however that, having lied his way to the leadership, Starmer will look for a way to gerrymander the system so that his chosen successor will prevail and give us more of the same. It’s a very gloomy prospect. Can Labour afford to lose another election? Would it be worth it to be rid of Starmer?

    • beastrabban Says:

      Mike’s expulsion was contrary to the rule book, and so Mike attempted to sue the Labour party for breach of contract. The court found against him, because, although it was against the rules, the Labour party argued that they were being revised and so they weren’t binding. Thus there could be no breach of contract.

      As for Labour losing another election to get rid of Starmer, there was speculation that Starmer doesn’t intend to win an election and that a failure would be part of his machinations for securing the election of a successor just like himself.

  3. Brian Burden Says:

    Correction: I wrote “long-serving party officials”> I meant “long-serving party workers”.

  4. Brian Burden Says:

    Just as I guessed. Starmer’s legal expertise and the collusion of like-minded judiciary makes him more or less invulnerable. I assume this “revision” is an ongoing process which will continue indefinitely. But surely this legal precedent gives constituency parties the right to ignore diktats from party HQ? It’s a recipe for anarchy, isn’t it?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: