‘David, energy prices are falling but we’re still paying DOUBLE what we were in 2020.
This means the average household will fork out over £2,074 each year for gas and electricity. [1] At the same time, thousands of families are buckling under £3.6 BILLION energy debt from simply trying to stay warm last winter. [2] It’s clear: the system is broken.
BUT, we have a rare chance to fix this: right now MPs are debating laws to overhaul our energy system. [3] It’s an unmissable opportunity to force the Government to commit to long-term solutions that will prevent families being punished by sky-high costs. But it’ll take us fighting together to make them listen.
We need to move fast. Some MPs are pushing the Government to use this moment to end forced prepayment meter installations and make sure more of us can insulate our leaky, cold homes. But they’ll only win if there’s a tidal wave of public support. [4]
So, David, will you sign our petition and call for the Government to commit to long term solutions to the energy crisis?It only takes 30 seconds to sign.
Time is ticking as the Government’s Energy Bill goes through Parliament, so we need to urgently get all MPs to support two things:
Making sure no-one gets their energy supply cut off if they can’t top up their meter, by ending forced transfers to prepayment meters.
Helping households stay warm by raising minimum energy efficiency standards of private rented sector homes so they are better insulated.
We don’t have long, David, but we know no one else can quickly ramp up the pressure like we can. Thousands of us recently piled pressure on the Government and forced them to make vital reforms to the private rental market – after FOUR YEARS of delays! [5] We made our voices impossible to ignore, and we can do it again.
So, David, will you help raise the pressure on MPs to back vital reforms to our broken energy system?It only takes 30 seconds to sign.
I’ve just found this piece from the I by Chloe Chaplain reporting that Momentum have warned Starmer that he could lose votes from purging his party’s left and pointing to their own electoral successes to show that Labour can still win with left-wing policies. He’s also been warned that he cannot rely on the Tories’ implosion to secure a Labour victory.
‘Purging the left and ditching socialism could see Labour lose voters, Sir Keir Starmer warned
Sir Keir Starmer has been warned he risks alienating core Labour voters who could stay home and not vote if he turns his back on socialism ahead of the general election.
The left of his party are pointing their own local election successes as evidence that a radical agenda can be attractive to voters. And others are warning Sir Keir of the danger of losing out to apathy.
The Labour leader has made a considerable shift to the centre since taking charge, with appeals to former Tory voters who could be tempted to swing to his party. In doing so, he has pulled power away from the vocal left-wing of his party that had dominated under his predecessor Jeremy Corbyn.
As the general election draws closer, and with Labour’s final policy agenda being drawn up, left wing campaigners and MPs are pushing to stop the leadership turning its back entirely on pledges they argue are very popular among voters.
It cites the Labour administration in Worthing, West Sussex – where Momentum co-chair Hilary Schan was elected as a councillor – and successes in Broxtow, Nottinghamshire, and Preston, Lancashire as examples of a socialist policy platform winning votes. They argue that, if he continues on his current path of “purging” left-wing candidates and policies he could lose support in areas like these.
Ms Schan said the three authorities were a “a living, breathing demonstration that there is no trade-off between electability and transformative policies”.
“As a general election closes in, the Labour leadership has a chance to lay out a bold programme to fix the Tories’ broken Britain. Choosing to instead pursue yet more purges and division will only weaken our electoral coalition and damage prospects of a Labour majority,” she said.’
I’m glad this is being pointed out to Starmer and that it’s got what appears to be a neutral report in the I. As opposed to the right-wing press, which will probably report this with headlines screaming that it’s another attempt by Corbynite anti-Semitic Trots to keep their hold on Labour. But I have absolutely no doubt that Starmer won’t listen, and will carry on purging the left.
As for New Labour’s right-wing policies appealing to Tory voters, this needs to be qualified. The public ownership campaign group We Own It has cited statistics again and again showing that the British public, including a majority of Tory voters, want the utilities taken back into public ownership. What is stopping this isn’t public opinion but Thatcherite ideology and the media and political establishment, which will seek to demonise and undermine any politician that seeks to press for such policies.
Okay, I’ve got to confess to making another mistake. Earlier today I put up a piece reporting that Starmer had told the leaders of the Labour party that people weren’t interested in woke, and condemned the Tories for being ‘out of touch’. This had been covered in a video put out by That Preston Journalist. I watched it and got the wrong end of the stick. He seemed to me to be saying that Starmer had decided that woke policies weren’t appealing to the public and was ready to ditch them. At the same time I thought that Starmer was also attacking that part of the Conservative party that is woke.
How wrong I was! It seems Starmer isn’t prepared to ditch ‘woke’ at all. He just doesn’t think that voters care enough about it to vote against Labour because of it. Instead they’re more interested and concerned about the NHS and the cost of living. When he said that Sunak and the Tories were out of touch, he meant that they failed to appreciate that these issues took precedence over the woke policies Starmer is promoting and defending and that the British public generally didn’t share their concerns about woke policies. This is how it’s been interpreted by GB News and their presenters.
Before I go further, let’s try and unpack what is meant by the term ‘woke’. Gillyflower, one of the great commenters here, remarked that I should refresh my memory over what it means. As I understand it, it’s Black slang meaning being awake to injustice. Looking at how it’s now being used, it seems to have replaced the old term ‘political correctness’ for extreme and intolerant anti-racist, feminist, anti-homophobic and anti-transphobic views. More narrowly, it’s being used to describe the various Critical Social Justice ideologies derived from the Postmodernist, Critical Theory revision of Marxism which narrowly sees societal issues through the lens of privilege and oppression. These differ from previous forms of anti-racism, feminism and so on in rejecting individualism. In Critical Race Theory, all Whites are privileged because of their skin colour and the fact that some Whites are less privileged than some Blacks is ignored. It isn’t enough to be non-racist, and judge people on their merits and character regardless of race. You must be positively anti-racist and fight against White privilege and for Black uplift through social programmes that demand the granting of opportunities to Blacks and other underprivileged minorities simply because of their colour. For example, in America Black and Mexican students generally do less well at Maths at school than Whites and Asians. So some schools in California are trying to even these results out by giving pre-calculus lessons only to Black and Hispanic students to the exclusion of Whites and Asians.
In the eyes of GB News’ Mike Graham, however, woke means just about every anti-racist, feminist, environmentalist and radical gender view or ideology. Yes, he conceded, people did care about the NHS and the cost of living, but people also cared about: woke teacher telling kids there were 73 genders, environmental protesters gluing themselves to the road, petrol and diesel cars being phased out in favour of electric vehicles, and the cost of power rising due to green energy policies. And so on.
Piers Morgan also did a piece about whether people cared about ‘woke’. This included Reform’s Richard Tice and a woman from the Labour party. Unsurprisingly, Morgan and Tice believed that people did care about ‘woke’. The lady from Labour didn’t. She didn’t like biological men being allowed into women’s private spaces and sports, nor rapists in female prisons, when asked by the former editor of the Mirror. He replied with, ‘Ah, but they’ve prevented you from talking about this’. She replied that they hadn’t, and she’d been talking about it for a year or so. This contrasts with the case of Rosie Duffield, who has been isolated and shunned by Starmer and other senior Labour members for her views. I can’t remember whether the lady believed that people didn’t care about woke policies, or did, but that they were far more concerned about the cost of living and the NHS. I think Morgan had claimed that it was because Labour was pushing these woke policies that it looked like they would not have an absolute majority at the election next year.
My guess is that the Labour lady is probably right. People are directly affected by the cost of living, and wondering how they will afford food, heating and their rent or mortgages. The latter was one of the major issues on the local news tonight in Bristol, which has been revealed as the most expensive city outside London. One woman spoke of how she had been forced to move back in with her parents after the landlord raised the rent by 66 per cent. And they are very much concerned about getting hold of a doctor, thanks to all the wonderful privatisation that Rishi’s so proud of. These are issues that immediately affect everyone. I’m not sure how many people are aware of the debate over transgenderism, let alone so concerned that it affects the way they vote. Some are, and it may become a more important issue in the public consciousness by the time the next election comes round.
But Starmer’s less than exciting performance can also be blamed on other problems apart from the ‘woke’. Like he broke every promise and pledge he made, and has done his level best to purge the left. Corbyn’s policies were genuinely popular, and he enthused and inspired the public in a way Starmer can’t. The turnout at the local elections was low, and my guess is that many of the people Corbyn had appealed to didn’t vote. They had been alienated by a party leadership that was actively hostile to them and which to many people just offers the usual Tory policies, or something not too different from them. Tice, I think, said that Labour’s woke policies wouldn’t appeal to the socially conservative voters of the red wall. He might be right, though if they do become disenchanted with Labour, it’ll be far more to do with the lack of proper, old-style, socialist Labour policies.
The report into Richard Sharp’s appointment as Chair of the BBC is just as damning as expected. It confirms that Sharp failed to disclose relevant information relating to the role he played in arranging an £800,000 loan for Boris Johnson.
The fact that the BBC, one of the most trusted news sources in the world, has been tainted by Westminster’s ‘old chum’ network suggests none of the institutions on which our democracy depends is safe from these people.
Don’t forget that as well as helping arrange an £800,000 loan for Boris Johnson and being a Tory Party mega-donor AND a former Tufton St spin-doctor, Sharp used to be Rishi Sunak’s boss at Goldman Sachs. The fact that someone with that history was ever appointed to a role that is supposed to be politically impartial is a national disgrace.
But I wonder whether the days when government ministers feel able to break any rule they like with impunity might be coming to an end. Something seems to be stirring in the country. Britain seems to be waking up to the scale of the problem.
Campaigners, academics, students, “lefty” lawyers, and the public at large are beginning to recognise that our political system is plumbing new depths and understanding that the period between the next two elections must be used to drive fundamental change. They’re organising and mobilising as we speak.
Look around and you’ll see the signs. For the first time ever, a small group of volunteers has created a tactical voting website (called ‘StopTheTories.Vote‘) for May’s local elections. Tactical voting sites have become almost routine during general elections but never before for local elections. This site allows users to see which candidates are best placed to beat Conservative candidates on 4th May. We’ll be watching with interest.
Elsewhere, the petition calling for a national public inquiry into the impacts of Brexit is nearing 200,000 signatures. The debate it prompted in Parliament last week sparked a helpful conversation about the inability of both major parties to acknowledge the harsh economic reality Brexit has forced onto people and businesses across the country. While few Conservative MPs showed up (unsurprisingly), opposition parties made a solid case for a fact-finding process, with even some individual Labour MPs accepting the case.
Alongside all that, we can see the PR movement growing in size and volume. It now includes dozens of civil society organisations and increasing numbers of ordinary people. Sort the System is designed to directly engage with MPs and show them definitively that FPTP is not good for anyone except the Tory elites and their donors. Pair that with the pressure from Labour’s stakeholders, and it’s clear that the force behind the PR movement in Britain has never been more powerful.
And the list doesn’t stop there:
Campaigners, including Open Britain, are working hard to push back on the government’s unfair voter ID scheme ahead of the next general election.
Our friends at Fair Vote UK, alongside many international partners, are working to fight disinformation and reign in big tech’s control of our information environment.
Independent journalists like Byline Times are setting a new example for British journalism free of advertising, oligarch money, or government subsidies.
Activist groups like Liberty are campaigning for more humane treatment of migrants and a robust human rights framework.
Unions and campaigners are working together to fight for economic democracy and against the government’s anti-strike legislation.
Environmental law agencies like Client Earth are challenging fossil-fuel drilling projects in the courts.
The Good Law Project and other legal activism groups are finding ways to use the law to push back against inhumane government legislation.
You may think there’s not much hope coming out of the government these days – and we’d be inclined to agree – but look elsewhere, and you’ll almost certainly find some. People around the country are increasingly doing their bit to push back against the lies, incompetence and corruption that has infested our political system. It may not be reflected in Number 10 or even in Parliament (yet), but there is tangible power behind all of these movements…and it is growing.
If all this effort can be harnessed, by 2029, after this crucial window of opportunity has passed, we could all be living in a fundamentally better Britain. A place where our votes matter and our voices aren’t drowned out by the whims of mega-donors; a place where human rights are respected and upheld; a place where the public is able to make collective decisions about its future without being stymied by disinformation and a divisive media. It will never be perfect, but it will be a much more accurate reflection of who we are and what kind of world we want to live in.
Don’t lose hope – people are working all around us to build the kind of country we want to live in. All you have to do is join in.
A few days ago Keir Starmer announced that if Labour came to power, boys would be taught to respect women in school. I can see the point of this, though it also seems to me to be a bit prim and schoolmarmish. It reminds me of the female management advisor who appeared on one of the TV shows a year or two ago and advised managers not to allow men to discuss sport at work in case it led to chauvinist behaviour. It also displays the totalitarian woke fixation with controlling how people think. But as a policy, I also find it rather threadbare as it ignores the real, material problems ordinary people are facing. This is the cost of living crisis with rising electricity bills and food prices. Some parents, and I think it may well be mostly mothers here, have been denying themselves the food they need in order to give enough to their children. People need higher wages, and unemployment and disability benefits at a level where they can afford food and other necessities. And, of course, an end to the humiliating, vindictive and persecutory sanctions regime. Starmer’s announcement does nothing to address these issues, nor those of massive profiteering by the oil and power companies and the raw sewage being pumped into our waterways. And you wonder how sincere Starmer is about anyway. He’s broken every other promise.
I wonder if it was designed to appeal to women following the debacle in Scotland over the gender recognition bill that brought down the SNP. Scots were rightly worried and angry at violent rapists and child abusers being put in women’s prisons after declaring that they were trans. Starmer and various other leading Labour MPs have made it clear that they believe transwomen are women and support the trans ideology, though Starmer’s commitment to it briefly wavered when Sturgeon was forced to resign. He stated that amending the gender recognition act would not be a priority under a Labour government. He’s been criticised for his bizarre statement that 99 per cent of women don’t have penises, while the right and gender critical have applauded Sunak’s statement that no, women don’t have male sexual organs. I wondered if Starmer had become worried that he was losing the support of ordinary women because of the trans controversy, and so made the announcement about teaching boys respect for women as a ploy to win it back.
I got this piece earlier this morning, and it’s well worth reading. The pro-democracy organisation show how the social media giants, like Cambridge Analytica, harvest our data so that they can target us specifically with material that matches our own opinions. This is making politics more polarised as people retreat into isolated communities of like-minded fellows. But a whistle blower also revealed that the company was targeting those with a conspiracy-based view of the world. The same tech giants are also publishing state disinformation, such as Putin’s propaganda about the invasion of Ukraine. The organisation states that the internet needs regulating, but it should be after the EU’s methods, not the Tories. Their proposed law would criminalise the publishing of views they don’t like, such as presenting a positive view of the Channel Migrants.
‘Dear David,
In recent weeks, we’ve been discussing the real threats to British sovereignty that you won’t hear about from fuming Brexiters or apathetic politicians. Opaque think-tanks lobby for unpopular and unworkable policies, celebrating when their proposals crash the economy; dark-money infiltrates UK political channels, warping our leaders’ priorities. These forces did more to prevent the UK from forging its own path than EU bureaucrats ever did.
This week, we want to bring another phenomenon into the equation: Silicon Valley, social media, and disinformation. It’s a complicated topic, capable of filling many books (I’d recommend friend of OB Kyle Taylor’s Little Black Book of Social Media as a good starting place). This ‘Long Read’ Series newsletter will get to the core of why tech platforms threaten our democratic sovereignty, putting the business priorities of California Tech bros over the needs of regular people and undermining the very social fabric of Britain.
If you don’t want to read all of it – here’s the takeaway: the social media business model is inherently harmful to democracy. It generates disinformation on an industrial scale because that is what is profitable. For those seeking to manipulate public opinion for their own benefit, spreading disinformation is a worthwhile investment. This process means that we can no longer engage in good-faith debates, siloed away in our own micro-communities and becoming increasingly polarised politically. It’s completely changed the nature of politics – and regular people are paying the price. These companies need to be regulated, democratically and transparently. We can’t keep playing by their rules.
This newsletter starts with some context, explaining how these issues came to light. Then we’ll cover the scale of the threat democracy faces, which is only increasing due to pending government legislation. Finally, we’ll get to how we can fight back and create a political system fit for tackling 21st century challenges.
Background – Cambridge Analytica and Facebook:
Throughout the 2010s, the consulting firm Cambridge Analytica (CA) collected data on tens of millions of Facebook users, building psychological profiles designed for political advertising. Using this data, the company was hired by the 2016 Trump Campaign, the Vote Leave campaign, and many other right-wing political organisations around the world to use this data for political advertising.
According to CA whistleblower Christopher Wylie, the firm targeted its ads towards users that they identified as “more prone to impulsive anger or conspiratorial thinking than average citizens”. Our partners at Fair Vote UK launched their organisation by publishing whistleblower evidence from CA’s Christopher Wylie and Vote Leave’s Shahmir Sanni, exposing the scandal and demanding more campaign transparency alongside strong digital regulation.
In 2019, Facebook paid fines of $5 billion in the US and notably much lower £500k in the UK for exposing user’s data to “serious risk of harm”. Cambridge Analytica has now been shuttered, but the scale of the problem – our data being used to warp our opinions – has increased exponentially. What the scandal showed is that anyone can pay for political influence, and modern technology allows us to target people’s insecurities, vulnerabilities, and emotional states with terrifying precision. And things have only gotten worse since 2019.
The Disinformation Factory:
The fundamental problem, many argue, is the intrinsic business model of big tech. The vast majority of revenue for these companies, from Google to Youtube to Facebook to Twitter comes from this kind of “surveillance advertising”. A core problem is that harmful content spreads faster, giving platforms an incentive to attach ads to it and allow it to spread rapidly. There’s also a huge concern around the surveillance aspect, with giant companies monitoring every swipe and scroll on their platforms to better understand what kind of content to push in your direction. We never got to agree to this kind of data collection – or the ways in which it’s used.
There are countless examples of this process in action, and the consequences have often been immense. State-backed disinformation campaigns from the Russian government have churned out pro-Kremlin propaganda related to the invasions of Georgia and Ukraine; Fossil fuel companies pay to convince us that the climate isn’t really changing or that it’s not really so bad if it is; The lie that the 2020 US Election was stolen was circulated on social media and the ensuing attempted coup was orchestrated on Facebook (and was copycatted in Brazil). The list goes on and on.
The threat, then, to our democracy and our sovereignty is that we are no longer in control of our information environment. Anyone with enough cash can churn out content targeted directly at us to change our opinions and undermine the integrity of democratic debate. Moreover, that lack of control stems from the fact that we have no right to control our own personal data. This was all part of an unspoken deal that we were never given the chance to consent to – and now we’re forced to pay the price.
Privacy Under Fire:
The Online Safety Bill (OSB) emerged in response to these very real problems and others. Tragic cases, such as the untimely death of 14-year-old Molly Russell, further showed how social media platforms “monetise misery” with tragic real-world implications. However, after many revisions, postponements, and much Conservative in-fighting, the bill is now an absolute trainwreck.
We won’t bore you with everything in this bill, but here’s a summary from our blog last November if you’re interested. Essentially, the OSB grants giant exceptions and exemptions to some of the most harmful actors, is immensely complicated to the point of being borderline incoherent, and fails to meaningfully address any of the problems we mentioned above. It causes more problems than it solves.
For example, the bill would make it illegal to share videos showing migrant crossings in a “positive-light”. It undermines end-to-end encryption, meaning the government could be looking over your WhatsApp messages and private conversations. Not only does it not protect us from corporate surveillance, it adds in state surveillance as well.
In addition, a new government bill – the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill – could make things even worse. It looks to expand the government’s control over our data instead of protecting it and create new barriers to exercising the rights we already have.
How We Fight Back:
We fight back by pushing for functional legislation that will give us control over our data and force tech platforms to be transparent and accountable for their actions. We know it’s possible, because the EU has already done it.
The EU’s Digital Services Act, effective from 2024, does what the OSB always should have done:
Legally binding transparency requirements for platforms, showing how they moderate content and how their algorithms work
Consumer protection rules around “deceptive design” and “dark patterns”, preventing platforms from manipulating people into buying things or clicking links
A ban on targeting people and content amplification using certain types of sensitive data (ie sexual orientation, political affiliation, etc). This goes a long way in addressing the fundamental harms ingrained in the business model of social media
Requires social media platforms to tell people why they’re being targeted with certain kinds of content
Requires large social media platforms to subject themselves to independent audits and rigorous risk assessments.
If we want to build a political system where we can not only exercise all of our rights effectively but engage in democratic debate freely and fairly, we need serious action on social media platforms. We’re working with our partners at Fair Vote, as well as international partners to not only oppose the Online Safety Bill and Data Bill, but to champion a new paradigm for digital rights that ensures we’re no longer at the whim of Silicon Valley tech barons.
It’s just one more reason that we need a government which is on our side, to set in motion the policies that will keep democracy functioning well into the digital era. Right now, this administration’s actions only make us less safe online and further undermine our fundamental right to privacy.
It’s a huge challenge but with your support and by working with partners across the tech and democracy sectors, we can keep the pressure on as part of our overall mission to defend, strengthen and renew democracy.
Okay, I keep hearing rumours that the gender-critical, ‘femalist’ women’s rights campaigner Kellie-Jay Keen has turned her organisation, Standing For Women, into a political party, and is preparing to stand against Keir Starmer. She has said before that she doesn’t expect she’ll win, but simply wants to take the opportunity during the leadership and election debates to ask Stalin a few awkward questions that he’ll have to answer. No doubt these will be ‘What is a woman?’ and ‘Do women have cervixes?’, both questions that have had Starmer running away as fast as he could when asked them. The trans issue is an uncomfortable one for Stalin, especially as he’s zigzagged all over that issue – first stating he would back a gender recognition act, then saying it wasn’t an issue he’d pursue, before going back to saying he’d back it again. But there are other, equally important questions the scumbag should be asked, and no evasions or refusals tolerated. Like:
How can we trust anything that comes out of your mouth when every pledge you’ve made has been broken?
How can we trust you with our traditional freedoms when your leadership of the Labour party has been authoritarian in the extreme?
How can potential allies and supporters in parliament and local government trust you, when you’ve been treacherous in your treatment of Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour grassroots socialists?
How can we trust you with the NHS after your hero Blair pushed privatisation up a notch or two and you’re bringing in a CEO from a private healthcare company? Blair also modelled his reforms on the American private healthcare company Kaiserpermanente. He thought they were more efficient than the NHS. They weren’t.
Why should the poor, the sick, the disabled and unemployed trust anything you say, after Blair brought in the work capability tests and under Ed Milliband the party showed very tepid opposition to the sanctions regime? Why should genuinely starving people on food banks, and those fearing that they’ll end up on them, trust you and your cronies, after Rachel Reeves said that in power Labour would be even harder on the unemployed than the Tories?
Foreign policy: Blair launched at least one illegal war in the Middle East, the invasion of Iraq. That was nothing to do with democracy, but simply a grab for oil and the country’s state industries. It has reduced a middle eastern country with a reasonably secular government into a hell-hole riven by sectarian violence, one that became another theatre of war when ISIS raised the vile, barbaric heads. Brave, genuinely patriotic men and women were sent to risk life and limb on false pretences so that even rightists like Paz49 is wondering why Bush and Blair aren’t sharing a cell with Putin and the monsters of the former Yugoslavia looking at war crimes charges. Blair’s bombing of Libya in support of the rebels has also done much the same to that country, leaving part of it under the control of Islamist slavers. That’s S-L-A-V-E-R-S, in case your grubby mind can’t grasp how monstrous this situation is. How can we trust you not to start another fake, illegal, bloody war and waste more of our best people and destroy more countries?
Also: the Palestinians really are suffering terrible, racist persecution by the Israeli state. It has been repeatedly condemned by the international community. How are you going to stop this and not make libellous accusations of anti-Semitism against those campaigning against it instead?
Anti-Semitism: How can we trust you to take a genuinely objective, nonpartisan view of anti-Jewish hatred, when your definition of who is a true Jew is whether or not they support Israel? How can ordinary, grassroots Jewish members of the party trust you, when about 4/5 of those you’ve smeared as anti-Semites are self-respecting Jews themselves, as well as gentile supporters and activists against anti-Semitism?
Racism: Ditto. There’s been a rise in Islamophobia in the party, as well as notorious incidents of bigotry and bullying against Black and Asian members and officers. Yet again, all we’ve heard from you is lies: lies that you’re implementing the Forde report, when all the evidence says you’re doing nothing of the kind and are actively blocking people from putting it into practice. Why should people of colour trust you with this issue?
Transgender issues: I’m gender critical, but this is fundamentally about trust. Starmer’s attitude to trans people has changed with the political winds. How can trans people and their allies trust what you say? Are you going to throw them under the bus as well?
Channel Migrants: You seem opposed to their mistreatment and the various harsh policies of Cruella and the Tories, but how long’s that going to last? Your behaviour suggests that you have no policies except what the Tories do, and no real ideological criticism of them. How can we trust you to bring about a fair, human solution to this problem, one that doesn’t involve treating asylum seekers as criminals? Italy’s Far Right Prime Minister, Georgia Meloni has made speeches declaring that to stop the flood of migrants, we should be tackling poverty and exploitation in Africa. She has also demanded that the international community do something to shore up the banks in Tunisia, as the banking crisis there is likely to set off a fresh wave of desperate migrants. She’s an authoritarian, who has impounded migrant vessels. Her party, God help us! – is descended from Mussolini’s Fascists. But she seems to have a far better grasp of solving the problem at its source in Africa’s poverty than you do! And no, I am not recommending anyone vote for the Far Right.
Northern Ireland: At the moment Nationalists and Loyalists are on knife edge. Tensions are rising and there are real fears that the hard men are going to come back and destroy everything decent people have worked for. My local MP, Karin Smyth, respect you because of the work you’re supposed to have put in on the Good Friday Agreement. But so did a lot of other people, including Mo Mowlam, Jerry Adams and Jeremy Corbyn. I’ve come across very dark hints that you were involved in some of the nastier, terroristic tactics carried out by parts of the secret state, and in your actions as Attorney General or head of public prosecutions or whatever, you showed no compunction on cracking down on civil liberties in order to protect the establishment. How, therefore, can we trust you to help solve this problem and protect the North of Ireland’s ordinary people?
Economy: The majority of the people of this grand country want the utilities renationalised. Thanks to privatisation, people can’t afford their energy bills, sewages is being pumped into our rivers and seas by the private water companies and nearly every month or so – I exaggerate, but it feels like that sometimes – a railway company has to be taken back into public management. But all I’ve seen from you is more support for the failing, undead shambling corpse of Thatcherism, a corrupt corporatism you learned from you mentor, Blair, which rewards shoddy service and political donations with government contracts and bloated profits. How can ordinary people trust you with our utilities?
The cost of living: Inflation is rising all the time, and hard-working ordinary people really are wondering how they make ends meet. You’ve suggested some policies like using a windfall tax from the energy companies to put extra investment in some services. But I’ve seen absolute no evidence that you want to do everything necessary to tackle this crisis. That means going all the way to the root. But instead you quail and cower before the press and political establishment, falling over yourself to reassure Murdoch and the rest of the blackguards that you’re a safe pair of hands, won’t upset Thatcher’s raddled, shop-worn legacy. You’re not a tribune of the people, but an establishment puppet, dancing whenever the donors pull your strings.
And we could go on and on, with issues like schools. The academies are another flagship project of Blair, one that he took over from Maggie Thatcher. Except she and Normal Fowler had enough wits about them to know it was failing and were winding the city academies up. Since then, academy chain after academy chain has had to be taken back into public management because they were failing. But I’ve seen no sign from you that you have the backbone to realise this is another failed Thatcherite policy that should be brought to a close. Or indeed, do anything about education except what might look good on the pages of the Scum and Heil.
In short, why should anyone, anyone at all, trust you within a foot of power?
Looking along the headlines of the papers this morning, I noticed that one of the right-wing rags had put on their front page a story that nearly half of the British public don’t believe that Starmer has a vision. I think they’re right. He doesn’t. Every policy he’s ever supported he’s rejected at a later date. He has said that he intends to reform the NHS, which sort of sounds like he’s going to protect it from privatisation, but this is qualified with talk of using private hospitals and medical care to shift the backlog. And the Blairites’ record on the NHS is of privatisation, not nationalisation. There’s also some talk about using money from a windfall tax on the energy companies to lower energy prices or something, but to me it all sounds very half-hearted and heavily qualified. Unlike Corbyn, there is no grand, inspiring vision that packs out halls and public spaces. His tactic against the Tories seems to have been very much one of simply waiting until they made the mistakes that have now made them massively unpopular.
Which fits the Blairite strategy. Blair took over wholesale Tory attitudes on the welfare state, privatisation and immigration. His policies were partly those discarded by the Tories. They had rejected a report on the reform of the civil service or something by Anderson Consulting. So Blair fished it out of the bin and made it Tory policy. He took over Major’s Private Finance Initiative, and expanded it. In education, he took over Maggie Thatcher’s City Academies scheme, which was actually being wound up because it was a failure, and relaunched it as the new academies. No wonder Thatcher declared that he and New Labour were her greatest achievement.
Instead of any kind of vision, New Labour relied on triangulation, looking at what would go down well with swing voters in key constituencies and then appealing to them. All the while inanely chanting that things could only get better. And instead of drawing on genuine Labour traditions and ideology, Blair instead seems to have taken his ideas from whatever Murdoch wanted at the moment. He’d also have liked to have appealed to the Heil, but they stuck to their guns and remained a Tory rag. Under Blair, people left the Labour party in droves, driven away by the Thatcherism, control freakery and managerialism that replaced spontaneity with heavily stage-managed, scripted performances. Blair and Brown’s attitude seemed to be to see what the Tories were doing, and then announce that if you elected them, they’d do it better.
And I think this is pretty true of Starmer’s regime in the Labour party. He doesn’t have a vision, just a desire to rule and copy the Tories.
I was one of the lucky Labour contingent here in the southwest who got an invitation to go to Swindon and support their Labour party as they greeted Starmer. It was at that meeting that Stalin unveiled his exciting new policy: Labour intends to freeze the council tax. The left-wing Cornish vlogger, Kernow Damo, has posted a piece pointing out that this policy is pretty much meaningless.
Firstly, it’s already too late for this year. Councils set their tax in February, so this year’s council elections are too late to do anything about it this year. But there’s always next year, may be. And for Labour to freeze council tax, they have to be in power. Which is another set of elections perhaps a year or so away. And if Starmer does freeze the council tax rate, he’s merely preventing a tax which many people already can’t afford from rising any further, not reducing it to an affordable level. He adds further details about the number of councils raising and freezing their council taxes. There are four already currently freezing them, one of which is, I believe, Tory. He also attacks Starmer’s pledge that more services will be paid for from the windfall tax on the energy companies.
In Damo’s view, these policies were thoughtlessly put together as if they were scribbled on the back of envelope. They’re there to deceive us into believing that Starmer has any policies and intends to help working people.
As for the meeting when he unveiled this inspiring vision, the photos show that Labour supporters were lined up down the sides for some reason or other. The main body of the hall was empty. This is in very strong contrast with Jeremy Corbyn’s appearance, when it was totally packed.
Of course Starmer doesn’t have any policies. He’s a Blairite. All Blair did was watch what the Tories were doing, and then copy it. Or pull their old policies out of a bin, or run around and enact the policies from the corporate backers. Starmer’s whole policy has been to break every pledge he ever made and to do and say precious little and let the Tories make themselves unpopular. Then presumably, he hopes to be elected and carry out all the policies they failed to implement.
I got this comment from Rachel Reeves by email criticising Sunak’s budget. She calls it a budget of ‘managed decline’, with another tax cut for the 1 per cent, from a hopelessly divided party devoid of ideas, responsible for low growth and high taxes. She goes on to contrast it with the attempts Labour has made to cut energy price increases and impose a windfall tax, and their promise to deliver the highest growth in the G7.
‘David, today was a chance to unlock Britain’s promise and potential. But the budget announced by Jeremy Hunt has put our country further down the path of managed decline, while giving the richest 1% a tax cut worth £1 billion.
No belief in the possibilities of the future. No plan to boost living standards.
Just a hopelessly divided party caught between a rock of decline and a hard place of their own economic recklessness, dressing up stagnation as stability, as their expiry date looms ever closer.
Our economy needs major surgery. But what we got today was more of the same sticking plaster politics.
It’s been the same old Tory choice for thirteen years. No growth for the many and working people paying the price.
Thirteen years without wage growth.
Thirteen years stuck in a doom-loop of low growth, higher taxes and broken public services.
Working people are entitled to ask – am I any better off than I was before? And the answer is a resounding, no.
This crisis is not over and the long-term plan isn’t there. They are continuing to paper over the cracks of thirteen years of economic failure.
Labour pushed to stop energy price rises.
Labour pushed for a proper windfall tax.
With Labour, there is another way.
Britain has immense potential.
That’s why the first mission of a Labour government is to secure the highest sustained growth in the G7, we will create good jobs and productivity growth across every part of our country.
We’d make sure Britain competes in the global race for the jobs and industries of the future, rather than being stuck in the slow lane under the Tories.
Where the Tories have thrown in the towel, only Labour will build a better Britain.
Thank you,
Rachel Reeves MP Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer’
While I agree with her totally about the budget, I am not confident that Labour under Starmer will be much different. Reeves and Starmer are Blairites, and Blair’s tactic was to fish failed Tory polices like academy schools out of the bin and go ahead with them. Or else just carry on with them as they were, but claim they were doing so more efficiently and effectively. I don’t see Starmer, with his record of betraying and persecuting anything remotely socialist, as at all different.
Beastrabban\'s Weblog 