The media has been focussing on all the really important stuff such as incessantly discussing Sunak getting drenched! Meanwhile, Stamer seems unable to just stop lying. Yesterday, asked about Michael Gove stepping down, he asked what it said about the state of the Tories, if Gove had no faith in Sunak. But, Gove had said nothing about having no faith in Sunak, in fact, the opposite. And, asked about the expulsion of Jeremy Corbyn, following his decision to stand as an independent, following Starmer's personal decision to withdraw the whip, and prevent him from even being nominated for Labour, Starmer again lied about the reasons for that, claiming it was about anti-Semitism.
But, no charges were ever brought against Corbyn for anti-Semitism, and although he was initially suspended from the Labour Party that suspension was lifted, when it was shown that there were no charges to answer. Corbyn was not suspended for anti-Semitism, but on the spurious, catch-all charge of bringing the party into disrepute, as a result of his statement, in relation to the investigation into anti-Semitism in the party. In fact, as everything subsequently has shown, he was quite right in his statement that the charges of anti-Semitism had been weaponised, and grossly exaggerated, in order to use it against the Left in the party. An instrument of hat weaponisation was the so called Campaign Against Anti-Semitism, headed by Gideon Falcher, and supported at that time by the noxious Margaret Hodge, who subsequently ditched it, when, as in the nature of such things, the CAA, having secured one scalp, turned its attention to the next, in the form of Starmer, just as Netanyahu, not satisfied with the same kind of support from Biden, accuses him of being the friend of Hamas, when he doesn't do his bidding.
Starmer lied about Gove, because his whole election strategy is based upon not having to distinguish Blue Labour from the Tories, politically, but to just demand that voters vote Labour out of hatred or disgust at the Tories. Of course, the trouble for Starmer in that regard is that if voters are disgusted at the Tories, for the policies they have pursued over the last 14 years, they will soon be equally disgusted at Starmer's Blue Labour, which promises "stability", and a continuation of those same policies!
Starmer talks about "change", but not in the way politicians usually refer to it. Usually, the reference to "change", as with Obama in 2008, means that they are promising to come into office with a set of policies that are different to those of the previous government, that they are going to change the society. Of course, its always bullshit, and they simply continue much in the same way as the previous lot, and the ones before them. But, Starmer isn't even promising that. He doesn't mean change in that usual way. No what Starmer means by "change" is that, having seen that there is a sizeable group of reactionary, petty-bourgeois voters that backed Brexit, and formed the basis of the Tories election victories, rather than seeking to change the nation for the better, he is instead promising to "change" the Labour Party for the worse!
Instead of the Labour Party having a set of progressive ideas that it seeks to win support for, so as to change society for the better, Starmer, has, instead, decided to simply change the Labour party to reflect the views of the worst, most backward, bigoted and reactionary sections of the electorate. What is even more absurd, is that as he is doing that, a large portion of those that held those views, in relation to Brexit, aside from those that have died in the intervening period, have themselves realised that that reactionary nationalist agenda of Brexit was a huge mistake, a catastrophic decision! Not only is Starmer's Blue Labour tailing the worst elements of society, but it is not even doing that effectively, as its still headed in that reactionary direction long after many of those it was tailing have changed direction.
Similarly, Starmer needs to lie about the reasons that Corbyn was suspended, and then prevented from standing as a labour candidate, because otherwise the real nature of the use of anti-Semitism as a weapon against the left would itself be exposed, which is extremely damaging to Starmer and the Right, given the current genocide in Gaza, and Starmer's complicity in it.
No comments:
Post a Comment