Starmer’s Labour is a weak copy of Tory party

For libertarianism to achieve its aims there needs to be no effective opposition. 

Equally, there needs to exist the appearance of opposition.  Fake opposition soaks up energy and time; it obstructs real opposition.

Prior to November 2020 election Democrat Party in USA gathered up opposition to Trump and used it to win.  Immediately after the election any policy that would cause genuine change and improvement to people’s lives was ditched in favour of identikit pro-wealthy politics that differ not at all from those of Republican Party.

In the latter years of the last decade Labour offered the opportunity of electing a government that would challenge wealth concentration and corporate control.  It was real opposition.  Real opposition couldn’t be tolerated.  It was vilified, attacked, undermined and defeated by the fake opposition.  Labour MPs, councillors and advisers conducted a campaign to ensure that Jeremy Corbyn did not become prime minister.  They preferred defeat at general elections to supporting a government that would govern for the people.

Starmer’s election as leader of Labour was attained via relentless lying from him about his intent.  The contrast between his ten pledges he declared during his election campaign and his ten principles he published recently was stark.  In interviews and speeches after the principles were stated he doubled down on his rejection of anything he pretended to pledge.  On nationalisation (or unprivatisation) of vital public services Starmer claimed he meant he supported “common ownership” not nationalisation, and he said he did not support a minimum wage of £15 per hour.  Photographic evidence from his leadership election campaign showed him supporting both nationalisation and that specific figure for minimum wage.

Starmer and his associates are removing everyone from Labour who supports socialism.  This strategy includes suspensions of members of Labour and manipulation of or avoidance of party rules and due process.  It includes anonymous briefing of client journalists.  It includes personal abuse and false accusations.  It includes hired activists harassing people at Labour’s conference.  It includes hiring police officers to physically intimidate delegates at the conference.  It includes rudely and aggressively interrupting media interviews.

Starmer’s speech
Starmer’s conference speech (September 29th 2021) was, as expected, very woolly on detail and on clarity of policy, and very meek in its criticism of the Tories. 

He noted failures of the Tory government  – “we have a fuel crisis, a pay crisis, a goods crisis and a cost of living crisis.  Rent up, especially for those on the lowest incomes.  Yet at this very moment, the government is putting up tax on working people.  Putting up tax on small businesses and slashing Universal Credit.” – and said the Tories were “ignoring the problem, blaming someone else, then coming up with a half-baked solution.”  The key point about Starmer’s criticism of the government was his focus on its incompetence. 

The Tories are utterly incompetent but they do not care because their sole intent is to restructure the fiscal economy to favour the wealthiest.  Starmer did not speak about Tory philosophy.  He preferred to present himself and his party as potentially more competent.  The omission of any attack on the intrinsic ethos of libertarian conservatism was a deliberate tactic by Starmer.  He could not express opposition to the aims and intent of the Tories because he doesn’t oppose the aims and intent.  All he offers is a different management team.

Starmer did not describe the real intent of Brexit.  Brexit was conceived, designed and is being enacted as a tool to destroy what is left of public services, to remove democratic accountability and, ultimately, to install corporatism via charter cities.  Via a chain of instruction and advice, Matthew Elliot, Barbara Kolm, Grover Norquist, Shanker Singham, Daniel Hannan and others developed a strategy to achieve Brexit (and to manipulate presentation of it) in order to remove obstacles to the reinvention of Britain as a corporate entity devoid of rights and democracy.  Johnson, Raab, Sunak, Javid, Rees-Mogg and Gove are the well-paid servants of this enterprise.  But, Starmer said “you need a plan to make Brexit work.”

On Johnson, Starmer said “I think he is a trivial man.  I think he’s a showman with nothing left to show.  I think he’s a trickster who has performed his one trick” but

I don’t think Boris Johnson is a bad man.” 

Johnson and the Tory government use vital public services as cashcows for tax-dodging businesses; they starve people to death via sanctioning regime of Universal credit; they handed billions of pounds to made-up companies for (failing to supply) Covid services and products; they removed access to legal aid; they are criminalising protests, pickets and demonstrations; they enable tax avoidance for the wealthiest.  The reason that Johnson and his gang are in government is to, as much as they possibly can, route wealth into the hands of the wealthiest.  They are rancidly corrupt because their venality is the biggest and most dominant ingrained aspect of their morality.  As Starmer’s deputy leader Angela Rayner said, “scum!”  But, Starmer doesn’t think Johnson is a “bad man.”

Starmer’s assessment of the Tories was on their lack of ability or their laziness.  He did not say one word that was negative about conservatism.  His speech could have been written by someone challenging Johnson for leadership of the Tory party.

Equally, Starmer’s exposition of his plans if Labour were to be in government were acutely similar, in content, style and constructed lack of detail, to the words of Johnson in his fraudulent “levelling up” speech in July (2021).  Crucially, Starmer’s description of what Labour would do was as unbelievable as Johnson’s description of what the Tories will do.

Unelectable weak Tory rip-off
If Starmer is offering only a different management team, if his plans are similar, as vague and as untrustworthy as Johnson’s, if he has not a single word of criticism of Tory philosophy and ideology, if socialists continue to be ejected from Labour, if his slogans sound like Norman Tebbit could have invented them, then what is the point of voting Labour?

A second (or third after Liberal Democrats) Tory party is not a party that will be elected.  Non-Tory supporters will not vote for such a party; Tory supporters will vote Tory.

Unelectability appears to be the aim.  Fake opposition.  No opposition.

Recommended reading
Morning Star editorial
Caroline Molloy for Open Democracy
Grace Blakeley for Tribune
Joe Guinan for Tribune
Critical Mass: Delegate’s conference diary
Rachael Cousins: Labour In Name Only

Related blogs
Keir Starmer: The Bystander’s ten principles
Tory government: Absolute pile of Etonian piece of scum
Levelling up? Boris Johnson stamping down in favour of more exploitation
Libertarian protagonists: Matthew Elliott

Starmer’s Labour is a weak copy of Tory party

Tory government: Absolute pile of Etonian piece of scum

As a positive contrast to Starmer’s abject abandonment of his pre-leadership election ten pledges and replacement with woolly Toryish ten principles, deputy leader Angela Rayner delivered an accurate and fair analysis of the Tory government at the Labour party conference. 

At a meeting of Labour members from north west England on Saturday (25th September 2021) she said

I’m sick of shouting from the sidelines.  We cannot get any worse than a bunch of scum, homophobic, racist, mysoginistic, absolute pile of Etonian piece of scum that I have ever seen in my life.”

Although her short precis of the ingrained philosophy and daily practices of Johnson and his mob could have included their corruption (enabling of tax avoidance for wealthy people; handouts to businesses that, allegedly, are managing public services; multi-billion pound Covid contracts given to friends and business partners where products or services were not provided), their social murder (universal credit; deliberate destruction of NHS) and their imposition of political censorship in education and at BBC, it was encouraging to hear an opposition MP speak the truth.

In UK we do not have a government.  Governments, particularly in countries that are described as having a democracy, are supposed to act on behalf of the public, to administer management of services for the public and to set laws that help the public.  The current pseudo government exists solely to feed the wealthiest at the expense of everyone else.

Vital public services are being destroyed and being used as cashcows for made-up businesses; the NHS, the greatest achievement in the history of UK, is being run down purposefully by the Tories as part of its handover to racketeers; the right to a home has vanished and the whole housing sector is a scam for landlordism; workers’ rights, including legal rights, have almost disappeared; access to justice is severely restricted as a consequence of removal of legal aid; higher education is too expensive for anyone not from a wealthy background; protests, demonstrations and pickets have been criminalised; radical politics is being suppressed in education, in broadcasting and via police harassment of political movements Extinction Rebellion and Black Lives Matter.

For the Tory government, the Covid pandemic was and is an opportunity for the most expensive acts of corruption by any democratically-elected British government.  Billions of pounds have been handed to dubious businesses, some of which were created specifically to grab a handout and many of which have close connections to Tory MPs.  The Tories’ management of Covid continues to be a disaster, one of the worst in the world.  The government couldn’t care less.

Brexit, a creation of extremist libertarians (Barbara Kolm, Shanker Singham, Matthew Elliot, Daniel Hannan, etc.) almost two decades ago, was designed to remove public services, to annihilate legal rights, human rights and effective opposition, and to remove democratic accountability.  Disaster capitalists are making a packet out of Brexit; the Tory government are their well-paid enablers.  The ultimate aim is the corporatisation of society via charter cities.

Lies, lies, lies are the modus operandi of Tory MPs.  Every time they speak or write it is with acute, learned dishonesty.  Everything is a con; everything is fraud.

Rayner was right to highlight the Etonian influence in Tory politics.  Eton College, alongside other factories, like St. Paul’s School, has a production line for Tory MPs and other public figures whose intent is perpetuating and increasing concentration of wealth and whose strategy includes constant, relentless deception.  The most expensive private schools in UK, (some annual fees are over £50,000), are not education establishments; they are training bases for fraudsters who are then placed in government and in senior positions in media, armed forces, judiciary and public service management.

Labour’s conference generated little optimism for people who suffer under the Tories.  Labour’s support has fallen and stagnated since Starmer was elected leader.  His Bystander strategy is stupefying.  At the conference he and senior colleagues admitted that the ten pledges he declared as a ruse to become leader were worth nothing.  His ten principles are indistinct from anything David Cameron or Theresa May might have offered.  Socialism is being erased from Labour.  Suspension of party members immediately prior to the start of the conferences – a tactic used to manipulate votes – and ejections during the conference were acts of desperation, fear and, ultimately, admissions of a lack of belief in whatever the party’s philosophy might be.

Labour’s party conference had few highlights to counter Keir Starmer and other’s determination to present the party as just another conservative party.  Rayner’s statement was one welcome highlight and her words will help Labour’s popularity immeasurably more than vacuous drivel from Starmer’s focus groups.

Tory government: Absolute pile of Etonian piece of scum

Keir Starmer: The Bystander’s ten principles

In yet another launch of his philosophy current Labour leader Keir Starmer published an essay today (September 22nd 2021) including a statement of his “ten principles for a contribution society that will form the basis of a new contract between Labour and the British people, rooted in our party and our country’s values.”

N.B. His ten principles announced today were not an update of or a refinement of his ten pledges he declared in December 2019 as part of his campaign to be elected as Labour’s leader.  The set of principles and the set of pledges are distinct from each other.  The pledges were designed to acquire votes to become leader of Labour.  The photo below depicts the state of the ten pledges.


Each “principle” below is quoted exactly as Starmer wrote it.

Principle 1: “We will always put hard-working families and their priorities first.”

What criteria does Starmer intend to use to define “hard-working?”
What are his plans for people who, possibly due to disability or illness, are unable to “work hard?”
Why did he use the word “families” rather than “people?”

In 2015 Starmer abstained in a House of Commons vote on the Tories’ Welfare Reform And Work Bill.

Principle 2: “If you work hard and play by the rules, you should be rewarded fairly.”

Whose “rules” did he mean?
Who decides what is “fair reward?”

Many very hard-working people are paid low wages and barely scrape by while others enrich themselves for no work at all.  A fair reward would mean removal of unearned wealth of landlords, market speculators, hedge funds, exploitative employers and “owners” of privatised public services; it would mean huge pay increases for low paid workers.  It can be certain that Starmer does not mean that.

Principle 3: “People and businesses are expected to contribute to society, as well as receive.”

Did Starmer mean “contribute” via taxation and “receive” via public services and financial assistance where necessary?  If so, the main issue in UK is businesses’ and wealthy people’s tax avoidance but Starmer does not want to tackle that.

What are “businesses” expected to “receive?”  Billions were handed to businesses and continue to be by the Tories for alleged public services and for Covid contracts.  Is that what Starmer meant?

Principle 4: “Your chances in life should not be determined by the circumstances of your birth – hard work and how you contribute should matter.”

So, will Starmer make university education free again and reintroduce maintenance grants?

If the “circumstances of your birth” are a disability or a chronic illness and “hard work” is difficult did Starmer mean that “your chances in life” will be limited?

Will he propose the abolition of the monarchy?; the royals’ “chances in life” are currently enhanced hugely by the “circumstances of their birth.”
Will he propose the abolition of landlordism?
Will he propose the abolition of owning shares?

The answer to the last three questions is an unambiguous “no.”

Principle 5: “Families, communities and the things that bring us together must be once again put above individualism.”

That was a weak attempt at a nod to socialism.

Principle 6: “The economy should work for citizens and communities.  It is not good enough to just surrender to market forces.”

The economy,” the capitalist economy, is designed to not work for “citizens and communities.”  It is designed to suit exploiters, gamblers and thieves.  If Starmer had any sincerity about this principle he would need to be a communist.

Principles 5 and 6 were composed as woolly patronising comments describing a utopia that neither he nor his wealthy corporate donors has any intention of ever leaning toward.

Principle 7: “The role of government is to be a partner to private enterprise not stifle it.”

The counterbalance to 5 and 6. 

The role of government regarding “private enterprise” should be to ensure “enterprises” don’t exploit, that workers are well paid with secure employment and good working conditions, and that products or services provided by “enterprises” to the public are of high quality and a fair cost.  That is not a “partnership” between government and “enterprises;” it is an government ensuring a business acts correctly.  Such demands on a business are not “stifling” it.

Prinicple 8: “The government should treat taxpayers money as if it were its own.  The current levels of waste are unacceptable.”

Starmer appeared to misunderstand that a government belongs to the people and, thus, “taxpayers money” and “government money” describe the same thing.

He also appeared not to know that taxes are only a part of funding for government spending.

He described Tory handover of cash to racketeers as “waste” rather than its correct term: “Corruption.”

Principle 9: “The government must play its role in restoring honesty, decency and transparency in public life.”

That was said on the same day that members of Labour were suspended for unstated reasons a few days before the start of the party conference as a ruse to prevent them from attending and voting.  An underhand and unlawful process, outside the party’s rules, is operating to diminish democratic opposition within Labour.  It is being conducted dishonestly, indecently and opaquely.

Principle 10: “We are proudly patriotic but reject the divisiveness of nationalism.”

Patriotism” and “nationalism” are the same thing.  Why be “proud” of such an outlook?


Predictably, Starmer’s “principles” were vague and bland.  As The Bystander he remains acutely fearful of policy, of vision and of expressing an opinion or aim.  He is determined to stand for nothing and to never align himself with any particular political philosophy. 

Starmer and his advisers observed the ever more destructive conduct of the Tory government, they heard the general concerns from the public about ongoing and future effects of Tory behaviour, and they decided to declare, as flavourlessly as possible, that Starmer’s Labour won’t be as bad as that.

None of his “principles” were principles.  The word has several nuanced meanings but the meaning most applicable to a politician’s aims would be “a fixed or predetermined policy or mode of action.”  Starmer’s “principles” were so vague and so flaccid that they could never be described as a “mode of action” and, of course, the only policy he has is to never have any policies.

There were not ten different points made.  

The “principles” could have been composed by David Cameron, or Nick Clegg.

Starmer is down the rabbit hole of emptiness and does not want to attempt to clamber out; he is digging deeper.  His time is diminishing as is that of his party.  It is easy to laugh at him but lack of opposition to the Tories aids their campaign of catastrophe.

Recommended reading
Starmer’s forgotten ten pledges

Related blogs
Keir Starmer: The Bystander
Keir Starmer: The Bystander’s Unvision

Keir Starmer: The Bystander’s ten principles