‘Sir’ Keir Starmer is a lucky man. If Reform had not entered the election, he might well have ended-up as one of the greatest political failures of recent times, having started with a twenty point lead in the polls only to find himself the leader of the largest party in a hung parliament, or perhaps not even that.
If Reform votes had become Conservative votes, we may still have a Conservative government. Assuming that Reform voters would have voted Tory, which they probably would have given the loathing they have for Starmer and his Labour Party.
Conspiracy theories might suggest that Operative Farage performed very nicely, denting the Tory vote enough to give Labour a seismic victory which will enable them to do all manner of things that Tony Blair’s masters demand, ushering us closer to the globalist bio-tech feudalist future. They might also say that Operative Sunak played his part well too: calling for an early election before he had to; proposing policies that alienated the correct segments of society, and generally being uninspiring. On top of that, the betting scandal seemed contrived - how would anyone know what a person bet on? And if they did, then those companies can be sued for the release of private information. But they won’t, because it looks like a fake scandal, deployed to alienate voters further from a ‘totally corrupt’ incumbent party.
Like all conspiracy theories, I think they should be taken seriously enough to investigate more thoroughly or hold judgement in abeyance until matters clear. Always bearing in mind the importance of examining anomalies in the story and asking one’s self, ‘Why is this thing happening and not another?’.
However, to avoid getting lost down extensive by-ways, let us just say that Starmer is ‘lucky’. The SNP were grossly incompetent and corrupt, giving Labour about thirty-odd seats. The press put him under no serious scrutiny, particularly the unfortunate character trait he has of changing his mind when policies or statements are unpopular - an idiosyncrasy that used to sink politicians. Starmer could not identify a woman as a biological female for most of his leadership; he said nothing about civilian casualties in Gaza, and he offered no proposals to solve the war in Ukraine. All this from the leader of the Labour Party, the party, once, of peace. He was not rigorously challenged by the media on any of this and he was shielded from exposure to the public to forestall incidents where these points were raised.
It does not look like Starmer, despite the celebrations and media fulminations, has fooled the British public, however. Of the 59.9% of the electorate that voted, the second lowest since WW2, he received 34% of the vote. In most elections since the Second World War, that was not only a losing vote, it was a sound beating. It is the same percentage of the vote that Neil Kinnock won in his memorable 1992 defeat, with a turnout 10% lower (when that is included, Starmer is at the lower stratifications of historical Labour support only delved by Michael Foot in his disastrous 1983 campaign). In relation to the entire electorate, only 20% voted Labour. When you include that fact that, more or less, only 80% of the population eligible to do so are registered, then the total number of UK citizens eighteen years old and above who cast a vote for Keir Starmer was 18%! It’s not a mandate; it’s not even a victory. The UK has not elected him with any great optimism, in fact, it has not elected him at all by any metric other than Westminster seats.
Still, this ‘victory’ has been on the horizon for a long time. The Labour Party has managed Starmer and the campaign very carefully with it in sight. Few public meetings, and none where people aren’t vetted. Nothing controversial. Nothing bold. Nothing, but the vacuous word ‘Change’, repeated methodically by red robo-politicians, with other equally meaningless phrases set around it like garnish. With such protection, and such simple instructions, Starmer has been able to avoid tough questions, difficult decisions or experience prolonged criticism; he has never been fully tested as a politician - he hasn’t spent years being frustrated, abused, failing or dealing with issues that explode upon him. He was parachuted gently into the job of leader of the Labour Party after the co-ordinated, smearing and image assassination of Jeremy Corbyn - orchestrated by people linked to Blair. He’s had it easy to the post; his campaign have kept him in cotton wool. But now, he cannot avoid, deny, be enveloped by a ring of job-hopeful activists or disappear as prime minister as he has done as leader of the opposition.
In my opinion, I don’t think he’ll be able to handle it. He gives the impression of an old Glasgow Sweetie Wife, a Moaning Minnie, and there is, I sense, a tendency towards large swathes of self-pity. When genuinely testing times come along, I believe he will struggle, and, if difficult enough, fail and break. There’s an emptiness about him. A void of personality, an ungrounded being, that does not really know what he is doing or what he stands for. A more rigorous apprenticeship would have found this out or strengthened him for the task - I mean, we have seen this problem a great deal recently: Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak are all people who did not serve their time properly, were too quickly anointed, and turned out to lacking the internal fortitude and mental cunning to be leaders of people and not handmaidens of Capital.
Any person of character in his position would at least strike out in some sort of direction, chaff against the restrictions imposed upon him by Blair and the strategists that take their orders from him, Blair not Starmer that is. He is 60 years old and he still doesn’t have his own political voice. He’s like the old straw man of the courts (men who wore straw in their shoes as a sign of their willingness to be hired as witnesses by unscrupulous lawyers to prosecute cases) who is waiting to be told what to say in the court of public opinion by those that pay his fee.
Possibly there is some idealism there, yet it appears to be a wheezing, puffing, overweight, diabetic in comparison to the vigorous, sanguine and athletic drive he possesses for status and obedience, not even nuanced obedience like Johnson, but complete, abject, servile obedience.
Perhaps I’m wrong. Perhaps he’ll surprise us. In which case I will doff my cap to him having managed to master the most draining and miserable political skill of all, pleasing who you need to please, often the unlikable to the detestable, to get into power, then brutally betraying them for a greater good. Like US president Lyndon Johnson, a long-time opponent of civil rights in public, and an actual racist, who passed the only meaningful civil rights legislation since the civil war once inaugurated, much to the horror of his Good Ol’ Boy supporters; or the demagogical, unhinged (seemingly) anti-communist Richard Nixon, who rode those credentials into Congress, then the Senate and right-up into the White House, before making peace with communist North Vietnam, opening up communist China and agreeing nuclear missile treaties with Soviet Russia. Both men scorched their political bases in doing so.
We will see.
Yet I cannot help but conjure in my mind’s eye the vision of Nigel Farage continually berating WEF-aligned Keir Starmer in Parliament for weakness, indecision and ineffectiveness, especially to ‘stop the boats’, over the course of the next five years. Leading to Starmer unconvincingly scrambling to shore-up his support in seats where Reform is now in second place to Labour, trying to placate his Liberal, Woke middle class supporters with words that they’ll eventually tire of and that lead them to despise him, while simultaneously desperately trying to avoid, and failing, to take a strong position on Gaza that is detrimental to Israel, thus alienating his Muslim and youth supporters.
It really could be a Pyrrhic Victory for Labour, because, just like the Conservatives, the traditional coalition that held them together is collapsing. No bad thing. Perhaps possible-Operative Nigel will pick up the pieces. Whatever happens, Starmer’s character, his lack of virtu, and circumstances, will soon show him, I believe, to quote Norman Lamont’s famous phrase applied to former prime minister John Major, as ‘being in office but not in power’.
We have now moved to a paid subscription model for the Common Knowledge Blog. Most of the posts will remain free, but we are hoping that people who share the values of a free, pro-human future will support us. All the money we receive goes to our campaign for that free, human future. You can contribute by a paid subscription to this substack of £10 a month or a £100 annual membership.
KEEP IN TOUCH.
Email: commonknowledgeedinburgh@tutanota.com
Follow us on X @wercomknowledge
Watch our previous meetings on YouTube - @CommonknowledgeEdinburgh
On Rumble - Common Knowledge Edinburgh
On Odysee - Common Knowledge Edinburgh
Fabulous. Simply fabulous. I tend to agree that Starmer will come unstuck very quickly.
All Starmer had to do was avoid --any issues remotely difficult and which would have involved him actually stating his opinion or policy-now he is stuck with, as you say, trying to please his wok party members and the traditional labour voters who expect socialist local policies--al he offers is net zero. If you couldn't beat Sunak and the SNP well......