Showing posts with label Labour_Party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Labour_Party. Show all posts

Labour will justify the cost of living crisis, not solve it

The Labour Party has proposed a windfall tax on energy companies' excess profits, but they also want to intensify the sanctions on Russia that are to blame for the cost of living crisis.

Danger to pensioners

A windfall tax can backfire by discouraging investors and result in the energy companies raising prices even more. It can also take significant money away from pension funds that invest in the energy companies while expecting them to make significant profits, creating a danger to people's pensions and threatening the very people most at risk in cold winters.

Flipflopping mastery

Most importantly, flipflopping and moralistic posturing by Labour's leadership, and their lack of willingness to apologise for anything they do, equips them more to make excuses for a cost of living crisis than to solve one. It is more realistic that Labour will take action against people who talk about the cost of living crisis on social media and try to brand them as agents or fake accounts from Russia, rather than deal will the crisis itself.

Let's starve for Ukraine

The most realistic prediction of what a Labour government would do about the cost of living crisis is to talk at length about their windfall tax, fail to implement it in Parliament, blame the Tories, and then push for increased sanctions on Russia that will clearly worsen the cost of living crisis. Any increased sanctions on Russia, of course, will be implemented, as the imbecilic foreign policy handed to London by the demented halfwit in Washington is the only thing both sides in Parliament currently support.

In a Labour government, ministers would insist that supporting pointless Ukrainian and NATO confrontations with Russia is mandatory, and that costs of the war must be endured by everyone, even if they have to starve.

Read More »

Why you should punish Labour on May 5

Ahead of local elections on May 5, there is a chance that many in Labour heartlands could commit folly and forgetfulness, to vote for that complacent party and miss their chance to punish it.

The Conservatives don't have much to offer deprived areas of the country, especially as they are contributing to a cost of living crisis, so voting for them is hardly an appropriate suggestion. However, Labour is in many ways the enemy of such regions in a more direct way. The current Labour leadership has demonstrated continuous contempt and condescension towards many working class people in England.

Keir's Biden-Kamala Ticket for Britain?

Far from being the party of working people, Labour is now simply the party of college liberalism, trying to base itself wholly on the Democratic Party in the US.

Keir Starmer is essentially presenting himself as Britain's Joe Biden, with nothing to offer other than not having the messy haircut of the eccentric current PM.

Party of snakes and ingrates?

The Labour Party has no concern for local communities, preferring to impale the land with whatever standard the party's national leadership told it to bear, even if it means destroying your home and berating you for being there. This much is evident from their lack of consideration for preserving local greenbelt land, as the party answers much more to its donors than local communities. They would rather see construction zones and their sponsors' logos everywhere, than happy constituents. In the process, Labour councillors prefer to insult people rather than to stand up for them when it comes to this issue.

Labour's current leaders are the ones who have the greatest determination to re-join the European Union, as the party and its leader Keir Starmer are still filled with frustration and hatred towards their own English base who voted for Brexit in 2016.

You may be forgetful enough to vote for Labour this time, but Labour leaders will never forgive you if you voted for Brexit. If you should cast your vote for them now, Labour's scum leadership will only see you as some half-witted enemy they managed to trick. These ingrates, even after receiving your vote, will only cite such a vote to berate you and prove that their narrow interests have some democratic mandate because they successfully tricked you.

Far from representing the people or standing up for the people, the Labour Party's primary goal is to cajole people into agreeing with the leaders of the Labour Party. Those leaders in turn have goals that are informed by their donors. The party is unmoved by yearnings of local communities or even by any kind of decency, which is why they have none. Their ideas originate elsewhere, aloof, in Labour Party offices, and their job is to foist them on you.

Give the Greens a go

It would be wiser to turn over a new leaf. It would be a good idea to go, at least temporarily, to an alternative. The Greens are a particularly attractive one, maintaining a number of policies that are to the left of Labour, and they emphasise localism.

One valid complaint may be that parties like the Greens are inexperienced with governance, and that only Labour can deliver. However, simply voting for people who have pre-existing governing experience over and over again is no different than backing the incumbent and refusing to participate in a democracy. In addition, a Labour Party pushed into crisis by increasing competition from the Greens would eventually see major defections to the latter, which would transfer the necessary governing experience to the Greens. It would also pressure Labour back to a more sensible course, and sensitivity to the people's wishes.

Read More »

Keir Starmer's bad sell makes Tory sins forgivable

Keir Starmer recently pointed out that Boris Johnson is a liar and has broken the law, pitching himself once again as a more moral character, an alternative to Johnson.

This seems to be Starmer’s main platform now. He is not Boris Johnson, in the same way Biden’s platform was to not be Donald Trump. It represents, in some ways, our descent as a country into American levels of immaturity.

Protesting too much

Starmer does not commit himself to anything and has broken his pledges. He is in some ways worse than Boris Johnson, because he refuses to apologise or acknowledge any fault, which makes him more like Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton than Johnson is. This is a type of person who sells his own moral character as his only redeeming quality, but that product is ultimately a dud.

Boris Johnson broke the law, but is paying penalties accordingly. As such, it is hard to agree with Starmer's calls that he should step down, much less that Starmer himself is the ideal replacement product. The reality is that we let people with power get away with some things, and it will be the same for Starmer if he becomes PM, and he would expect nothing less.

There is no reason to think that the loss of his job, even if it is the top job, is somehow also necessary. Johnson breaking lockdown rules did nothing to mismanage the country. If he did not mismanage the country, as appears to be the case from Starmer’s inability to locate the fault or give any argument other than saying the PM is a knave, then Starmer’s kind of political opposition really has nothing to offer.

Whose fault is this?

We are left with some questions.

Has politics and systemic political opposition in the UK become Americanised, to a point that it now focuses entirely on the character of the Prime Minister and the supposed alternative to him? Are we all going to vote for "not Boris" at the next general election, only to elect a plank of wood?

Whose fault is this deterioration, if it is so? The American political culture affects us, to a large part, thanks to a shared English-speaking media. People cannot be blamed, if their ability to think maturely about politics has been ruined by their consumption of American media and stupid debates that amount to nothing more than name-calling sessions.

Read More »

Young people oppose NATO, infuriating politicians

Keir Starmer's punitive action against Young Labour for their opposition to NATO is an expression of the fear that this old Cold War military behemoth is steadily losing favour with the youth, and is doomed to the dustbin.

Bear in mind that this controversy arose while Russia carried out a military attack inside Ukraine, causing alarm among European governments.

Yes, despite Russia's actions, the view of those who believe NATO is detrimental to our security remained. And, in fact, many hold NATO to blame for all that has gone wrong in Ukraine.

Yes, NATO is the problem

Young Labour expressed the view that NATO has been involved in aggression, which likely refers to unilateral military intervention in the former Yugoslavia in 1999 as well as Libya in 2011. They threw their support behind the Stop the War Coalition, hoping for cooler heads and a more conciliatory approach to Russia.

Criticism of NATO is equally valid when it comes to the current Ukraine crisis, because NATO was trying to arm Ukraine against Russia - a move clearly in NATO's own strategic interest rather than the interest of the Ukrainian people.

Prior to Russia's attack, Ukraine's central government was involved in territorial disputes with Russia and an internal conflict with Russian-speaking rebels. The regime had increasingly presented anti-Russian sentiment as the core ideology and destiny of the country, and had made a threat to develop nuclear weapons.

Sanctions on you, too

The leadership of the Labour Party stepped in with sanctions-like measures against Young Labour by cutting off their funding, as if Young Labour was some organ of the Russian military. Shadow foreign secretary David Lammy actually accused Young Labour members of being lowbrow, referring them as "just out of university" and having that "knee jerk" anti-hegemony view held by such academics as Noam Chomsky. Yes, how immature.

If we go by what Lammy or Starmer say, it takes a special understanding, a high intellectual level, or perhaps impeccable moral judgment, to hold the Atlanticist view of NATO as the world's primary force for good. That, despite the fact it is also a view held by people who have only watched a few Hollywood movies or read some comic books rather than properly studied.

Of course, the only valid justification for Starmer's course of action is to preserve Labour's electability. The youth may have turned their backs on the neoconservative-encouraged Western militarism and moral certitude on every conflict, and this NATO-worship may eventually go in the dustbin, but it still has significant sway on normal voters in the UK. That, at least, has to be respected and taken into account by those seeking to win elections.

Read More »

Catholics, Muslims similarly oppose cultural liberalism

Although unthinkable from a historical perspective, it is likely that both Catholics and Muslims will become more politically active in Western countries and find common ground.

Inclusivity activists in the West, crusading against all forms of social exclusion or distinction everywhere, have gained more and more influence over government and academia. They are likely to collide, increasingly harshly, with all those who hold tradition dear.

It is only a matter of time before a renewed attempt to destroy the Roman Catholic Church begins to manifest in Western countries, this time facilitated by inclusivity-focused politics. The proponents will also implicitly demand Islam be destroyed, too, although they may try to defeat the Catholics first and dupe Muslims into helping them attack this first target.

Pope senses the problem

Pope Francis has made a number of denunciations to assert a firmer stance by the Roman Catholic Church against forces that may next seek to destroy its foundation. Calls for inclusivity at the expense of doctrine have been explicitly rejected by the Church. LGBT activists' calls have gone unheard. The Pope even reached out to explicitly condemn the EU for trying to diminish Christmas for the sake of inclusive language, showing the Church's frustration with cultural liberal campaigners and their influence.

The Pope has rejected "cancel culture", perhaps in recognition that the vindictiveness of modern-day cultural liberal reformers who topple statues is likely to result in some assault on the Church in the near future. Branding it as "one-track thinking", he stated, "any historical situation must be interpreted in accordance with a hermeneutics of that particular time." With the sleeping giant of the Roman Catholic Church arising to confront cultural liberalism, we may see an ever firmer stance being taken in many communities against it, as formerly quiet people emerge to defend their traditions.

Abrahamic religions to face massive pressure

Many ideas are central and non-negotiable in the three Arbahamic faiths. Catholics hold that men and women are distinct creations, and that there is no changing from one to another. Muslims hold a similar view at present.

There is no way to square Western cultural liberal views about inclusion with Catholic Christianity or Islam, yet Western campaigners and culture warriors have shown they will tolerate nothing encumbering their goal of inclusivity, including cultural and traditional barriers. The goal to rewrite the meaning of man and woman in the interests of inclusivity everywhere will probably mandate an attack on other languages and cultures beyond the West, because what is really intended is to change a concept itself.

Ultimately there will be attempts to rewrite Catholic and Islamic doctrine for the sake of inclusivity, causing a fundamental corruption. This will be unacceptable to both, prompting them to try to build an unmoving wall of social conservatism among voters in democratic countries to block all such change.

Huge social conservative backlash is inevitable

Muslims, while often apolitical or simply supporting the left, as is the case with the UK's Labour Party, are likely to seek out their own social conservative platforms within Western countries as soon as this controversy begins to take real shape. They are likely to find common ground with Christians, if the latter can set aside the absurdity of their islamophobia.

In countries such as the UK, Muslims may concentrate in a few alternative platforms such as the Workers Party of Britain, which espouses social conservatism alongside a number of typically left-wing positions. They will likely abandon all support for the Labour Party in time, especially if it continues to be driven by the likes of Sir Keir Starmer, who is deaf, dumb and blind to all the concerns of Muslims in the UK.

The gaffes of Labour in its failure to maintain Muslims votes were apparent when Starmer suggested a preference for India over the rights of the people of Kashmir, prompting condemnation by Muslims and frantic backpedalling by him. Muslims are unlikely to forget such betrayals or overlook the possible threat of dubious cultural liberalism to Islamic doctrine and life.

The result of all this is that a significant base is forming, not perhaps for George Galloway's idea of a socialism-infused migrant-friendly party but for a more staunch social conservative party with religious principles embedded in its core ideology. If managed properly, such a platform could not only secure the votes of all Muslims in Britain but even secure enough traditionalist Christian votes to become one of the largest parties in the UK. Of course, this is all speculative, and any number of new political forces and agendas could prevent such ties from ever forming.

What of Jews?

Of course, Judaism should be mentioned, too, although I am less informed to comment on this religion. With it being a much smaller religion with less command over any voter base, it will most likely be spared most of the turbulence caused by cultural liberalism, except in Israel itself, where orthodox Jews will face pressure from Israeli liberals.

Because ultra-orthodox Jews have a much higher birth rate, cultural liberal agendas in Israel could be doomed to fail and be reversed simply due to a large number of the population being against such ideas in the future.

Read More »

Israel's obsession with Britain

Whether it is actress Emma Watson or anybody in the UK's Labour Party, there isn't a British person Israeli officials or ex-officials won't step forward to publicly attack if they sympathise with with Palestinian Arabs.

What does Britain have to do with Israel?

Prior to the creation of Israel, that part of the world was known as the British Mandate for Palestine and, later, Mandatory Palestine. The British were present in the first place to secure a Jewish homeland, as per the 1917 Balfour Declaration, and this promise was fulfilled when the State of Israel came into existence in 1948. However, things did not go as intended.

Britain never intended to create a state where human rights of Arabs would be undermined, or provide justifications for mass displacement and ethnic cleansing of Arabs. It did not support violating the rights of Muslims to worship as they have always done in their holy sites. In 2017, Britain acknowledged that the Balfour Declaration should have protected Palestinian Arabs' rights.

Britain made a mess of things in the territories of its former empire, drawing borders incorrectly. Poor understanding of the people of the controlled regions precipitated a number of current conflicts. Dubious conflict-prone states such as modern India and Iraq were created arbitrarily, often at the stroke of a pen, with no interest in how history or local culture might cause tension. Britain has not atoned for the situation.

Israel's doubts about its own legitimacy

Knowing their country was created by the British, Israelis actually seem to cower at our every utterance. Perhaps their terror is that the British will apologise for creating that state, somewhat undermining the legal basis for its existence.

The best advice to the Israelis is that they should leave Britain alone and stop being so interested in our opinions. If they continue to aggressively lobby for the British to support Israel, in their hopes to avoid the nightmare of British disavowal, Israel is most likely further irritating many British people and drawing their disfavour.

Anti-Israel (but not necessarily anti-Semitic) views are commonplace in the UK, and a large cause of that could be the strained and aggressive attempts of the Israelis and their sympathisers to influence our point of view. The strong movement within the Labour Party that emerged under Jeremy Corbyn was partly due to his principled support for the international cause of Palestinian rights in the face of significant attempts by morally dubious Israel-supporters and Blairites to hinder him.

Israel's unwarranted concern

The next time British people, even top British figures, say something critical of Israel, Israel's most dignified reaction would be no reaction. However, with the kind of insecurity they have about the legitimacy of their state, it is more likely that they will continue whining more than any other country in the world would, triggering even more attention and criticism in the future.

When the Israelis express so much concern about international attitudes, and especially attitudes in Britain, it makes their country look new, floundering and half-legitimate. Maybe that's how it still is. Maybe they are trying to tell us that they don't think their country's existence is secure, and that mere cold words from Britain might be enough to create chaos.

Read More »

Should the Tories kick Boris Johnson out?

Owing to outrage over top government staff holding Christmas parties while the rest of the country followed Covid restrictions, upcoming pressure might see Boris Johnson kicked out of office.

However, that's only if the Conservative MPs really decide they have had enough of him. And, given that the Conservatives lack any other charismatic (or at least "iconic") figure to take over, getting rid of Boris will probably mean getting rid of themselves in short order.

No confidence vote

If a no confidence vote is lost by Boris Johnson and/or a new Conservative leader is selected, there will probably be another snap election in the UK shortly thereafter to cement legitimacy. This is if we go by past events and assume something similar is due. The Conservatives would be set to lose that election, judging by recent data. So, ironically, the temporary spike in support for Labour amid the scandal may be feared by Tories and cause them to shield Boris during a no confidence vote in Parliament so that he wins, as the Conservatives may recognise that the scandal could see them out of power. As such, Boris's fallout with the voters would have rattled his party enough to save him from Parliament.

We have to remember that Boris Johnson is one of the most controversial Prime Ministers the country has had, and has persistently clung to power and defied calls for him to go. Public protests against him were greatest during the country's efforts to exit the European Union, yet resulted in no victory for his critics.

Outrage over Boris Johnson's initial refusal to extend Brexit during 2019 was more visible than the current outrage at his hypocrisy, and it was even suggested that he could be jailed at that time. Presently, there are no visible protests by the public over the Prime Minister's hypocrisy, and it shows a level of apathy among the public over all that has happened.

Omicron variant measures

If anything, there are more likely to be street protests over Boris Johnson's decision to introduce more measures to combat the novel coronavirus in light of the Omicron variant. Yet such restrictions are actually supported by the Opposition and a vocal part of the news media who have been condemning the Prime Minister's hypocrisy. The anti-lockdown advocates also resent Boris's apparent hypocrisy.

The only reason Boris Johnson may be kicked out is due to his own party being fed up with him, rather than public outrage. However, if it results in a snap election, Conservative MPs would soon regret voting against him in the no confidence vote, because right now the voting public has no confidence in them either.

Impact on next election

Boris Johnson is a hypocrite and there will be nobody rushing to his defence, including in his own base of support. However, in the long term, we have to remember that the next general election is in 2024. The public will have moved on to other issues than Christmas parties by that time, so it won't take much of the wind out of the sails that kept the Tories in power.

The half of the population desiring reactionary politics, Brexit, and relaxed policies on Covid has not gone anywhere and may even have grown a little. They will still support Boris Johnson in the event of an election, because the alternative would seem worse to them.

If Covid is still a factor in the 2024 election, the public will likely be sick of hearing about it and vote for a party more dismissive of it, which would likely once again be the Tories. If there is a successful no confidence vote, a Tory leadership contest, and a snap election while the scandal is fresh, Labour could take over.

If the Tories calculate the same, they will keep Boris Johnson for now.

Read More »