Something is happening. We have several things we can do. The first thing is to observe it. The second is to criticise it. The third is characterise it. A fourth is to suggest causes.
By ‘it’, of course, I mean what has been clear since the emergence of COVID-19, and how this has altered our sense of the changes of the last 10 years (since the rise of political correctness 2.0), the last 50 years (since the cultural liberalisation of the 1960s), or even the last 200 years (since the religious and political liberalisation of the American Revolution, the French Revolution, and the British ‘National Apostasy’ associated with Catholic Emancipation, the Repeal of the Test Acts and the Reform Bill).
I see a lot of interesting suggestions, but no general statements, so offer this as an attempt to bring together as many lines of thought as possible.
- The decline of the church
Until the separation of church and state in the centuries after the Reformation every state was also a church. The decline of the church and the rise of the secular state had consequences:
• the loss of an anchor or aspiration or standard ‘not of this world’
• a shift from concerning ourselves with salvation to betterment in this world
• the emergence of a need to find a new anchoring belief system for the state
• a tendency to build such a belief system out of policies claiming to better the world.
Overall, we sought justification in terms of what could be achieved in this world.
- The rise of the cash nexus, trade and debt
In the 17th and 18th centuries the Dutch, English and French experimented with remarkable new institutions of banks, bonds, stock exchanges and national debt. This had consequences:
• for the first time in history ‘growth’ could be achieved without conquest
• we increasingly came to see everything in the world as marketable
• there was much more commercial activity and travel (and, ironically, conquest)
• markets enabled remarkable corporate monopolies to emerge (monopolies which attempted to tie up those markets)
• debt enabled us to postpone responsibility, since our current activities could be funded by mortgaging the future.
- The rise of bureaucracy
States increasingly concerned with this world and with a more complicated commercial world to preside over, and exploit, turned to bureaucracies to manage the situation. For the first time in the West a class of bureaucrats emerged, loyal not to a lord or a locality but the state. They were to be funded out of the public purse: taxes but also debt. Debt enabled not only great standing armies to be maintained, but also standing teachers and standing doctors. This had consequences:
• a shift from the old view that government should maintain law and order to a new view that government should manage and even educate the state
• an increasing use of statistics
• the emergence of a language of bureaucratic imperatives which for the last two centuries has existed alongside the similarly novel language of commercial imperatives.
Now these two, or three, languages exist alongside each other, and have drowned out the old languages of state law and order, and church. The new three languages, which exist alongside each other, and infect each other, are the language of bureaucracy (of the state or public monopoly) the language of corporations (of wealthy lobbying private monopolies), and the language of markets (of freely active private individuals). Together these three languages provide most of our current political language.
- The rise of meritocracy
Education had for centuries been dominated by the church and state. Commerce had almost no effect on education. But bureaucratic imperatives led, in the nineteenth century, to the formation of new universities, and the adjustment of historic universities, which abandoned religious tests and developed academic subjects designed (at first indirectly; later directly, if spuriously) to serve the interests of the state. This had consequences:
• the emergence of a class educated in bureaucratic and corporate languages, as well as academic languages
• the emergence of a divide, evident only clearly with the expansion of the universities in the late 20th Century, between this educated class and the uneducated classes
• the demoralisation of the poor, who, without the church, had only their relative failure in commercial and corporate activity to give them a negative identity and otherwise had to build a positive identity out of the modern bread and circuses supplied by doles and media.
Populism is the politics of those excluded in the modern class divide.
- The rise of specialisation
Until a certain point in history everyone was a generalist, from the farmer to the Renaissance gentleman. But commercial imperatives – Smith’s division of labour – as well as bureaucratic and corporate imperatives encouraged everyone in an increasingly complicated society to specialise. This had consequences:
• as the educated class became less generally educated and more specially educated there was an undermining of the old secular ‘republic of letters’ which constituted our culture between 1700 and 1950
• the rise of a difficulty about making general and wise assessments of the political worth of any policy under consideration
• the increased likelihood that a policy would only seem attractive if it was sanctioned by specialists: and only if the specialists could associate their policy with some sort of crisis
• the increased likelihood that the shared opinions or values of our society would be fatuous, since they were side effects of a media circus trying to generate excitement in the new boring languages.
- The rise of political correctness
The decline of the church meant that the state, especially now with its phalanx of bureaucrats, required a belief system. Commercial, corporate and bureaucratic imperatives supplied the language: but could not supply anything more powerful. State ideologies appeared in dictatorships, but also in liberal societies. This had consequences:
• the state had to find a surrogate for religious belief
• this belief had to be confected out of educated opinion and the new public languages
• the belief had to be something sufficiently contorted that it would appeal to the educated class but appear to be beneficial to the uneducated class
• the result was ‘political correctness’, or a set of received values which could be used to distinguish those willing to swear allegiance to what were, in real terms, contradictory and self-defeating policies from those who wouldn’t or couldn’t.
The world of political correctness is a world in which the elite avow a ‘public’ belief which ostentatiously contradicts their ‘private’ interests: but enables them to flourish commercially, corporately or bureaucratically nonetheless. It offers nothing to the demoralised poor and uneducated.
- The rise of a corporate-commercial-bureaucratic monopoly in politics
Politicians are trained in corporations, can expect to work for them after retiring, and are lobbied by them when in office. This has consequences:
• it is very hard to use any sort of available political language against the ruling elites or, what is the same thing, the educated class
• we have a ruling culture which is extremely fragile and fickle, since solidarity and unanimity can only be achieved by following fashions of unreal and hypocritical avowals of extreme sentimental allegiance to certain policies, usually supported by specialists and justified by crisis or spurious emotional identification
• the ‘public’ culture which exists now has almost no reality: it is a confection out of whatever successes private interests have had in using the available political language to create a pseudo-ideology of rationalist solutions and policy deliverance.
- The emergence of a world of fractured crisis
Political correctness is partly a moral matter, where it is dominated by a concept of equality which has existed since the French Revolution; but it has also, in the last 50 years, become a matter of technology. Whereas before technology was positive, serving progress, now (in the prevailing ideology) it is associated with crisis, for better and worse. This has consequences:
• we are told that capitalist technological society has damaged the world by draining it of its resources leading to ‘climate crisis’ and ‘overpopulation’
• this justifies policies which damage the world, including the human world, far more than the problems they are designed to solve
• Covid-19 was a vivid instance of a crisis which was magnified by corporate and bureaucratic imperatives and the media circus until it dominated every other possible political concern and became the unlikely contender for the cause of the greatest solidarity ever seen by man.
- The demoralisation of the educated
The demoralisation of the educated classes by climate politics, pandemic protocols and political correctness has so far been justified by the solidarity it has achieved in the service of the interests of bureaucrats and corporations: but it has alienated the uneducated classes and is in the course of alienating the educated classes to the point where they will have no ability to make adequate sense of any problem of genuine political concern. This has consequences:
• the instincts of the educated classes will be to generate solidarity negatively by undermining the continuity of their own civilisation and the capacity of their own state to deal with genuine problems in a realistic manner
• a culture is emerging in which unity is only affirmed by admitting to historical transgressions and signalling virtue by admitting guilt
• we are coming to believe that there is nothing of the value in the past, there is only bread and circuses in the present, and there is only repayment of debt in the future
• education is increasingly becoming an education in limited specialisations, in which incentives serve specialisation and in which unity is only found in what is encouraged by bureaucratic-corporate state propaganda (since everything else is to be discouraged as misinformation, disinformation—or atavism—and censored)
• the educated classes will continue to turn to specialists for answers, to indulge in hypocritical or fatuous politics of display, and to do so in such a way that they destroy their societies while claiming to save them.
One consequence of this is that the bureaucracy, which has one task, to serve the state and hence society, cannot see what the state as a whole requires, and out of specialisation and hypocritical moralisation and frank opportunism comes to serve corporate interests.
- The end of identity
In an era in which nothing can be affirmed except whatever is required by the fashions of crisis, a premium is put on identity. The problem is that indeterminacy in our politics also threatens confidence in identity. Identities become political, some more admirable than others, and as much cultural appropriation and cultural disburdening takes place, so identity becomes malleable. This has consequences:
• no positivity is found in old identities associated with church and state (religious, imperial or national)
• everything must be globalised, abstracted and emptied out: especially our own civilisation
• women have been ‘emancipated’, and this has led to the overturning of the old sexual division of labour, causing much confusion of sexual activity and sexual identity (for both men and women): with the new political correctness positively valorising sexual confusion
• the freedom to do anything has developed into the freedom to be anything as long as there is the consent of others and the consent of the self
• we have become separated from nature, cushioned by technology and increasingly alienated even from our immediate selves
• we remain unformed and immature, confections of neurosis and narcissism.
All this is the consequence of living in a state which claims, fatuously and hypocritically, to do everything for us. Fatuous and hypocritical, because it is not true. But it is harder to say that it is not true: because our language has been corrupted by bureaucratic and corporate imperatives, creating noise and chaos like the final orchestral rising glissandos of Sgt. Pepper, above which we can increasingly only hear the dissonant siren falsettos of globalism, slave-morality and crisis.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Perhaps if Kneeler Starmer can be deposed we might eventually have a populist Opposition in Parliament not one led by a Trilateral Commission Globalist Elitist ? Anything would be better under the present circumstances.
I think this is wishful thinking. We will never be allowed a populist party in Parliament, let alone a true blue party. The UK has become a socialist entity run by foreign money and foreign interests. The indigenous people are mindfully lazy, beaten down and drug riddled. They had the chance to vote UKIP on a number of occasions but preferred to believe the propaganda and smears. Farage knew the depth of corruption in our Civil Service and knew that whilst we were part of a corrupt political project nothing would change. He was then bought off too.
Yes, he stood down his candidates to give Johnson a clean sweep – never forget!
The whole of the Political/ Media Class knew what Johnson was really like – see Max Hastings, in the Mail, warning article, Summer 2016.
Bunkum. The UK was more socialist during the period of the ‘post-war consensus’, 1945-79. It worked rather well compared to before or since.
A populist opposition would be asking why ‘austerity’ since 2010 has aimed at pensioners, those on benefits and the lowest third in general. Marginal tax rates on the top 1% or 10% – the rentier class – have not risen.
I gather that if you live on unearned dividend income your tax rate is 32%.
If you’re an ex-student with loan repayments, income tax and NI, your marginal rate is about 60%.
Yea, right. Nationalised industries dragging the country into penury. 80%+ tax rate and the consequent brain drain.
Raging unemployment and a technological backwater e.g. the Post Office had developed digital phone services long before any other country, but the Unions wouldn’t allow them to be rolled out.
Remember ‘Closed Shops’? Forced to join a Union to have a job whether you wanted to or not. Forced to strike whether you wanted to or not.
Business patrolled by Union officials who contributed nothing, just complain to management to justify their own existence and call meetings that disrupted production.
The Heath government brought to it’s knees by striking coal miners who relished cutting peoples electricity off.
Taxing billionaires would bring in far less money to the country than the business they build with low Tax rates. It’s not like they squirrel their money away in vaults, they are billionaires on paper, their money invested in businesses that employ people. Over tax them and they just leave the country.
Austerity measures cleared out much of the dead wood in local authorities. Sadly the same didn’t happen with the sainted civil service.
So how are we to pay off the debt contributed to with £450Bn wasted on a seasonal flu? The middle class are already shouldering the burden of 50% taxes.
The ONLY way of doing it is to scrap the insane NetZero policies, eliminate all taxes and subsidies associated with it, and get the country back to work.
Ideally, offer a lower tax economy for the wealthy so they are attracted here to set up businesses and generate employment.
I was thinking a very similar thought earlier on today prob about the time you wrote this post.
I was mulling over the 400 billion spent over 2 years, in what at times felt like a spending frenzy, on the “pandemic” (?).
What was the point of the austerity measures the Tory party, aided by the LibDems, presided over under Cameron and Osborne which lasted a long time if the intention was to “spaff” 400 billion up the wall on things like track and trace and face masks and PCR testing which most likely should never have been deployed?
What exactly is Starmer supposed to resign from?
The issue with Boris is that he’s Prime Minister and this was his own law.
“What exactly is Starmer supposed to resign from?”
The Labour leadership. The Privy Council. The House of Commons. His tiddlywinks club. Anything and everything.
But why?
Boris is only being asked to resign from the PM role, not as an MP or anything else.
And the key offence is not law breaking, but lying to the House.
The self -isolate for the rest of his life ( for our protection)!
Fingal, smoking the waccy baccy again.
He’s employed as leader of the opposition. Or hadn’t you noticed. He called for Boris’ resignation over partygate and now that beergate is exposed I’m afraid he must resign, by his own standards.
He resigns from his job dimbo!
Nicola Sturgeon hasn’t resigned, and she has been caught not wearing a face mask at least twice.
They have all failed to keep to rules that they imposed on us. They imposed and/or supported intolerable restrictions on us and also gave the police powers that they should not have. It is wholly appropriate that they should be brought down by their “brave” police applying those powers.
It is notable, however, that the Scottish police, amalgamated into a single gendarmerie, is giving Sturgeon a free ride.
The Scottish Nazis don’t have to resign, because they don’t pretend to be a democracy working for us.
Perhaps Putin will set his sights on Scotland next if its full o’ Nazis?
Looking at the photo, she should be forced to wear a mask 24/7
Are you expecting me to defend her or something? What could possibly motivate me to do that?
Or perhaps you’re jumping to conclusions?
He’s employed as an MP as well. But no one’s suggesting either he or Boris should resign from that. This only matters because he’s PM.
The key issue that requires Boris’s resignation is not the law breaking but his lying to Parliament.
Starmer isn’t PM, or hadn’t you noticed.
Starmer’s position as an MP is a democratic matter between his constituents. He’s perfectly at liberty to resign as their representative though.
And Starmer hasn’t lied?
It’s necessary to explain everything to you multiple times over.
Lying to Parliament is a technical offence that supposed to lead to resignation. Lying anywhere else is a matter for voters.
I didn’t suggest otherwise, Dingle.
Try reading what I posted.
Politicians lie to Parliament every single day. Grow up.
The Leader of the Opposition is the Alternative Prime Minister.
And he agreed with the rules and voted them through. If he’d actually opposed them, things would be different.
Boris is obliged to resign as Prime Minister, not as party leader. That’s a matter for the Conservative party. The leader and the PM don’t have to be the same person (although they usually are).
Nobody’s suggesting Boris needs to resign as an MP over this.
Although the phrase ‘Alternative Prime Minister’ has been used, Shadow PM is the better term. If Boris resigns, the Tories will have an internal election and I suspect that Starmer won’t be on the list…
The government is responsible for the laws it passes, not the Opposition. It would be truly bizarre if Starmer resigned for breaking a rule once, while Boris stays in place having broken it half a dozen times.
The key issue that requires Boris’s resignation is not the law breaking but his lying to Parliament.
I believe that the official title is Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition which gives the position constitutional significance.
And I quote from an earlier post of yours “The key issue that requires Boris’s resignation is not the law breaking but his lying to Parliament.”
Repeated in this post. ^
Starmer demanded Boris’ resignation over the police prosecution. By his own standards then, if he’s also found to have broken lockdown rules by the police, he has no alternative but to resign.
It might even force Boris’ hand.
Sigh. Starmer demanding Boris’s regulation is not lying to Parliament.
But it would be hypocrisy (if he’s found guilty).
The pressure on Starmer is not legal, but political.
This does expose the problem created by Boris’s repeated rule breaking. It’s absurd that everyone else has to operate at a higher standard than Boris.
Boris is creating new, lower, standards of Parliamentary behaviour.
The pressure on Starmer is precisely that of Boris.
Both broke lockdown rules, Starmer is a lawyer, he knew precisely what he was doing.
Both then lied about breaking lockdown rules.
The political pressure is in addition to their crimes. That comes with the territory.
“Sigh” off cretin. You’re a Starmer apologist.
Starmer agreed with every “law” … it was as much his as Johnson’s
The technical reason Boris has to resign is because he lied to Parliament,
It would be insane if Starmer had to resign for breaking Boris’s law once, while Boris himself stays in position having broken it many, many times.
Having said that, if found guilty, the political damage to Starmer is immense and could bring him down anyway.
Starmer demanded Boris resign. Breaking lockdown rules once is no less a crime than breaking them five times.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
And yes, as far as I’m concerned, Boris and anyone else involved in partygate or beergate should resign, including Raynor.
Betraying the public is the crime, lying simply compounds it.
In a criminal court those convicted of a crime are expected to lie to avoid prosecution. Personally I would have them convicted of perjury and/or perverting the course of justice on top of their original crime.
As far as I’m concerned, Boris, Starmer and the rest of the party/beer/gate traitors should all suffer the same fate.
That’s not true, either in law or public opinion.
It’s important to remember that Starmer’s alleged offence has already been investigated and dismissed by Durham police once. We await sight of the new evidence.
One of the flaws of the legislation was that it led to too many grey areas.
Fingal is, as usual a know nothing blowhard.
I have reported thousands of people over the years and almost that precise phrase has been recited by innumerable judges.
We do indeed, presumably because people like Raynor were found to be lying and Durham police considered it appropriate to re-investigate.
Try as I might, I cannot see what in your post is so objectionable that fifteen people have thumbed it down. I’ve thumbed it up by the way.
Dear God, don’t force Starmer to resign. As unlikely as the prospect is, labour might actually find a competent leader.
Boris is bad but socialism is worse.
Amongst the current parliamentary labour party?
You jest surely.
Remote, admittedly, but still a possibility.
We can all see what the next election is really going to be about: Saville and Rochdale. Of course the Tories will pretend they have nothing to do with the “grubby campaign against the leader of the opposition” … but there will be a grubby campaign, which just happens to benefit the Tories.
Aren’t the Tories socialist too. They certainly are not Conservatives.
True dat.
Starmer ‘tells colleagues he will have to quit if he gets Covid fine’
The well known freedom fighter and bender of the knee, Kneel Starmer has confirmed that he is an utter shithouse, time wasting, oxygen thieving nobody and can I have my pensions please.
Newsflash:
Yet another millionaire resigns as leader of the labour party for masquerading as a socialist who believes in wealth distribution. Except his.
How do you know a socialist politician is lying?
Look at their bank balance, and ask why they have one.
Sorry but is this where DS has fallen?
I mean really does anyone awake really care about the obvious and trivial fact that ALL our politicians are fast asleep sock puppets venally sucking off the people they are supposed to represent?
I couldn’t be bothered to vote. And even if I did there are swathes of asleep media psyopsed hoi poloi willing to vote for team A or team B or Lib Dem/Green.
Network now with your awake neighbours in the UK and get prepared. Leave the country and go to Africa or Eastern Europe or some choice South or Central American countries. Try your luck in the red US states.
The West is FUBARed.
If Van Den Bosch is right, we are a few months from the next real killer variant. Gates seems to know it’s coming and jabbing non sterilising immunosuppressive junk into our populations could create the super bug.
That and the imminent collapse of our financial system…so who cares if Starmer drank beer ffs.
https://thehighwire.com/videos/the-vanden-bossche-warning/
I tend to agree but politics is important, even if the current crop are hopelessly compromised.
Whether or not Vanden Bosshe’s warnings come to pass – and he says a month or two- most people can’t emigrate to anywhere, and a killer variant will spread around the world.
The best that most people can do is turn to God for mercy (which most will not do) and brace themselves – which involves preparing.
And, of course, if the war escalates, the best you can say is that the southern hemisphere might be safer than the northern.
“Vanden Bosshe’s”
Almost!
“and a killer variant will spread around the world.”
Almost as if Geert is still working for Bill and Melinda, eh? Now there’s a Conspiracy Theory!
An alleged killer variant.
“Sorry but is this where DS has fallen?”
You want to get up earlier in the mornings and join Huxley’s, Freddy’s and Judy’s Breakfast Club!
(Vanden Bossche, by the way).
(And The Highwire is run by Del Bigtree who would appear to be yet another fraud cashing in by stringing ‘the anti-vaxxers’ along).
No-one will be moving to Africa or Central America for ‘a better life’ (ie. getting robbed, catching exotic diseases, and having their throats cut). It’s much nicer in the UK – even the illegals coming in every day on their dinghies think it’s better than France!
Like you’ve been further than benidorm…………
Furthest east for me has been Japan.
Furthest south South Africa.
Furthest west Vancouver Island/British Columbia.
Furthest north Nord Capp, Norway (unless you count flying along the northern coast of Siberia, and crossing Greenland in a plane).
As far as the UK compass points are concerned, been to Penzance, Lowestoft, St David’s, and Thurso/Durness.
Apparently you didn’t get robbed, catch exotic diseases, or have your throat cut.
Never mind, you could always spend some time on the streets of any major British city of an evening and any one of those things are likely.
Are you really sure you want to be using that sucking phrase – I don’t think it means what you intended.
Next political story – Angela Raynor decides to have her legs ampuated in a desperate bid to save Labour’s collapsing reputation.
She would have to stop taking the knee.
She could carry it around with her.
Unlike many other countries, the UK does not have a populist party. It doesn’t matter who we vote for the very same people run our country. Those same people choose for us those whom they wish to be the front men and women. When election time comes round they issue empty promises and the brainwashed choose which promises they prefer.
We have just had local elections and the Lib Dems have gained many seats. The LibDems for crying out loud. This country voted for Brexit and is still waiting to leave the EU. The Lib Dums will take us straight back with bells on. Why do the people of the UK always fall for the lies and deceitfulness of their faux governments.
A question I have often asked myself. Swift satirised the situation back in the 18th century with Lilliputians squabbling over which end of a boiled egg should be broken. It was ever thus!
Out of interest, which current or recent populist leaders do you admire? Leading figures might include:
Putin
Bolsinaro
Trump
Erdogan
Increasingly Modi
Duterte
Let’s have you choice first! Could be more interesting and revealing.
As you might guess, I’m not impressed by populist leaders in general.
Of that lot, probably Modi. But it’s not a great line up.
Erdogan was positive for the first phase of his rule. Lately, he’s been obsessed with a bizarre take on economics. He thinks the best way to control inflation is to drop interest rates.
Turkish inflation is about to hit 70%.
Best you hope that Trump is successful in 2024 or things will get a lot worse.
Most peaceful POTUS in living memory. Not one theatre of war opened in his first four years, yet we were all assured he would take us into nuclear war.
Biden pitches up and guess what, we’re on the brink of nuclear war, and it only took him a year to get there.
Trump negotiated the Abrahams accord. Biden has essentially ignored it.
Economy booming under Trump. A recession looming 18 months after Biden gets installed.
Trump and his family investigated and hounded for the last six years. Comes out squeaky clean.
Biden’s financial dealings with his son in Ukraine never questioned.
So what was bad about Trump other than mean tweets?
Yours is the typical response of a rabid left winger. Trump Derangement Syndrome.
There will always be wars, even if you’re doing your best to avoid them. Trump was lucky in that no new wars started in his tenure.
He did however have a very good go at starting one all by himself with North Korea. In the end, Trump and Kim Jong-un contented each other with comparing dicks.
Trump also nearly started a war with Iran, but hit lucky because Iran accidentally shot down a civilian jet at the very point when things might have escalated.
Ironically, Biden’s biggest mistake (the rushed pull-out from Afghanistan) was a Trump policy which he foolishly carried out. Plenty of negative consequences from that – it might well have been the thing that tipped Putin into taking a risk on Ukraine.
But I know you’re a Trump fanboy so I’m sure you’ve got some hagiography to share.
I am STILL processing the words; ” when indoor socialising was illegal. “
The rules were illegal as they could never be justified as proportionate or necessary. So, I cannot criticise the Savile/Rochdale allowing leader of Labour from breaking the “rules” anymore than Johnson. However, they both lied to parliament, and so they both should resign.
I’m not sure Starmer did. Do you have a quote?
No, that’s the problem.
Labour politicians don’t lie. They tell ‘mistakes’…
….or..it (going into an illegal war, for instance) was done ” in good faith”. How many times did Blair rely on that throwaway justification…sounding so pious alongside his poison.
I think that more than lying to parliament, is there not a case to be made that they lied to the whole country in making laws telling the whole of the UK to cower indoors to ‘stay safe’ from a deadly disease, with a horrific transmissibility (all those cases trumpeted on every news bulletin and the nightly death stats) and high risks of severe illness and death, which their pre-planned ‘work’ parties amply demonstrate they knew there was very little indeed, if anything, to be afraid of?
Based on the Timing: after the local elections, and who would have had access to this memo, it is almost certainly a labour party insider who wants rid of Starmer. That could be because in Durham they recognise he and his Saville/Rochdale allowing behaviour is going to ruin their chances at the next election, or it might be a contender for the leadership.
What a repugnant man.
Is it just me or is Starmer increasingly resembling a woman…?
Anyway, whether he resigns or not is pretty irrelevant. If you asked a hundred random people to name one – just one – Starmer policy, I reckon 99 would be clueless. Actually, maybe all 100.
A complete waste of space and a farce to refer to him as “Leader of the Opposition”.
If he does resign, I reckon he’d make a splendid Widow Twankey you know. Minimal makeup required.
OK, a bit seasonal, but Starmer’s probably loaded anyway.
And a role much more suited to his abilities.
How can he resemble “a woman” when he doesn’t know what one is?
He would not know if he was one or not!
He knows he’s a big girl. If not, her blouse.
An operational note drawn up ahead of Sir Keir’s notorious visit to Durham, didn’t cummings go to durham as well? if so thats a bit of a coincidence two people breaking the rules in durham. Anyway, no surprise, if you or me had done it we would have been arrested but the people writing the rules do what they want even though it was such a deadly virus and we were supposed to all die etc.
A sad state of affairs for the world. So many horrible people in political positions destroying our world one bad decision at a time.