STARMER OUT
What does the Prime Minister’s abrupt departure leave
us with? Will something better come along?
By Sir Charlattam
In the end, the man who was touted as a promising alternative to overcome
his appalling predecessors and put an end to the ungovernability and
incompetence of the British government turned out to be just as bad, if not
worse. Exactly a decade after the folly of Brexit, Keir Starmer is ending his
time in office in the same way he began it: by slipping out the back door of
Downing Street.
Sir Starmer’s resignation was to be expected. He is
the sixth leader to flee in a decade, demonstrating the unreliability and
weakness of the country’s institutions. The crises within his government and
within the Labour Party were choking him to the point where he no longer knew
which way to turn first. The serious, pragmatic man who was supposed to instil
morality into the amoral British system and turn it upside down like a ship’s
bell was nothing more than an autumn breeze in Lancashire, barely stirring the
leaves.
His downfall heralds the rise of the ‘King of the
North’ as MP Andy Burnham, who governed Manchester, is known a hypocritical
careerist and loyal servant of the system who is seizing an opportunity he
cannot afford to let slip.
Neil Farage and his mad reformists have seen their
golden opportunity and have already begun calling for a general election for
the post, setting themselves apart from the political elite. But we know that
Farage is a second-rate charlatan who sees only the chance to have his moment
of glory.
But the morality he espoused was quickly called into
question by the cases of the young Ukrainians who were planning to set their
car alight (we do not know whether he was inside it, or why?), the structural
corruption that has remained unchanged from that of his predecessors, and the
public relations disaster surrounding the case of the ambassador to Washington,
Peter Mandelson, who, according to leaked documents, was involved in the
paedophile parties organised by Mossad agent Jeffrey Epstein.
Continuing the policies of his predecessors in
particular, supporting Ukrainian Nazis and remaining a staunch denier of the
atrocities committed by Israel in the Gaza Strip Starmer demonstrated that he
was merely another employee, yet another member of the Establishment placed
there to make a cosmetic change to a highly critical status quo, particularly
in economic and social terms, which had already been dire under the
Oxford-educated illiterate Liz Truss and had been exacerbated by the then Prime
Minister Rishi Sunak both of whom were
deeply committed to the military adventure against Russia,
Starmer is stepping down at a very perilous time for
world peace, and he, together with his colleagues on the European continent,
has certainly played a leading role in bringing about this situation. The
initiatives to create a joint European military force with Germany and France
to replace a NATO rendered ineffective by the absence of the US despite the
increase in the budget allocated for this purpose are still a long way from
being a viable project. His departure will certainly free him from the
political implications he has had to promote – as part of the propaganda to
prop up Kiev whilst, at the same time, intimidating Europe through a false
narrative about ‘the Russian threat’. He must be credited with his wisdom in
not following the Americans in their attempt to drag the country into a war
against the Islamic Republic of Iran a move that annoyed the Israeli leadership
and their local CFI Christian zionist supporters more than it did Trump
himself.
Some have been rumouring that his party did not find
in Starmer the decisive and forceful leadership that Britain needed. He
struggled to express his views and, worse still, to focus on developing them.
Described as cold, expressionless and overly structured, Starmer did not fit
the mould that Labour members want to see at the helm of their party and
steering the nation’s destiny.
In reality, these excuses are nothing but nonsense
designed to shift the blame away from the Labour MPs who were with him; to say
that Starmer is expressionless and cold is to say nothing at all, as he is the
quintessential embodiment of the British character at least in terms of
reserve. James Cameron was about as expressive and likeable as a lamppost in
Trafalgar Square. I would certainly not consider Tony Blair a likeable person,
as that would be like saying hyenas are likeable when they smile as they attack
their prey.
His unpopularity began to rise as soon as he took
office. From the withdrawal of fuel subsidies to the gradual increase in taxes,
the public grew increasingly fed up. His continued but covert involvement in
Washington’s foreign policy also played a significant part; this was laid bare
by a Donald Trump who was far too expressive and unconventional in his manner
of communication. It was striking to see how Starmer appeared uncomfortable as
an orange-faced man, with his histrionic gestures and endless verbiage,
steamrollered a methodical and reserved prime minister.
Oh yes! Starmer leaves many loose ends, and amongst
them is the budgetary situation for the armed forces, which, despite an
increase in investment, are increasingly lacking the resources to maintain the
equipment they already have equipment that is supposedly representative of the
modernisation of the army and a fleet whose capabilities will be overwhelmed if
it continues to take part in operations against the Russian ‘shadow fleet’. Is
that taxpayers’ money going to Brussels, then?
Be that as it may, gentlemen, Keir Starmer will no
longer be providing explanations on any of these matters.
