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.