Sir Keir Starmer - Have you been brainwashed by social media

 Sir Keir Starmer? I'm not a fan, I never have been.In December 2020, long before anyone actually thought he might actually become Prime Minister I wrote "He may be more electable than Jeremy Corbyn, but he is as inspiring as a bowl of slightly rancid haddock. I've no idea what he believes in. Like all Non Tories, I've enjoyed watching him monstering Boris at the Despatch box, but I want to see a politician that has passion and believes in helping those at the bottom of the ladder. Starmer has not convinced me that this is his mission."

I thought I'd just put that out there before saying what I've got to say. Starmer isn't great. I doubt he'll be lead Labour into the next election (deservedly so).  I think he has no political judgement, is weak and is indugent of dodgy friends. He is part of a strand of the Labour party that completely alienated me. However, when I look at social media, I am completely knocked sideways by some of the bile and hatred towards him. I get that people dislike politicians, especially those that are high profile and not "on your side", but the anti Starmer rhetoric is quite bizarre. It is fair to say that Boris Johnson endured a similar amount of bile in the last six months of his time as PM. Given Boris's nature, it was unsurprising as he is a big personality, who provokes strong reactions. I myself stepped into the cesspit of slagging Boris off, with a little ditty about him. It is odd listening back to it, I clearly felt a lot more strongly about him then. 

But with Starmer, I have noticed something different. With Boris Johnson, it was very much an organic movement, as his misdemeanours and shortcomings became more pronounced. With Starmer, I see all manner of strange and wonderful stuff on social media. With Boris, it was largely my contacts etc.With anti Starmer rhetoric, I am seeing posts from all manner of people I've never heard of. Anothe feature is that friends, who Facebook never normally puts on my timeline (rather annoyingly) have suddenly started popping up left, right and centre. When I click through to their feeds, they might have one post slagging Starmer off and 20 about other things, most of which I find more interesting (I don't need convincing about Starmer). To me, it is clear that I am being force fed a diet of anti Starmer rhetoric, in a way I've never noticed previously for anyone else.

To be honest, this has puzzled me, as I don't engage with it. Not because I like Starmer, the opposite. I am sick of him and don't want reminding of him. If you like and engage posts, you get more of them. So why? Well I think we got a clue yesterday. Starmer launched his crackdown on kids using Social Media. Could it be that the tech companies have been deliberately tweaking their algorythms to feed us a diet of anti Starmer rhetoric, because he threatens their profits? With the advent of AI, it has become far easier for the platforms to control what we see and what we don't see. The PR response from the tech companies to Starmer's proposed ban is clear and unequivocable. They don't like government restrictions.  I do however wonder if there has been a black ops mission against Starmer being run for some time by these companies? 

Social media companies make billions from advertising all manner of dodgy products and pushing them down our throats. Are they also pushing political viewpoints in a rather underhand manner? Next time you go onto Facebook or X.COM, have a look at what they are pushing towards you and then look at some of the feeds. See what else they are posting and see what the platform decided you should see. Whether or not you hate or love Starmer or anyone else, I think we all should be worried that tech billionaires have the power to manipulate their platform to shape social media opinions. 

World Exclusive! The Barnet Eye publishes transcript of Sir Keir Starmer discussing Mandelson appointment with Morgan McSweeney

 One of our customers, who buys guitar strings, works in the Cabinet Office. They kindly shared an official secret transcript of the conversation between Sir Keir Starmer and his cabinet secretary Morgan McSweeney, discussing the proposed appointment of Peter Mandelson as US Ambassador in an act of supreme public interest. I have transcribed this and burned the original copy, so PC Plod can't work out who the leaky source is. 

Sir Keir: Morgan, I have some reservations about Peter and this appointment. He is associated with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein and the Democrats are seeking full disclosure of all of the documents. This could blow up in our faces. Surely we should choose a solid career diplomat.

MM: I have spoken to Peter and he has categorically assured me that there is nothing in the allegations. As you know, he has no interest in young girls and any contacts with Epstein were simply part of larger groups, where Peter was seeking to advance the UK's national interests.

SKS: But, how can I put this, Peter has a bit of form for not being entirely frank with people, in regards to his activities. Can we really trust him?

MM: Peter is someone who moves in the circles Trump moves in. We need someone on the inside who has a direct line to the president. 

SKS: But he was sacked for financial irregularities? 

MM: Oh don't be such a hypocrite. You have been sanctioned eight times for breaching the Parliamentary code. We all make minor indescretions. You know that the Tory press blows everything out of all proportion. If you are to succeed as PM, you need to have a backbone

SKS: But he has form for not being entirely honest, he has been sacked numerous times, can we trust his assurances. This is our most important ambassadoral role

MM: Has your wife ever asked you if her bum looks big in an  outfit? Did you tell the truth? Peter has told the odd white lie, but only in the interests of the UK. Peter knows what to say to schmooz the likes of Trump. Surely that is more important than a few minor indescretions in the past. We will have access to the White House that other nations can only dream of. 

SKS: Well I guess you are right. I mean just because he maintained a relationship with a convicted Paedophile, has been sacked for all manner of financial shenanigans and seems to tell porkies whenever he opens his mouth, we need to look at the national interest and you are right, he will fit in over in Washington. A fine choice.

**** Of course I made all of this up. But it is 100% clear that this conversation must have taken place in some similar form. Starmer's position is totally untenable. He is either gullible as hell or a blithering idiot, or worse still, someone who is quite happy to surround himself with dishonest, dodgy people, who think it is cool to hang around with paedophiles. I am sorry, but that is not someone who is fit to be PM. If he had any honour, he'd already have resigned. The Labour Party have made a monumental mistake blocking Andy Burnham, who for all his faults is outside of the cricle of doom. God Help us all in the UK. However there is one aspect of this that gives me hope. Starmer will go over this. We do not think that indulging paedophiles is OK. Look at America. Trump is President and he is not even one step removed from Epstein as Starmer was. Thank God WE DONT LIVE IN AMERICA

Peter Mandelson and why Sir Keir Starmer should sack himself

 Unlike most people who have an opinion on Peter Mandelson, I've met him. I must add that it was in a business not a leisure setting and it was back in the days when Gordon Brown invited him back into the government, following one of his many sackings. I hadn't been a fan, but I was impressed by his grasp of his brief as business secretary. I was never a Blairite and I hadn't been a fan, but it was fascinating to see him in action. What became 100% clear to me was that he seemed to have a cast iron belief that he was a genius and everyone else in the room was a blithering idiot, who unfortunately had to be humoured. I have long been fascinated by the way people behave, what their body language tells you and the signals they give off. Mandelsons whole manner is "I am in charge here, don't bother arguing, this is the way we will do this". In most people that would be completely insufferable, he had a grasp of detail and the matters at hand that meant no one even wanted to challenge him. He instinctively identified the important people in the room (not me) and turned the charm on. For the rest of us, I am not sure if he even realised we existed and after any of us spoke there was little or no acknowledgement of what we had said, although five minutes later he was repeating this verbatim as if it was all his work. I've met all manner of politicians over the years, including Thatcher, Jim Callaghan, Ed Balls, Ed Milliband, Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell, Sor Charles Kennedy to name a few that come to mind. Meeting Mandelson was different. He was the only one who left me questioning whether I actually existed at all. What was interesting was that the other people I went with were either completely over awed by his charm or his brilliance or both. 

I saw something else.  I realised that Mandelson was an incredibly intelligent, shrewd and calculating individual. He saw his role as business secretary primarily as a vehicle to get Gordon Brown re-elected as Prime Minister. He made it 100% clear that every decision he made as business secretary between then and the election would be based on how it would play in key marginals. He was not interested in whether it would be good in the long term for the UK. His view as that Labour getting re-elected was the absolute be all and end all of the matter. I got the impression that if he could bulldozer the bits of marginal constituncies that had Tory voters, he'd happily do it. He wasn't at all interested in what was good for staunch Labour areas or Tory areas. Due to NDA's I never said a word at the time. As what I am saying is not relevant to the business I was doing and is just my personal observations of the man, I think it is safe to recall these impressions.

I left with the view that Mandelson was someone who I would never like or trust, but I completely understood why Brown saw him as a necessary evil. Mandelson correctly identified that Brown had let things drift and the ship needed to be tightened up. To this day, I think that the reason the Tories didn't get a majority in 2010 is because Mandelson had got them focussed on the politics rather than the distractions. I suspect that if Brown had bitten the bullet and brought him back six months earlier, they may even have won. By the time of the election, I'd left the Labour party and when I studied their material in 2010, I saw the imprint of Mandelson all over it. 

I mention this because I think it gives some insight into why Sir Keir Starmer appointed Mandelson as a ambassador to the USA. What was clear to me is that Mandelson was very good at targeting people who he thought mattered and making them feel special. I could see this in the meeting we had. My boss went in being very sceptical of Mandelson and leaving thinking he was a genius. But that was sixteen years ago. A lot of water has flowed under the bridge since then and any Prime Minister worth his salt would realise that Mandelson should be dealt with using a very long bargepole. I am sure that Mandelson persuaded Starmer that Mandelson and Trump moved in the same circles and they had a good personal relationship. The trouble is that those circles were centered around convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. I simply refuse to believe that Starmer was unaware of this fact. Mandelson's statement that because he was gay, he didn't see any of that sort of behaviour is simply untenable. He is the type of guy who is well briefed about everyone and everything. Sadly, if you know a bunch of rich men, with unsavoury nocturnal habits, that is a very powerful tool to use if you want to climb the greasy pole which is the worlds political scene. 

Sir Keir Starmer has the entire weight of the civil service, MI5, MI6, Special Branch, GCHQ etc at his disposal. The concept that none of these said "Prime Minister, this idea of yours to make Peter Mandelson the US Ambassador is a very brave decision, do you know who he was friends with and that the Democrats are hell bent on ensuring all of the papers are released". Now even if you personally were not bothered that the bloke you wanted as ambassador liked to hang around with very unsavoury people, common sense is that you should say "Well on reflection, it may not be the best idea".

But Sir Keir Starmer didn't say this. He appointed Mandelson and has landed up in a situation that doesn't require Mystic Meg's foresight to see was always going to be a disaster. I can see how some people may be taken in by Mandelson, he knows how to press peoples buttons, but this wasn't about a nice chat at a party. It was about selecting the best person to represent us at the court of the President of our biggest and most powerful ally. Sir Keir Starmer could have selected the best career diplomat at his disposal, one with zero risk and contacts across the board in Washington., who could have ensured that the UK was properly briefed and had dialog with all camps (that is what career diplomats do). But he chose Mandelson, because Mandelson and Trump seemingly moved in the same rather grubby circles. 

What disturbs me most is why Mandelson was seemingly so fascinated with Epstein. I can see why the likes of Trump and the artist formerly known as Prince (Andrew) were. A cursory glance at the pictures tell that story. But Mandelson? Today we learned of claims that Epstein paid Mandelsons partner a huge sum of money. Now Mandelson has claimed it never happened, but in my experience, the reasons that people behave badly are almost always because they want sex, money or both. If you want to know the truth, follow the money. Mandelson claims he wasn't interested in the sex parties as girls isn't his thing. He claims that he didn't receive the money. What was the basis of his friendship with Epstein then. I can't see them swigging beers and talking about Arsenal? 

Which again comes back to Sir Keir Starmer. Did he ever ask Mandelson what was the basis of his relationship with Epstein. Starmer is a barrister and this question is the obvious one. Starmer seems to have gone to ground. I can see exactly the reasons why Starmer appointed Mandelson. What I can't see, for the life of me, is why he ignored all of the reasons he shouldn't. It is called judgement and it is 100% clear that Starmer has no sense of judgement at all. How many times did Mandelson get sacked, yet Starmer still appointed him? How many warnings did Starmer get about his inappropriate friends? 

I have to say that until relatively recently, I thought Starmer was an intelligent bloke, who was having a few problems getting to grips with a very difficult job, in turbulent times. What the Mandelson fiasco has laid bare is that he simply has no sense of judgement at all. If Keir Starmer had any decency at all, he'd call a press conference, apologise to the people of the UK and the USA for appointing Mandelson and then announce that he's sacking himself, because he's realised he lacks the judgement required to do the job. 

If I wake up tomorrow and Hell has frozen over, I will know he's taken my advice. As for whether Mandelson should be in the House of Lords. The further away this man is from the corridors of power, the better for decency and honesty in UK politics. I can recall talking to one of my colleagues about Mandelson after the meeting. They said "Blimey, I wouldn't want to be on the worng side of him". I repled "To be honest, I am not sure I want to be on the right side of him either, I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him".  Sadly for Starmer, he failed to see what was obvious to me in 2009. 

Keir Starmer and Yvette Cooper lose the plot on immigration

 I daresay that I'll upset a few friends with what I have to say here, but I simply don't believe that we can avoid telling the truth. As the only real policies Reform seem to have are related to immigration and they are ahead of the other parties by ten percent in some polls, burying heads in the sand is no longer an option. I had always thought that whatever Sir Keir Starmer and Yvette Cooper were or weren't, stupid was not one of them. Hearing Yvette Cooper talking about immigration yesterday. I have had to change my views. Why?

Well lets start by looking at why immigration is an issue for so many people. I talk to a lot of people from all walks of life and there are four reasons which I hear repeated time and time again. These are

1. Illegal immigrants are coming during a housing crisis, taking up all of the social housing and claiming benefits, adding to the tax burden of hard working British people. This means that we have less money in our pockets and our young people are priced out of the housing market.

2. Immigrants are involved in crime and anti social behaviour, not respecting British Culture.

3. Immigrants are changing the face of our towns and cities, Churches, Pubs, etc are disappearing and our High Streets are being overrun with Businesses which are fronts for money laundering. 

4. The Police, Courts NHS, Councils and other Government agencies give Immigrants, their culture and their cultural needs preferential treatment, at the expense of indideonous British people.

Regardless of whether you think these statements are true, the reason that a significant number of people in the UK are now committed to voting Reform is because they believe them to be true and also only trust Nigel Farage to deal with their concerns. Sir Keir Starmer has four years to change their minds and prove that he can address their fears. There are two ways he can realistically do this. The first is to demonstrate, beyond reasonable doubt, in a way that the general public will believe, that he is addressing these issues. The second, is to implement policies that address the root causes of the discontent that the likes of Farage are counting on to persaude people to vote Reform.

I was fascinated when I saw Yvette Cooper on the news explaing how she was addressing these fears. Her big idea? To stop care workers from moving to the UK to work in care homes. To me, this is bonkers. The one thing, not even the most ardent Reform supporter has ever suggested we need to do, is stop genuine, hard working immigrants from working in care homes. The concept that there are lots of British people queueing up to work in care homes and are being forced out by immigrants is ridiculous. Of course, some at the fringes of the far right, would deport all immigrants, but that is a really minority view and not why Reform are polling at over 30% in some polls. This policy would be awful for all manner of vulnerble people. It does nothing to address any of reasons listed above.

So what should Starmer be doing? Well, if I was in his shoes, this is what I'd do to address the four issues.

1. The first thing I would do is to make any money given to France dependent on stopping illegal crossings. I'd double the money we pay France to police the channel, but I'd dock a sum for every crossing. We pay France around half a billion pounds a year to stop channel crossings. In 2023, approximately 29,000 people crossed the English Channel in small boats from France to the UK. This number was down from 46,000 in 2022.  So if we docked £10,000 f'or every migrant crossing from France, they'd lose the half a billion extra if they let levels rise to 2023 levels again. I believe that the problem would stop and we'd save far more money as we'd not have the bills of housing and feeding migrants. I also believe that the UK government needs to do something to make housing affordable for younger people. That would remove a big cause of resentment.

2. Successive governments have chipped away at Police numbers and made it almost impossible for the Police to do their job. Having an effective Police force costs money. Starmer and Cooper need to properly fund the police. When the Police have the tools to do the job, crime drops and these sort of grumbles dissipate. 

3. Yes, our high streets are changing. This has always been the case. If you think of the poem, Rub-a-dub-dub, it refers to the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker. Most of us just have a Tesco's Express instead now. Pubs don't close because "someone wants to put a Mosque there". They close because people stop going to the pub. I'd like to see things like pubs given support and protection from greedy developers, but ultimately if people don't want to use businesses on the High St, then the High Street changes. As for the charges of money laundering, see the answer to 2.

4.  I think that there is a perception that the Police and Courts do not enforce the law properly for fear of creating a backlash. The grooming scandal is an example. It seems to me to be a complete no brainer for Yvette Cooper to instruct all police forces and the CPS to enforce the law without prefudice and with equality for all. I have no idea why Cooper hasn't already said publicly "We have reviewed what has been going on and in future, if people comit crime, they will feel the full force of the law, regardless of creed or colour'.

My views on this are not new, I've mentioned all of the above previously in blogs, if not all in one blog previously. I accept that fixing migration is far more complex than can be summed up in one short blog by someone who knows little about the subject. But I can also spot dodgy policies that won't work a mile off. Sir Keir Starmer and Yvette Cooper have clearly panicked after the appalling results in the local elections. They have rushed through a series of completely idiotic suggestions that will do nothing to address the real issues that concern people and everything to damage the social services sector. In short, they've lost the plot

Is Keir Starmer happy to see 'anti asylum seeker' riots

 One of the benefits of getting old is that you tend to have seen it all before. Through my life, every ten/fifteen years there are major outbreaks of civil unrest. The last time was 2010, when it seemed like just about every high street had a riot. A warehouse was burned to the ground in Croydon and for a few days it felt like the new Tory government and the police had lost control. There was a general sense of panic in the air and the news coverage was clearly a tad nervous. This time, it all seems a bit odd, a bit strange. Much of the footage seems to show far smaller groups of rioters than previous riots, with far smaller groups of police trying (or not) to control them. There is no talk of the army on the street, no regualar breifings from COBRA meetings, no Prime Minister emergency broadcasts. 

I have always found that when something doesn't look right, it probably isn't. I follow a huge range of accounts on various social media platforms, as it helps me form a balanced view of what is going on. A lot of extreme right wing accounts are getting very excited, bleiving 'there time has come'. I hate to upset such groups, but it is pretty clear to me that it hasn't. Firstly, the groups storming hotels and libraries are small groups of people, I see more police at Manchester City when I go to football than I've seen on the coverage. The Police seem to me to generally be taking the view that protestors can shout and jump up and down all they like. The arrests are in the hundreds, in a population of 60 million a tiny percentage.

Most people seem more than happy to sit at home and watch the Olympics. The BBC haven't interrupted their Olympic coverage. When I watched the horrific scene of the attack on the hotel, it seemed to me that the Police were very passive and their numbers were totally inadequate. The more I watched it, the more something seemed to not a up. Why on earth are we in a sitaution where pictures are broadcast across the globe that asylum seekers, coming to the UK for refuge aren't safe? I am 100% sure that the UK Police have more than enough resources to absolutely crush these small groups, if they were ordered to by the Home Secretary. So why haven't they? The horrible thought then occurred to me that maybe this could quite suit Sir Keir Starmer. If you were an asylum seeker in Calais and watching the news, maybe you'd think twice before coming to the UK right now. 

Starmer has always struck me a both highly intelligent and highly duplicitous. Ask any Jeremy Corbyn fan what they think of him and they will tell you of his scheming and betrayal of Corbyn. He was happy to drink from the same cup as Corbyn, but as soon as he could, he shafted Corbyn and all his former left wing mates. So what is the biggest threat at the moment to Starmers political power. He doesn't seem too bothered about the Tories, who have decided to engage in a lengthy period of navel gazing, as they try and select a replacement for Rishi Sunak. I get the feeling that Starmer would be more than happy to cut a deal with the Lib Dems, who generally only take Tory seats, if his support wanes.

The one area that could turn nasty is Reform. There is a suspicion that the red wall, which turned Tory in 2019 and returned in 2024 is an area that Reform see as ripe for harvesting. It is clear that the government is keen to brand the rioters as 'Far Right'. There is no doubt that if this sticks it will severely damage the Reform brand and Nigel Farage. When arsonists start burning down hotels where they think asylum seekers may be staying, it is puts Farage, who has made a career out of demonising such people, in a difficult place. It seems strangely ironic that all of the hard right thungs at the heart of all of this may simply ensuring that Keir Starmer's two biggest domestic problems are dealt with. Could it be that he realises that this will damage Reform and so falling in line with Sunak's line is a pretty shrewd move. 

I would be amazed if we don't see a massive fall off in numbers of boats crossing the channel. In a few months time, the riots will be largely forgotten by most of us, but when the annual figures for small boats are released, it will look like Starmer has got a grip on the issue. It is interesting to see that Rishi Sunak is not putting the boot in to the new government. 

Now of course I have no inside info. What I write is pure supposition, but one thing I've learned over my nearly 62 years is that when odd things happen and the person making the decision is a huge beneficiary of what is going on, things become a lot easier to understand. So if you are a right wing extremist and you think burning down hotels is giving Sir Keir Starmer a problem, think again. You might just be doing him a massive favour. Oh and don't forget that when this is done and dusted, Starmer will probably pass new laws, allowing him to tap your phone, hack your facebook account and lock you up. Don't say I didn't tell you in five years time when Starmer starts his next term, whilst you are banged up, for breaking some yet to be passed law. 

As for me, I'll just sit back, crack open a beer and watch the Olympics. It is pretty clear to me what is going on, but then again, I love a good conspiracy theory. One thing I have learned is that whatever happens, the politcal classes always win in the end. 

Updated 5/8/2024 - It seems I’m not the only one puzzled by the lack of energy in Keir Starmers response. Tory Leadership hopefully Tom Tugendhat said this in the Express today. He is ex military so his views have a degree of gravitas

Royal Mail blows a massive hole in Sir Keir Starmer's green credentials

 We've been told for the last dozen or so years that electric transport is the way forward. Those of us with what are deemed polluting vehicles have been taxed until the pips squeak! We are told that electric vehicles are the way forward. we are told to get rid of our gas guzzlers and get the train as that is the clean way to go. Well it seems that there is one rule for us and quite another for the rich multinational's that run the country and can buy influence. This morning, I saw this tweet

Statement sent out by @DBCargoUK regarding @RoyalMail decision to end mail by rail. Royal Mail, says DB, has decided to move all things by road. High cost of electricity also cited. pic.twitter.com/jiK1p7VB7j

— Richard Clinnick (@Clinnick1) July 10, 2024

Less than a week after Labour won a landslide and promised us a brighter, greener future than the Tories, Royal Mail, who are one of the largest movers of freight in the UK have announced they are ceasing all rail operations and moving everything by road from the 10th October. According to the press release, this has nothing to do with the quality of  the existing arrangements. It is all to do with the high cost of using rail to move freight. This in part is due to the high cost of electricty for electric trains. It also seems that the cost of a new fleet of trains played a part. There was a huge story recently about the UK risking losing it's train building capacity due to lack of demand for new trains. This will cause massive damage to the UK's long term ability to compete.  

The whole UK energy market is in chaos. High prices have delivered massive profits for oil and gas companies, hikes in electricity prices have forced DB rail to scrap electric locomotives. Whilst governments speak in glowing platitudes about electric powered travel, the reality is that the UK's energy policy are the  shareholders in polluting energy companies. The Royal Mail was privatised, meaning that every decision is made purely for the benefit of shareholders and if ecologically sound rail travel is more expensive than diesel powered lorries, then they will use lorries. They will not invest long term in a new fleet of trains. They will not give  a stuff about the environmental or social impact of their policies.

It is 100% clear that this is an almighty mess. It is a chance for Sir Keir Starmer to show he means business. Operators of electric trains should be able to procure electricity on long term deals at cheap prices that make rail cheaper than equivalent road routes, where capacity exists. Companies such as Royal Mail should be able to secure grants or cheap, long term loans, to build trains, so long as they are built in the UK. This would help maintain our industry. Labour should be making it cheaper and easier to get Lorries off the road. As heavy vehicles wear roads out quicker and slow traffic down, there would be a huge benefit for car drivers. Less congestion on the roads. I am not anti road freight. It is necessary to supply our shops, and other businesses. But where rail is appropriate, it should be the cheapest option and it should use electric traction. 

The new Labour government has a challenge in its first week. Lets see how they rise to it.