Miliband and Hermer
J’ACCUSE
There are many fascinating things about the 2010 ITV ‘General Election Debate’ which took place between Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg, the most revealing of which is that mainstream political discourse has barely changed in the last fourteen years.
Yes, there are a few Blair era curios which have faded in recent years, so called “open Government” and the obsession with electoral reform. 2025 has it’s own shibboleths too, none of the audience members ask questions about ‘Trans’ or ‘AI’. But the arguments advanced about core structural features of the British State, whether it relates to energy, fiscal policy or immigration remain frozen in time. “We need an immigration system that is Fair”. “Less NHS bureaucrats”. “A Labour tax Bombshell”. Precious little has changed, save for a few minor presentational changes – ‘Climate change’ becoming ‘Net Zero’, etc.
This reveals itself especially when David Cameron and Gordon Brown go back and forth on Austerity; Brown accuses Cameron of wanting to take ‘several billions of pounds out of the economy’, Cameron hits back with an accusation that Brown is about to impose a ‘Tax on Employers’ to the ruin of The Economy, thus endangering the recovery from the Credit Crunch. This particular line made my hairs stand on end – as a ‘tax on employers’ is the exact fiscal path that Keir Starmer has followed after the economic shock of Covid-19.
The economic strategy of Rachel Reeves is really just a delayed implementation of Brownite economics, rapacious taxes on the productive parts of the economy to maintain investment in the public sector and stimulate demand. The revenue raised by increased Employer NICs has been funneled almost exclusively towards the NHS, without any of the old Blairite performance targets.
The comparisons between Brown and Starmer do not stop there. Like Starmer, Gordon Brown attempted a thin, watery nationalism as a way of regaining the support of white working classes which were then deserting Labour. When Brown called for ‘British Jobs for British Workers’ it was deemed so controversial at the time that Cameron actually outflanked Brown from the left, saying that the slogan had been borrowed from the British National Party. It is a sign of where the debate has shifted that a similar response was not made to Starmer accusing the Conservatives of running a ‘One Nation experiment in open borders’, which is essentially from the same wheelhouse as the Great Replacement narrative.
Brown’s attempt at this, while generating some controversy, ultimately floundered. In truth, his personal convictions could not have been further from the politics he was trying to advocate – evidenced by the Gillian Duffy affair, where he was caught on microphone describing a White English as a Bigot. It is not a stretch to say that Starmer has precisely the same attitude towards the C2DE voters that McPaddy is now trying to court. The former legal officer for ‘Liberty’, a charity which exists to prevent the Government from deporting dangerous illegal immigrants; a man who stated that all immigration policy is permeated by racism, is not a natural fit for this Farageist dreck.
The only individual within the Government who has tried to make an actual intellectual case for a socially democratic left closing down the borders is Stephen Kinnock, husband of the Danish Prime Minister who actually implemented a mildly nativist approach to the borders in Denmark. Kinnock has been fobbed of to a minor position in DHSC whilst the Home Office has been given over to seasoned Wokesters like Yvette ‘Lock Up Whitey’ Cooper.
But where Starmer’s failure to tack right will most resemble that of Gordon Brown will be the ideological rigidity of his closest allies and confidants. Both Edward Miliband, and Ed Balls prevented Gordon Brown from pursuing something akin to Austerity during the response to the Financial Crisis. Unlike Alastair Darling, the ‘two eds’ were close friends to Gordon Brown, having been his junior ministers during his time as Chancellor of the Exchequer, and they wielded this influence to broker a soft-left approach which ultimately allowed political space for the Conservatives to accuse them of profligacy.
Ed Miliband is fulfilling the same role that he did under Gordon Brown for Keir Starmer, being allowed to run energy policy almost entirely at odds with the strategic aims of the McPaddy cabal, pressing forward with clampdowns on oil and gas licenses. The same mixed approach is also being caused by the continued career of the Attorney General, Richard Hermer, who is the physical manifestation of Keir Starmer’s subsurface conscience as a Human Rights lawyer, being implacably opposed to any legislative changes which might enable, as an example, the deportation of illegal immigrants.
These two men have a direct, close relationship with Keir Starmer and these relationships make them very difficult for the McPaddy cabal to remove, although strenuous efforts have clearly been made to get Hermer sacked, these have, so far, come to nothing.
This situation is ultimately unsustainable, and I am increasingly of the view that McSweeney will take the gamble during this Parliament to attempt to replace Keir Starmer with Wes Streeting; who is receiving a degree of press scrutiny for his apparent maneuvering for the leadership, and has been implicitly accused of leaking negative stories to the press by his leader in a Cabinet meeting in March. The chance of this will rise precipitously if Reform win the Runcorn by-election and Labour MPs with white working class constituencies begin to seriously panic. It will be a herculean effort to get Streeting to become leader through the Labour leadership contest as winner, with or without the recent rule changes the membership and many of the Unions detest him.
This run of the Labour Right may come to an end, then, with a botched coup which sees either Angela Rayner or even Ed Miliband becoming Prime Minister. The most obvious benefit to you and I of such an outcome is that Starmer’s narcissism about showing ‘Global Leadership’ would no longer show a serious prospect of plunging Britain into a war that it cannot win – a Rayner premiership would distance itself from hardline rhetoric on defence, and would be exceedingly unlikely to join the United States in an intervention against China over Taiwan.
Without McSweeney inside the tent, Labour will also fumble the strategy it is attempting to stop Reform and the Tories, the most damaging of which would be the ‘Coalition of Chaos’ narrative (Reform and Tory Pact) which was used by David Cameron in 2015 against Labour and the SNP. Rayner and the people around her would not form a ‘progressive alliance’ with the Liberal Democrats against Reform or the Tories. I am a believer that a potbanging populist coalition in 2029 will be the Trojan Horse for necessary radical change in the 2030s, and so any change to the political landscape which enables this, should be encouraged.
So I say chin-chin to you, Messrs Miliband and Hermer. Your moral and spiritual devotion to poverty and death by illegal migrant respectively are useful arrows in my quiver.
This article (Very Useful Idiots) was created and published by J’Accuse and is republished here under “Fair Use”
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply