Labour policy is the opposite of whatever Angela Rayner says it is

This is starting to get embarrassing

If you want to find out what Labour policy is, just ask Angela Rayner and your answer will be the opposite of whatever she says. This is because, like clockwork, the Labour Party will u-turn within three days. It’s one of the laws of nature.

At this point, I’m unclear if the deputy leader is one of the last pro-worker MPs in Starmer’s team and saying these things in the knowledge Labour will u-turn, perhaps to pressure the leader or embarrass him; or if she is naive enough to believe what she is saying; or if she is helping Labour talk out of both sides of its mouth. I think all three possibilities are equally plausible.

It’s a matter of weeks since Rayner told parliament Labour would introduce its New Deal for Working People within the first 100 days, only for Starmer to turn around and say: “Whoa, hold on now! Just because this is a Labour policy, doesn’t mean we will actually do it!” or words to that effect.

Starmer decided Labour will “phase in” its New Deal for Working People and scrap its plans for a single status of worker and fair pay agreements to “blunt anti-business claims”. But “Labour is not scrapping its New Deal for Working People”, Rayner insisted. It’s just the new deal will have nothing for working people in it.

On 12th September 2023, Rayner gave a “cast iron guarantee” to the Trade Union Congress that Labour would scrap zero-hours contracts, increase sick pay and extend sick pay to the self-employed, and just three days later, Labour told us it had changed its mind. I don’t even know why I’m facepalming, it’s far too predictable.

These were not the only u-turns either.

One of Labour’s best policies was to introduce a National Care Service to run in parallel with the NHS and tackle the UK’s care crisis. Gone would be the disastrous private care system which not only sees care home after care home go bust, but even when it’s functioning correctly, forces residents to sell their homes, meaning working class families don’t get an inheritance.

Under Labour’s plans, everyone would be guaranteed universal care funded by the taxpayer and free at the point of use. This would be exactly what the country needs and surely Labour would be excited to talk up such an obvious vote winner, right? Not so fast…

Laura Kuenssberg asked Labour’s Pat McFadden the following question on Sunday:

“Can you commit that the manifesto will have a publicly funded and free at the point of use National Care Service?”

McFadden replied:

"We want a National Care Service, but I'm not sure you've described it in the way I would. This is about standards across a very varied industry. It’s not about nationalising everything in the care industry. It’s about ensuring it operates to good standards with properly paid staff who are treated well so that people who are in the care service are looked after as well as possible.”

Let’s break down what McFadden means here:

Labour will not be nationalising the care industry, it will stay in the hands of private companies that are going bust, one after another. Just five years ago, one of the biggest care providers in the UK, Four Seasons, went into administration, causing chaos in the industry, but don’t worry, Pat is going to fix things by asking care homes to treat their residents nicely and pay their staff more, only he won’t force them to do so.

Basically, we will be getting the existing care system, but asking private care providers if they might consider doing a better job. Fingers crossed.

Similarly, Labour’s New Deal for Working People is the existing deal for working people, but Labour might consider asking employers to treat you nicer.

It’s a joke at this point.

What’s weird is how Labour is so quick to leap in with “we’re not going to nationalise” every chance they get, as though this is what the public wants to hear, but this is not what the public wants to hear. A clear majority of the public supports nationalisation of public services, and Labour knows this.

This tells you they are not speaking to us, they are speaking to their donors and the neoliberal extremists in the media.

If you want to know where Labour is really at, just look at the man Starmer made a knight, Vigo the Carpathian, who you might know as Tony Blair, key adviser to the head-chopping Saudi government and the Labour Party.

Medieval tyrant Vigo says we have “too much” spending in the economy and Labour “can’t tax and spend its way out of trouble”. Ironically, this was the criticism Thatcher made of Blair’s Labour so she must be proud as she watches from her dungeon in hell.

The thing is we don’t have too much spending, we have a corrupt system because Thatcher and Blair privatised everything, giving us expensive middle-men and poorer service, higher prices and heavy taxpayer subsidies.

Thanks to Blair and his mentor, Thatcher, the taxpayer loses out three ways. We have a wasteful system and Blair’s answer is not to fix the system, but to usher in more austerity. In other words, he wants to cripple the working class with a conservative solution to a conservative problem.

When we say Labour could be even worse than the Tories, this is what we mean.

Starmer’s shadow cabinet is full of Blairites and Labour is getting its policies from the Tony Blair Institute. But don’t worry, Blair insists Starmer is “his own person”, meaning he u-turned on everything of his own volition, not because Blairites would overthrow him if he didn’t toe the line.

In a moment of laughable propaganda, a unnamed “Labour veteran” told The Guardian:

“Tony and Keir, though friendly, are not in the same place politically. Keir is most certainly not a Blairite. Of all the people in his office, he’s the most left wing. Not madly left, sensible left. He’s essentially soft left.”

This is another example of Labour speaking out of both sides of its mouth. The aim is to convince the right they are right-wing and convince the soft left they will be soft left in power.

Some on the soft left will tell you Labour is pretending to be right-wing to trick the media and the electorate into voting for them. They’re convinced this would be the case and seem comfortable with massive political deception.

They’re certainly comfortable that Starmer told the Labour membership he was a socialist so they would vote for him to become leader. If you’re one of the people who is okay with this, I’m sorry to say you lack integrity.

The amount of effort needed to keep up with Starmer’s nonsense is absurd, but Labour is counting on most people not keeping up. The public have short memories and sadly, they will vote for whoever Rupert Murdoch tells them to.

Starmer is interested only in Murdoch’s approval and if he gets it, he will become prime minister. This is a damning indictment of the UK, sorry, English electorate. I’m starting to see why scousers don’t consider themselves English…

Laughably, we’re told Starmer is not putting Blairites in his team because he agrees with them, but because they have “talent”. This argument makes no sense. If you are working together, it’s because you have a shared vision for the country, unless you only care about power for power’s sake and don’t care what you do in power.

Imagine saying: “We’re putting Nigel Farage and Theresa May in our team, not because we agree with them, but because they will help us win.”

If you think this comparison is taking things too far, just look at Starmer’s recent anti-immigration rhetoric. It would make Enoch Powell blush!

Starmer was interviewed by Trevor Phillips who asked if he planned to treat the families of children who arrived on small boats as terrorists, meaning they could get five years in prison. (Say, for example, a 16-year-old crossed the channel to reach his uncle who was already living here and didn’t notify the police in advance.)

Phillips asked:

“Do you actually mean to treat them as terrorists or not?”

Starmer replied:

“Well, what I’ve said, Trevor, is we need to put them in the bracket of terrorist.”

To any reasonable person, this is absurd.

Whatever your views on immigration, failing to call the police to report that someone might cross the English Channel is not an act of terrorism. This is no more reasonable than suggesting Starmer is a paedophile because he has shit hair. (Personally, I think we need to put people with shit hair in the bracket of paedophile. This is sensible politics.)

You will be reassured to hear that Starmer told every socialist’s favourite newspaper, The S*n, that it’s “un-British” to disagree with his immigration plans. In other words, Starmer doesn’t count you as a real British person unless you are willing to pretend non-terrorists are terrorists to appease the far right.

Only, I’m not even sure it’s about appeasing the far right any more. Starmer’s Labour is looking increasingly like it is far right. Look at this poster and tell me you’re not getting fascist vibes.

Does this person who is currently courting arms dealers to donate to his party look like like he represents the left to you? Or do you think he’d be more at home in the British National Party? Because I know what I think.

---

Thank you for reading. All of my content will always be freely available, but if you wish to support my work, you can do so at Stripe, Ko-fi or Patreon. Likes, shares and comments also help massively.

---