Friday, 25 September 2020

Labour Is Now a Conservative Party: The Neoliberal Democrats

I began writing this article two days ago, before Starmer's ridiculous sacking of Nadia Whittome, Olivia Blake, and Beth Winter which forced me to scrap my carefully crafted introduction and start with this instead because it was an event which perfectly illustrates the point I want to make - that Labour is now a conservative party: Blue Labour. Tory-lite. The Murdoch B-team. The Neoliberal Democrats.

Whittome, Blake and Winter were sacked for voting against the Overseas Operations Bill which among other things would've effectively legalised torture, but what's clear is that was simply an excuse, just like the Maxine Peake article was an excuse to sack Rebecca Long-Bailey. All of these sacked MPs have one obvious  thing in common - they are socialists - and we can't be having that, can we? 

Practising socialism is now the number one sacking offence in Starmer's Labour, followed closely by following your conscience and representing your constituents. The shadow cabinet must not under any circumstances question the wisdom of the focus groups.

The beige Sir Keir is purging left wingers from his front bench at such a rate, Rupert Murdoch might even allow him to become Prime Minister one day. A S*n endorsement certainly seems to be the goal, but will there be anything left of the Labour Party's soul by the time the 2024 general election arrives? Because, right now, it looks like it will be a Labour Party in name only. Certainly, the Socialist Campaign Group of which Jeremy Corbyn belongs is isolated to the point of zero influence, which is why so many socialists are calling for a new party.

I could make the argument for how a new party could shock the establishment and rise to power, but I don't want to get side-tracked so I'll just say even if power is unrealistic, a left-wing equivalent of the Brexit Party could still prove hugely effective in shaping the national debate. While the Socialist Campaign Group remains tied to Labour, it's effectively neutered so what is even the point?

Anyways, back to my originally planned introduction...

At the start of 2020, Sir Keir Starmer campaigned to be Labour leader with a promise to unify the party, making ten pledges to the membership which involved sticking to Labour's key manifesto policies and keeping the party to the left. Starmer presented himself as the respectable radical who could bridge the divide between pro- and anti-establishment voters, proudly pushing left-wing policies while placating the mainstream media. Many of us suspected this was bullshit from the start, given the recent track record of the FBPE saviour which includes participation in the chicken coop, befriending the toxic Labour hard-right, and leading the disastrous people's vote campaign, but just enough of the Labour membership were either uninspired by the candidacy of Rebecca Long-Bailey or just desperate enough to see if Mr Electable could fulfil the promises he is already backtracking on.

It would appear Starmer's leadership victory was based on lies, begging the question of whether he would've won if Labour members had any inkling of what was to come. Whatever Starmer has done so far, not even his most ardent of supporters (does he even have ardent supporters or just fellow Corbyn haters?) could pretend he has unified the party. Labour is more divided than ever and the key reason for the divide is the words and actions of Starmer and his supporters who at every opportunity, stick two fingers up at the left to appease the hard-right.

It was particularly galling for us who supported Corbyn to be called divisive and toxic for five years when we genuinely wanted a united and inclusive Labour Party. It's fair to say most of us initially believed, whatever our differences, we were still fundamentally fighting for the same cause - a transformative Labour government. However, it transpired that many centrists were actively sabotaging elections, smearing socialists and trying to destroy Corbyn while insisting that we were the divisive ones! Now the centrists have power, and the delightful Rachel Reeves, who doesn't want Labour to represent benefits recipients, reportedly wants to purge the Corbynites! That would be 60% of the membership by the way...

And let's be clear here: the Corbynites are, by and large, the poorer members of the Labour Party, the ones who've claimed Universal Credit or maybe even depended on foodbanks. They're the downtrodden that Labour was founded to represent and now Blue Labour doesn't even want such people in the party. The downtrodden don't deserve representation but the hard-right does. Labour is a party for middle-class people with middle-class economic views and is not even trying to represent ordinary people with meaningful policies. Instead, it will focus on flag-shagging and try to win over a few gammons who are fed up with Johnson.

Politicians who base their narrative around patriotism, family values and identity politics tend to be the worst kind of politicians. They focus on empty gestures while draped in the flag, using rhetoric to divide the public and deflect from the fact they have nothing to offer but more of the same.

Sir Keir Starmer was asked repeatedly by Robert Peston on ITV News to highlight a single Blue Labour policy. "Just one!" Peston demanded, but Starmer unfortunately has nothing beyond the Brylcreem and the fancy suit, apart from his desire to be Prime Minister. No one is expecting the man to present a fleshed out manifesto at this point, but given that he pledged to back the existing policies, he could've easily discussed some of those. It would've been perfectly fine for Starmer to explain nothing is set in stone, given the uncertainty caused by the pandemic, but he could've still indicated his direction of travel. 

But he did indicate his direction of travel actually... towards the substance-free right-wing where he will be completely inoffensive to the likes of Rupert Murdoch and the powerful people he is supposed to take on. The job of the Labour leader is to dismantle existing power structures, not bloody well bow before them, and certainly not plan to strengthen them. He is supposed to offer substantive change, not more of the same while pretending that would be radical. Nobody is going to vote Labour for that crap. Any voter who wants to maintain the status quo will vote Tory. It's actually repulsive to see Starmer offer to be a marginally more effective establishment PM than Boris Johnson. If he wants to be that, he is in the wrong fucking party!

The new Britain First...

There are so many problems with Starmer's approach, not least that normalising right-wing rhetoric is extremely dangerous, especially for minorities. It's the duty of the Labour leader and his MPs to counter and nullify reckless talking points, not bloody well amplify them! All the Starmerists will succeed in doing is shifting the Overton window even further right, and when people enter the voting booth without hearing a counter-argument, they will vote for the party which hammers home the strongest conservative message, and that will almost certainly be the Tories, despite Starmer's best efforts to tell them Labour is blue now. 

Starmer is almost certainly employing a losing strategy, but even if I'm wrong and the Tory-lite approach brings electoral victory, what's even the point of winning, if you become indistinguishable from your opponents in the process? That's no left-wing victory - it's a Rupert Murdoch victory, again.

Shadow Foreign Secretary and former leadership challenger Lisa Nandy is now saying a Labour government will not bring our services back under public ownership. No, Labour will nationalise our services by giving the public a little more say in how they are run... Um, I'm no economist, but I'm pretty sure that's not how nationalisation works, Lisa... But it gets worse, Nandy was also talking of putting British people first in a shockingly ill-judged attempt to win over the gammonati - no wonder people are calling her Lisa Farage.

What could Nandy possibly mean by promising to put the British people first? The only conclusion I can draw is Nandy means we will treat foreigners even worse than we already do. And as the husband of an immigrant, I could talk all day about the awful treatment "the least racist country on Earth" shows to foreigners, but that would be an article in itself.

Let's be clear, Nandy (and Labour with their empty slogans written across Union Jacks) are now openly courting nationalists while still half-pretending to be socialists. I'm pretty sure there is a guy from history who did more or less the same thing, and while I'm not saying Nandy is anywhere near the National-Socialist stage, I don't want Labour to move a single millimetre towards nationalism. And nor should she.

And I think it's absolutely appropriate to highlight the killer of Jo Cox was screaming almost identical words to Lisa Nandy when he committed that horrific murder. My God, I really don't want to bring that up, but it's so important to emphasise because violence is what right-wing rhetoric can lead us to, even if it's completely unintentional. If you do the normalisation, your opponents will always take things one or two steps further, as any history book will show.

Just look at the "Make America great again!" nonsense Donald Trump comes out with at his rallies, cheered on by his baying fascist mob. Not a week goes by without one of his crazed supporters gunning people down or driving a car into a crowd of peaceful protesters. Do we really want to shift the Overton window so far right, that Trumpian rhetoric becomes the space your opponent occupies? Or do we want to pull the conversation away from that into more respectable territory?

Right-wing rhetoric does not simply serve the purpose of enticing a few extra voters, and amplifying it certainly doesn't make you a "moderate". Its use is backward and irresponsible, and of course, Nandy wasn't trying to encourage violent nutters, I'm not suggesting that for one second, but I am highlighting the unintended consequences a Shadow Foreign Secretary should be well aware of. I would therefore implore her to drop the "British people first" nonsense and remember, we're all human beings. She won't win over any voters with that talk because her target audience will vote Tory anyways, but she might win over voters if she discusses how Labour policies can improve the lives of ordinary people. That's the kind of patriotism the left should strive for - the compassionate kind, not the jingoistic kind.

Let's not forget, last year Nandy suggested Scotland should get the Catalonia treatment, which basically amounts to jailing your political opponents and denying the public the right to self-determination. I doubt Nandy actually wants to jail Nicola Sturgeon, but this was one hell of a gaffe and showed a complete lack of understanding of the situation she was referencing (at least I hope it was lack of understanding). If you want to win back Scottish voters, you basically say the exact opposite of what Nandy said, but Blue Labour is making a habit of being tone deaf while telling everyone how good they are at listening. It seems they're experts at hearing only what they want to hear and telling the working class what we think, like we're some gammon-flavoured monolith. 

It gets even worse

For some reason, Sir Keir Starmer thought it would be a great idea to address the electorate for the first time by writing for The Daily Mail and The Times (behind a pay wall), but he completely ignored the left-wing press. And how about this recent headline from The S*n: 

Security Security Sirkeirity 

Starmer woos the patriotic!

I think I'm going to be sick.

Starmer seems intent on wooing all the wrong people who couldn't give a crap about Labour and ignoring his enormous left-wing base in the process. "Flag, forces, family? Fuck off!" as Kerry-Anne Mendoza put it so eloquently on Twitter. I don't want your empty words, thanks, Starmer, I want my free broadband! My internet was briefly cut off the other day until I could scrape together the £12 I was short on my bill, forcing me to do the housework until service was restored. Shudder. No one should be going without essential utilities because capitalism refuses to allow them enough money to pay for the bill. 

Essentials must be accessible to all people at all times, but Jess Phillips thinks that kind of talk is not quite believable actually. It's okay, though, Jess understands that politics is not really about representing the people, it's about doing the important things like selling your latest book. (She hilariously called one of her books Truth to Power by the way. Don't read it, it's shit.)

Betrayal of the membership

Labour is now so democratic that Sir Keir Starmer tried to gag Constituency Labour Parties (CLPs) from discussing the Labour leaks documents which suggested Labour staff may have thrown the last two general elections. Of course, those staff members were later compensated with six-figure sums by the new Labour leader, after they seemingly enabled his rise to power. If there is even a shred of truth to this (and it seems there probably is), Starmer's leadership may well be the most corrupt in the Labour Party's history. And it's absolutely in the CLPs' interests to explore this possibility, but Starmer won't allow them to because he wants to mark his own homework. I'm sure many will draw their own conclusions.

Let's not forget that as well as promising to unify the party, Starmer made those ten pledges to the Labour membership which revolved around staying true to the Labour manifesto and its radical policies. He still loves to use the word "radical", but he's watering down or scrapping policies, one by one, without a hint of what's to come instead:

  • He promised effective opposition to the Tories and then congratulated them on giving us Europe's worst Covid death toll.
  • He promised equality and then stuck two fingers up at Black Lives Matter and anyone who dares support Palestine.
  • He promised to strengthen trade unions and then refused to back the teachers over schools reopening.
  • He promised to defend migrant rights, then allowed his Shadow Foreign Secretary to say British people first.
  • He promised to increase corporation tax and then said it would be wrong to increase tax during a pandemic.
  • He promised to nationalise public services and now it turns out, he won't bring them under public ownership.
  • And he promised climate justice, but now there's talk of him watering down the cornerstone of our manifesto, the policy on which the future of our planet literally depends: the Green New Deal.

Regressive centrism

When I hear Starmer repeating the words "New leadership" and then I see them emblazoned so tackily against a Union Jack, it immediately brings to mind New Labour, and I actually suffer PTSD from the New Labour days. I have a twitch and everything. Those were the days I found myself jobless and homeless, having been forced to drop out of college, and received zero support from the state to help me get back on my feet. Eventually I dragged myself from the underclass into the working poor - that's when I was working extra hours just to keep a roof over my head and would go several days a month without food so I could make rent. A return to those New Labour days is not an inspiring vision for anyone who's lived in the real world.

Up until the age of 25, I would almost have been better off in prison, and in the latter half of my 20s, I effectively was in prison - a prison which I had to pay a landlord 50% of my salary to occupy. 

When the middle-class New Labour types went off to university, I was walking the streets, looking for dropped change to buy a fucking Mars bar, and they're going to tell me those days are what Britain should aspire to? It's not the left who are obsessed with looking to the past, it's them, and they do so without the slightest acknowledgement their policies not only ignored the key problems in our society, but worse than that, through their deregulate, deregulate, deregulate mantra, they absolutely sowed the seeds for a decade-long recession, despite their insistence otherwise. Yes, it was a global recession, but it was a global recession because other countries followed the banking policies Blair told them to follow! But alas, there is not the slightest hint of humility or contrition from this lot - instead, the hard centrists gallingly say Labour did not deserve to win the last general election. 

Well, the Blue Labour faction may not have deserved to win, but they clearly didn't want to win in 2019 anyways! I tell you who did deserve to win though - the hard-working activists, the working poor, the unemployed, the disabled, and the heavily-indebted students who are being treated so horribly by the Tory government and a landlord class which perceives them as people to either be exploited or simply ignored. 

How fucking dare Sir Keir Starmer, knight of the realm, tell us we did not deserve victory when our lives were literally dependent on it. Quite frankly, the man is a disgrace to the Labour movement and the only way he could get me to vote Labour now is to resign.

And don't give me that nonsense about how any Labour government would be better than a Conservative government because that simply isn't true. What is Sir Keir Starmer going to offer people like me who are so broke we cannot afford to replace our broken TV or torn sofa or even buy a double-bed, despite working our arses off and suffering ill health while looking after our three kids? What is Starmer's plan to help struggling families like ours get by? A stupid empty slogan emblazoned across a Union Jack? 

Starmer talks of family values, but what does "family values" mean if people are working so hard they never see their families and struggle to put food on the table?

When Jeremy Corbyn said, "For the many, not the few," it actually meant something - the slogan had real substance. Now Labour has slogans to replace substance and they have racist dog whistles - that's the Tory tactic of divide and rule they're adopting. The foreigners are the cause of your problems, and the benefits claimants and the working poor, but not your boss who is paying you a shitty wage or your landlord who is charging you extortionate rent or the corporations who are destroying the planet or the politicians who are letting them do all this crap. 

All the wrong people love what Starmer's doing, not because he's inspiring them, but because he is scrapping the policies which would inspire you. Starmer doesn't want to form a government that represents you, he wants to form a government that looks down on you. Here is a member of the Trilateral Commission and knight of the realm. A man who refused to declare who sponsored him during his leadership campaign. And then we found out about the £50,000 from pro-Israel lobbyist Trevor Chinn who reportedly campaigns, among other things, to keep taxes low for the wealthy. We criticise the Tories for taking money from dodgy corporations and Russian oligarchs, for God's sake.

And just look at Starmer's praise for the diabolical Ruth Smeeth. What was that if not a massive fuck you to hard-working Labour activists? It's almost as bad as the reports he wanted to make Emelie Oldknow general secretary or his actual promotions of the vomit-inducing Wes Streeting and Jess Phillips. Starmerists love to tell you Labour can only possibly win a general election from the centre, failing to mention only one of five Labour governments has been centrist, and in 1997, the Tories were well-and-truly ready to crack when Tony Blair came along. A socialist Labour could and would have won power and they would've actually made meaningful improvements to the lives of the working class. Things could've been so much better.

Starmer said the last thing we tried didn't work, but he failed to mention the thing we tried before that - Corbynism without a PV - almost did work in June 2017. Starmer doesn't want to try Corbynism without a PV again though, he simply wants to double down on the spectacularly bland Ed Miliband approach. He completely fails to understand why struggling people won't vote for vacuous centrism and also fails to understand why people of working age wanted Jeremy Corbyn to be PM so badly. He offered change, not more of the bloody same, only slightly refined.

If only people of working age voted in the 2019 general election, Labour would've won by four points!

It's not just the left who are unhappy with the beige Sir Keir though, I'm even hearing that Tory MPs are getting fed up with his feeble approach to Johnson because he's "impeding scrutiny." I'm also hearing many centrist Labour MPs are disappointed Starmer isn't getting close to the 20 point lead he promised to build over the Tories. It's entirely possible the hard centrists may push Sir Keir out before the left does, not that the left aren't actively looking into the matter, according to a credible source. There may still be a glimmer of hope we can change Labour from blue to red, but to be honest, I'm not holding my breath. I would prefer a new party.

If you appreciate what we do at Council Estate Voices, even the most modest of donations can help us massively and enable us to continue our work. 

Please click the button to donate
Thank you for your support

Wednesday, 23 September 2020

Starmer's Conference Speech Hit All the Wrong Notes

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer spoke at an empty Labour conference yesterday and his words left socialists feeling rather concerned. His rhetoric seems to be travelling in a vacuous, right-wing direction, and needless to say, Twitter was unimpressed. The Labour leader stood before the microphone without an audience and gave a performance as wooden as it was nasal, a speech which would likely have resulted in boos, rather than applause if the Labour membership had been present. 

As Rachael Swindon pointed out, "It was a speech for his establishment sponsors, not for us," and it really showed because frankly, the entire thing was dull as dishwater and offered nothing of substance.
Whatever your thoughts on Corbyn or Blair, both were unquestionably outstanding at inspiring the public, at least initially. Who the hell is Starmer inspiring? Your landlord?
It is "the honour of my lifetime to lead this great movement," Starmer insisted, but that would be a movement of activists his team have not only undermined, but actively purged from the Labour Party. The sincerity levels were in minus figures. Still, Starmer could've chosen to try and win over those activists, but as his speech continued, he did precisely the opposite to the surprise of absolutely no one. Almost every step of the way, he managed to hit the wrong note.

Concerningly, the Labour leader spoke of "a national effort to prevent a second lockdown," and while at one stage, such words would have sounded reasonable, today, when we are facing a second wave, thanks largely to decisions (like schools reopening) that Starmer supported, it's a bit late to be talking of prevention. Lockdown is looking inevitable.

My concern is not whether I can visit a pub or restaurant (I couldn't afford to anyway), it's not what might happen at Christmas time, and it's certainly not about protecting an economy which only serves rich people. No, my concern right now is about keeping people alive. That's it. And we should bloody well take any measures the science tells us to take, including lockdown if necessary. 

If Starmer doesn't like the sound of that, he only has himself and his non-opposition for the last six months to blame. This is a man who now (rightly) calls the Tories dangerous, but then insists he will support their future decisions regardless! You really couldn't make it up.

In a bold move to win over the red wall, Starmer boasted about what inspired him to become a lawyer, prompting me to instantly zone out. Just what us northerners want - a metropolitan elite who talks about "the desire to change lives for the better" but won't even hint at how he plans to achieve this. Starmer spoke about being the "first person in my family to go to university" which is great, but we are hearing talk of Labour U-turning on the policy to scrap tuition fees. One of the key reasons I couldn't go to university was the fact it was unaffordable, but Blue Labour is the party of aspiration, supposedly.

Starmer offered lots of ultimately meaningless fluff like, "I want a country where we put family first," but didn't talk about how people are working so many hours, they rarely see their kids, and despite their best efforts, are struggling to put food on the table. I thought Blue Labour wanted to be the party that represents hard workers, but perhaps they think hard work only applies to the middle-class. The rest of us are too lazy and stupid to deserve better, probably.

Surprisingly, Starmer called out the government on Britain having among the world's highest Covid death rates and deepest recessions, but he failed to acknowledge that by broadly supporting the Tories, almost every step of the way, he was actually complicit. If Starmer really is upset by the current situation, he should bloody well apologise!

"Their failure to protect care homes is a national scandal," Starmer said and quite rightly so. This is the kind of thing we needed to hear several months ago though. Perhaps his focus groups have finally given him permission to find a backbone. Next month, they might even allow him to find a policy or two.

Starmer called out the Tories for defunding public services and correctly highlighted how this left Britain vulnerable in a crisis, but he failed to acknowledge centrists backed austerity every step of the way. It was his very ideology (and the votes of many of his own MPs) that contributed to our public services being defunded. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous to say the least.

"The government won't even obey the rule of law," Starmer said, stating the bleeding obvious. Perhaps he's been paying attention to us "cranks" on the left and is finally learning how to do this opposition thing. We've developed this cool trick where we actually point out government wrongdoing. I believe the technical term is "opposing" and it's great to see Starmer finally learning from our example. 

I still shudder when I think about the Labour leader congratulating Boris Johnson for his "outstanding" work in introducing social distancing measures two weeks too late. Yes, he congratulated the Prime Minister for gross incompetence, but now he's decided that approach is not a good idea, after all. He's a sharp one, this metropolitan lawyer.

Starmer said he wants to work "hand in hand" with trade unions, which again is great to hear, but he ignored the concerns of the teacher's union when they advised against schools reopening until proper measures are in place, and he sacked former Shadow Education Secretary Rebecca Long-Bailey when she supported the union's position. 
Starmer wanted schools to reopen in September, "no ifs, no buts". That hardly sounds like responsible leadership and it certainly doesn't sound like working hand in hand with unions.
"Racial inequality is one of the causes that brought me into politics," Starmer boasted, prompting every supporter of Black Lives Matter to cross their arms and frown in contempt. Remember when Starmer reduced the movement to "a moment" and said he has "no truck whatsoever" with the aims of the organisation? That's hardly the talk of someone who wants to improve race relations. It's the talk of someone who wants to convince your racist uncle, Labour can be trusted now. Starmer will keep those annoying BAME people in their box. 
Blue Labour cares enough about racism to kneel for the camera, just not enough to do anything to stop it.
Starmer spoke of his frustration that every shadow cabinet member is a shadow - shadow chancellor, shadow health minister, etc. But I would suggest Starmer is a shadow of a leader and a shadow of his predecessor. He did offer welcome words on our care workers though, acknowledging they are heroes who are underpaid and do some of the most vital work in society. He promised to guarantee them a living wage, but why not guarantee every worker a living wage? Don't we all deserve one? Or is it just those people Starmer deems heroic who deserve better than poverty?

"When you lose an election in a democracy you deserve to. You don't blame the public. ... You look at yourself and ask what were you doing," Starmer said in perhaps the most infuriating moment in the whole speech. Shame he didn't show such humility after losing the Brexit referendum. If he honoured that result, instead of dividing his party, Labour might be in government right now. And perhaps he would care to elaborate on whether Labour members deserved to have an election sabotaged by his own staff...
Please click the button to donate
Thank you for your support

Friday, 18 September 2020

Beyond the Smears: The Truth About Jeremy Corbyn

It's fair to say no British politician in living memory has been criticised to the extent Jeremy Corbyn has, and none has been so unfairly treated. It seems every week another shitty journalist is writing a newspaper column or releasing a book, offering the "truth" about the former Labour leader. It's been going on for five years, and so much of what's been written about this decent man is either completely false or hugely distorted. But tragically, this smear campaign was successful in bringing him down and for some reason is still continuing. 

Corbyn was defeated, at least in part by lies, by the establishment closing ranks - the media, the corporations, the Labour centrists, all other political parties acting so disingenuously to preserve the status quo and prevent meaningful change.
It's so galling that we complain about the status quo and then take the word of those who would preserve the status quo as gospel, but that's what happened. It's what always happens.

If you could legitimately criticise Corbyn for one thing, it's that he's too nice, too soft, and while on one level, his gentle and sincere nature could be considered his greatest strength, it was ultimately his downfall. Corbyn could, and indeed should have pushed back so much harder when he (and others) were being unfairly smeared, but frustratingly, he allowed himself to become a punchbag. It may seem strange that I'm starting a defence of Corbyn with a criticism, but I think it's a necessary criticism and something I'm still upset with him about because when he allowed himself to become a punchbag, he allowed his supporters to become punchbags too.

Corbyn always knew the smears were coming. He and John McDonnell spoke from the beginning of his leadership about how no socialist will be given an easy ride by the mainstream media. But he should've understood that socialism can never take hold in the UK without a coherent strategy to tackle the inevitable misinformation. Instead, Corbyn seemed to count on enough of the public seeing through the lies and respecting the fact he rose above the dirty games to focus on the issues that mattered. He thought his anti-establishment credentials and pleasant nature would be enough to counter the attacks. This was a huge mistake, as was Corbyn's determination to unite the Labour Party by appeasing his detractors.

In politics you must be prepared to swing back, but Corbyn wanted to befriend everyone, even the most vile of school yard bullies. His ethos that talking to people, rather than fighting them, is a noble one with so much merit, but Corbyn somehow forgot one of the golden rules of politics that appeasement never works.

You can't treat party politics in the same manner you treat international diplomatic relations because your party rivals don't want to be appeased by you. Their only goal is to destroy you and take your place by any means necessary, and that's exactly what the Starmerists did. But as frustrated as I am with Corbyn for effectively allowing his political assassination to take place by not adequately defending himself, I would, perhaps one final time, like to set the record straight and remind the world he is a fundamentally decent man with inspiring ideals, a man from who we could've learned so much, if only we had listened to reason, instead of listening to Rupert Murdoch.

Let's take a look at Corbyn's career and examine some of the key reasons he's been praised or vilified to see if we can draw an accurate picture of the politician many say is always on the right side of history:

In 1984 Jeremy Corbyn was arrested protesting apartheid

During the 1980s, protests outside the South African Embassy in London were common and coincided with intensified resistance to apartheid in South Africa. Officials of the South African government wielded strong influence over the British government at the time and pressured the Foreign Office to quell the anti-apartheid movement. One could easily draw parallels to the Tory government's attitude towards Israeli apartheid today and how Corbyn is vilified for speaking up for the Palestinians. It would seem history has a way of repeating itself.

In June 1984, protests outside the South African Embassy were banned and the Metropolitan Police took the decision to arrest those who would defy that ban. But the City of London Anti-Apartheid Group were not so easily deterred. Many citizens and several politicians were arrested in a noble protest which had become about more than apartheid, but also the right to free assembly. Among those arrested was the current MP for Islington North and former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn who was led away in handcuffs, wearing a sign which read: 
"Defend the right to demonstrate against apartheid."
This courageous act of civil disobedience by Corbyn and others ultimately led to the ban on protests being overturned. The protests could continue in a place where they had maximum visibility and South African officials could not simply ignore them. We would do well to remember this achievement the next time centrists sneer at the "politics of protest".

Today everyone, Tories included, claims to have supported Nelson Mandela and the ANC's struggle for freedom, but back in the 1980s, the Conservative government were supporters of the apartheid regime who called the ANC terrorists and vilified anyone who expressed support for them, criminalising protesters in the process. While other "progressives" shied away from the fight, Jeremy Corbyn stood on the front-line, jeopardising his safety, freedom and political career to fight for justice.

Corbyn was on the right side of history.

Jeremy Corbyn has been a long-time supporter of gay rights

Since his days as a London councillor in the 1970s, Jeremy Corbyn has fought for the LGBT community, championing causes such as Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners (LGSM). His record shows he has voted 25 times in favour of gay rights and 0 times against.

In 1998, Corbyn was the only Labour MP to back a Liberal Democrat amendment to a bill which would outlaw discrimination based on sexual preference. Years later, as Labour leader, he promised to extend same sex marriage to Northern Ireland and put LGBT history on the school curriculum if he were to become Prime Minister. He threatened "economic and diplomatic consequences" on regimes which did not support LGBT rights.

Throughout his political career, Corbyn has championed LGBT rights when so many MPs in both Labour and the Conservatives did not. It's easy for some to forget how publicly accepted homophobia was well into the 1990s. Younger readers may not know Margaret Thatcher's notorious "Section 28" banned the discussion of homosexuality in schools, and homophobia was not just a right-wing problem either: plenty in the Labour movement either held homophobic views or did not feel strongly enough to speak out. Corbyn was an exception, and this is yet another example of him taking an initially unpopular position based on principle.

Corbyn was on the right side of history.

Jeremy Corbyn held peace talks with Republicans and Loyalists

We've all heard the accusations that Jeremy Corbyn was an IRA sympathiser due to his meetings with Sinn Féin leaders and his support for the republican movement, but as is so often the case when people criticise Corbyn, key details are omitted, most importantly that Corbyn spoke to both sides.

Corbyn has maintained throughout his political career, the way to make progress and achieve peace is by meeting with, and talking to, people you may disagree with. As a result, Corbyn has travelled the world, often visiting dangerous places to discuss how progress can be made on the most difficult of matters. Often, he has been the first British politician to make such a move, as would be the case with the Northern Ireland troubles.

While Margaret Thatcher was using inflammatory rhetoric and choosing force over diplomacy, essentially worsening the Northern Ireland troubles and costing lives, Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell decided to find a better way. They met with loyalist and republican leaders (not "terrorists" as is so often claimed, but politicians) and they discussed peace, years before Tony Blair was lauded for doing the same. 

Such was the progress they made that Sinn Féin expressed a willingness to negotiate with the UK government, but alas, the suggestion was rejected by Thatcher, Corbyn and McDonnell were ridiculed, and the peace process never got started. Many more people died before Blair's Labour finally decided diplomacy was the way forward, a move which resulted in the historic Good Friday Agreement. If Thatcher had pursued the same path as Corbyn such an agreement could have been reached 10 years earlier.

The wife of the late Reverend Ian Paisley, Eileen, said her husband spoke fondly of Jeremy Corbyn and described him as a decent and honest man. She explained her husband did not "approve of [Corbyn] meeting Gerry Adams and Sinn Féin people while the IRA campaign was still going on, but he always found him very courteous and polite. He was a gentleman."

Anyone who would accuse Corbyn of befriending terrorists would do well to remember Paisley ended up befriending sworn enemy Martin McGuiness later in life. Strangely, no one calls the late reverend an IRA sympathiser and nor should they call Jeremy Corbyn an IRA sympathiser. He is simply a man who respected both sides in a conflict, but abhorred the violence and wanted peace.

Jeremy Corbyn has always condemned violence in the strongest possible terms and has signed Parliamentary motions condemning IRA terrorism, but when questioned on the matter, he always points out the loyalist violence was just as unacceptable as the republican violence. Absurdly, the media have used this equivalence to portray Corbyn as the bad guy, as though condemning loyalist terrorism is a bad thing!

In November 1994, Corbyn signed an early day motion commemorating the victims of a terrorist attack in 1974 in Birmingham and condemning IRA violence.

"This House notes that it is 20 years since the mass killings of 21 people in Birmingham as a result of terrorist violence; deplores that such an atrocity occurred and again extends its deepest sympathy to the relatives of those murdered and also to all those injured. ... 

"... And strongly hopes that the present cessation of violence by the paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland will be permanent and thus ensure that such an atrocity as took place in Birmingham as well as the killings in many other places both in Northern Ireland itself and Great Britain will never occur again."

Corbyn was criticised for attending an event in which he reportedly spoke in support of those who died fighting for a united Ireland; the claim being this was expressing support for terrorism. What is rarely mentioned is that Corbyn was actually speaking at a memorial service, remembering the victims of a terrorist attack and that he called for an end to violence. He was not supporting terrorism, but rather the victims of terrorism. 

Many people in the republican movement were fighting peacefully for a united Ireland, just like many loyalists were fighting peacefully to preserve the union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It must be emphasised Corbyn was on the side of those pursuing a path of peace, not violence.

If you accuse Corbyn of IRA sympathy because he shared the same goal as republicans, then surely you as a unionist must be guilty of supporting UVF and UDA terrorism by the same logic. And let's not forget, the Tory government actually went into coalition with the DUP - the loyalist equivalent of Sinn Féin. Where was the outrage then?

Jeremy Corbyn may have met with Gerry Adams but so too did Tony Blair, Bill Clinton, Prince Charles, and many other political figures! It's rarely mentioned that MI5 files show there was "no doubt" Adams was sincere in his desire for peace so why wouldn't political figures talk to him as the Republican representative?

The fact Jeremy Corbyn had the foresight to pursue peace talks in Northern Ireland over a decade before the Blair government, at a time when Thatcher was only interested in a military solution, again risking both his personal safety and his political career to do the right thing, is yet another example of Corbyn taking a courageous stance.

Corbyn was on the right side of history.

Corbyn did not lay a wreath at the grave of the Munich terrorists

In September 2014, Jeremy Corbyn attended an event in Tunis with US Attorney General Ramsey Clark, Conservative Peer Lord Sheikh and Liberal Democrat Lord Phillips to commemorate victims of the 1985 Israeli bombing of the PLO headquarters. This bombing was universally condemned as a terrorist attack, even by the reluctant Reagan administration who adopted this position three weeks after the international community, having initially defended Israel.

One of the main aims of the event was to reconcile differences between the Palestinian political groups Hamas and Fatah - in other words diplomacy. The event had no connection with the Black September bombers who are actually buried in another country, and while it's been claimed two other people buried in the cemetery may have had links to Black September, this remains unproven, and Corbyn did not visit their graves or even know of their presence. Strangely, no one is accusing General Clark, Lord Sheikh or Lord Phillips of supporting the Black September bombers, only Jeremy Corbyn. There is simply no substance to this story.

This was an unfounded smear against Corbyn.

Jeremy Corbyn is not an Antisemite

Jeremy Corbyn has worked closely with Jewish groups throughout his political career, and once famously saved a Jewish cemetery in his constituency from demolition. He has repeatedly condemned antisemitism in the clearest and strongest terms, including the below quote ahead of the 2019 general election:

"I made it very clear antisemitism is completely wrong within our society. Our party did make it clear when I was elected leader and after that, that antisemitism is unacceptable in any form in our party or our society, and did indeed offer sympathies and apologies to those that had suffered."

Many prominent Jewish figures such as John Bercow, Norman Finkelstein, Noam Chomsky, and Andrew Feinstein have stated they don't believe Jeremy Corbyn is an antisemite. While most of these figures are on the left of the political spectrum, former House Speaker John Bercow is a Conservative who has known Corbyn for over 20 years. If any Jew would have something to say about antisemitic behaviour from Corbyn, it would surely be Bercow, and yet he is adamant Corbyn does not have an antisemitic bone in his body.

Bercow stated:

"I myself have never experienced antisemitism from a member of the Labour Party – point one. And point two – though there is a big issue, and it has to be addressed, I do not myself believe Jeremy Corbyn is antisemitic. That is my honest view."

Skwawkbox and Jewish Voice for Labour published a fantastic article (written by Skwawkbox) citing 50 occasions when Jeremy Corbyn has stood in solidarity with Jews, and you can read it here and here.

Some have suggested that Corbyn's criticisms of the Israeli government and his support for the Palestinian struggle are somehow antisemitic, but the Home Affairs Committee points out:

"It is not antisemitic to criticise the Israeli government without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent
or to hold Israel:
"to the same standards as other liberal democracies or to take a particular interest in the Israeli government's policies or actions, without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent."

Another common attack against Corbyn is that he once shared a platform with a person, or maybe stood in the same room as someone, perhaps shook their hands, only for it to transpire that person has made an antisemitic comment at some point, and therefore Corbyn must support them and their antisemitism. In other words: guilt by association. 

All I'm going to say in response to that is Jeremy Corbyn has shared a platform with Boris Johnson so by the same logic, he must support the Tory PM and his racism, Islamophobia, misogyny, homophobia and general bigotry. See how completely stupid that argument sounds? Jeremy Corbyn has never uttered an antisemitic thought in his life and has always condemned antisemitism.

This was an unfounded smear against Corbyn.

Jeremy Corbyn is not a Communist Spy

Where do I even begin with this one, other than to say it's fucking batshit crazy? I'm not even going to bother with an in-depth analysis on such a baseless claim, I'm simply going to point out Corbyn was a member of the privy council, meaning he was as thoroughly vetted as anyone in the country, and if there was a shred of evidence to suggest he was a foreign agent, he would not have been given security clearance. It really is that simple.

This was an unfounded smear against Corbyn.


The simple reason for so many unfounded attacks on such a decent man as Jeremy Corbyn is that he posed an existential threat to the establishment and inspired the marginalised. He wanted to democratise our society, shifting wealth and power from the top to the bottom, and his detractors would stop at nothing to stop him and the working class from rising up. 

There were so many ridiculous smears I did not have room to discuss, but you know what they are: Corbyn wore the wrong kind of coat, did not bow low enough, must hate our troops because he does not want them to die in war, etc.

I could've gone into depth about Corbyn's alleged support for Hamas and Hezbollah, but really it would've read much the same as the section discussing his alleged support for the IRA: Corbyn likes to talk to people and is determined to pursue peace and as a diplomat, his only crime is being a little too nice to people.

The truth of the matter is no UK politician has taken such principled stands throughout their career, nor been on the right side of history so often, nor been so unfairly vilified as a result. So often, we complain about why so few politicians actually represent us, and yet the answer is simple: the mainstream media crucify the few good ones and half of the public are duped into playing along against our interests; Jeremy Corbyn being a case in point.

Not only was Corbyn on the right side of history with the examples given above, but he's also on the right side of history when he says we must take on a status quo which favours corporations, billionaires and media moguls. He's on the right side of history when he says our public services must be nationalised so the people are put before profit. He's on the right side of history when he says we so desperately need a green industrial revolution. He's on the right side of history when he says we must democratise our media outlets and our workplaces. He's on the right side of history when he says we should stop vilifying the poor, minorities and refugees, and turn our attention to the real villains - the elite. 

Ultimately Corbyn's on the right side of history because he's not out for himself, he never was. This is a politician who gives up his Christmases to help the homeless and shuns chauffeur-driven limousines to ride the bus with ordinary people. He's always on the right side of history because he's fighting for you and wants to create a better world for everyone. And mark my words, the next time a party leader comes along who wants the same, who threatens the status quo, they too will be vilified by the media. When are we going to wake up?

If you appreciate what we do at Council Estate Voices, even the most modest of donations or subscriptions can help us massively and enable us to continue our work.

Please click the button to donate
Thank you for your support

Wednesday, 16 September 2020

BREAKING: Northeast Under Lockdown From Friday

Health Minister Nadine Dorries has met with 22 MPs from the northeast of England to discuss lockdown in the region which has faced its largest rate of Covid-19 infections since May. It is understood that lockdown measures will be announced on Thursday and imposed on Friday in Newcastle, North Tyneside, South Tyneside, Gateshead, County Durham, and Northumberland.

The planned measures include:

  • 10pm curfew on pubs, restaurants & other licensed venues
  • A ban on socialising with anyone from another household
  • Public transport & car sharing discouraged at peak times
  • Only essential visitors allowed into care homes
  • No holidaying with people from other households
  • No attending sports games

So all in all, another set of measures which will have about as much effect as the pointless rule of six. Of course, when infection rates continue to rise from the government's failure to properly lockdown, they're going to say it's our fault again for not following the new rules. Marvellous.

If you appreciate what we do at Council Estate Voices, even the most modest of donations or subscriptions can help us massively and enable us to continue our work.

Donations are hugely appreciated
Thank you for your support

Tuesday, 15 September 2020

Tory MPs Vote to Break the Law & the PM Seems at Death's Door

Last night 340 Tory MPs voted to break international law by backing the shambolic Internal Markets Bill which would throw the Prime Minister's "oven-ready" Brexit deal in the bin. That would be the Brexit deal Johnson forced his MPs to vote for in December, sacking rebels in the process, before changing his mind when reality hit home. What a complete joke.

The Prime Minister was savaged by Ed Miliband who demonstrated he's far better at leading the opposition than Mr Brylcreem, Sir Keir Starmer, and given how poorly Miliband performed in 2015, this does not bode well for Labour, but that's another story.

Johnson, clearly in the grip of "long Covid", ravaged and disoriented by post-viral fatigue, was only only able to gawp like a drooling, barely-sentient zombie of a PM whose vocabulary does not extend beyond flatulence, grunts, and hysterical soundbites as Ed Miliband pointed out: "Either he wasn't straight with the country about the deal in the first place or he didn't understand it."

In all fairness, Johnson probably never read his oven-ready Brexit deal - he just wanted to play Prime Minister and be Brexit hero, maybe even get his pale, clammy, flustered face on a bank note. Brexit was supposed to be his Churchillian moment, but however this transpires, the history books will remember a shambles of leadership through not one, but several national crises, a man who really should've been on his sick bed and would've been out of his depth even in good health, let alone when he looked ready to keel over.

Twenty years from now, Boris Johnson will not only be reviled for the chaos that he is imposing on our nation, but he will be a running joke and people will be aghast we could ever have voted such a man into power. Indeed many of us already are aghast, but we're known as "cranks".

"For the first time in his life it's time for him to take responsibility," Miliband insisted. The mothers of Johnson's many children would advise us not to hold our breath. 

The problem here is that although Miliband's impressive parliamentary performance was an embarrassment for the government, that's all it really was, and it will likely make no difference. The Tories will most probably get their way and court action now offers the most realistic hope of stopping them. Nicola Sturgeon is understood to be looking very closely at this option, but ultimately her goal is a clean break from this joke of a union - and who can blame her? If I was Scottish, I'd want to be well shot too.

A Threat to an Already Flawed Democracy

The Internal Markets Bill would give ministers the power to change aspects of the legally-binding EU Withdrawal Agreement whenever they want, in other words ignoring rules already enshrined in law. Combine this with their efforts to criminalise protest and move towards mass surveillance and we are looking at serious threats to an already flawed democracy, although not necessarily Johnson dictatorship. I'm not sure the PM can be bothered and will probably hand the reins over to human-worm hybrid Michael Gove at some point, if Gove doesn't knife him in the back first.

Only a fool or someone who has never read a history book would discount the possibility of Tory dictatorship, or at the very least, a severely compromised form of democracy. Indeed, some might argue we are living in an oligarchy right now in which the public only have a vague influence on the future direction of our country. Britain certainly falls short of being a full democracy, which is why we have a woman in Buckingham Palace who does nothing for a living and wears a £4 million hat.

The right wing always grab as much power as they can, usually in the name of "national security" or the "will of the people" and right now, they are probing our flawed democracy for weak spots at every opportunity, but sadly, the leader of the opposition is much too polite to point this out. It is, of course, much more important for the leader of a socialist party to stop the rise of socialism - and Sir Keir is doing an admirable job in that regard - he really is earning his knighthood.

Only two Tory MPs - Sir Roger Gale and Andrew Percy - voted against the Internal Markets Bill, but I refuse to heap praise on the pair for even a microsecond. They are Tories, after all, and call me cynical, but whatever their motivations, I seriously doubt the national interest was among them. Tories always look out for themselves, so no, Gale and Percy are not heroes, not in my view. They're just two Tories who happen to be on the right side of a vote for a change.

Last night, Johnson could easily have been mistaken for heavily-inebriated, rather than stupefied by panic and ill-health, and the unmistakable look of terror in his eyes, like a rabbit in the headlights as Miliband's truth bombs raced towards him, suggested part of him wants to be gently put out his misery, rather than see his reputation splattered on the tarmac by reality.

Johnson knows he's out of his depth, but alas, the Prime Minister has dug himself into a hole even the ever-supportive Rupert Murdoch would struggle to dig him out of. He will haemorrhage support after this, and a further power grab may well be the only way he can hold onto power, if he truly wants to keep it. But I suspect he'd far rather jet off to Mustique with his latest mistress and let Cummings do the work, and this may well be the plan actually.

There is a decent chance Johnson will not be in charge for the 2024 general election, but don't doubt for one second the Tories will somehow replace him with worse - after all, they are on a decade-long roll. Following the incompetent Cameron and emotionless Maybot, they somehow managed to find even worse in cuddly Boris and they will certainly find worse again, even though we appear to have the worst possible representative out of 66.65 million people. 

I'm unsure even Michael Gove could surpass Boris Johnson's awfulness, but unless he's up to that job, his party will quickly look elsewhere for their next calamity. Fuck, I'm half-expecting them to drag Thatcher from her throne room in hell and put her shambling corpse in charge of the post-Brexit, super-pandemic apocalypse. I look forward to her deregulating the rat meat industry and privatising breathable air.

If Johnson passes his disastrous Internal Markets Bill (and he probably will), then he will shatter our international reputation, but he knows his "oven-ready" Brexit deal was a threat to the union and completely unworkable, being so foul, rancid and chlorine-drenched that not even a government as undignified and immoral as this one could continue to pretend otherwise. 

Johnson could easily be remembered as the prime minister who ended peace in Northern Ireland or broke up the United Kingdom, and could plausibly be remembered as both, but on the plus side, he may well cement his party's grip on little England and keep the Tories in power indefinitely. It's just there won't be much left that's worth ruling over and he probably won't stick around to clean up his mess. Britain is now an undeveloping country.

The PM's only other option (apart from resignation) is to admit the only workable Brexit is the one proposed by Jeremy Corbyn in 2019 which he pretended would be so terrible. That would be the same Brexit the Starmerists and Lib Dems ensured did not happen because they did not want Corbyn to become interim PM. Of course, centrists would now jump at the chance to pass that bill, but they felt the peace-loving jam maker posed more of a threat to the nation than Tory dictatorship. The centrists own this mess too. 

Only the First Hurdle

It's barely worth mentioning, 30 other Tory MPs (or as I call them, cowards) abstained on last night's vote. They lacked the courage of their convictions and sat back as the Prime Minister's buffoonery began shredding what remains of our international reputation. However, it's worth pointing out this was just the first hurdle for the bill and Parliament will look at it again, next Tuesday, meaning there is the tiny possibility of abstainers finding their backbone and either forcing amendments or voting against the bill. I'm not holding my breath that they'll make the slightest difference though, especially given MPs voted against a Labour amendment to reject the bill entirely. Clearly they want this one to pass more or less as it stands. 

If I can grudgingly give credit to the woeful Boris Johnson (or more likely Dominic Cummings) for one thing, it's that he takes no nonsense. He reminds his MPs they are supposed to be soulless, bloodsucking parasites whose sole purpose of existence is to asset strip the nation, and if they hesitate, not to save their people but their own political reputations, he simply sacks them, just like he sacked Winston Churchill's grandson, Nicholas Soames, last December. Of course, he welcomes them back with their tails between their legs if they agree to toe the line in future. He still needs their support for now.

In some regards, the Johnson-Cummings monstrosity makes an effective dictatorial double-act, and I'd be lying if I denied wishing Corbyn had shown the same ruthlessness towards Labour rebels back in 2019. If he had, we might not be sliding into neo-fascism; our Tory masters aided and abetted by forensic non-opposition from a knight of the realm. Wouldn't that be nice?

If you appreciate what we do at Council Estate Voices, even the most modest of donations or subscriptions can help us massively and enable us to continue our work.

Donations are hugely appreciated
Thank you for your support

Friday, 11 September 2020

BREAKING: Britain's R Number Now Officially at 1.7 - Second Wave in Full Swing

It has been announced that Britain's R number is now at 1.7 and infections are doubling once every 8 days. It's fair to say the second wave of Covid-19 is now in full swing to the surprise of absolutely no-one.

356 schools saw outbreaks of Covid in the first week of reopening with pupils being sent home just days after their return. Doctors have been unable to work because they can't access tests, and farcically, Health Secretary Matt Hancock has blamed the lack of tests on too many people using them! The whole situation is a shambles and the government really needs to admit it got schools reopening wrong and U-turn, otherwise many more people are going to die.

In the most recent study, 150,000 people were randomly tested and of those, 136 came back positive, meaning 9.1 out of every 10,000 people (around 50-60,000 in total) are currently infected and unaware. I understand these tests were done on people who mostly had no idea they were infected and therefore spreading the illness around public places.

Researchers point out all age groups are showing rises in infections, not just the young as the government has suggested. Winter is always the worst time of year for respiratory infections so those numbers are surely set to climb further without immediate action. And that action must surely be more convincing than banning visits from Grandma or blaming youths for not following your guidelines after you drove to Barnard Castle. 

One of Britain's top scientific advisers stated our response in the next 6-8 weeks will be crucial in what kind of winter we have. The problem is if the Prime Minister U-turns now, he will come under huge pressure to resign and Johnson is not one for facing up to responsibility (just ask his kids), but the longer he delays, the worse things will get. Johnson will not be able to use the excuse from the start of the pandemic of this being an unexpected crisis because we've had 6 months to learn and we know what must be done.

Germany has extended its furlough scheme until the end of 2021, but ours is set to end in just six weeks. It really is no exaggeration to say Britain is on the brink of disaster, and if you doubt that for one second, just imagine what will happen when we throw No Deal into the mix.

We need to look at full lockdown for the next 6 weeks to get this situation back under control. Last time we entered lockdown too late and it gave us the worst first wave in Europe. Do we really want to be the country that also has the worst second wave?

If you appreciate what we do at Council Estate Voices, even the most modest of donations or subscriptions can help us massively and enable us to continue our work.

Donations are hugely appreciated
Thank you for your support

Should Boris Johnson Resign for Breaching the Ministerial Code?

Boris Johnson's Internal Markets bill which would modify Britain's Brexit plan is illegal under international law, as admitted by Secretary of State Brandon Lewis in Parliament. 

There is a small problem here: breaking the law or calling for a breaking of the law is a breach of the Ministerial Code, and any minister guilty of such a breach is obligated to resign.

Here is what the Ministerial Code says:

1.3 The Ministerial Code should be read against the background of the overarching duty on Ministers to comply with the law and to protect the integrity of public life. 

There is however one flaw with the enforcement of the Ministerial Code which is as follows:

1.4 It is not the role of the Cabinet Secretary or other officials to enforce the Code. If there is an allegation about a breach of the Code, and the Prime Minister, having consulted the Cabinet Secretary, feels that it warrants further investigation, he may ask the Cabinet Office to investigate the facts of the case and/or refer the matter to the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests. 

It is the role of the Prime Minister to refer himself and other ministers for investigation, and somehow I can't see the man who has treated the law with contempt since the day he tried to overrule sovereignty of Parliament to force through No Deal holding himself to account. This would be yet another example of how our democratic processes can be farcical and open to abuse from would-be dictators. 

Here's the thing: there is no need for an investigation from the Cabinet Office. Boris Johnson and his Ministers are openly calling for a breaking of the law which would devastate the UK's international reputation, and if they had any integrity, they would resign. 

You would think this shitshow would provide the perfect opportunity for the leader of the opposition to demand heads, and yet Sir Keir's words on the matter have been less scathing than those of Theresa May and John Major! Indeed, it seems the beige one only said anything at all to save himself the embarrassment of being overshadowed by the former Tory Prime Ministers in his role of actually opposing.

You would also think remainers would be apoplectic with rage that Remain's saviour, Mr Meaningful Opposition is so limply watching the government lead us into the worst kind of Brexit. A worst of all worlds scenario. A complete and utter mess. And yet most of the people who decided Jeremy Corbyn wasn't remainy enough seem almost indifferent!

Britain is sleep-walking into neo-fascism, into an era where the law doesn't apply and human rights can be trampled over and Britain's international reputation is shattered, and centrists are going to be utterly complicit, as they've always been throughout history. 

If the so-called opposition won't call for the Prime Minister's resignation, we surely must for the sake of all our futures.

If you appreciate what we do at Council Estate Voices, even the most modest of donations or subscriptions can help us massively and enable us to continue our work.

Donations are hugely appreciated
Thank you for your support