Written By:
- Date published:
8:36 pm, June 23rd, 2026 - 52 comments
Categories: Abuse of power, Austerity, Brexit, community democracy, Deep stuff, defence, democracy under attack, Dirty Politics, FiveEyes, Jeremy Corbyn, Keir Starmer, Left, Peace, Peace, social democracy, socialism, Spying, uk politics, workers' rights, Zionism -
Tags:
An MI6 plant in my opinion. A hollow man, deeply duplicitous, a Zionist warmonger whose only job was to expunge the Labour left. He will not be missed or regretted.
I’ve written enough about him here and here. All of it is vindicated. MI6 and Mossad plots have failed, his chief plotter McSweeney has been discarded, and the constant calls for “Coalitions of the Wailing” fallen flat.
The losers are the ordinary citizens of the Disunited Kingdom. They have been betrayed.
In the words of the famous John O’Rourke novel of UK Labour in the eighties, “Things can only get Better.” Hope so.
An alternative view is worth considering… https://unherd.com/2026/06/dont-shed-tears-for-keir/
So I'll go for the victim of system thesis. He may have the venality Mike sees, but I never saw evidence of that in his biography, and it featured ample evidence of authenticity re class origin, character, etc. Folks have been encultured by education to discount the influence of social systems, causing mental enfeeblement in many. Best to get a grip on the thing or you'll be a sitting duck victim in waiting…
Job done by Sir Rodney and his handlers. Have a rest and await further instructions from the back bench.
He was a total bastard towards disabled people too.
(maybe not a MSM link, but summarises the situation very well).
https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2026/06/23/starmer-worse-than-the-tories/
Re things can only get better, hearing the Brits starting to talk about electoral reform is probably one of the more promising things going on at the moment.
I agree. It seems a huge shift to have serious consideration of a move away from FPP at Westminster.
You would hope so. It’s completely nuts that at the last election Labor won just over a third of the vote and have a huge majority. The same if at the next election Reform wins 30% and gets a majority.
When the left can't hold their nerve and would rather practise the same foolish Robespierre-like guillotining of leadership as the Conservatives, they are no longer fit to govern or even comment on governing.
It would only have taken another year to see some of the big moves happen.
Were you not paying attention to Starmer's party policies? The left wing of the Labour party was completely evicted from the party. That's what the whole Morgan McSweeney undeclared donations scandal was about.
Far more interesting to see what they have delivered. None other than commentariat care about Morgan McSweeney.
And of course everyone points to the policy reversals like no other government in the entire OECD doesn't do policy reversals.
Schoolchildren get breakfasts by the million that they never used to.
Massive offshore wind farms are funded and construction underway. Thank the new entity Great British Energy.
Millions extra NHS health appointments, and waiting times starting to come down.
Consistent decreases in crime, with an updating of the Crime and Policing Act.
Well on the way to nationalising Thames Water.
Consistently held out against Trump, and supported NATO allies, as well as controlling Defence costs. And it was great to see his Defence Minister resign for not getting what he wants.
Again against Trump, secured a much more favourable trade deal than most others when Trumps 2025 trade team were on meth.
And of course the Border Security Command to address the real unease about undocumented migration.
If the left keep eating their own leaders like the Conservatives as they did with Corbyn, they will appear as the same cannabilistic grunts as the Conservatives.
Regardless of that (and if you have been paying way too much attention to party marketing) you can hardly accuse even the Labour left of generating this outcome can you, they were evicted, they are no longer there. The actual cause of Starmer's eviction (by his cabinet) is the flow of people towards other parties and probably some plotting within cabinet and a few scandals resulting from dishonest people Starmer decided to worked with.
Yes that's the typical commentariat response to keep feeding slop into the media churn like it was going to create dinner.
Unless UK Labor or any other non-loonie party can successfully tell the story of actual policy delivery, Andy Burnham will join the heads on the platter lined up like the last 6.
If you can't connect evicting people (especially the long-term members) from the Labour party, overriding membership on policy and doing regular U-turns on campaign promises, to people joining (and unions switching funding to) other parties then you are completely clueless.
Yes, Burnham will have to lead much better on the same or the rot will continue.
If you can't discern the actual results of implementation then – distinct from intra-party nonsense – you have no idea how actual politics works at all.
The sacking of Starmer by his caucus must be pretty bewildering to you. It's my recon that the "intra-party" nonsense (leading to bleeding voters in every other direction) is relevant here, but who knows maybe they have another reason.
Enabling and supporting genocide – the crime of our lifetime – is unforgivable and puts a giant asterisk against all the above.
Which isn't to say I have any high hopes for Burnham on that front.
https://novaramedia.com/2026/06/05/andy-burnham-declines-to-call-israels-mass-killings-in-gaza-a-genocide/
Don't expect anything different from Burnham. Check his Israel record.
There's also this:
Clegg's quote could be good for Burnham's tombstone, eh?
More good bits from https://unherd.com/2026/06/the-great-labour-brain-drain/
It ought to be a political question. A share of a pie is always negotiable – just depends who has proximal interest in it…
Acerbic analysis is cool but politicians are meant to be all to all like that, as per the design of democracy. Systems constrain users, behaviourally. His apocalyptic vision seems resonant, and the tetrad he cites has biblical power via analogy, but business- friendly socialism was a viable model back when they were less obviously parasitical.
"Enabling and supporting genocide – the crime of our lifetime – is unforgivable and puts a giant asterisk against all the above."
Phew, good job no-one in Labour's doing that, then (with the exception of Labour's Hamas supporters, of course, but they're a lot less influential now Corbyn's gone).
Why is the bar, for enabling and supporting genocide, that low when it is pro Palestine (supporting Hamas and resort to violence to liberate Palestine)?
Removing pro Palestine state opine from left wing parties, is not a left wing policy. It is the policy of the USA.
Personally I would associate Israeli policy in Gaza and West Bank, with war crimes to realise an ambition for ethnic cleansing. This by forced migration (including driving people from Area B and C into Area A and incarceration for resistance).
It's not low in either case. Claims of Israel intending a genocide are comically wrong, as demonstrated by the low civilian death rate in a war that's destroyed most of Gaza. Hamas, on the other hand, wrote genocide into its charter and the fact that it's having difficulty carrying out that declared intent is only because it lacks sufficient means.
Yes, the extent of the destruction is evidence of collective punishment of the people with the intent of ethnic cleansing.
What words indicate that?
Their charter calls for the destruction of Israel. Even worse in one of the articles of their charter it calls for Muslims to fight and kill all Jews.
https://www.broaderview.org/files/classes/HamasCovenant.pdf
So does Iran and 5 Arab armies tried to do this in 1948.
To reflect the status quo one should note the 2017 Charter.
AI summary
A critical analysis
https://jij.org/news/new-hamas-charter/
Is this separate from quoting the Koran?
The Christian bible talks of their God mass murdering most of humanity at the end time.
Your attempts to explain away the explicit genocidal intent written into Hamas' charter are instructive.
Really?
Quote it then. Is that too hard?
I didn't bother because thebiggestfish7 already provided a link. The question is why weren't you aware of this already?
The Hamas charter says:
"Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors."
"The [end] time(16) will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: 0 Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad(17), which is a Jewish tree (cited by Bukhari and Muslim)(18)."
"[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement."
I asked you for a quote from it.
Strawman like misrepresentation, inferring ignorance simply because of a request for citation.
Was he, or you, aware of the 2017 revision?
The former Charter says – be accurate.
It is a quote from a hadith.
Not in the 2017 version, because that involves Hamas agreeing to a Palestine state alongside Israel.
Keep up with developments.
I'm aware that they issued a version minus all the Jew-murdering and peace-rejecting in 2017, after their marketers warned them their charter was making Hamas a hard sell to useful idiots in western countries, yes. I'm also aware that Hamas' leadership doesn't accept that the 2017 revokes any of the 1988 charter.
“I’m also aware that Hamas’ leadership doesn’t accept that the 2017 revokes any of the 1988 charter.”
What’s the based on?
Did your Hasbara handler tell you this recently?
https://www.reuters.com/article/world/leading-hamas-official-says-no-softened-stance-toward-israel-idUSKBN1862O4/
from 2017. Is there anything more recent? And broader than one person.
I have zero problem accepting that there are genocidial maniacs in Hamas as well as Israel. But th claim was “I’m also aware that Hamas’ leadership doesn’t accept that the 2017 revokes any of the 1988 charter”, which might be better represented as “one of Hamas’ leaders in 2017 said they still don’t accept Israel as legitimate and believe in in the original charter”.
I’m pushing on that because I want to know who allows for change. If you think Hamas are irredeemable, then they should be driven out? (the same applies to those who think Israel is wholly in the wrong)
Reuters
The 2017 Charter was announced by the outgoing leader Meshaal
A senior figure without authority to do so made claims to rationalise it all.
Why?
1.It had already run in elections based on the Oslo Accord peace process back in 2006 (so there went their 1988 Charter virtue – as a ruse to get governance standing in Gaza via the PA election).
2.It did not want to be an obstacle in the way of Fatah getting their "West Bank" state.
3.It wanted to be like Hezbollah, within an Arab state, but fighting Israel from their area of it (Gaza).
This is why Israel wants control of the greater borders with any West Bank peace – Jordan Valley etc.
Gaza they could quarantine.
4.Islamic state virtue, Hamas and Hezbollah as jihadist fronts of IRGC Iran.
Thus 2017, in accord with 1988 ambition.
No not so. There is now no reference to the hadith and the stated point, is they oppose Zionism, not the Jewish people.
Minto holds the same position, believing in a unitary state with an Arab majority. He ties the issue to apartheid.
https://www.sittingonthefence.tv/
The argument is one from outside of international law (given the UN membership of Israel). Israel's defence is compliance with international law, not settlement of occupied land and making de facto sovereignty claims over the West Bank in the Knesset.
The rhetorical efforts people will undertake to try and explain away Hamas' explicitly declared genocidal intent and activities to fulfil that declared intent, while painting Israeli involvement in wars it didn't either want or start as "genocide" is really quite something.
An outright lie.
The sly use of "quotes" is I suppose a form of admission.
Provide evidence, or confess to lying.
You argued the case of there being no change in their position, I explained what the change was.
Your inability to mount a reasoned case, but just cling to your singular narrative is what hasbara is reduced to. Why, because it is based on a deliberate policy of inhumanity to another, as a goal and as a method.
Ben Gurion at least understood that would be the case.
"…the extent of the destruction is evidence of…" Hamas' refusal to surrender, its unconcern at its continued pursuit of war resulting in complete destruction of its territory, and its participation in the destruction of that territory via rigging buildings with explosives.
Probably a banning offence to claim Hamas rigs Gaza buildings with explosives with zero evidence.
This is most of the problem currently, Israeli supremacists can say what they like with no accountability whatsoever.
Including on this forum.
The complete destruction of a territory is a war crime.
And perhaps one day Hamas will be held to account for it, but don't hold your breath.
Are you now claiming that Hamas should be held accountable for IDF destruction of Gaza?
Well, no-one else is responsible for the war or its consequences. The IDF certainly didn't ask Hamas to invade Israel, or to continue fighting to no purpose, or to build military facilities under residences and infrastructure, or to plant explosives all over the place.
One wonders if the German defence for the destruction of the Warsaw ghetto was that not all Jews were willing to leave and those left began to resist.
Jesus wept. What a cesspit of smug, self-satisfied mutual back-patting this thread is.
Rather than throwing around conspiracy theories, rehearsing factional grievances, and dancing on the man's political grave, perhaps people could apply some of the political sense they supposedly possess and ask a few harder questions:
At the end of the day, Starmer achieved something Jeremy Corbyn never did: he held together a deeply fractured, factional, exhausted Labour Party long enough to win an election and form a government.
You may dislike how he did it. You may dislike what happened afterwards. You may think he ultimately failed.
But if your explanation for his rise and fall begins and ends with "traitors", "spies", "Zionists", and "sell-outs", then you're not doing political analysis.
A more pertinent question might be my the UK has had (or about to have) 7 leaders in the last 10 years
cough Brexit cough
But yes; also a reasonable question to ask.
You may ask why UK Labour keeps white anting any resurgance of a "Left wing"?
Though, they are not alone in that.
Because the Labour left had its chance.
You can theorise all you want, but there is one real datapoint that matters for Corbynism: the 2019 election result.
That was the moment the project had to prove it could turn enthusiasm, rallies, slogans, and claims of authenticity into a governing majority.
It didn't.
You can blame the media, Brexit, internal sabotage, factional hostility, or the wider establishment. Some of those factors may even have mattered.
But politics is not graded on effort, purity, or good intentions. It is graded on whether you can persuade enough voters to let you govern in the political environment that actually exists, not the one you wish existed.
The electorate does not award bonus points for being right. It awards power to those who can assemble a majority.
In 2019, Corbynism failed that test.
Everything that happened afterwards, including Labour's determination not to return to that model, flows from that fact.
Yeah, that was how I saw it. As an outsider, the left has always impressed me via lack of unity. Sub-tribes seem keener to pull apart than together. As a political ecosystem, its biodiversity is often vigorous. As a method of exerting political influence, it has usually struck me as too bland to take seriously, but I do find its innate tendency to become dysfunctional quite entertaining much of the time.
The Orwellian truth promoted to see off the left from governance.
Corbynism did not fail in 2019, the Labour Party centre-right and its UK media partners sabotaged it.
The Labour Party does the same thing to the left here – in its dismissal of an estate tax.
The Tory Party governs with an estate tax, so does the GOP (2/3rd of the OECD).
This is where it sits on the spectrum.
An MI6 plant…….Smoking a bit of the good stuff a little too much I think haha
An MI6 plant on a Five Eyes Planet, but the petrodollar component of empire is under some stress.
Little wonder the Seven Sisters are not happy.
What would the Abu Naft do?
Advise $300B invested in Iran, if they allow S of H use?