My previous post on McSweeney and Starmer was full of anger towards both. Principally, this is because they have betrayed a zillion solid Labour values. Specifically, they cynically and deliberately weaponised ‘feeling’ against immigrants, in a way that was shamefully reactionary and should have no part in the thinking or activity of any reasonable or progressive political party. (And that particular approach goes on, through the hostile language used in government socials accounts and through Shabana Mahmood’s calculatedly weighted grandstanding on these issues). McSweeney plainly ordered them to shift hard right… Starmer utterly capitulated… and it really stinks.

Interestingly – or not – there’s been a lot of stuff in the political ether around how votes are won or cast because of feeling rather than understanding or fact. So maybe, by roaring my opposition, I’ve just fallen into that Modern Way. Government People (or their advisors) might recommend a ‘time for reflection’ before the issue of an ‘I could do better’ statement: and yes, they might have a point. Calling our Reform-voting friends ‘neanderthals’ was neither wise nor fair. It smacks of pomp and maybe even contempt for The Working Classes. But I can promise you I am not guilty of the latter: I just really don’t like racism.

The fella Ratcliffe’s recent intervention makes it clear that people *do have* opinions about immigration. But I would argue that most of these opinions are either racist to their core, or those propounding such notions have been coached towards xenophobia (+) by (what I would view as) our appalling and bigoted press. Ratcliffe is a special (and an especially foul) case because of his obscene wealth. Private-jetting-it waaay above all economic plight and yet scapegoating the most vulnerable. On the one hand to further empower and bejewel himself, and on the other out of sheer and obvious prejudice. Find your own four-letter word.

Starmer has, I believe, *actually called-out* Ratcliffe over his offensive, Reformist nonsense. Hoo-rah! Tiny steps?

I wrote in my last blog that I cannot abide the Prime Minister, for his spinelessness and the HUGE (MORAL) FAILURES around immigration/Gaza/abetting Trump/Mandelson/Palantir etc etc. For the general failure to bring back honesty and decency. Finding ourselves with this or any Labour leader being even remotely in the frame of comparison with Johnson for duplicity and corruption is an astonishing failure for a party predicated upon social justice.

Starmer is not as wildly amoral as Johnson. And he palpably doesn’t drive agendas in the way Alexander Boris de Pfeffel did. But the more we find out the more it seems that his failures of judgement have been contingent upon being ‘won over’ by lobbyists, influencers or multinationals.

Weirdly, I think maybe Starmer should stay – for now. There is merit in those making ‘politically-mature’ arguments around both the unfairness of coverage of Labour – no question! – and the need for ‘some stability’. Give the PM a little time… but don’t necessarily forgive, or forget. Despite his feeble protestations, he is not a Labour Man – or perhaps more exactly, he has drifted, shockingly but perhaps not surprisingly, from core, progressive views. (As I write this I can hear the voices calling out from the List of Good Things ticked-off, which I acknowledge. But you know as well as I do that Blue Labour is not Labour and not right).

So. In the face of billionaire ignoramuses, a mostly diabolical media and a Labour government absconding from the very decencies it was founded for and upon, what’s the point? Where do we go or look? In terms of voting (obvs), we get tactical. In terms of political philosophy, surely we either literally follow Polanski and the Greens, or we follow what they do with interest and maybe even some hope.

Zack Polanski has barely put a foot wrong, since becoming leader of his party. He is bold and real and he cuts the bullshit. He has been overwhelmingly right on immigration, Gaza, Trump and the whole repulsive White Supremacist Project – so across Musk, Thiel, Bannon and the rest. He is all over the Epstein thing and all over the umbilical links between that and the privileged, untouchable few. At home he has been in a different league in terms of compelling narratives and calling-out the economic injustices and imbalances the Labour Party was set up to address. He is killing it on necessary monopolies and progressive state intervention. His plausibility, manner and willingness to speak are different league. The Powers That Be – and they really are out there – will be looking to crush him. Don’t let them.