Keir Starmer: he’s not left-wing but he’s definitely sinister.

Take a look at this prediction on the date and outcome of the next general election:

Personally, I think autumn might be leaving it late and we might get a spring GE, at the same time as the locals. This would save Rishi Sunak from a “lame duck” summer that could harm Tory chances at the Westminster elections even more than his premiership already has.

The prediction that Labour will go on to form a government, if accurate, heralds disaster for the UK and everyone in it, though. We would just be swapping one gang of hard-right headbangers, hell-bent on robbing the poor to fatten the rich, for another.

Voters who want to support Keir Starmer seem to be doing it on the basis of a daydream, as laid out by ‘Barney’, below:

John Holman’s response tells us exactly why any hope that Labour will move back to the left in government is forlorn: Starmer will simply say that he must honour his (right-wing) manifesto promises because that’s what voters have endorsed.

He won’t mention the fact that nobody in the Labour leadership will have given any of us, including rank-and-file part members, a chance to choose which policies should be in the manifesto in the first place.

Nor will he admit that all of Labour’s policies for the next government will have been chosen on the basis that they will win support – and donations – for Starmer and his cronies from the very rich and powerful elites of the UK, or will line their pockets in other ways. That would show that he has made his party just like the Tories.

He will keep quiet about those facts – which This Writer is sure will become self-evident to those of us with enquiring minds – because it suits him to permit the majority of voters to carry on as ‘BanAllHunting’, below, suggests:

That’s about the size of it. Without any evidence at all, people have persuaded themselves that, because he leads an organisation that still calls itself “Labour” and operates under a red banner, Starmer is their left-wing Messiah.

The actual evidence suggests otherwise. Look at the way he responds to Susanna Reid’s probing about the two-child benefit cap, here:

Confronted with what she describes as “a very unpleasant nickname” – Sir Kid Starver – he doesn’t acknowledge or respond to it – and certainly doesn’t deny it.

All he says is that his party will have an “anti-poverty strategy”, just like Tony Blair’s New Labour government did.

But it will be without any funding, apparently.

So you can see that, under even the slightest scrutiny, any claim that Starmer will create any real and lasting improvement simply falls apart.

The absolute tragedy of all this is that, deprived of this fantasy, Labour tribalists will fall back on the old falsehood that anybody who doesn’t support Labour is a “Tory enabler”. That might be effective if Starmer’s Labour had any policies to distinguish it from the Tories, but it doesn’t.

In real terms, you’re a Tory enabler if you vote either Labour or Conservative.

The only way to break this deadlock is to find someone else to support, and there is a really easy way to do this.

You simply look up the other political parties operating in your constituency, plus an independents who may be around, and find out what their policies are.

Then you choose a candidate or party to support. This will be whoever has the most policies that correspond with what you want.

And then you vote for them.

Unless you are a hard-right headbanger, hell-bent on robbing the poor to fatten the rich, that is the only sane course of action in the UK, at this time.

Why on Earth would you vote in a party with policies you don’t want, that will do things that won’t help? That’s self-harm. Anybody doing it would legitimately need treatment for mental illness.