Bernard Argente: Why on earth for the sake of the country and his own party won’t Starmer just go
This deserves loud pushback.
Bernard Argente writer, student, and parliamentary researcher who assisted Richard Tice and his staff.
“It was the best of times, and it was the worst of times” is the opening line of Charles Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities.
Similarly, the Labour Party appears to be a tale of two Keirs; Keir Hardie founded the Labour Party and Keir Starmer desolated it.
Regarding a comparatively minor scandal to Peter Mandelson and Matthew Doyle, especially with the release of documents that show the PM knew, the Beergate investigation “risks looking like hypocrisy,” Henry Hill posited on GB News three years ago. Now, the Prime Minister has inebriated himself with hypocrisy, and because he lacks the humility to resign or perhaps because he is so intoxicated by hypocrisy that he is unable to effectuate his resignation, his party is going through a political exodus of support.
To have your then chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, who bore a resemblance to Augustus’ political adviser Maecenas, ‘resign’—yes, with quotation marks—is a clear indication of a desperate attempt to save one’s skin.
McSweeney, the figurative ventriloquist that makes puppets speak, had said, “I take full responsibility” regarding the appointment of Lord Mandelson as ambassador to the United States. The mastermind who pioneered the machination to bring Starmer in has become a sacrificial lamb. Sir Chris Wormald, former cabinet secretary, had also been “thrown under the bus,” conceivably because the prime minister had binge-watched Yes Minister and was taking on the persona of Jim Hacker, treating Sir Humphrey Appleby as a scanty prosopopoeia for Wormald.
To put this aside, how does Starmer’s party view the economy? And would Labour’s economic prism be enough to save him?
Well, it is a misnomer to classify Labour’s economic policy as right-wing. Not only would Adam Smith, Friedrich Hayek, and Milton Friedman all be rolling in their graves hearing that, but Starmer has not shifted the Overton window at all. Keir Hardie’s left-wing politics and pacifism made him so unpopular that the British people, sometimes his own constituents in Merthyr Tydfil, sang the national anthem in protest against his stance on the First World War. This clearly wasn’t optimal for the Labour leader. Nevertheless, Keir Hardie founded the party. Keir Starmer, on the other hand, has adopted a radical centrist stance compatible with Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey’s philosophy that aligns with the obsolete Tory doctrine, “one-nation conservatism,” which believes the state has a noblesse oblige to support its people. So, it is understandable how one can misconstrue Keir Starmer’s policy as being right-wing when Starmer could potentially be viewed as an aspirant one-nation Tory, certainly now when his actions mirror those …
This deserves loud pushback.
Bernard Argente writer, student, and parliamentary researcher who assisted Richard Tice and his staff.
“It was the best of times, and it was the worst of times” is the opening line of Charles Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities.
Similarly, the Labour Party appears to be a tale of two Keirs; Keir Hardie founded the Labour Party and Keir Starmer desolated it.
Regarding a comparatively minor scandal to Peter Mandelson and Matthew Doyle, especially with the release of documents that show the PM knew, the Beergate investigation “risks looking like hypocrisy,” Henry Hill posited on GB News three years ago. Now, the Prime Minister has inebriated himself with hypocrisy, and because he lacks the humility to resign or perhaps because he is so intoxicated by hypocrisy that he is unable to effectuate his resignation, his party is going through a political exodus of support.
To have your then chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, who bore a resemblance to Augustus’ political adviser Maecenas, ‘resign’—yes, with quotation marks—is a clear indication of a desperate attempt to save one’s skin.
McSweeney, the figurative ventriloquist that makes puppets speak, had said, “I take full responsibility” regarding the appointment of Lord Mandelson as ambassador to the United States. The mastermind who pioneered the machination to bring Starmer in has become a sacrificial lamb. Sir Chris Wormald, former cabinet secretary, had also been “thrown under the bus,” conceivably because the prime minister had binge-watched Yes Minister and was taking on the persona of Jim Hacker, treating Sir Humphrey Appleby as a scanty prosopopoeia for Wormald.
To put this aside, how does Starmer’s party view the economy? And would Labour’s economic prism be enough to save him?
Well, it is a misnomer to classify Labour’s economic policy as right-wing. Not only would Adam Smith, Friedrich Hayek, and Milton Friedman all be rolling in their graves hearing that, but Starmer has not shifted the Overton window at all. Keir Hardie’s left-wing politics and pacifism made him so unpopular that the British people, sometimes his own constituents in Merthyr Tydfil, sang the national anthem in protest against his stance on the First World War. This clearly wasn’t optimal for the Labour leader. Nevertheless, Keir Hardie founded the party. Keir Starmer, on the other hand, has adopted a radical centrist stance compatible with Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey’s philosophy that aligns with the obsolete Tory doctrine, “one-nation conservatism,” which believes the state has a noblesse oblige to support its people. So, it is understandable how one can misconstrue Keir Starmer’s policy as being right-wing when Starmer could potentially be viewed as an aspirant one-nation Tory, certainly now when his actions mirror those …
Bernard Argente: Why on earth for the sake of the country and his own party won’t Starmer just go
This deserves loud pushback.
Bernard Argente writer, student, and parliamentary researcher who assisted Richard Tice and his staff.
“It was the best of times, and it was the worst of times” is the opening line of Charles Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities.
Similarly, the Labour Party appears to be a tale of two Keirs; Keir Hardie founded the Labour Party and Keir Starmer desolated it.
Regarding a comparatively minor scandal to Peter Mandelson and Matthew Doyle, especially with the release of documents that show the PM knew, the Beergate investigation “risks looking like hypocrisy,” Henry Hill posited on GB News three years ago. Now, the Prime Minister has inebriated himself with hypocrisy, and because he lacks the humility to resign or perhaps because he is so intoxicated by hypocrisy that he is unable to effectuate his resignation, his party is going through a political exodus of support.
To have your then chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, who bore a resemblance to Augustus’ political adviser Maecenas, ‘resign’—yes, with quotation marks—is a clear indication of a desperate attempt to save one’s skin.
McSweeney, the figurative ventriloquist that makes puppets speak, had said, “I take full responsibility” regarding the appointment of Lord Mandelson as ambassador to the United States. The mastermind who pioneered the machination to bring Starmer in has become a sacrificial lamb. Sir Chris Wormald, former cabinet secretary, had also been “thrown under the bus,” conceivably because the prime minister had binge-watched Yes Minister and was taking on the persona of Jim Hacker, treating Sir Humphrey Appleby as a scanty prosopopoeia for Wormald.
To put this aside, how does Starmer’s party view the economy? And would Labour’s economic prism be enough to save him?
Well, it is a misnomer to classify Labour’s economic policy as right-wing. Not only would Adam Smith, Friedrich Hayek, and Milton Friedman all be rolling in their graves hearing that, but Starmer has not shifted the Overton window at all. Keir Hardie’s left-wing politics and pacifism made him so unpopular that the British people, sometimes his own constituents in Merthyr Tydfil, sang the national anthem in protest against his stance on the First World War. This clearly wasn’t optimal for the Labour leader. Nevertheless, Keir Hardie founded the party. Keir Starmer, on the other hand, has adopted a radical centrist stance compatible with Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey’s philosophy that aligns with the obsolete Tory doctrine, “one-nation conservatism,” which believes the state has a noblesse oblige to support its people. So, it is understandable how one can misconstrue Keir Starmer’s policy as being right-wing when Starmer could potentially be viewed as an aspirant one-nation Tory, certainly now when his actions mirror those …
