CRUELTY EXPOSED: The Moral Vacuum of Starmer the Kid Starver's Labour

Right, so Wes Streeting has this morning reminded us he’s a rancid little liar jumping to Keir Starmer’s tune as he chose to defend why Labour will not scrap the cruel poverty imposing two child benefit cap. You see, when it comes to national spending, how an elected government chooses to use public money, our money, this always comes down to a matter of choice. Dishonest politicians, dishonest parties will always make the claim that there is no money left, when the truth of the matter is, they can spend as much as they choose to create. We live in a country that controls it’s own currency and the means of production of it. If you print too much that can stoke inflation, but that is what taxation is for. So called taxpayers money doesn’t pay for anything, it’s simply a brake on inflation by taking money out of the economy as the government puts more in to it, so quite clearly when a politician says there is no money left, it simply isn’t true. When a politician says another party will bankrupt the country, it simply isn’t true and when Wes Streeting says combatting child poverty by scrapping this cruel tory device that even Suella Braverman says needs to go now, that is a political choice and a decision Labour are choosing to make. So what makes them any better than the Tories who introduced it?
Right, so that was Wes Streeting, Keir Starmer’s health minion being rolled out on the Sunday morning media rounds, talking to the Trevor Phillips on Sky and first off, if you’re the sort of person who decides to bring up child poverty by invoking the Archbishop of Canterbury, inferring him calling for all parties to scrap it is none of his business and he should be more concerned with getting people into church on a Sunday morning, then you have no intentions of seriously broaching this subject, what an appalling excuse for a human being you are. No wonder Starmer welcomed him back into the party, no investigation required after Phillips was suspended over alleged Islamophobia, but Streeting, although not choosing to attack the Archbishop on a Sunday morning, he actually defended his right to virtue signal he called it – his job isn’t to virtue signal, it’s to appeal to the likes of you and try to find a sliver of humanity – subsequently lapped up the cue to be able to say well we are committee to reducing child poverty, whist not saying how and when pushed on this comment by the Archbishop and Streeting’s defence of him as to whether he would be saying yes to him, Streeting ended up stating in no uncertain terms Labour will be keeping child poverty, because Labour can’t fund it. That is what this amounts to. No semblance of an impartial lead up into this question, some hand-wringing and then an admission that Tory policy that has driven up child poverty and failed to get more people into work will actually be staying because, well we can’t afford to fix anything, the Tories have wrecked the economy. This is exactly what the Tories were saying about Labour in 2010, they fixed nothing except to set fire to public services, drive all of our bills up, inflict 14 years of hardship upon those with the least in the name of there being no money left and yet here is Labour now under Keir Starmer, saying exactly the same thing now about the Tories. At what point do you choose to make a different choice, because that is what it comes down to.
This country was blown to hell during WWII and we weren’t told there was no money left then to put things back together were we? We were in a far worse financial situation, back then, but different choices were made. Attlee decided that under-consumption rather than over-production were the causes of economic collapse previously, and therefore embarked on a mission pushing for public ownership and wealth redistribution. He raised pensions, created social security, wages went up, sick leave was increased, encouraging more people back into work, all whilst restricting prices and restricting rent. Fully 20% of British industry was under public ownership, including mining, electricity, gas, steel and rail. Subsidised public housing came on offer, loans for housing were increased, all led to a million new homes being built. New nursery schools, university scholarships, free school meals, free education, increased teachers wages. The creation of the NHS is undoubtedly what this government is best remembered for and I’ve skipped loads, because this is I’ve used as an example of what is possible, what can be done by a government with the will to do it and Starmer’s Labour have none. Attlee did all of this and more in just 6 years, a single parliament basically, because the money is always there at the end of the day to do it with. There’s just no intention on Labour’s part to do it.
On one part it comes down to the fact Starmer is a coward. He is afraid of bad press, he is afraid of Tory criticism, he is afraid that that criticism might jeopardise his chances of getting into power. So instead of promising pretty much anything, he chooses to tinker, to mildly change things that the Tories have done, and is therefore as a result so similar to the Tories in what he says he stands for, on what he puts on offer, that there is barely any discernible difference between the two parties. It is because he is constantly chasing this position of not giving the Tories any clear water between the two main parties, that he has also ended up in the ridiculous position of constantly being exposed as breaking his promises to the country. What the Tories think of him and his promises seems to matter more to Starmer than what the country actually does, it is what has prompted his pursuit of Tory voters too, under the Mandelson assumption that Labour voters and those on the left will still back Labour with nowhere else to go. Well they are going. Labour councillors continue to quit seemingly on a daily basis up and down the country, refusing to be sullied by this disgrace of what passes for their former party, members have gone as well in droves, both willingly or been pushed out as they choose to voice dissent and well, that can’t be allowed.
But allowing kids to remain in poverty? As much as the national focus appears to be much more on the likes of Israel and Gaza and the disgust with the Labour Party is focussed on that, to my mind nothing underlines just how nasty a party Labour is than how it chooses to treat those who don’t have a vote, those too young to have a say, because the two child benefit cap is an assault on children and to say you have no money left to deal with this, scrap it, especially when Labour did originally say they would – well it seems Starmer and Co have calculated they needn’t bother because they aren’t likely to lose many Tory voters over this.
To be honest, I think there is an element of doubt in how safe those poll numbers have been making them feel. The local election results showed that actually Starmer isn’t capturing all those Tory votes and he is losing support from the left to other parties or to the multitude of independent candidates springing up around the country, but clearly not enough that they are prepared to leave 250,000 kids in poverty, that lifting this cap would drag them out of.
Coming from Wes Streeting however, this somehow comes across as even worse. This is a guy who grew up in poverty, a single parent household on a council estate, who has spoken of his childhood previously, but this week he was interviewed about all of this by the Independent who gave him a chance to plug his autobiography – God knows who’d buy that – called One Boy, Two Bills and a Fry Up, literally describing the poverty he grew up in, yet now is a politician, a shadow minister in a party, set to inflict more of that on hundreds of thousands of kids. Nothing, nobody exemplifies doing well and pulling the ladder up behind them quite like Wes Streeting does. I’d feel sick to my core to be inflicting the upbringing I had if I’d had it so tough as that on others in the here and now and I certainly don’t claim to have had it as tough as Streeting, despite having grown up through Thatcher’s far too long rule, but in no way, shape or form, would I knowingly accept doing that to others and then going on TV and defending it. All this boils down to is more of Rachel Reeves nonsense, self imposed fiscal rules, to sound sensible on the economy, when all it really means is nothing will change. This is totally affordable if Reeves would tax the rich and allow the freedom to spend more, just look at Rishi Sunak as an example – he’s increased his wealth it’s been announced by £121m, yet paid just £0.5m in tax, a 0.004% tax rate, so it is obvious - but she won’t because she’s a Red Tory, who takes advice from George Osborne and belongs, just her economic plans, in the toilet. She’d rather see kids in poverty, than tax people like Sunak more.
Streeting is an absolute disgrace as well though, who betrays his own background and does so to climb that slippery pole of ambition he’s got. He is therefore amongst the very worst of MPs and very much needs deposing from his seat and there just happens to be a very special young lady who plans to do just that, Leanne Mohamad, a British Palestinian is challenging Streeting for his seat and you can find out all about what makes her such a serious threat to Streeting’s future ambitions in this video recommendation here and I’ll hopefully catch you on the next vid. Cheers folks.