By the time Keir Starmer entered Downing Street, his ally and donor Waheed Alli had become so much a part of the Labour operation that no one at the top of the party was surprised to see him floating around the building. According to one person who knows both men, however, the millionaire business executive was surprised to find himself there.

“Waheed was an important part of Keir’s team during the election campaign, and so it was felt natural that he should get a pass,” they said. “The thing was, Waheed didn’t really know what he was doing there, so he handed it back.”

 

Alli’s access to Downing Street has come under scrutiny in recent weeks since he used it to help organise a reception for fellow donors in the garden of No 10. Labour says he held the pass to help with “transition work” once the party came into government, though it will not say what that work involved.

The controversy has intensified over the last 48 hours after it emerged Labour may have broken parliamentary rules by not declaring that Alli had donated high-end clothes to Starmer’s wife, Victoria.

The money is part of more than £700,000 the media entrepreneur has donated to the party during his life, about £50,000 of which has come this year. He has recently given clothes and spectacles to Starmer, leading some newspapers to call the controversy “passes for glasses”.

The prime minister defended the donations to his wife on Monday, pointing out his team had proactively approached the parliamentary authorities to find out if they needed to declare the donations.

Labour aides say the money has been essential in helping to present the prime minister and his wife as natural occupants of No 10. “If people are going to comment on what Vic wears every time she goes out, it is natural she wants to look the part,” said one.

Others say the controversy is undermining Starmer’s attempts to portray himself as the model of political probity.

Henry Newman, a former Conservative special adviser, said: “Politics relies on donors but transparency is essential to maintaining trust. No one has explained why Lord Alli had a Downing Street pass, and why he was reportedly allowed to organise a party in the garden.”

Alli did not respond to a request for comment.

This is not the first time Alli has found himself embroiled in a cronyism row. Similar accusations were made when Tony Blair appointed him the youngest ever life peer in 1998, at the age of just 33.

READ MORE:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/sep/16/he-will-hate-this-profile-how-donor-waheed-alli-became-a-labour-fixer

 

READ FROM TOP

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

Moscow has listed 47 countries whose “destructive attitudes” contradict Russian values, opening the path to their nationals to seek asylum in Russia if they so choose.

President Vladimir Putin signed a decree last month allowing foreigners who share Russia’s traditional values and disagree with the “neoliberal”agenda pushed by their own governments to apply for residency. 

On Friday, Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin published the list of countries and territories that “implement policies that impose destructive neoliberal ideological attitudes contradicting traditional Russian spiritual and moral values.”

The list posted on the Russian government portal includes the following countries and territories: Australia, Austria, Albania, Andorra, the Bahamas, Belgium, Bulgaria, the UK, Germany, Greece, Denmark, Ireland, Iceland, Spain, Italy, Canada, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Lichtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Micronesia, Monaco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, South Korea, Romania, San Marino, North Macedonia, Singapore, the US, Taiwan (territory of China), Ukraine, Finland, France, Croatia, Montenegro, the Czech Republic, Switzerland, Sweden, Estonia and Japan.

Notably absent from the list are EU and NATO members Slovakia and Hungary, as well as NATO member Türkiye.

Most of the designated countries previously made the register of “unfriendly” governments, first compiled in the spring of 2021 and updated in 2022. The states on that blacklist are subject to Russian diplomatic and economic countermeasures based on their hostile conduct.

Russia can “offer the world a safe haven for normalcy” by defending traditional values from the “wokeism catastrophe” that has come to dominate the collective West, RT Editor-in-Chief Margarita Simonyan said on Thursday at the Fourth Eurasian Women’s Forum in St. Petersburg.

According to Putin’s edict from August, nationals of “destructive neoliberal” countries are eligible to seek temporary residence in Russia without having to satisfy the standard immigration requirements, such as national quotas, Russian language proficiency, and knowledge of Russian history and laws. 

The plan appears to have originated at a February symposium in Moscow, when Italian student Irene Cecchini presented the idea of “impatriation” to the Russian president. Cecchini urged Putin to streamline the immigration and naturalization process for foreigners who shared the “cultural, traditional and family values” of Russia, presenting it as a way to help the country overcome a demographic dip.

https://www.rt.com/russia/604397-russia-destructive-countries-list/

 

READ FROM TOP

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

London: Keir Starmer promised “change” to a fed-up nation, but just 76 days into his premiership he is in danger of Britons forming an early view that he’s no better than the rest.

After 14 years of Conservative rule and a particularly chaotic last two, the British Prime Minister and his Labour government had hoped for a quiet northern summer after their election triumph, where a relieved nation soaked up whatever sun came their way and forgot about politics.

 

 

READ MORE:

https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/frockgate-keir-starmer-s-love-for-freebies-ends-his-short-lived-honeymoon-20240920-p5kc2t.html

 

READ FROM TOP

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF-00JKxpJ0

Freakonomics and a little runt (replace the first consonant) called Wes Streeting. Greed, grasping and corruption. And greenery, wokery and quackery

How Kamala flew over the cuckoo’s nest

 

READ FROM TOP

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

This is why the working class doesn’t trust Western leftists anymore
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer is the perfect example of the greed that has corrupted parties that are supposed to represent the common voter

 

BY Graham Hryce

 

The scandal that has recently engulfed UK Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer is not just about political corruption.

There have always been corrupt politicians – even amongst the leaders of social democratic parties – although it is impossible to imagine Jeremy Corbyn or Harold Wilson accepting tens of thousands of pounds’ worth of designer label clothing, gifts and free luxury accommodation from a billionaire businessman.

There is something very contemporary about Starmer’s rapacious greed, and it reveals a fundamental truth about modern social democratic parties in the West – namely that these parties have long ceased to represent the interests of the working class and ordinary citizens, and today simply do the bidding of the global elites that rule and control most Western countries.

That being the case, it is hardly surprising that these elites should shower copious benefits upon political leaders that so assiduously protect their massive wealth, social status and power.

This, of course, is not a peculiarly British phenomenon. In Australia, the fondness of Labor Prime Minister Anthony Albanese for accepting corporate largesse is legendary – although the gifts regularly received by Albanese (including free tickets to football matches and Taylor Swift concerts) seem decidedly miserly compared to the bundle of upmarket loot recently collared by Starmer and his family. 

Nor should it surprise anyone that these compliant political leaders should seek to ape the luxurious lifestyles of their masters – even when they cannot quite afford to do so.

How has this fundamental political transformation come about?

Essentially it has been driven by the rise of the global elites and the new economic world order that they have created since the 1980s.

At a political level this transformation began with Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan – who destroyed the social democratic consensus that had prevailed in most Western liberal democracies until the 1980s.

That progressive consensus sought to incorporate the working class into Western nation states by way of introducing welfare state measures and higher living standards for workers.

This process commenced earliest in Australia – at the time of federation in 1900. In America it began with Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal in the 1930s, and in the UK it had its origins in David Lloyd-George’s welfare reforms in the early 1900s and was completed by the post-WWII government of Clement Attlee.

Twentieth-century Labour parties in the UK and Australia, and the Democratic Party in America, created and maintained the social democratic consensus. 

These progressive parties delivered substantial economic and social benefits for the working class and ordinary citizens down to the 1980s, as well as ensuring decades of political stability in their respective nations.

Thatcher and Reagan dismantled the social democratic consensus and ushered in the economic changes that rapidly displaced the traditional working class economically and culturally. These changes, together with the subsequent emergence of a new global economic world order, radically transformed progressive politics in Western democracies.

The older Labour parties had by the 1990s completely aligned themselves with the new global elites – as evidenced by their wholesale adoption of elite woke ideologies such as identity politics and catastrophic climate change.

These parties also committed themselves policies that accorded with the economic interests of the global elites – minimal taxes for corporations; a regressive tax system for ordinary citizens; massive subsidies for renewable energy companies; privatisation of the energy market; maintaining an overpriced property market; and permitting immigration on a massive scale.   

It is true that these parties retained the ideological pretence of acting in the interests of the working class – even Starmer maintains this pretence – but by the 1990s they acted almost exclusively in the interests of the new global elites. 

Thus social democratic parties eschewed radical economic reform, and instead set about conferring privileges on various status groups – usually defined biologically in terms of race or gender – thereby creating compliant elites within those groups that now uncritically supported the newly emerging global economic world order.    

The extraordinary transformation of social democratic parties is reflected in the respective ideological dispositions of their older and newer leaders.

Michael Foot and Tony Blair have nothing in common ideologically. Nor do the Australian Labor leaders Arthur Caldwell and Bob Hawke, or, for that matter, Lyndon Johnson and Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. 

Foot, Caldwell and Johnson were all committed to improving the lot of the working class by means of genuine economic and social reform. It is inconceivable they would have supported transgender rights, for example, or any of the other elite ideologies that modern social democratic leaders so fiercely champion. 

Unfortunately, however, for modern social democratic political leaders, their commitment to divisive and irrational ideologies, together with their desire to preserve the wealth of the global elites and their refusal to contemplate fundamental economic reform, has led to the societies that they purport to govern becoming increasingly politically unstable and dysfunctional.

This process of political disintegration has gone furthest in America – fuelled by the emergence of Trumpian populism that has destroyed the traditional Republican Party, is intent on dismantling the liberal democratic order in its entirety, and has fostered an unprecedented degree of divisiveness and racial tension.

In the UK the cost-of-living crisis – code for ordinary workers being unable to pay their rent, buy sufficient food or pay their energy bills, let alone contemplate buying a house – intensifies daily. Race and anti-immigration riots are now commonplace, and the British economy continues on its inevitable downward spiral.

In Australia similar intractable problems exist, but the kind of serious political instability and division that characterise the UK and America has not yet emerged in full force. It no doubt will in time.

The underlying problem that confronts social democratic political leaders in the West is that the global elites, in whose economic and cultural interests they govern, are unwilling to give up their wealth and status or even contemplate the kind of economic reforms that would solve the pressing problems that confront Western societies.

Smugly cocooned within their irrational ideologies, unwilling to compromise and oblivious to history, not only do the global elites refuse to incorporate the traditional working class back into the societies that they have made dysfunctional, they also treat them with unconcealed contempt. Hence the drift of working class votes to right–wing populist parties that promise to reverse working class economic and cultural displacement.

Hillary Clinton’s description of the American working class as “deplorables” captures perfectly the world-view of the contemporary global elites. Compared to these elites, progressive elements within the 19th-century bourgeoisie were paragons of virtue, self-sacrifice and political common sense.

Even more disturbing is the fact that leading social democratic politicians in the West, mimicking their global elite masters, are firmly committed to irrational foreign policies – such as supporting radical right-wing political regimes in Israel and Ukraine that are intent on provoking wider wars in the Middle East and Europe.

On such misguided foreign policy programs Starmer, Biden and Harris, and Albanese are in complete and furious agreement. 

That brings us back to Starmer.

This is the politician who was a fervent supporter of Corbyn until he lost the 2022 election, who then, belatedly, discovered that Corbyn had been an anti-Semite for decades and proceeded to ruthlessly drive him and his supporters out of the Labour party.

The recent revelations about his ravenous greed have, understandably, caused Starmer’s popularity in the UK to plummet. The Labour Party leadership, however, has continued to support him. After all, Starmer is not the only prominent Labour politician to have received gifts from his generous benefactor – Angela Rayner also confessed to being a beneficiary earlier this week.

Who is this princely and generous donor?

None other than billionaire businessman and Labour peer Baron Waheed Ali – an openly gay media tycoon who was made a life peer by Tony Blair in 1998. This is, of course, one of the very few status benefits that politicians can confer on members of the global elite. It is not surprising, therefore, that their gratitude knows no bounds. 

After Starmer was finally forced to disclose the exact amount of largesse that he and his family had received from the generous baron earlier this week, he attempted to justify staying in Ali’s £3.5 million apartment for a month by saying that he did so because his teenage son needed peace and quiet to study for his exams. 

“Any father would do the same for his son” said Starmer – completely oblivious to the fact that most fathers in the UK do not have easy access to the lavish apartments of wealthy benefactors like the good-hearted baron.

The compliant mainstream media in Britain have not been overly critical of Starmer this week – after all, they made him prime minister – but one person has had the courage to publicly call him to account for his disgraceful and shameless behaviour. 

Earlier this week, left-wing Labour MP Rosie Duffield resigned from the Labour Party, telling Starmer in her resignation letter “your sleaze, nepotism and apparent avarice are off the scale… I am so ashamed of what you and your inner circle have done to tarnish and humiliate our once great party.”

Duffield also pointed out the rank hypocrisy of a person of “far above average wealth” having “accepted expensive personal gifts of designer suits and glasses” while at the same time abolishing the pensioner winter fuel benefit. 

She ended her letter by saying “I hope to be able to return to the party in the future, when it again resembles the party I love, putting the needs of the many before the greed of the few.”

It is fitting that this apt condemnation of Starmer and the modern Labour Party that he leads should have been delivered by a politician who still remembers the progressive values that social democratic parties used to stand for – before they were captured and corrupted by the global elites.

I suspect, however, that Starmer and his avaricious colleagues probably do not know what Duffield is talking about – and, even if they did, they simply would not care.

https://www.rt.com/news/605105-uk-keir-starmer-western-leftists-pawns/

 

 

READ FROM TOP

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.