Reading Labour’s “Suicide Note”

The results are in. Slightly less terrible than the exit poll showed, but still awful; best Conservative number of MPs since 1987, something which is more impressive when remembering that this time around it’s basically minus Scotland. Labour standing slightly above the nadir of 1983, gaping rips in the “Red Wall” of the heartlands in the Midlands and North. The question is simple: why?

As you’d guess, I have my theories. And as I’ve noticed the shocks and the “how did this happen!” exclamations coming from the progressives online, I’m gonna tell you.

But you’re not going to like it…

#1: Brexit. When you drill down into the statistics, you’ll see that the Red Wall was mainly in solid “Leave” constituencies. The “second referendum with Remain” option finally proffered was the last straw for many of these people; but the “sawing of their patience” began years earlier, when the various progressives continuously derided them as “stupid”, “duped”, “closet racists” and the like. The huge cracks appeared when Labour MPs continuously “thwarted Brexit” in the Commons.

For fuck’s sake, did you not think said “Lexiteers” would hear your snarls? Go over their heads, perhaps? That their loyalty to Labour was so tribal you could take it for granted, that they could be safely pissed on? That your constant predicting of doom and gloom about Leaving was on the histrionic side? That when you’ve already got so little, the view of “well it can’t get fucking worse” becomes stronger? Or that EU membership in many of these people’s minds are – to paraphrase the late Tony Benn – “just a neoliberal capitalist project” which didn’t benefit them?

Progressives, you were completely fucking tone-deaf to the “mood music” coming from our Rustbelt. But remembering, that this also includes our rotting seaside towns, the decaying pockets in the South-East, the isolated “backwoods” in Wales. These were places you either took for granted or desperately needed to take to deny Johnson a majority.

#2: Antisemitism. The constant dripping of allegations were bad enough; this did hurt within the “progressive” areas and perhaps threw a dozen or so constituencies. However, the worse thing was that this helped provide the general “mood music” that Corbyn and his inner circle were incompetent.

The logic in this is simple. If Corbyn had “proper control” of the party, he could have “got rid” of the anti-Semites with one big brush of his broom. Therefore, his inability to deal with it showed that he was either incompetent and/or weak. And how can such a man run the country if he can’t control his party?

Perhaps unfair, but politics is rarely fair.

#3: “Limp-Wristedness”. This has always been one of the major Labour fault-lines; while the “progressives” desire dialogue, understanding, compromise, the “musculars” desire to see strength, sticking with principles and “doing what’s right”. This is the key arguing point when it comes to the likes of defence, police, prisons, laws and suchlike. The latter faction is the “Labour steel”, which allows people to feel that the country will be safe with a Labour Prime Minister.

Corbyn and his inner circle failed hugely on this. The man was a “known peacenik”, but one who’s judgement was distinctly spotty (plus; opposed Iraq War, minus, called Hamas “friends”). He simply didn’t give the impression of a man who had strong enough convictions to do “the right thing” when the chips were down; that at a time where we’d need a “Thatcher-at-the-Falklands” we’d instead get a “Chamberlain-at-Munich” instead.

This could have been counteracted by a vocal “muscular” in a senior position or two; perhaps one who had the aura of being a bit of a “street-fighter” if needs be; in effect, Corbyn needed a Ernest Bevin, Dennis Healey or John Prescott at his side. However, this wouldn’t have been enough to deal with several of his “mistakes”, such as not being more forthrightly scathing towards Russia from the Salisbury poisonings or dodging the “would you use The Button” in regards to nuclear weapons.

#4: Pissing off “Mondeo Man”. One of the fundamental issues with Labour is that it’s always had a “hair shirt” faction; one who’s never been comfortable with wealth or consumption. This is exemplified by Blair’s coining of the (perhaps hypothetical) man he’d met in 1992 who’d switched to voting Conservative as soon as he managed to get the middle-class “trappings”, such as his new Ford Mondeo. That for him, “Labour” was “working class” and therefore had no space for him.

We saw this mentality return under Corbyn. Too much talking about improving social housing, not enough about helping people buy their own homes. Going on about increasing the minimum wage, not how we can get people earning above this. Slamming the likes of private schooling and other “trappings”. Talking about how to “divide the cake” more equally, barely a (relative) peep on how to grow the cake.

This was poisonous. Not only did it alienate possible wavering liberals and tiny-c conservatives in the middle classes, but also kicked the “aspirational” working classes by making them feel bad for wanting to “get on”, and that Corbyn and co would “hammer them” the second they did so.

#5: Spending Orgies. At first, the “spending plans” didn’t look too shabby; radical, but not insane. Then the amounts started to balloon, the “believability rating” slumped, and next thing we saw was a myriad of rash, stupid promises – such as cutting rail fares. This led a significant slice of the electorate to feel that Labour were either economically illiterate or simply scamsters – and either of these options were naturally bad.

Labour should have been much more prudent; pose themselves as the “sober businessperson investing” rather than “drunken idiot chucking the cash about”. Some things would pay for themselves, and should have taken centre stage; mass council home building programme, “buying out” PFIs and rail franchises, a drive for better internet, science and infrastructure. All things which would add to the “capital stock” of UK.plc – and show the likes of the “small businessperson” that Labour knows how to grow cakes, not just consume them.

That Labour should have not been afraid to say “we can’t afford that at this time”, “we need to plug the economic holes in the country before increasing the goodies” and “we’d like to, but we’ll have to see just how much the super-rich have stolen from the people first”. And they should have limited the amount of “big ticket” items to say six-eight maximum; so they didn’t overwhelm people’s minds as being a “spending orgy”.

#6: Progressive Identity Politics. Simply put, the “ordinary person on the street” (an almost mythical person, but bear with me) doesn’t give a flying toss regarding what people “self-identify” as, the myriad of gender-neutral pronouns, “intersectionality” (even I’m somewhat unsure what the hell this is), “while/male privilege” and all this fluff. What they care about is – as Walter Mondale stated in 1984 – the beef, the substance. The things they care about; schools, hospitals, jobs, homes, family. Nothing wrong with this; after all “enlightened self-interest” can be one of the most powerful forces on the planet (for good or ill).

As I’ve said repeatedly until I’ve been “purged”, such progressive worries are minor indeed when compared to the true problems; banging on about the “correct self-identification” means fuck all to a person who’s homeless, malnourished or seeing their world continue to sink into the shit. What we’re seeing here is a complete inability to see what is really important.

This myopia is – I fear – endemic to the whole of the Momentum movement. That they’re more interested in political purity than building up a wide “alliance” and achieving actual power. These doctrinaire views have made them have monochrome vision of the world; one which makes them often unable to see any legitimacy in opposing viewpoints, be it a Conservative voter or… myself, a fairly old-school socialist.

The sheer arrogance of these types. Oh no, they didn’t do a single fucking thing wrong in this election, no – it was the fault of Russian bots, Rupert Murdoch, the lack of “consciousness” in the working class, the Barkley Brothers, “disloyal” elements within Labour, the BBC and their “bias”, the Jewish Chronicle, Nigel Farage, the “hostile media” and so on…

#7: Jeremy Corbyn. In short, the man was not up to the job. Labour “beat predictions” in 2017 because they were fighting the arrogant Theresa May who displayed all the charisma of a tin of Spam and the political nous of a lemming, guided by the most incompetent electioneering seen by a major party in my (then) lifetime. Plus, at that point he was still an “unknown”, and a lot of people were willing to grant him “benefit of doubt”.

Not this time. Many people had by this point “made up their mind” on him, and it was overwhelmingly negative. The only benefit he enjoyed in this case was that he was fighting Johnson, who wasn’t doing too well on the “trust” rating himself. This was even more negative an election than 2017; I bet that at least half the “extra” votes for the Conservatives were in clear “holding nose” territory.

* * *

But, we know that the Conservatives didn’t actually get that much more votes [gained by 2%]. The damage was mainly done by Labour voters either going to the Liberal Democrats, the SNP or simply staying home. It’s simply our electoral system which turned this into a thumping majority.

Well, rant over. That was rather longer than expecting. I think I was “triggered” by seeing Momentum types claiming that it’s all the fault of X, and that the Party doesn’t need to change. Oh, yes it does. It doesn’t need to cravenly try to re-create “New Labour”, but does need to expunge the toxicity, re-build the “big tent” and re-discover it’s core. A socialism which doesn’t object to folks getting rich from their own graft. A “progressivism” which doesn’t exclude anyone. With senior figures who come from all different “walks of life”, so everybody can identify with it. And one which while they dream of a great future, keep their eyes firmly on the arts of the possible.

As everything on this blog, merely my own thoughts and opinions. Part of my ‘Essays‘ series.

Electioneering…

So, the voting has finished, the counting begins. The exit poll is terrible for Labour; threatening to go past the nadir of 1983 to go way back to 1935 in the “number of seats” matrix. But… what went wrong, and what went right?

The Conservatives played a much better game than 2017; tighter, more competent control and much better social media manipulation. They had the keynote slogan; “Get Brexit Done” which really hit home and they had the clear bonus in the likes of Boris Johnson, a man who’s got a very carefully crafted “likeable persona”.

But, the thing is that they’ve effectively replayed the same handbook. The chanting of maxim in lieu of actual policy, the black propaganda against Labour and Corbyn, the complete and utter stage-managing of Johnson’s appearances to the point he was almost invisible in the likes of debates etc – all we saw back in 2017 with May. Scaring the electorate with visions of yet another hung parliament was, I feel rather effective.

Yet, there have been differences. Firstly, Johnson and co have basically repudiated the previous nine years of Conservatives in government; something which saved Major’s hide in 1992. Next, the right-wing populism streak has become much wider; increased depth and frequency of blatant lies, the random chucking of cash around and – most interestingly – the fact that “fiscal prudence” seems to have been (at least in rhetoric) consigned to the waste-bin, instead going for the “cut taxes for the rich, increase spending and fuck the deficit!” seen as in the USA with the Republicans.

Labour blundered; bad. They didn’t challenge hard enough the clear lie of “Get Brexit Done” (as it can’t be done in a month or three!), they didn’t move the discussion onto the “post-Brexit future” and they didn’t manage to craft a slogan which got much traction.

However, one of the biggest blunders (I feel) was the manifesto. As in, the amounts of cash slated to be spent. My feeling was that frankly it was too generous, too large; I was getting the distinct “but where’s the money going to come from?” feeling when yet another spending pledge was made – and I’m a socialist! While I will be conducting my own post-mortem later, I think the spending should have been much more targeted, focused – akin to a savvy businessperson “investing in the most critical sectors” rather than the “drunken sailor” method. It didn’t work; folk felt those red cheques would bounce, that they were trying to be bribed.

Now the elephant; Corbyn. The guy is disliked by almost all people outside of the hardcore; the very fact exemplified by the fact I’m a clear demographic to be a “Corbynista” yet I don’t like him! In 2017 he had the advantage of being a rather “unknown factor” which allowed folk to grant “benefit of doubt”, which he clearly didn’t have two years on. Lastly, the huge amount of shit flung at him; true, lies or something in between, enough of that crud has stuck on his shoes and damaged the party’s election chances.

The Liberal Democrats hold the honour of having blundered even worse than Labour. “Cancel Brexit” might have played well to their party base, but it utterly fucked them over in the old Liberal heartlands of Wales, East Anglia and the West Country – places which are solidly Leave and they desperately needed to regain; for as it was partly their job to deny the Conservatives victory.

They then badly played their few cards left. The times they broke through the “big Two” to get noticed, it was on frankly stupid “progressive” things such as gender-neutral school uniforms. This, I feel was a huge mistake; they should have left those things to the likes of Labour, instead going for the “sane Tory” demographic who was utterly hacked off by the huge rightward lurch of the Conservatives into Faragist territory.

The Others, really didn’t register. Farage shot his Brexit Party repeatedly, proving himself rather less the shrewd political operator than I gave him credit for. The Greens were seriously hamstrung by the partial defection of “bodies” to either Labour or the Liberals, then the “progressive alliance” then screwed up their election chances. I won’t comment on either Welsh or Scottish situation, as I’m ignorant of the local conditions.

As everything on this blog, merely my own thoughts and opinions.

The Road from Nigeria

If I was ever to write an autobiography of my childhood, it would be titled “be thankful for what you’ve got”. I’d pick this because it’s the phrase I was told the most; and not in an ironic manner either. You see, I grew up in local authority care, and one of the strongest currents of thought then was that I was the beggar, and so therefore couldn’t be a chooser. Looking back on it now, I fully accept that my position was better than it would have been at “home”, but that’s a bar so fucking low it’s nothing to shout about that you managed to clear it. Perhaps I’ll write about this one day; it’s now only in my thirties I’m able to look at it with a relatively dispassionate eye. But not today.

What I’ve been thinking about is one of the many old comments from Mr Johnson which has surfaced; the 1999 one condemning “the youth of today” (which was at this point included me) being “like Nigerians” in our desire for money and gadgets. The odd thing was, when I first heard this a couple of days ago while I noted the unconscious racism I felt more keenly the clear classism.

‘When I Was Young…’

With hindsight, the late 1990s Britain was a rather special time to be in. A rather thin sliver of years between the fall of the Berlin Wall and the fall of the Twin Towers, a time which did not know the phrases “carbon footprint”, “fake news” or “jihadist”. A land ruled by Good King Tony (Blair), where it was perfectly acceptable to want both the trappings of the Good Life and what we’d now call “social justice”. That we’d reached “the end of history” with the triumph over the Evil which was the Soviet Bloc, that the world was on the relentless path to universal prosperity and freedom. If that reads in 2019 as stupidly naïve… well, it was. A time of relative innocence, where “Things Can Only Get Better”.

The thing is, Johnson was actually right, in the respect we were materialistic as hell. But what did you expect? We’d had seventeen years of “greed is good” from the Conservatives, the decade of consumerist excess of the 1980s, the first ballooning of easy credit and for quite a lot of us, Boomer parents who were short on time but long with the gifts. Lastly, I’ve not come across any teenage cohort which wasn’t self-absorbed and wanting “something for nothing”; while we argue with our kids now about how we’re not going to give our credit card so they can buy a loot box for their game, we argued with our parents about getting a mobile phone, and they argued with their parents about getting a record player.

‘Be Thankful For What You’ve Got’

These teenage arguments, at least in my case were invariably unsuccessful. As a kid who’s parents were listed as the local council, the amount of cash – from clothes to pocket money – had been set in stone in an office, and said sums were clearly on the “kid must have” level. I didn’t have gruel and sackcloth, but sure as hell it was a rather austere childhood materially (at least in comparison with my peers). Made it easier to move placements, I suppose.

Because of this, I always felt keenly whenever a variant of “be thankful…” was uttered to me, or when I saw it elsewhere. For you see, this mentality has been strong within conservative circles for at least two hundred years; from the feelings that “benefits” were providing “Them” with a too high standard of living, that “coal-miners would only use a bath to store coal in” and finally ending up with the top-hat wearing Victorian industrialist bellowing that starvation wages were vital to keep the Lower Classes from “slacking off” work.

In short, it’s a strain of conservativism which has always been happy enough with subsistence wages, poverty and gross inequality. One which was on the losing side of every struggle; slavery, child labour, sex discrimination, trade unions, the Welfare State, decolonisation and the Minimum Wage – and is happily leading the fightback on as many of these as they feel they can “get away with”.

This is the unconscious school of thought attended by Mr Johnson. His complaint from two decades ago wasn’t about consumerism, or even “the youth of today”, but the fact that even poor youth wanted, nay expected these things. How dare they! Or, how dare I; wanting a damn Nokia and video player when I should have been thankful that I wasn’t malnourished and being abused in a damp, cold home. I was clearly not knowing my Station and was thinking above it.

Forelock-tugging, cap-doffing and “mustn’t grumble” is what this type of Tory not only desires, but feels is the natural order of things. And what they’ve managed to return to mainstream society in the last decade, using the excuse of “Austerity” as a cover. Food banks, benefit cuts, a shift from a right to a privilege, all delivered in the brusk, condescending manner of the old Workhouse master dealing with the paupers.

Walking With Dinosaurs

And Johnson isn’t alone. From Javid’s love of Ayn Rand to Raab and Patel’s bellowing that we British are lazy and with excessive material desires in Britannia Unchained, we see the return of another creature we thought we’d got shot of; the “rich man in his castle, the poor man at the gate” conservative, one who’d happily strip us proles of any protection and rights if they thought they’d get away with it, one which is so dismissive of our intelligence that they’ll tell us any damn lie simply to get us to submit to their leadership. Which is the natural order of things.

And these are the people who want us to give them a nice, big majority. Many folk hate Trump. But credit where it’s due; at least the White House Ferengi doesn’t really hide his nature or wishes to us. Johnson and co will say anything to anyone, as long as it is in their interests to do so. Which is why I don’t trust them a millimetre with our country.

As everything on this blog, merely my own thoughts and opinions.

Defending “Mr £80k”

This news article makes me a little worried, to tell you the truth. Mainly that it seems on first glance to be so patently stupid you’d want to check to see your browser wasn’t displaying The Daily Mash. Then, if you’re as cynical as I am, you wonder whether Labour HQ planted the man to deliberately be like this as to generate some good copy for the election. But, it seems he is a real person and not an activist or actor.

To make this readable in a weeks time, I’ll quickly recap. A Mr Barber (apparently an IT consultant or something) attends Question Time as an member of the audience. He attacks Labour spokesman as “being liars” about not taxing low/middle earners more as they’ll tax him more. Cue ripple of audience support – until he reveals his £80k a year income. He argues he’s not in the ‘top 5% of earners’ (yes, you are), gives some ‘comparison salaries’ (amazingly inflated) and at one point even claims to not be in the ‘top 50%’ (which means the average wage would be over £80k a year, which means you’re earning around £38.50 an hour for a 40-hour week. Clearly, I’m in the wrong job…). His comments were interesting; a glimpse into a world and mindset that quite a lot of us don’t see often. Or care to admit.

The thing is, our view of the layout of society (and our position within it) is really skewed. On the whole, we move in the milleu of our own class, with the occasional glimpses of the rung “above” and “below” us. We take our cues from this; if you’re in a strata where everyone shops in Waitrose and goes skiing in Switzerland, you “feel poor” if you’re having to make do with Tescos and Bulgaria. Naturally, this cuts the other way; in a world that Waitrose is “normal”, Fortnum’s is where the wealthy go. Ergo, if you’re not at Fortnum’s, you’re not wealthy.

This general lack of “cross-class” interaction means we become socialised within our own class, meaning we lose sight of the other groups – mainly the ones below. That when one rises to (I’d guess) the £40k mark, whole swathes of the country simply become invisible to you. Naturally, this means your pronouncements on poverty-related issues becomes insulting, useless or condescending; for we all know that poor people don’t have a lack of money, simply bad “budgeting skills” and so on.

Lastly, we have the media. Every day, we see the wealth-fantasy played in front of us; the super-rich and their lives in the magazines, the glossy programmes on the TV where often the characters have lifestyles way more than their income would justify. Worst of all are the advertising; showing us all the beautiful things that we simply must have. Live in a world where every living room is the size of a tennis court, all clothes new and designer and every car Teutonic luxury; you start feeling “poor” simply if you don’t have these things. Don’t believe me? Go and look at the adverts in the like of say Country Life, then compare them to Take A Break.

And this, my readers is why I’m defending “Mr £80k”. He’s a archetype of one of the segments of the loyal Conservative supporter; one who has literally no idea how the bottom half of society lives. Sure, they might be able to see clearly – but only to the end of their nose. Their “morals” might be decent, but their minds are so filled with drek masquerading as “facts” their actions are at best useless, worst actually damaging.

In short, I’m defending him by allowing him to plead ignorance and stupidity. Which isn’t much of a “defence”, now I think of it. But better than accusing them of being callous and greedy.

As everything on this blog, merely my own thoughts and opinions.

Closing the Digital Divide?

Just over a decade ago, a nephew of mine entered secondary school. This school took pride in its “forward looking” mentality regarding technology; gone were the whiteboards and textbooks of my youth – replaced by interactive boards, heavy use of computers and the ubiquitous internet access. And before you ask whether I used quills in my youth, I’ll point out that when I was that age, Tony Blair had just become Prime Minister. So, wasn’t that long ago.

The interesting thing was the difference in homework. Not the difficulty or amount, but the medium; while I had worked in exercise books, worksheets or sometimes a word-processed essay – he had to perform the vast majority online, via logging onto the schools network. Naturally, a boon for several teachers; ending the rigmarole of manual marking. Suspect the trees were happy about this too. Only problem was; my nephew did not have the internet at home. In fact at this date, he did not even have a computer.

He managed to not fall behind, but with a cost; skipping every lunch for snacky crap so he could work during the break, utilising every moment his school ‘Learning Resources’ was open [which was no way long enough] and visiting a friend’s house who’s parents were understanding of the situation. The school was that helpful “oh, that’s bad” way. This affair continued until – I think – Year Nine, where he managed to get given a cheap laptop and a pay-as-you-go internet dongle through a government scheme. Which the school hadn’t heard of.

Luxury Or Necessity?

A little illustration of the digital divide; nephew’s school had designed an all singing-dancing system, overlooking the fact that some might not be able to partake. And the situation has gotten progressively worse since then.

It’s hard to imagine – you’re reading this, which means you have decent enough internet access. But; without it, you would not be able to apply for benefits such as Universal Credit, enrol in an Open University course to improve your employability, use YouTube to learn new skills, consult the NHS website for health advice, gain the best deals for utilities, keep in contact with others through email or social media and so on. Worse; a decade of austerity has led to a shrinkage of physical services; banks, shops, libraries, jobcentres. For some, to deliberately avoid the digital in it’s entirety has almost become impossible. And the opportunity costs for your ‘intransigence’ is increasing by the day.

Yet, some do. ONS statistics show that 10% of Britons have not been online for three months or more. Some have not been online ever. Many of these, I suspect are elderly; ‘not seeing the value’ being the main reason for being a digital refusenik. However, this hides what I suspect millions more where their digital access is limited or unstable; the ones who still trudge daily to the library to answer their email, piggyback on coffee-shop wifis or scrape together the cash to keep their broadband from being cut off. And for many of these, cost has to be an issue.

Saner On A Second Look?

Labour has proposed a ‘British Broadband’ service, free for all, across the UK by 2030. Now, while ‘free broadband for everyone’ seems utterly harebrained, it looks much more sane if we assume Labour has been a bit illiterate and actually meant ‘free wifi access for all’.

This is much more feasible – and affordable. Many public organisations and companies already offer wifi hotspots. Some cities in the UK have been considering widening the net, such as the idea of boosting the wifi from the likes of schools and allowing ‘outsiders’ to access it. BT has already got a pay-as-you-go wifi network going in most urban/suburban areas – haven’t you ever wondered what that ‘BT with FON’ is? Rolling it out into rural areas will cost, but it’s not insane to think that this could be provided via private enterprise and a government subsidy. We have the technology, all is needed is the political will and cash to give every Briton outside a farm it within five years. But… is it really the government’s job to provide this?

I would say – it depends on what you see internet access as. As in; is it a product, best left to business to provide? Or is it a public service? That’s the point I was making at the start; that by 2019, internet access has become so important that it’s difficult to be a fully-functioning member of society without it. And this is going to become worse – to the extent where being without internet may mean you’re utterly excluded from society, akin to being illiterate now would exclude.

It would help bridge the divide; the pensioner, poor families, the homeless and the unemployed could join the rest of us in the digital world. It would save small businesses money; for they would no longer feel obliged to offer ‘free wifi’. The public subsidy would give an incentive to companies to improve the current digital ‘black holes’ and the parts of the land where there is effectively a monopoly in internet provision. By making said ‘free wifi’ a rather bare-bones service would allow private internet providers to continue marketing their products; in fact, it would improve their offerings for their products would need to be superior to the free option.

This policy needs a lot of work – the devil in the details and all that – but it’s not one which should be pooh-poohed instantly. We have to remember that many new ideas were derided, simply because they were new. The best example of this being: the NHS.

As everything on this blog, merely my own thoughts and opinions.

Don’t be a Lexit Turkey

A few days ago, Farage withdrew the Brexit Party candidates from every Conservative seat in the upcoming election. A rather humiliating climb-down for ‘Mr Brexit’; he realised that he’d gone too far in the demands to Mr Johnson and that he was running the risk of committing the only unforgivable sin to the 15% of the country who are hardcore Faragists – the ‘thwarting’ of Brexit. I am rather sure an implicit deal has been struck; if Johnson wins a majority I won’t be surprised one bit if by this time next year the British Ambassador to the USA is Sir Nigel Farage. But enough of the House of Cards political stuff, let’s go on to the “what does it mean to me?” bit – and most explicitly, what it means to the “Lexiteers”, the third of Labour voters who also went with Leave. In fact, this post is just for you.

The hope is this. That pulling the Brexit candidates from the Conservative seats now means they are “safe”. This means they can throw their weight into fighting the Con-Lab marginals. In comes Farage, who hoovers up all the Lexiteer votes from Labour, causing the Conservatives to get in. Repeat successfully say twenty times – and we have a Conservative majority government for the next four years. This is called “vote-splitting” – a variant of this tactic gave Thatcher her massive victory in 1983.

So, you’re a Lexiteer. Okay. I’ll respect that, won’t argue about that. But please, before you cast your vote next month, think of the following points….

#1: This is not a referendum – it’s an election. Johnson want you to think it’s a referendum, so you vote for him. So he will then say that your ‘vote for Brexit’ is also a vote for cutting taxes for the rich, privatising the NHS, more zero-hours contracts, less public services and basically, more parties for him and his super-rich mates. You really want all of that? Outside of Brexit, who’s policies are better for you and your friends/family – the Tories, or Labour?

#2: Brexit won’t be ‘finished’ if you vote the Tories in. This agreement is just ‘settling the bill’ we have with Europe – doesn’t deal with the future. Farage was right on this one. Once the ‘deal has gone through’, then we will have to talk to Europe about our future trade deal and so on. That is going to take time. Years. There is only one way we can ‘finish’ it overnight – and that’s to cancel Brexit!

#3: Brexit Party will not win. Anywhere. It’s why Farage did not stand anywhere; he didn’t want to lose for the eighth time. It is there to take your vote from Labour, and to let their friends the Tories in. Nothing more or less.

#4: Don’t vote for swamp-monsters. Look at Johnson. Hard. Go past the ‘bumbling eccentric’ act he does, the fact he is known as “Boris”. And what do you see? A massively self-entitled, upper-class, public-school / Oxford educated man who’s never wanted for anything, has never had a real job or any real worries. A man who is a known massive liar. A man who’s best friends are the super-rich. A guy who has even less respect for you than May or Cameron did; at least them two wouldn’t directly lie to your face.

Do you think he gives a flying fuck about your life? Your worries? If your vote for Leave was to send a message that the “swamp needs to be drained”, why the hell you going to select a swamp-monster to lead the country? On what basis? That you think ‘he’ll be good to have a drink with’ and he tells you lies you like the sound of?

Now, if you care about Brexit so much you are happy to be poorer, more stressed and get even less help for things than you do now, sure go and vote Tory. That if an idea – “Leave Means Leave!” – is so fucking important you’re willing to pay for it by the money you will not have and the services which will be removed to pay for it… be my guest. Tories like rich people. They will make sure that any ‘pain’ will be paid for by us, the working-class stiffs.

They’re doing everything they can to get you to vote for Christmas, my Lexit turkeys. Please, don’t let the Tories have your bodies to feast on. For their fat-cat friends need to do on a damn diet.

As everything on this blog, merely my own thoughts and opinions.