Now the election theatrics are over...

Let's get the important bit said first of all, namely that the winner of the UK general election is...the government! The two images above hopefully convey the message that the proposition that elections offer a real choice is illusory. What you have witnessed in the election campaign from politicians, candidates, pundits and the media are performative theatrics that are indulged in to try and convince the voters that there are real alternatives on offer. Anyone who takes more than a cursory look at politics in the UK will realise that the notion that there are real differences between the main parties is nothing more than an illusion.

In this piece - Here we fecking go... 24.5.24 - which we wrote shortly after the election was called back in May, this is what we had to say about the illusion of choice:

The reality is that it's a management re-shuffle in Westminster - one desired by a range of actors who most definitely do not have our interests at heart. Which may be why the managerialist Labour leader, Keir Starmer, is widely tipped to be the next 'elected'/appointed Prime Minister of the shitshow that's the UK. If for some inexplicable reason that doesn't happen, then colour me shocked! That will be down to a fair number of people not reading their carefully prepared scripts. Cynical? Moi? Guilty as charged:) Given what's been done to us since 2020 and the ongoing psyops that are being conducted against us, why would anyone still trust the official narrative on anything?

Sunak and Starmer are both World Economic Forum (WEF) stooges. That simple fact alone should speak volumes about the illusion of choice. Sunak was most likely pushed into calling the election by a range of actors who were fed up with the instability of the Tory government and wanted a 'safer pair of hands' in place to carry on with the project of implementing the great reset. Actors that include the likes of the WEF, the bankers and the corporations amongst others.

Starmer is an authoritarian. During the Covid 'crisis', he was calling for measures even more restrictive than those that were being imposed by Boris Johnson's government at that point in time. Make no mistake, should another 'crisis' come along that's deemed to 'need' restrictions to 'manage' it, Starmer will be enthusiastically stomping down on us with his boots to make sure that we comply. When it comes to freedom of speech, a prime minister who doesn't appear to know what a woman is will be clamping down on those of us who have the temerity to question the toxic impact of gender identity politics. Should tensions with Russia escalate as a result of continuing sabre rattling from the West, be in no doubt that Starmer will be more than happy to lead the way in stifling, denigrating and restricting those of us resisting the drive towards war. The list goes on but, one thing is clear, Starmer will not be wasting much time in imposing his authoritarianism upon us.

Onto the election itself... Labour have indeed 'won' a massive number of seats. Yet their vote share was only 36%, down on previous elections. When you factor in a turnout that, at the time of writing could be below 60%, Labour's vote share of the total electorate that takes in those who chose to abstain falls to a point where in all honesty, they have no real legitimacy. So, who really 'won' the election? Yes folks, it was the 'None Of The Above' (NOTA) brigade who won it by choosing to stay at home rather than participate in this pretence that we have an real choice as to how the country is run: General Election turnout was ‘lowest since 1945’ - Katie Boyden | Metro | 5.7.24. In some constituencies, the turnout went below the 50% mark - Hull East had a turnout of 42.3%, with Smethwick at 48%, Tipton and Wednesbury at 43%, and West Bromwich at 49%. Starmer’s seat of Holborn and St Pancras had an estimated turnout of 54.6%, down more than 10% on the last election. Just 53% of the electorate turned up to vote in Richard Tice as the Reform UK MP in Boston and Skegness. It's interesting that the mainstream media is starting to pay attention to low election turnouts. This is what we had to say about low turnouts after the local elections back in May: Firstly, they turn their backs... 4.5.24.

So, what happens next? I'm not talking about how the next administration at City Hall will be formed because for a lot of people in the marginalised and all too often deprived estates out towards the fringes of the city, it's irrelevant. From long waiting lists for social housing, piss poor maintenance of the aforementioned housing to public transport links that feel like they've been designed to stop them travelling into the city centre, the people on these estates are only too well aware that City Hall doesn't care about them. The 85.76% of the electorate in the massive Hartcliffe and Withywood ward eloquently made their feelings about Bristol City Council known by refusing to participate in the charade of voting in the local elections. That for me is the big story of the election.

This was referring to local elections where the turnout is generally lower but, in many ways, it applies to the general election as well. Two in every five voters choosing to not go to the polls sends out a clear signal that a growing number of people are turning their backs on the political process because they feel it has nothing to offer them. For me, the turnout is more significant that Reform getting some seats and independents standing in solidarity with Gaza winning seats from Labour or running them close. While refusing to participate in the charade of an elections sends out a signal to the powers that be, what worries them is that they have no real idea as to what those abstaining are actually thinking. That must be pretty unnerving for the powers that be, even if they show no public sign of being worried about it. Having said this, it should be noted that having to present valid voter identification at the polling stations may also have been a factor.

Where Labour were being challenged by a number of independents standing in areas with a fair sized Muslim population unhappy about Starmer's stance on Gaza, they only just managed to scrape their 'wins'. Starmer's share of the declined by 17.4% in the face of a campaign by an independent candidate, Andrew Feinstein, who stood to challenge Starmer on Gaza. While Labour may have an impressive number of seats, when you look beneath the bonnet at votes cast and the turnout, theirs is a castle built on sand. While some are applauding the efforts made by these independents, others are pointing out that it's a sign of sectarianism and community polarisation that is deeply worrying. This is something I may well comment more fully on in a future post.

It wasn't a case of Labour 'winning', it was more a case of the Tories losing. Who did the Tories lose to? In a majority of cases, it was to Reform who attracted the votes of fed up Tory voters. In many constituencies that have been taken by Labour, if you add the Tory and Reform votes together, they come to more than the 'winning' Labour candidate. When it comes to the number of seats Labour gained at the expense of the Tories, it's safe to say that it was Reform 'wot done it!' There's going to be a lot of discussion as to how the Tories will try and claw back those votes from Reform at the next election. I'll be keeping an eye on that but, it's not something that interests me as much as the low voter turnout.

While we're on the subject of Reform, there are some who mistakenly think they're genuine when it comes to questioning the Covid 'crisis' narrative and taking on the issue of harm from the mRNA jabs we were being bludgeoned into getting. Pieces like this go some way to reinforcing that view: Nigel Farage calls for public inquiry into Covid vaccine harms, demanding: 'I want know why we were lied to' - Emily Craig | Mailonline. Back in 2021, Farage was singing from a very different hymn sheet, calling for the arch WEF stooge, Tony Blair, to lead Britain's vaccination programme: Nigel Farage backs Tony Blair to lead Britain’s vaccination programme during dig at ‘low grade’ government - Adrian Zorzut | The New European | 1.8.21. That's a bit of a pivot on a position isn't it? It would seem that at some point, Farage spotted an opportunity to exploit the discontent with lockdown and the growing concerns about the safety of the mRNA jabs, and pivoted accordingly. On the basis of this alone, Reform's claims to be something new and different in British politics need to be challenged.

The general election was the first one since the Covid 'crisis', the attendant lockdowns and restrictions, and the intense pressure to submit to the mRNA jabs. Looking at the debates, discussions and rows in the run up to the general election, apart from a few voices out on the fringes, some genuine, others opportunist, raising questions about what's been happening since 2020, it really feels like it's a case of collective amnesia. Any discussion about what happened in 2020 and what 's been going on since then just hasn't taken place in any meaningful way. Which may also be a factor in the high abstention rate as a growing number of people come to realise that the political process holds nothing for them.

To conclude, the number of seats Labour has gained is down to the Tories being shafted by Reform. Labour's share of the vote has in fact, declined. The turnout was low which, as previously mentioned, gives Labour little to nothing in the way of meaningful legitimacy. Remember that the government will be little better than a WEF stooge, entrusted with implementing the great reset agenda. Any crisis that is manufactured or exploited to accelerate that agenda will meet resistance as more people wise up to what's going on. On that basis, it probably won't be long before Starmer's government will be in trouble. We do indeed live in interesting times...