Rishi Sunak's War on Freedom

Rishi Sunak's War on Freedom

//Summary Level-C2//

The author criticizes UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak for exacerbating what they perceive as an erosion of democratic freedoms in Britain. They argue that Sunak has expanded on restrictive legislation introduced by his predecessors, including the Police Act and the Public Order Bill, which they believe curtail the right to protest and criminalize intent to resist the government. The author also criticizes Sunak's anti-strike laws, which they claim could effectively ban all industrial action in the public and service sectors. They further argue that the government is suppressing young voters, particularly those less likely to vote Conservative, and express concern that these undemocratic practices may persist under future governments.

1)

Britain, the mother of parliament, the home of democracy, is descending into a police state before our very eyes. When Rishi Sunat became Prime Minister, he inherited the ultra-prescriptive legislation introduced by Boris Johnson and Liz Truss.

The Police Act, which redefined disruptive protest to include noise, and the Public Order Bill with its extraordinarily draconian provisions, and some people might have hoped that our excellent new photogenic Prime Minister would have made some changes to this legislation.

2)

He hasn't; he's made it worse; he's introduced a recent amendment to the Public Order Bill which would not only allow the police to ban any protest they want to refuse, it would allow them to exclude those protests pre-emptively to make a protest illegal before it has even happened.

It's a kind of Minority Report legislation; it introduces the concept of thought crime, the idea of intent to resist the government and criminalises that intent, despot amendment. Rishi Sunak has also introduced anti-strike laws, which take industrial relations back about a hundred years.

3)

Strike laws take industrial relations back about 100 years. Interestingly, the bill doesn't specify what those minimum service levels are, and that allows the minister to effectively ban all industrial action in the public sector and the service sector if he so chooses, in other words, the right to withdraw your labour.

4)

The irony is that while it sets minimum service levels to prevent strikes, it doesn't set adequate minimum service levels for the private companies that are supposed to provide public services, which is why hospitals keep failing, which is why private contractors, outsourced companies all over the public services, fail to meet the basic requirements that are placed on them.

5)

Because the government has failed to impose adequate minimum service levels on them, only the workers are regulated, and the bosses are deregulated, so the great power that the police have been given is to act reasonably.

However, they want to exercise extrajudicial authority in deciding who can protest and who can't, who can speak out and who can't. They're not coming for me; I've got two higher public profiles and could make too much of a fuss.

6)

It's the people without that profile, without my privileges, who they'll pick off. If you've seen encouraging protest, could you find yourself on the wrong side of the law?

The right to protest and free speech are closely allied, and the government is blurring the distinction even further by effectively removing both rights with one piece of legislation.

We've seen journalists arrested at environmental protests even though the police knew they were journalists but wanted to stop the coverage, and if so, they got sued and had to pay out a few thousand pounds.

7)

Later they didn't seem to mind; I think increasingly, we're going to see the police using their arbitrary powers to stop the reporting of protests and the demonstrations themselves.

They'll always tell you it's to prevent disorder and avoid disruption, but what exactly do they mean by preventing disease? Well, they mean precisely the same thing as coercion and control.

8)

Power has meant for centuries that the Native Americans had to be put on reservations by well European people who seized their land to prevent disorder, and the Kakuyu people in Kenya had to be put in concentration camps and tortured to death in the 1950s to avoid disease.

The Public Order Act, as its name suggests, is introduced to prevent illness, anti-strike legislation is introduced to avoid infection, and anti-terrorism legislation is introduced to prevent disease.

9)

All the laws I'm talking about are police state laws; they're the kind of laws you'd expect to find in a totalitarian nation, or at least an extremely authoritarian one, you'd think they'd have no place in a nation that claims to be a democracy, but democracy in this country has only ever been skin deep, it's a theatre of democracy, a pantomime of democracy.

10)

Democracy, but it's not what democracy promises to be, which is the control of political decisions by the people, our choices, our personhood is delegated to a minimal number of supposed representatives, far away from us in Westminster, who make decisions that are far from the decisions we would make.

And to maintain this unjust and undemocratic arrangement, they have to bring in unfair and undemocratic laws that prevent us from speaking out, exercising our democratic rights, from protesting. These rules would fit nicely in a police state.

11)

They're trying to lock in that injustice, changing the electoral boundaries; they've introduced deliberate voter suppression legislation to prevent young people, particularly, from voting because young people are less likely to vote Conservative.

There's a part of me that thinks this is the last spasm of a government living on borrowed time, that it's trying everything it can to change the political settlement before it loses office, to change the fundamental relationship between people and power, and to change it in favour of management.

12)

The danger is that it endows to the next government, which I assume will be a Labour government, where the next government is unlikely to change that. People and power and change it in favour of management.

13)

Keir Starmer is afraid of the kind of progressive change that many of us would like to see, so if a situation has been resolved in favour of power, he may want to keep it that way, and that enables the Tories to govern effectively beyond the grave, they have created a situation that is unlikely to change over the next few years.

14)

In relationships, controlling and coercive behaviour is now an offence for which you can be prosecuted, but in politics, governing and coercive behaviour is valorised and glorified, and those who practise it are great; up in the press, we are told there are heroes.

It's not just a change of government we need; it's a change in how we are governed. It's a shift in the concept of being controlled.

15)

Here we are in the 21st century, still living by the rules of the 18th century; here we are with enormous potential to organise our own lives to make our own decisions through deliberative participatory democracy and genuine democracy.

And yet that potential has to be realised; it's been stiff-armed by the government before raising its head. So we find ourselves in this extraordinary situation where the only authentic democratic outlet we have, protest, is being closed down. Instead, we have this rapid-fire pantomime being played out in Westminster, only some of whom can speak their minds.

16)

And they're supposed to be our representatives and the embodiment of democracy. A pantomime played out among 650 people in Westminster, hardly any of whom are allowed to speak their minds, and they are supposed to be our representatives.

They are supposed to embody democracy, yet there is hardly any connection between our wishes and the decisions they make, well, for however many more days Rishi Sunat stays in office.

//Postscript//

What kind of society do we want?

Will we live in a society where we can work to earn money, provide food, clothing and shelter, give our children a good education, enjoy eating out and travelling occasionally, and live with peace of mind even if we get sick or injured?

Can we care for the Earth's environment, cherish nature, provide enough food, whether the population is large or small, explore the unknown world of space and the ocean floor, and develop new technologies such as AI and robots?

Can we end wars, hunger, conflicts, trade disputes, territorial and maritime disputes? Can we find medicines and surgeries to reduce diseases such as cancer and dementia and help us live longer and healthier lives?

Do you want to live in a party or a country where this isn't the worst yet?

We should be able to respect, help and love each other without fighting.

All of us earthlings need to make good choices from moment to moment.

Rishi Sunak's War on Freedom 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyKIJCHZfD8&t=3s

Everyday life in England makes you think of 'the end of the world.' No more "bad news" - 2017/07/13

https://toyokeizai.net/articles/-/180364

Corruption is followed by adultery and scandals. What's happening in British politics? - 2021.11.22

https://www.mag2.com/p/news/519334

In the Melancholy Days of British Prime Minister Sunak, People still repeat the same old thing in Westminster. - 2023.01.27

https://www.dlri.co.jp/report/macro/232504.html

What do you see in British politics in the future? Answered by Ko Nakamura, a reporter from the London Bureau (January 3, 2023)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hT5kFc-0p8A

[The real reason British politics is chaotic] Two prime ministers resigned in three months, and now

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1VT7BBxBfk

Add info No1)

The Labour Video Keir Starmer Doesn't Want You To See 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5JXO8pHwgo

//Summary -Level-C2//

The video criticizes the Labour Party, arguing it has become a Tory Party with a red rosette, serving the interests of the British establishment rather than the workers. The author suggests that the party undermined Jeremy Corbyn, a leader who truly represented the people. They also claim that the Labour Party is part of the system, absorbing and neutralizing any liberating left. The author calls for a break from the two-party hold on the political system and the establishment media, suggesting a new party or extra-parliamentary movements to challenge the establishment.

A)

It's not a Labour Party; it's a misnomer; it's a Tory Party with a red rosette, the oligarchy in Britain loves the two-party system. The Labour Party presents itself as the voice of the workers.

Still, what you saw when there was a natural leader who represented those people, the establishment within the Labour Party went to war with him and tried to stop him from winning the 2017 election.

B)

In 2017 Corbyn was a few thousand votes away from becoming Prime Minister; you said every day I'm trying to think of ways to undermine Jeremy Corbyn.

He could have if the Labour Party hadn't been at war with him for two years, he would have won the election, and we wouldn't have had Boris Johnson. We wouldn't have had the complete vandalism they unleashed on the British people.

C)

The Labour Party is part of the system, the liberal wing of the British establishment, and that's its role; it's to absorb and neutralise any liberating left, which goes for domestic policies regarding nationalisation, anti-corporate policies, and foreign policies. Clement was involved in terrible imperial crimes.

Atlee launched a brutal colonial intervention in Malaya to protect Britain's rubber interests, and Harold Wilson was probably the most left-wing prime minister we've ever had.

D)

The Labour Party was a significant supporter of the Nigerian hunters when they ravaged Biafra in the late 60s, one of the worst crimes of that period. He did it for British oil interests, and that's the left extreme of the Labour Party, the whole edifice we have in the U.K... in politics.

E)

Tories hate each other and think different things and fight each other when in fact, it's not true; it's pantomime, it's Kabuki theatre for the plebs, it's two factions of the same establishment party representing the same interests putting on a pantomime for the people at large to give them the illusion of choice when in fact whoever they vote for is going to do the same thing and support the same interests, that's not true.

F)

Support the same claims; that's not to say there aren't some differences, but they are the exception to the rule; in my lifetime, I've never seen anything different except when Jeremy Corbyn came along in 2015, and we saw what the system did to him, it chewed him up, he lost the 2019 election almost three years ago, but the British establishment is still obsessed with him, why?

G)

Are they obsessed with him because they have to destroy not only his chance of getting into power, they have to beat the example that he gave? They have destroyed his hope that things could be different because that's dangerous for them. Part of the reason was not his mild domestic reforms like a National Education Service or taxing the rich a bit more; it was his anti-imperialism.

H)

That's a red line for the British and American establishment, Corbyn has supported liberation movements in Latin America, Africa, in the developing world, throughout his career, and he was a massive threat because the war state is a bipartisan issue; Labour, Tory, it doesn't matter, they both support the U.S.

I)

The British imperial project, Corbyn, has disrupted that whole consensus. I find it deeply distasteful that the British Prime Minister can use the medieval powers of royal prerogative to send young men and women to their deaths.

Why are we spending three and a half billion pounds on a war nobody wants when a quarter of the world's children are dying of poverty and hunger, and we say there's not enough money for our public services?

J)

We're inundated with stories about Russian influence in Britain, which does exist but is way down the list when you talk about foreign interference; the Americans are number one, and America has 12,000 troops permanently stationed in Britain at 11 so-called RAF bases, potentially deploying them.

K)

These are huge issues that the establishment media won't touch because it's assumed that we are the 51st state and we have no sovereignty; the Americans and their external intelligence agency, the CIA, have always been more concerned with the left of Britain than the right, back in the 1980s they were apprehensive about the emergence of socialist politics in the Labour Party under the leadership of Michael Foote, who was there from 1980 to 1983.

And during his time, the U.S. embassy and various other figures in Britain. S. Embassy and other figures in the U.K... devised the British American Project to bring the left to Britain.

L)

And the anti-imperialist left back into the orbit of the Americans and back into a pro-American position.

It still exists today, and many Keir Starmer shadow ministers and members.

Just last year, his senior shadow minister Alison McGovern joined the British American Project, and the leader of Scottish Labour, Anasawa, joined in 2018. This organisation cultivates the left into pro-American positions.

M)

Many members of the British American Project have become critics of Corbyn's leadership, including people like Peter Mandelson. If we're ever going to operate in Britain and become a sovereign country, we need to understand what role we play for the Americans.

N)

The liberal political establishment in Britain also has a media wing; they're called the New Statesman and the Guardian; their role is to keep the political spectrum narrow, to keep people like Kirstarma at the top of the Labour Party and to keep Jeremy Corbyn on the fringes, they went to war with Jeremy Corbyn from 2015 to 2019

Especially the Guardian was a crucial player in the anti-Semitism crisis propaganda campaign. Now the Guardian is crying crocodile tears about all the policies the Tories are implementing.

O)

Still, they were a key reason why the Tories got in 2019, and that should never be forgotten, so we not only need to break the two-party hold on the political system, we need to break the two-party hold on the political system.

P)

We need to break the grip of the establishment media on the media system, and that's what's happening in Britain through independent media, where they've managed to get around it. Still, people must understand that the Guardian is not your friend, the leadership of the Labour Party under Corbyn needed to understand the power of the forces against them.

Q)

I think their tactic was to absorb the blows rather than fight back often; in the future, the left needs to understand that you can't break bread with people who want to destroy you. You can't break bread with people who want to see you killed, and many of the people that Corbyn invited back after the chicken coup in 2016 were still out to destroy him at the time.

R)

The lack of solidarity with Jeremy Corbyn is quite telling; senior Labour figures on the left of the party need to understand that it's not going to stop with Corb; he's going to pick you off one by one, so you need to start fighting back and calling him out for who he is and what he's doing, which hasn't happened yet.

This idea is called Labourism, that the Labour Party is all that matters. Everything else is ignored or marginalised, but our political system and imagination must be much bigger than the Labour Party.

S)

I think a good way of understanding that is to look at the continent over the last two decades that has had successful liberation democratic socialist leaders, and that's Latin America, almost every single leader that has come to power from Lula in Brazil to Ever Morales in Bolivia to Raphael Corbin.

T)

And this is Latin America, almost every single leader who has come to power, from Lula in Brazil to Ever Morales in Bolivia to Rafael Correa in Ecuador, has come to power by creating a new party because they know that the traditional oligarchic left-liberal parties are there to prevent them from coming to power, they're there to give the illusion of choice, the illusion that you can vote for a left or a right.

U)

Still, you're voting for the same thing. So they had to create their parties, and it was a long process; Lula ran five times before he finally got elected, and he started the Workers' Party in 1980, so I think either we need a new party, or we need to assess how we bring about political change that is outside the Westminster bubble.

There's a lot of optimistic change in the activism on the streets in Britain with Extinction Rebellion and other groups, but we need to broaden that and come to the inclusion that Westminster has.

V)

Organised labour has been the leading force for progressive change throughout history. The trade union movement in Britain needs to break away from the Labour Party because if we can break the power of organised labour away from the Labour Party, then we have a whole reservoir of people power that can take on the British establishment and represent working people.

W)

It should galvanise the trade union movement to understand that they are no longer welcome in the Labour Party unless they become part of the neo-liberal Starma project. A big hope is the energy generated when people understand that the Labour Party is not the answer to our problems; there's still a lot of power in the idea that we can make the Labour Party a vehicle for progressive change in Britain.

X)

I think it's a vehicle for the opposite, so if we can take that energy and that feeling and channel it into new cars, extra-parliamentary movements, maybe a new party, whatever it is, we will have a groundswell of dissent, a groundswell of goodwill and positive energy that we can use to take on the establishment and that includes the Labour Party, nothing scares the establishment more than losing control of the narrative.

And in Britain, they are losing control of the report because of the burgeoning independent media sector, so we need to grow it as much as we can and support those who are doing independent media.

Add info No2) 

EXPOSED: Keir Starmer & The Establishment Coup 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDaY6K5A2qI

Add info No2)

EXPOSED: Keir Starmer & The Establishment Coup

//Summary-Level-C2//

The video criticizes Keir Starmer, accusing him of leading a coup within the Labour Party and turning it into a dictatorship. The author suggests that Starmer is dishonest and has reneged on his election pledges. The video also criticizes Starmer's treatment of Jeremy Corbyn, arguing that Starmer is part of the establishment that sought to undermine Corbyn's leadership. The author calls for a long-term program to transform the political system into a genuine democracy and suggests that Corbyn's influence will remain relevant, especially as dissatisfaction with Starmer's leadership grows.

i)

Keir Starmer presides over a coup, and what comes after a coup? Dictatorship. Starmer is the most dishonest mainstream politician of my lifetime.

I've not come across anyone who can so barefaced tell lies so regularly; he lied his way to the Labour leadership, he lied his way through the Labour leadership, and when he becomes Prime Minister, he'll lie his way through his Prime Ministership.

ii)

If Corbyn were doing what he did, you'd have every one of his lies on the front page leading the BBC News. But they want to protect Starmer because Starmer serves their interests. Boris Johnson is an evil liar, and the Damage that can do for politics and democracy, but you're probably about to elect someone just as bad.

iii)

He had ten pledges that he got elected on, which he's reneged on every single one, and he's going to do the same thing in the campaign to get elected. He will give you a whole load of policies that he won't do in power.

And we need some scrutiny of this because he's the likely next Prime Minister, so we need scrutiny of him now. We don't need it later. We don't need to brush our under the carpet because we want to get the labour in and the Tories out because unless he's held to account, he'll take everyone for a ride.

iv)

Aren't you concerned about the rule of law Justice and fairness? Look at what they have done to Jeremy Corbyn, this man has represented his constituency for nearly 40 years, and they've tried to destroy him most obscenely. That kind of person, that kind of bully, that kind of sadist, and that kind of immoral people should not be anywhere near power.

v)

Corbyn was accused of being a Stalinist and purging his opponents; the real Stalinist was Keir Starmer. He's purged the former leader he took over that he supported and tried to make Prime Minister. He's purged him from the party and said he couldn't stand even as a Labour MP. He's sacked Shadow ministers for attending picket lines and tweeting links to interviews in the Independent.

vi)

He's disproportionately purged Jewish members. The Establishment media don't cover this because the targets of Starmer so far have been the left. But people with his mentality don't stop there; that mentality carries on to everyone eventually if they oppose him.

This is an authoritarian leader who does not tolerate decent, and that does not only go for members who don't support his leadership but goes for free speech on the central issues of our day. No ordinary political party would do that. The Tories would not do that well, Stammer mounted.

vii)

A coup in the labour party from 2020 onwards is a coup, and what Stammer oversees in labour is a dictatorship. When you look at Kirstama's records, you understand that he's deeply embedded in Britain's and America's power networks. He was a trilateral commission member, a group set up by billionaire Banker David Rockefeller in 1973.

viii)

It was based on the idea that Europe, America, and Japan needed to strategise how to continue the hegemony of the West. The membership has included people from Henry Kissinger to top industrialists, all the sorts of elite one per cent, and it has produced a lot of U.S presidents and other politicians around the world. The trilateral commission is part of Starmer's broader resume, which shows that he is always willing to do the establishment's Dirty Work during his time at the CPS.

ix)

From 2008 to 2013 is quite shocking when you look into it. One facet of that is the Julian Assange case which was highly irregular. What the CPS was up to. They were working with the Swedes to try and get Julian Assange extradited to Sweden; perhaps more alarmingly, the CPS destroyed vast emails discussed in the assigned case. 

That period covered mainly when Starman was head of the CPS, so there's a cover-up; his record at the CPS goes on he refused to prosecute the police who killed Ian Tomlinson and John Charles de Menezes. He wanted to crack down on benefits claimants. He wanted High sentences for people who stole water bottles during the Riots of 2011.

What does CPS stand for?

CPS is an acronym that stands for Cyber-Physical System. Physical systems = information collected by sensor systems in the real world are analyzed in cyberspace using computer technology. It is an effort to use quantitative analysis for all industries, not experience and intuition.

x)

At all points in his recent career, he is concerned with power getting it maintaining it, and destroying anyone who is a threat to that power which for me is a very, very worrying thing because he will likely be the next prime minister of Britain, and when you have an amoral individual who is willing to do anything to gain and maintain power.

xi)

It's a pretty scary situation stamina is a massive threat to any functioning democracy. Corbyn symbolised a vast outbreak of democracy in Britain soon after 2015 when he was elected. Labour became the largest political party in Western Europe with 600000 members, which terrified the establishment.

xii)

Because they hate nothing more than democracy, and the starter's role is to put that democracy back in a box. He's gone to war with the member's membership has gone right down, and he's welcomed in oligarchs with big money storms and has also gone to war with working people. Has a labour leader ever Sat one of their Shadow ministers or ministers for attending a picket line for workers fighting for better wages and conditions? I don't think so, but that is the sorry state of the labour party. Now it's not a labour party. It's a misnomer.

xiii)

It's a Tory party with the red rosette. The labour party is now a genuinely Orwellian party. You have a former leader who was one of the most prominent opposers of the criminal war 2003 against Iraq, which destroyed a country of 30 million people. He's not allowed to stand in the constituencies represented for nearly 40 years. 

In contrast, Tony Blair is welcome in the party not only welcome but promoted and close to its current Kristina. We need to get the Tories out, but we need more imagination. We can't live the rest of our lives voting for the lesser of two evils.

xiv)

And, in the case of Starman, I don't know how much of a lesser evil he is than Sunac. We need to have a long-term program that seeks to transform the political system away from the current situation, which is an oligarchy, into a genuine democracy. What we have now is a pantomime. 

We need the real thing Jeremy Corbyn is one of the most cancelled figures in Britain. Where are all the free speech Warriors to support Corbyn? I don't see them. A lot of cancer culture rhetoric is a distraction conducive to The Establishment regarding Jeremy Corbyn.

xv)

And the attacks on him and the cancellation of Corbyn. These people were silent because Corbyn was a genuine threat to the establishment. They didn't go after him because of who he was. They went after him because they wanted to get to you. 

After all, he represented your interests and the British Public's interests. This is not a war on Jeremy Corbyn. He's a proxy. The war's on you, the battles on your ability to see a doctor when you need one, it's on your kid's ability to go to a well-funded school.

xvi)

It's on your ability to have a government which promotes peace and Justice in a world, not war. It's on your ability to have a government which does not sell arms to an extremist dictatorship in Saudi Arabia or an apartheid regime in Tel Aviv. The public should care about what's been done to Jeremy Corbyn.

xvii)

Because it goes to the heart of the system that we live in. If they can destroy someone genuinely representing the people's interests, it doesn't leave us with anything that looks like democracy.

It leaves us with a low-intensity democracy or a managed democracy where we come out to vote for a faction of the same pro-business, pro-war party every four or five years. Anytime someone comes along who might disrupt that cosy bipartisan pro-war, pro-corporate political system, they destroy them. The truth about why the British establishment had to kill Jeremy Corbyn is a sick rapacious system could not tolerate a decent human being promoting peace and Justice near its apex. He needed to kill him in 2019.

xviii)

But it must destroy him now because Corbyn has power outside of parliament. He has a massive constituency in the British public, and they want to waste any example that he may leave for the Next Generation who want to bring about transformative change in Britain. They need to lock that idea off entirely, and we can't let them. 

Starmer will win the next election in 2024, but things will get very interesting soon after Britain is desperate. People are suffering hugely from inflation and the cost of living crisis. Young people are crying out for answers to the big questions they've got about housing, University, and work, and they're not getting any explanations from the mainstream.

xix)

And by excluding Jeremy Corbyn from the political process in Britain, you're excluding the one person who offered some tangible answers to the big questions that young people have. Keir Starmer knows he has no replies. He knows he has to destroy his opposition because they are giving people the answers to our problems. Those answers aren't going away.

xx)

They're still out there with Trade union movements with extra-parliamentary movements, and they can be channelled into new vehicles which can make Progressive and transformative changes in Britain. This is not the end for Jeremy Corbyn because what he sparked is still there, people saw hope, and they saw the possibility of transformative change for the first time in many of our lives. That kind of sense does not die away quickly. It is a Pandora's Box, and that's why the establishment is trying so hard to destroy him.

xxi)

Because they want to put the outbreak of democracy, that episode of Hope, back in a box when Stammer is likely elected in 2024, the realisation that he's barely distinguishable from the Tories will make Jeremy Corbyn one of the most relevant political figures in the country again, nothing scares the establishment more than losing control of the narrative and in Britain.