The Duran Podcast
UK Starmer total commitment to neocon policy
All right, Alexander, let's talk about the Keir-Stammer government's new program. And let's also perhaps talk about the event that is taking place in the UK, some European Council foreign policy event, where all of the big decision-makers in Europe are gathered. At this moment, Keir-Stammer is hosting this event, and even Zelensky showed up. Or no surprise, that's Zelensky showed up because the last place he wants to be in is Kiev. Anyway, what is Keir-Stammer's plan going forward for the UK? Well, it's a fascinating situation, because, of course, he's now Prime Minister. He has this thumping majority behind him. He's achieved it with 33% of the vote, just over a third of the vote. I have been doing a bit more number crunching, by the way. And I've established that no government has won a majority in the House of Commons with this level of support in the country. 33% of the vote does not usually produce a majority in the House of Commons, let alone a landslide majority, which, again, illustrates how unstable this whole setup is. So anyway, Stammer is in this position. A lot of people say that, you know, these prisoners returned to stability. What Stammer is doing is all the things that we said he would do. He is doing more of the same. He's going to adhere to the soon-act government's fiscal targets. Probably he has no choice there, actually. The budgetary position in Britain is very bad. There's not going to be any fundamental changes in the tax structure. Apparently, that's all been ruled out. There was a king speech. This is the speech that the king of Britain makes to the Houses of Parliament. It outlines the government's program. There's been a lot of commentary about this. If you read the Daily Telegraph, you'd say that this is a massively ambitious and very dangerous and ill-thought-out program. If you go to the Guardian, you'd say, this is a massively ambitious and brilliantly thought-out program, which is going to lead us to the sunlit uplands. I say that there is actually no program there of any kind to speak of at all. It is more of the same, more of the same sort of things that the soon-act government was already doing. You have a few things which are intended to keep the left happy, so there's going to be extensions on workers' rights, except perhaps there won't be. But anyway, that's the plan. We're going to nationalise the railways, except perhaps we won't, because when you actually look at what's being proposed, it doesn't actually seem like we are, in fact, going to set up a British railway, a British nationalised British railways that the kind that we used to have long ago. There's going to be a nationalised energy company, except, of course, that it's not actually going to produce any energy, or run the oil wells, or provide the electricity, or do any of that kind of thing. I'm not really sure what it's going to do, to be honest, but anyway, it is going to be set up. And a little bit of class war, we're going to have VAT attached to school fees. So people who want to send their children to private schools, the fees, which are really unbelievably high, are going to get higher still, because they're now going to have VAT tacked onto them, which, well, there is a small, but fairly vocal, minority of people in prison who do send their children to private schools. They won't be happy, but Starmer probably calculates that they vote conservative anyway. So he's not particularly bothered about that, I suppose. And it's an easy thing for him to do, to appease the left. But if you put all that aside, to me, compared with what other governments have done, governments that have really changed the direction of Britain, like the Thatcher government of the 1980s, or the Wilson government of the 1960s, or the Adley government of the 1940s, this is very, very thin rule for an incoming government with a huge majority to do. And for the rest, foreign policy, complete reaffirmation, total commitment to the Neacom project in every form. The new Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, has published a big article in Foreign Affairs in which he talks about progressive realism, which essentially looks exactly like the unrealistic, progressive, is neoliberalism of the neoliberal humanitarian interventionists. He says there mustn't be any wars like Iraq and Libya and Afghanistan. We mustn't have that all over again. But at the same time, we made a big mistake by not intervening more in Syria and against Russia. So I don't really see what the difference is. Why he's saying these wars were bad, but these other wars were good. Anyway, it's exactly the same. Complete reaffirmation to all of that. The Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, almost the first country he visits is Israel, where he meets with Netanyahu and appears to give Israel the unstinting support it's received before. The British government is now busy lobbying the ICC, the International Criminal Court, to revisit the arrest warrants on Netanyahu and a gallant. And it's having some success in doing that also, by the way. Stalin meets with Biden. We're told that he found Biden on absolute top form, that he was enormously impressed by Biden's system. I'm only exaggerating a little, but you found Biden with an impressive grasp of every issue. And of course, we have the European leaders all come to Britain, Britain is meeting with them there. It's all exactly clear why, because we're told that Britain isn't actually going to rejoin the European Union, at least not for the moment. But nonetheless, we want to be friends with them all again. And of course, we are 100% behind Zelensky and Project Ukraine. So it's more of the same, exactly. There's a few little tweaks to the left with private schools, talk of public nationalised energy companies and nationalised railways, which, as I said, if you drill into it, it doesn't really look very real to me. Relaxation of the planning laws to please people on the right so that you can build more houses. Except, again, I don't think there is going to be much actual relaxation of the planning laws, because the law is that we'll stop that as so strong in the UK. We need a much more purposeful government to do that. Fundamentally, all exactly the same as before. And a foreign policy that attaches Britain full square to a near-con project, which everybody can see is failing, and which the Trump Vance team, which looks likely to be elected in November, are in the process of repudiating in the United States. Why is Kyrstommer going to implement the same failed policy when it comes to foreign policy of SUNEC? Labour, why is Labour going to do this when they realise there's such a loser policy, especially with regards to elections? You see, I don't think they do understand that. I think they still think that the policy that they want to follow. I would say that Lamy, in that article in Foreign Affairs, is still absolutely endorsing, in the full way, the whole concept of US hegemony. He still talks about the US as essentially the indispensable country, all of that. I don't think they can quite bring themselves around to accepting that these changes that so many people can see are really going to happen. They still think that the world is where it was in the year 2000, and that, yes, Trump is saying all kinds of things, and we're very worried about that. He's picked Vance, and we're very worried about that. The world is changing, we're worried about that too. But ultimately, deep down, they still think that the world is still as it was before, and that they're still joining the winning team, and that that winning team, the neocons, in other words, is going to go on winning. It's very strange. Lamy, at one point in his interview, rather his article, his Foreign Affairs article, makes a very, very interesting admission. He says that when a Tony Blair was elected Prime Minister of Britain in 1997, Britain's economy was bigger than those of China and India combined. Today, it is smaller than India's, and only a small fraction of China's. So that shows how much the world has changed. So Lamy says that, and that every other part of his article effectively denies that reality. So, at some level, they know all of this, but they don't want to acknowledge it, and they just pretend, they just get one doing what has worked before, what they're used to. They don't want to experiment with real change, either in Britain or internationally, and they just drift along because that's their comfort zone, and they don't want to leave it. Because they're captured. I mean, fortunately, they're captured. They're captured. And they can't figure out a way to look after Britain's national interests. They're looking after the globalist national interests. I mean, the policy listening to you, the policy to me sounds like it's just putting your foot on the accelerator as the car goes over the cliff. I mean, I don't know, is there any other way to describe it? - It's exactly what you-- - But there's no break. There's no break in any of it. - There's no break, and you've put a clamp on the wheel. You can't turn it, I mean, you just carry on straight on, I mean, that's all you can do. The interesting thing about in Britain is that there are very, very strong criticisms of all of this, both on the left and on the right. If you go on the right, I mean, there's a whole new politics around Farage. I mean, he's criticized Project Ukraine. He's the one British politician who takes Donald Trump. Seriously, he wants to meet with him. He's hoping to change. If he comes in, he understands that there needs to be a change of direction. If you go to the left, the sort of people who formerly supported Corbyn, who's, by the way, still in the British Parliament, he was re-elected as an independent. Well, you will also find lots of criticisms there. They, too, understand that British foreign policy needs to change. Both the right people on the reform side and on the left, you find new ideas about how to change Britain. You may agree with some. You may completely disagree with them, but at least there is new thinking going on there. But in the Labour Party, the government, in the mainstream, there is no thinking at all. Anybody who has any ideas is pushed aside. And they generally do believe that they are the adults in the room, that they're the serious, mature people who are doing things right. Everybody else, all these people on the left and on the right, who say things have to change, are just flaky and really should be ignored. All right. Can the UK, actually, final question, can the UK actually make any difference in Project Ukraine given-- I mean, Kirst Domer's now hugging Zelensky. He's showing more support, where he's trying to outdo Sunak, it seems, and the conservatives and their support for Ukraine. They have this meeting taking place in Britain, that they're hosting. Is there, though, anything realistically, can the UK actually do anything with regards to Ukraine? No. I can't really weapon do it. I mean, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. It's just posturing, I guess. It's absolutely posturing. I mean, they supply the challenges, as you will remember, and they all fail. If they supplied the storm shadows and they didn't achieve very much, the British army is down to one brigade, apparently, that they can deploy. That's about 4,000 men. That's not going to make any significant difference. The British Air Force, the RAF, is about numbers, about the same number of fighter jets, that the Netherlands, Denmark, and all the others are supplying to Ukraine. That's the Royal Air Force. The British Navy is racked with problems. The country has massive budgetary issues. It cannot change the trajectory of the war in Ukraine. Now, if we had a different type of government, one that was generally realistic, and looked at things in a completely different perspective, then, of course, Britain does continue to have a certain diplomatic influence. They could come out and say, "Project Ukraine has failed. "We need negotiations now." They could send the Foreign Secretary to Moscow, or they could meet with the Russians in New York, if they can't bring themselves to go to Moscow. They could engage in some genuine diplomacy, and that might make a difference. But, of course, they're not going to do that. This bunch are unable to do that, and the British establishment, the British political class, overall, agrees with them. Going forward, by the way, because, you know, I've talked about Britain's situation many times, there are some people, Dominic Cummings, perhaps. He's been writing some very interesting things recently. And others who say, you know, we've got to carry out fundamental reforms in Britain as well. We've also got to reconsider, are economic and trading relationships. We're outside the EU, which is the other big economy in Europe. In fact, now, by far, Europe's biggest economy, which is outside the EU. Maybe, maybe, restoring an economic relationship with Russia would make a great deal of sense for us. We can trade with them, they can trade with us. We've still got some things we can help them with, you know, finance and all that. They've got lots of things they can give to us. Maybe that's what we should do. Again, you're not going to find anybody in Britain in the political class who wants to go there. And, of course, with every day that passes, those opportunities that still exist, and they're becoming very limited. I mean, they're gradually being whittled away. I mean, we've already had our end of empire moment in Britain. This is a kind of decay that follows from that, which, for somebody who lives here and who has, you know, feelings of deeper attachment to this country, I find it very sad. All right, we will end the video there. Thedaran.locals.com, we are on Rumble Odyssey. It should tell the grand rock fan in Twitter, X, and go to Thedaran Shop. Pick up some limited edition merch. The link is in the description box down below. Take care. [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] (light music)