Candace Owens needs help

Not shit-posting but drowning.  Cries for help don't always sound like cries for help.

Candace Owens providing another ... uh ... unique and evidence free take on reality.

Owens alleged that the US ‘military is involved’. Like many of her other claims, which came in the wake of the Turning Point USA founder's assassination, she's yet to provide proof to back this up.

I initially started off planning to make fun of her.  It's still tempting.  After all, this is a woman who - in the last few months has claimed Brigitte Macron is a man and is now being heartily sued for it.  She's burrowed deeper into the strange rabbit hole that is her brain by claiming French special forces (aided by Israelis) are plotting to murder her.

But I remembered many years ago a post about Shoah / Holocaust denier David Irving (who, like Candace, has some problems with the Jews) and how I started off by laughing at his absurdity as much as condemning his evil, but within a few lines I found myself feeling pity more than anger and contempt.  The man was obviously deeply troubled and while that doesn't exculpate him, it does provide some context.

(For the record, that post probably hasn't aged too well - the interviewer who prompted those revelations from Irving was Johann Hari, a gentleman who has turned out to have his own problems with what we will politely call objectivity.  Because it turns out you can have self-serving liars, narcissists, bad actors and straight out fantasists on the left as well as the right.)

Candace Owens has been a diligent miner of the MAGA seam, conjuring outrage and alientation into gold (for her).  But her output has become more and more extreme and less and less hinged.  I don't think this is a cunning marketing ploy.  She's alienating potential marks.  Only people as disconnected from reality as she is will be buying.  This doesn't look like the normal rightwing grift.  This looks like someone having a breakdown in public.

For the benefit of Elon Musk, Alan Gardiner, Nick Tenconi and others

 This is how you make a celebratory or exultant arm gesture without looking like a neo-Nazi.

The Battle of Caerphilly

So the results are in and it seems the battalions of Reform have been dealt a swinging defeat at Caerphilly. Wales is a bit like Afghanistan - you just shouldn't try it on there.

Perhaps the Battle of Caerphilly represents the turning of the sinister nationalist tide? We can but hope. 

 At least is Wales and Scotland, pissed of Labour has somewhere to go that isn't Reform.  Given Labour seems unwilling to do anything to make it look like a party anyone would want to vote for, England needs a similar not-Reform receptacle. 

With due respect to Zak Polanski, I don't think the Greens are it.  They might have more members than the Conservative Party, but bragging about that just confirms their fringe status.  With a following wind and Labour engaged in a curious act of self-destruction they are on 12%.  Enough to split critical votes but not consolidate potential voters into a cohesive, winning whole.  Though there may be time for that.  I may be wrong, it happens.

While I have a place in my heart for the Corbyn / Sultana party / Acrimonious Break Up / Party, I don't think they quite get the urgency of the situation.  Given they are currently touring the country to 'workshop' policies with 'the people' (i.e. the sort of people who sell Socialist Worker and attend meetings), they might be ready for the fight sometime about 2083 - probably with a manifesto of policies which could have been copied and pasted from the 1983 Labour manifesto.  Though I may be wrong, it happens.

But assuming I amn't, what is to be done?

Pelosi turns on Harris, low key

 Like everyone else, Nancy Pelosi is looking for reasons for why the Democrats lost the election.  Her preferred candidate seems to be Kamala Harris, though she disguises this by making it look like she is swiping at Joe Biden:

“We live with what happened,” Pelosi said.

Pelosi was speaking to the Interview, a New York Times podcast, in a conversation the newspaper said would be published Saturday in full. 

“Had the president gotten out sooner,” Pelosi remarked, “there may have been other candidates in the race. The anticipation was that, if the president were to step aside, that there would be an open primary. 

“And as I say, Kamala may have, I think she would have done well in that and been stronger going forward. But we don’t know that. That didn’t happen. We live with what happened. And because the president endorsed Kamala Harris immediately, that really made it almost impossible to have a primary at that time. If it had been much earlier, it would have been different.”

Note, "there may have been other candidates in the race" - in other words, the Democrats were lumped with a useless candidate who klutzed her way to defeat.

Nope, Nancy.  The blame needs to be shared about more equally.  If Biden shouldn't have been in the race, he should have bene told that long before the disastrous debate.  The damage was done in those months before, where the upper echelons of the Democratic Party were trying to cover up Biden's mental decline.  And 'upper echelons' definitely includes you, Nance.  

Stop trying to distract us by pointing at Harris.

I should probably have blogged a bit more over the last four or five years.  Might have got more people thinking right.  The world really seems to have gone to shit since I went on hiatus.

Electoral Disfunction

I know it may seem an odd and obvious thing to break a year's worth of radio silence over, but how come the British Conservative Party MPs (and to be fair, the Labour Labour Party, when they have their leadership shenanigans) get to use a different and better way electoral process than the British people use for choosing MPs? 

Instead of a 'winner' takes all system, where whoever get the most votes in a single ballot, no matter how miniscule that total is, they get to use a series of run offs, with a dwindling pool of candidates - effectively Alternative Vote.

(To answer the question posed in the opening paragraph - the British electorate had a referendum on Alternative Vote a few years back and rejected it because they were uncomfortable with counting to five.  Which begs the question(s) - first, have they changed their mind now 63% of MPs represent Labour, based on a feeble 33% of the vote - the most unrepresentative result in British electoral history?  And second, if the answer to the preceding is "No" - can we take that as an admission they think their MPs are just lots cleverer than the British people? )

Had MPs been required to use the same antiquated, nonsensical First Past The Post as the rest of us, Robert Jenrick would have elected leader quite some time ago, based on a whopping 23.7% of the vote; or if they had continued the idiosyncratic "Members get to choose from the final two" concept, the options would have been Jenrick or Badenoch - a very grim choice for anyone who isn't outright bonkers.

Unsurprising

 From the Guardian:

The Observer understands that as well as backing away from its £28bn a year commitment on green investment (while sticking to the overall drive to achieve clean energy by 2030), Labour will not seek to legislate on the creation of a new national care service in its first king’s speech.

Instead, it will focus on a fair pay agreement for care workers as well as issues of recruitment and retention, as part of a wider workers’ rights bill. Its plans for a complete overhaul of social care will, however, be presented as a longer-term mission taking at least 10 years and two parliaments.

In addition, despite Keir Starmer’s previous promises to abolish the Lords in a first term, it is expected to commit only to limited changes. This is likely to mean legislating only for the abolition of the remaining 91 hereditary peers.

Starmer appears to be on a mission to underwhelm and disappoint our (already very low) expectations.

Keir Starmer's abstract thinking

The grey man of British politics ... Original picture, ITV News

Anushka Asthana has written a generally favourable profile of Keir Starmer in the Guardian.  It is lightweight stuff, pandering to the typical Guardianista, though reading between the lines one can - perhaps - detect Asthana's frustration at the weak porridge Starmer serves up.

This, in particular, stuck out:

For many, growth is a longer-term solution, so what about other more immediate choices, such as taxing people’s wealth? I turned back to Blair, reading this quote: “It’s not a burning ambition for me to make sure that David Beckham earns less money.” Did he disagree with that?

“No,” Starmer responded without hesitation about Beckham or a similarly rich footballer today. “I don’t disagree with that.”

But if you are prime minister, I went on, would you want to take more money from the super-rich (non-doms aside) and redistribute it to the poorest? Again, a “no”, without hesitation. “That isn’t how I want to grow the economy.”

Starmer argued that while, of course, Labour believes in redistribution: “I don’t think redistribution is the sort of one-word answer for millions of people across the country”.

So what is his multi-word answer for those struggling millions?

Dignity and respect.  

I kid you not.

He spoke of the dignity and respect of skilled work. “So I’m afraid if it’s just redistribution, I think that fundamentally disrespects people.”

 So all Starmer has to offer the working class is ... abstract nouns.

Its barely disguised Thatcherism, with 'dignity' and 'respect' of 'skilled work' hinting at their evil twins - the undignified, unrespectable spectacle of unskilled work or - Heaven forbid - unemployment.   Politically, we're a cat's conscience away from the least dignified and most unrespectable part of society - Daily Mail caricatures of dole bludgers.  I suspect many people struggling to make ends meet will take the 'disrespectful' benefits of redistribution, Keir.

(It is no surprise that Peter Mandelson also appears, like some grisly revenant, shaking his chains and gibbering.)

Mandelson's influence on Starmer is manifest.  Asked about the Hartlepool byelection defeat Labour suffered under his leadership, he responds by invoking the 2019 General Election, rather explaining how his party lost a byelection in 2021:

“When the electorate reject you as badly as they did in 2019, you don’t look at the electorate and say: ‘What are you thinking?’ You look at yourself and change the party.”

While he makes the usual noises about the futility of opposition, he neglects the salient lesson.  The 'moderate' wing of the Labour Party squandered a brilliant opportunity after the 2017 General Election.  They couldn't bear the fact the membership wanted Corbyn as leader.  Applying his own logic for a moment, the electorate rejected the 'moderate' candidates twice.  Decisively.  But the anti-Corbyn faction (the party) didn't change.  They simply set out punish the membership for making the wrong choice.