A dip into Mi7 output to find demonstration of UK Government design to make Starmer PM

Recall, reader, that here at FBEL you are being told that UK Government wants to install Kier Starmer as Prime Minister at the next general election as a front that can carry forward its single agenda without having being sullied by implementing the “Covid-19” anathema (in a so-called free society).  To do this, there has been an effort at a number of by-elections to show Labour (thus Starmer) in the ascendency, and where that has not been possible, present the Tories as losing support. This has been problematic, for reasons cited in a growing collection of work at FBEL about the phenomenon. Briefly, Labour has been in a voter-abandonment crisis for several years, and it needs to have people, who otherwise would have voted Tory, switch allegiance to Starmer’s party.

So, in the previous FBEL article, mention was made of the very obvious media-intelligence complex activity which is working furiously to have people who would vote at Birmingham Erdington do it in support of Kier Starmer’s Labour party candidate. In support of this charge, this article is going to document two pieces of very recent media-intelligence doings which are about persuading would-be Tory voters to turn to Labour, and particularly to do it at Erdington.

On Wednesday of last week,  there came news that a sitting Tory MP has defected to Labour. Christian Wakeford is one of those many Members of Parliament who appear to be useful only by dint of making up the numbers, and has the appearance of being the low calibre sort of individual that British people insist on making into their betters (such must be their own desperately poor opinion of themselves) and relinquishing their sovereignty to. Wakeford, whose constituency is significant for the broader joined-up operation of which this defection is a small part in that it is one of the so called “Red Wall” traditional Labour seats gained by the Tories in 2019, had a letter published which got quickly to the point:

I have reached the conclusion that the best interests of my constituents are served by the programme put forward by Keir Starmer and his party.

While this all happened just ahead of a Prime Minister’s Question Time pantomime session in the Commons so that a triumphant Starmer could agree with his new colleague, the defection is a transparent and desperate act of intelligence craft – although in actual fact “craft” could have nothing to do whatsoever with something so ham fistedly clumsy. If you can’t win by-elections, just have an MP cross the floor of the Commons – apparently, this is how anxious UK Government is.

With Wakeford actually looking like it wouldn’t take much to make him comply in the operation, the big giveaway about the nature of the incident is how the Member of Parliament was not satisfied to just give up the Tory Whip to become an independent. Instead, he arrived in the Labour camp all aglow with praise for his new leader, and a contribution to that flimsy tissue of reality where Starmer is PM in waiting with an insinuation that “Red Wall” seats lost in 2019 were eagerly awaiting a chance to vote for Sir Keir.

The second example by way of demonstration involves an examination of a story that appeared in the online edition of the Daily Express on Monday 17th January. Please note that the Wikipedia entry  for the Daily Express says that it is a “middle-market and conservative tabloid newspaper”, and that the Hurst Media Company says that its audience consists of the middle class (upper, middle and lower), and the skilled working class, with the typical age of a reader being 69 years-old, and 83% of the readership being over 55 years-old. This audience, then, is the sort of person who UK Government expects to vote, and also usually do it in support of a Conservative Party candidate.

The gist of the article is to impress how Boris Johnson has decadently wasted Tory political advantage by being involved in a continuing drinks-parties-in-lockdown scandal, where Downing Street is portrayed as flagrantly disregarding restrictions otherwise imposed on and abided by the schmucks fool enough to do so; i.e. the exact audience being spoken to by the piece. The superficial objective is to create chagrin, resentment for a number of reasons, and cause for complaint regarding the risk that has therefore been introduced for the Tories at future by-elections – not including two that are known about, because the results of these are apparently a fait accompli: The Tories will win Southend West (where the Conservative candidate runs largely unopposed), and Labour will win Birmingham Erdington, because “it is safe seat”. It is with the latter of these assured outcomes where the point of the psychological attack is being thrust, because it is intended to generate certain behaviour in that portion in the audience who would vote in the Erdington constituency contest. It is saying to them – at the least – that they should not in fact bother because their team cannot win. At the most, in conjunction with the impression received regarding the wastrel Tory leadership, and the hint of future Labour success, it is a suggestion to get on the winning side: i.e. Labour, now made tolerable by the leadership of Sir Keir Starmer.

There is not once in this Express article a consideration of the great voter scarcity problem that currently plagues Labour, and no consideration of why people who might have had that tendency would be motivated to vote Labour after all. In fact, the reader is left to assume that voters for Labour would be moved by being aggrieved by the misadventures of Boris Johnson – but this is of course unrealistic.

If any would-be voter is not happy with government, it doesn’t follow that he acts upon it by voting for the opposition; there is more likelihood of this happening if the opposition represents a positive alternative. Apparently, (looking at recent election results), for large numbers of ex Labour voters, Sir Keir Starmer is not this – but the picture of Labour being a dead loss is expressly not to be conjured. On the other hand, the policy of making Starmer appeal to those who have in the past voted Tory – first noted at FBEL in November 2021 in  the article, Making Starmer PM: Shock Tory By-Election Losses Ahead?, is exactly about presenting a valid alternative to a demographic who can be tempted; i.e. Express-reading, typical British know-it-all-know-nothing “conservatroids”.

To begin to dig into the piece, then, the sub headline reads as follows:

BORIS JOHNSON has been warned of by-election hell as Labour are set to cash in on the ongoing party-gate scandal which has seen the PM lose his popularity

Presently, we are told that the warning comes from Norman Tebbit, writing in his usual column. The authorship of the warning is clearly supposed, and indeed will have weight with the sort of audience detailed as above.

Writing in the Telegraph, life peer Norman Tebbit said that Boris could face a tough time in future by-elections if an ongoing investigation into Downing Street drinks events comes back unfavourable for the PM.

However, a qualification that Johnson’s by-election woes are strictly, for the time being, beyond the Erdington one appears to be Tebbit’s, as is a prediction that Labour will regain that seat as a matter of course:

Boris Johnson is at least spared, for the time being, the hazards of by-elections.

Whilst there are two pending — that at Southend West where the sitting Member Sir David Amess was murdered last October — is set for 3 February, but it will tell us nothing about public opinion on Boris Johnston as, out of respect for Sir David, neither Labour nor the Liberal Democrats are fielding candidates…

The other by-election at Birmingham Erdington arose from the death of Labour’s Jack Dromey (the husband of Harriet Harman MP) who had a majority of 3,500 over the Tories with the Lib Dems, and would probably be an easy win for Labour in any event.

The ground for this quoted commentary is laid immediately on the opening of the Express’ piece, and so one is not given much time to begin wondering as to where, exactly, is Boris Johnson’s future by-election hell supposed to be if one of the two pending is going to be won by the Tories as a matter of politeness, and the other is predicted to be a no-change non-event:

The Birmingham Erdington seat, formerly of the late Jack Dromey, looks set to remain Labour with Boris in freefall and struggling to win over voters. In the last election, Harriet Harman’s Labour MP husband enjoyed a 3,500 vote advantage over the Conservatives, something that is unlikely to change as the party remains in the grip of the ‘party gate’ scandal.

Does the reader see the trick? Any Tory loss at Erdington is a complete strawman. However, in setting it up to be bashed, there is a message being sent to view the Conservative Party as having brought defeat upon itself – and as such to see that there’s no credit in continuing to lend support in that direction.

Now, the strawman just introduced is not alone in the Express piece – in fact, there is a regiment of them marching through it; quite the feat for such a short article. Two ways are suggested by which there will be future by-election failure for the Tories, and they rely on proof by, and dismantling of a non-actuality. The first is in using the example of the North Shropshire by-election as a political barometer, when that contest was so explicitly too strange to be a guide of anything;  i.e. the Conservatives are not routinely threatened by the Lib Dems. The second is in using the official, but incorrect history of the general election, 2019, in which Labour voters supposedly moved to the Tories – against which current Tory doldrums can be unfavourably compared, where these fabled switchers move back to type (as asserted in the act of the Wakeford defection). In truth, there was no great switch to the Tories from a voter type who has actually mostly not participated.

In North Shropshire the legend has it (as expressed in the corporate-media piece of our study) that the Tories lost that seat because people in the constituency were feeling disadvantaged in Tory policy compared with people in “Red Wall” territory of the north and the Midlands: the argument seems to be that welfare is being targeted to keep so-called old-Labour and new-Tory voters sweet.

In fact, these new Tory voters are not as substantial as all that that they need to be treated so preferentially,  as will be explained momentarily, so the scenario is a fallacy.

What actually happened in North Shropshire was a dog’s dinner that most likely involved postal ballot stuffing: cheating. Indeed, in what was a crudely overt exercise in displacing the Tory candidate to create the appearance of rejection of Johnson, a Liberal Democrat over-thrower became favoured instead of a Labour one – all the way from third place at the previous election – exactly because Labour voters could not be counted on to participate. To put it another way, it was evidently understood that Tory voters would be more ready to vote for a Liberal Democrat  candidate than to boost the prospects of a Labour one (indicating that the get-Tories-to-vote-Starmer campaign is more of a perception shaping exercise than it is something that UK Government can achieve in reality). Ultimately, the scheme actually took advantage of low turnout – because UK Government has to factor in this reality even if it is a subject never to be acknowledged – and ultimately this meant that not too many Tories needed to join a Labour-Lib Dem unofficial voting pact. (All this was covered in two FBEL articles written before and after the event, here and here).

So when the Express writer states “The risk for the Conservatives is that the same sense generated in this by-election is replicated in other Tory heartlands”, although we are at last getting into future hell territory, it relies fundamentally on a bogus notions that Tories will vote for the Lib Dems in great numbers. Even if this were true, conditions to make a Lib Dem win won’t always be replicated in any given constituency (depending to what extent there will be cheating). Indeed, for the office of the executive to change hands in a general election, the main objective of having seats transferred from Conservative to Labour has nothing to do Lib Dem success. So, while this haunting by North Shropshire amounts mostly to an empty threat, it serves the hugely important role of sending a message that the Conservative Party is about to start losing in its own heartlands.

And of course, if the heartlands are in danger, then it stands to reason that Tory seat losses are to be expected in recently conquered “Red Wall” land, as follows:

It was only in May that the Tories swept Labour aside in a by-election in Hartlepool.

In July there was talk of them winning in Batley and Spen, in West Yorkshire, before Labour managed a narrow hold.

Yet now, the reputation of the Prime Minister [depends on an enquiry into 10 Downing Street parties]

So, with Hartlepool also being representative of the so-called “Boris Bounce” that is spoken of in conjunction with 2019 general election results, here is a history in very brief detailing the rise, and leading to the fall of the Tories under Boris Johnson – based on the fabrication that the “Tories swept Labour aside” in any election.

As has been explained at FBEL in copious amounts, this is tosh. In recent years, the toppling over of Labour has left the Tories looking taller – and that’s pretty much all it comes down to. Examples were given of this happening in the 2019 general election coverage, Day Of The Dumb II; Britain Votes For The Fake Brexit. Elsewhere, numerous examples in by-elections have also been presented. The “Boris Bounce” was a public relations device.

As such, an attempt to contrast initial success with recent doldrums for the Tories with Johnson as leader is a trick where the success to be lost is made out to be something it is not in order to make a great deal of the losing.  Naturally, the great deal of losing is the idea to be imparted to the audience of the Express piece, as they are being nudged to act differently, and with their certainty to vote – which is the asset for which they are targeted – to participate in any election with which they may be presented with a better opinion of Starmer, and Labour, than that of the Tory Party.

So, the plot to have would-be Tory voters participate as usual, only do it instead for Labour (because long time support for that party is missing), is right there in the Express article, in the clearest black and the white of it, if we are but able to see. Contrary to the allusion to far-off by-elections that no-one but UK Government planners are able to foresee, the article very much focuses on prospects for Erdington, so it is indeed a particular intelligence product intended to drive the cattle – its naturally Tory-leaning audience – in a required, contrary direction before arrival, well ahead on the trail, for corralling at a particular set of ranch pens.

Of course, no psychological manipulation by UK Government is too unsubtle enough for a typical Briton to notice being influenced by, but arguably this in itself is engendered by continuous exposure to drawn out campaigns such as the one we are now examining, and the perpetual nature of the herding by Mi7 (corporate and alternative media) is why one can casually dip into its output and not have any difficulty finding a resource by which a psychological operation can be demonstrated.