For the sake of the Starmer Project: the causing of the Wakefield and Tiverton and Honiton by-elections by contrivance
On June 23rd there will be two by-elections. One, in the part of the electoral battlefield as defined by official pundits as “the north”, is taking place in Wakefield after a Tory MP resigned following a conviction of a criminal offence. The second, in “the south”, and in Tiverton and Honiton, has arisen because a Tory MP resigned following accusations made of inappropriate conduct in the House of Commons.
The official punditry will characterise these by-elections as coincidentally simultaneously occurring contests that, overall, offer an opportunity for Keir Starmer’s Labour to shine against a double demonstration of the deep unpopularity of the incumbent executive in an emerging context of anti-Tory protest against a so-called cost of living crisis. The Wakefield poll will fix focus on Starmer’s credentials as a winner, and the Tiverton and Honiton, showing the Tories lose to the currently third placed Lib Dems, will provide the fuller evidence of ill feeling towards the party currently occupying the office of the executive branch.
So much for that. This site, on the other hand, explains the coincidence of the two elections by that UK Government operation that has become known in these pages as the Starmer Project – a programme to force a pre-selected result at a general election, whereby the electorate is manipulated to collectively choose the Labour party. In this scheme, the by-elections would have been engineered to occur at the same time, with a set of intentioned results designed to have maximum propaganda effect according to the purpose set out above. Of course, the public would be told that there was nothing inorganic either about the process or the outcome of the two polls, and that the results would be representative of the public’s political desires. Indeed, the message designed to be telegraphed by a conspiring corporate-media (in fact, Mi7), as Labour wins Wakefield, and the Lib Dems win Tiverton and Honiton, with a suspiciously timely spate of trade-union† agitated industrial relations disruption in the background, is that the Tory party is reaping the whirlwind of its bad governance, and is so unpopular that it cannot stop the Lib Dems from winning an eminently safe seat. The solution, the shiny Kier Starmer, will have his capacity to stand as replacement to Boris Johnson emphasised by the recapturing of what can be characterised as a bellwether seat (i.e., one which indicates general political mood).
However, the whole showpiece has been engineered – there is no coincidence involved (and that the public overwhelmingly cannot grasp such reality, even at a moment of such obvious contrivance, is why the author has produced the article, We Need To Talk About Your Being Stupid, etc). There’s not even any reality in the apportioning of unpopularity, which is a thing not belonging alone to the Tories, and explained as being universal in what this site calls Parliament’s ongoing legitimacy crisis, most recently in the FBEL article, Starmer Project Woes Continue; Labour-Lib Dem Coalition Now Openly Discussed; etc. There is an abundance of questionable goings-on in the way that the by-elections have come about so that one has to be thick as the proverbial pig muck not to be suspicious, and ultimately, there is a demonstration, even now in the current parliament, for any with eyes to see, of how its not automatic that a wrong-un in the Commons should trigger a by-election if the supremely inconvenient result of such a contest would risk spoiling the impression of Labour in ascendency. This picking and choosing according to what is advantageous or not to UK Government agenda: this is the veritable signifier of contrivance.
* * * * * * *
The genesis of the Tiverton and Honiton by-election in particular is so farcical that a person truly has to be colossally stupid if he thinks that it could be organic. Neil Parish was not even found guilty of any wrongdoing by any investigation into his conduct. Accusations were simply levelled at him, to which he offered no resistance. Indeed, this is why it can be said that the incident by which the Tiverton and Honiton by-election has come about only exists by dint of it being admitted by Parish. Furthermore, in every element of the process of his being pushed from his position, Parish made things far too easy.
We don’t know the names of an undisclosed number of women MPs who supposedly complained about Parish and his supposedly looking at porn on his phone in their proximity – and as such we can’t properly scrutinise their claim (because identity might suggest ulterior motive). In fact, we are now not likely to know who took this umbrage, because although a Parliamentary standards investigation was said to have been launched, Parish seemingly resigned before it even started. As such, no examination of the factual elements of the accusation can be made at this time. Even if an investigation now does go ahead, it’s already been vindicated, and can report as it pleases. So, Parish is made an ex-MP with no due process involved, and it is on this basis that a by-election is being held where another person will become an MP in his place, and the switch is expected to used as powerful propaganda.
On top of the kangaroo court of public opinion by which Parish was despatched, there’s certainty further to be had that the by-election has been engineered by the plain absurd implausibility of the affair. The very idea that a fellow with so much of the greasy pole at risk would clumsily position himself so that he could jeopardise it all – and in such an exceptionally unintelligent way – is just unbelievable. The only situation that the author can imagine is credible is if Parish had had a habit of frequenting porn sites on his phone – in a secretive manner, of course – and his habit was a piece of known intelligence being stored up (by those actually in power) come the day when he would need to be leaned on. In this case, the referral of Parish to an investigation would be simply to imply guilt, and we can presume that no enquiry will be had because there never was any intention to have one.
With respect to events causing the Wakefield by-election, it involves a scenario that too many people in Britain, given the conditioning they have undergone whereby their prejudices have been formed with false-flag terror as a backdrop, will react to in assuming guilt: a Muslim man committing a so-called paedophilic offence (which is using a term for sensationalist effect; the proper word to use would be “ephebophilic”). A word of advice: if people want to lazily rely on tropes in this case, then they must also accept the archetype that Parish is supposed to represent: a middle-aged to elderly white male to be considered automatically threatening, in a deviant way, to women.
So, Imran Ahmed Khan was found guilty at trial of molesting a male aged, at the time, 15 years. This boy, Khan’s accuser and bringer of the charge when grown up, claims he was groped while the would-be MP was staying overnight at the family home. The alleged assault happened in January, 2008. The complaint upon which the conviction has been achieved appears to have been brought some short time before June 2021, when it became public knowledge that Khan had been charged.
Many a long year, reader, passed before Khan’s accuser, now a grown man of 29 years, evidently went to police – or – many a long year, because we will hear how the accuser went to police in 2019 (still a very long time after the event), after Khan was elected in December of that year, before the criminal justice system moved against the MP. Either way, the question is begged, why now?
Well, look: in July 2021, this site published an article entitled, UK Government’s Change Of Strategy For Labour General Election Success After Dismal Leadbeater Performance: Have Starmer Appeal To Tory Voters?, and it was at a time when it was being established that Keir Starmer, through by-election results, was going to be forced as Prime Minister. The operation was already in motion, and fall guys, we can presume, were being sought out.
We should note that in reportage of the trial, it was revealed that the accuser approached “the Conservative Party press office in December 2019, days before Khan was elected as Wakefield’s MP”. Only after “not [being] taken very seriously” by those people did the accuser then take his allegation to police (“after the election”). What else can one do but ask, what’s that all about, then?
The author proposes that if Khan’s barrister was supposed to properly defend his client, something would have been made of the fact of no complaint for years, and only then, at first, to people overly concerned with good reputation and good image, as if this is the framework in which the allegation should be considered. If Khan’s defence was doing what it ought, dare the author posit, a clear opportunity to question the motivation of the accuser, and therefore the veracity of his claim, would have been seized upon. On the contrary, it seems, all parties accepted the odd genesis of the trial, and it appears to have been complimentary to the entire tone, for although Khan denied the charge, there’s a sense one receives from the reportage of a fait accompli against which there wasn’t much clever dodging.
Indeed, it appears that the strategy of Khan’s defence could have been to yield to the accusations, and plead mercy, and perhaps it can be summed up as sabotage because the final arbiter of Khan’s continued career as an MP – the curtailment of which was the whole point of the exercise – was the court of public opinion, given that he resigned the role before he was required to by dint of his having appealed the decision, and cited expectations of constituents for adequate representation.
As The Guardian reports, Khan’s defence argue for a suspended sentence based on the fact that Khan had suffered already due to the ruinous high profile nature of the case, and in the following the reader is asked to notice how this solicitor for Khan does not talk about his fate in terms of being conditional on an appeal – which it most (even now) certainly continues to be – and it’s probably because this speech – as we can witness for ourselves – was not meant for the judge alone:
[Khan’s QC, Gudrun Young,] said that if the trial had taken place 14 years ago it would have occurred before he held public office, and the absence of press interest would have allowed him to rebuild his life.
“The prospect of him committing further offences is vanishingly small,” she argued, adding: “There is no sentence this court can impose, whether days, weeks or years, which can come close to how he’s already been punished and will continue for the rest of his life. He can never escape this, he will always be known as a disgraced former MP.”
Incidentally, if Khan’s defence people did not question the timing of the bringing of the charge, this argument illustrates the reason to be suspicious of it all the same: it reminds that there was plenty of time to charge and convict Khan while the doing so had no political capital, but it only came when it could be most damaging.
There was controversy, however, after the decision, when Khan’s fellow MP, Crispin Blunt, criticised it in the most damning of ways – as covered here at FBEL in the article, The Ongoing FBEL “Parliament’s Legitimacy Crisis” Series. If the reader can do the back-reading for himself, this piece can concentrate on what happened since Blunt caused an outcry against him, and was pressured to apologise. Not for ultimately being cowed, Blunt reportedly made explosive remarks during an issue of BBC1’s Politics South East programme (aired, possibly, May 22nd) that unpicked the impression of a case neatly sewn up:
I know what decisions were made within the trial, which meant that, in my judgement, he did not get a fair trial or anything remotely like that.
This, of course, echoes Blunt’s original attack where he said that Khan’s case had resulted in a “dreadful miscarriage of justice”, although he went further this time by explaining in a particular way how the court was liable to produce such an outcome: “quite a lot of the trial was conducted without the jury being present.”
What Blunt appears to be saying here is that certain evidence was presented in court, but the same could not have featured in deliberations as to Khan’s innocence or guilt because the jury was not privy to it. The author, having observed these people at work for a decade, suggests that the individual officiating the proceedings had no good cause to have certain evidence omitted, and other ways had to be dreamed up to make it effectively inadmissible. In one word: crooked.
On top of the basic outrage claimed by Blunt – and remember, he is not a conspiracy theory media personality, but a former justice minister – there is the fact – as alluded to above – that Khan had a right to appeal, and actually did lodge one on 9th May, and thereby didn’t have to resign his seat until this had been resolved. As it is, however, he has been made to create a vacant seat, and consequently a by-election is going ahead in a very significant place, at a very significant time in the operation to force Keir Starmer as Prime Minister.
To complete the picture of two by-elections being engineered is a third case which shows, by contrast, what happens when UK Government finds that it would be inconvenient for an MP who has got themselves into trouble had to discontinue their career because the outcome of a resultant by-election would be problematic. We’re talking, of course, about the then Labour MP, Claudia Webbe (the party whip has been removed since), who was convicted of harassment in October, 2021, but did not resign her seat, Leicester East, because the outcome of an appeal was pending. In fact, we have a right to suspect, given what we have learnt in reading and writing this article alone, that Webbe did not resign her seat because there was no pressure on her to do so. Indeed, this was the author’s reading in November, 2021, when it was apprehended that “the UK Government would not benefit in its objective at this time by risking a by-election where Labour would need to defend a seat”, and that voter calculations at Leicester East were “within the bounds of a surprise Tory victory in the current climate of collapse in Labour support”, with the conclusion being that “this is why there is no sign of Webbe quitting the House of Commons”.
Now, in the latest of developments, there is still no sign of Webbe being required to quit the House of Commons, even though she has lost her appeal. As it happens – and don’t anyone dare claim that this is not rigged – the judge at the appeal, a certain Deborah Taylor, overturned the custodial element of Webbe’s sentence, so that it amounted solely to community service. Because of this adjustment Webbe has been placed safely out of reach of recall by constituents – unless, evidently, she were to be suspended from Parliament (in an in-house process) for at least 10 days. “We will now have to see if Parliament’s Standards Committee decides to act on the conviction” explained the BBC to its naïve audience on 26th May. A month later, “we” still appear to be waiting.
† Being merely another of its arms, the Trade Unions always do for UK Government what they are supposed – for instance, see the example referred to in The First World War And The March Of Socialism (link)
