The Labour Party leadership question is very hard to avoid. The news is dominated by it. The government is being incapacitated by it. We have the farce of the King's Speech being presented today by a government that may not exist by the end of the week. And all the while, Starmer clings on, like a limpet desperate for its own survival, whatever the cost to anyone else.
I have already posted two polls on this blog this morning, seeking your opinion on the question of the day, which is whether Keir Starmer will survive and who will replace him if he goes.
Those questions are, of course, relevant, but there are deeper questions to ask, which may be just as important, and they are why is he clinging on, why is Wes Streeting refusing to raise a challenge against him, and what the consequences might be if no one succeeds in eventually challenging Starmer for the premiership.
Is there a possibility, in other words, that despite the fact that he is obviously a failed prime minister in the eyes of many in the Labour Party and in the wider country, and his continued presence in Number 10 seemingly guarantees right now that Labour will perform disastrously at the next general election, that he will stay in office?
To answer that question, we need to stand back a little. As everyone now knows, Starmer became leader of the Labour Party six years ago in a deeply underhanded fashion, claiming to be the genuine successor to Jeremy Corbyn and offering ten pledges to the Labour Party membership, which suggested he would lead a genuinely left-wing government.
He then not only reneged on all those pledges but expelled very large numbers of those who had joined the party because of Jeremy Corbyn. At the same time, a campaign began to take complete control of the candidate selection process in Labour, whilst purging the officers of many local constituency Labour parties to ensure that Sytarmer's apparent will was done.
The consequence was that we ended up with the well-to-the-right-of-centre, completely gutted Labour Party that I have, this week, described as the party of bankers, not workers, and which is utterly disinterested in all those causes that once characterised everything that Labour stood for, from working people and their rights, to the protection of all those with the misfortune to not have an income through no fault of their own through the provision of a social safety net, and the provision of essential services ensuring quality of life including universal free education and universal free healthcare.
So, Labour is not what it used to be. But there is one misrepresentation in this narrative that I need to correct. My suggestion, so far, has been that this was achieved through Keir Starmer's agenda, and I am far from alone in thinking that Keir Starmer had no such agenda.
Morgan McSweeney had an agenda, and we now know that Peter Mandelson was the person who appeared to pull the strings there.
We know that Labour Together had an agenda, and we know that Peter Mandelson pulled the strings there as well, with Josh Simons appearing to be as much his agent as Morgan McSweeney ever was.
Four things characterised that agenda. They were, and are:
- Support for the interests of the City of London.
- Support for the interests of the wealthy sponsors of Labour.
- The promotion of Zionism, opposition to which was interpreted as antisemitism.
- A visceral hatred of anything left of centre.
The playbook that permitted the promotion of these themes came straight from the far-left infiltration of Labour in the 1980s. Their entryism was copied. They, of course, ran up against Kinnock and Mandelson at that time, and now Mandelson has used the lessons learned then to achieve his goal of the recreation of Labour as a right-wing, pro-Zionist political party with the objective of removing the chance of left-wing representation from those desiring it in the UK Parliament, assuming the perpetuation of a two-party-dominated political system in the UK.
You can quibble with this analysis. You can say that a deeper interpretation is required. But what I suggest is that you cannot argue that this did not happen, because it appears that Mandelson and McSweeney chose Starmer as their convenient front man for the campaign that they sought to promote, and nothing has changed ever since. He is still there, and the agenda is still in place. As far as they are concerned, nothing has changed.
Other things have, of course, though. The two-party political system on which they based their assumption of Labour power is collapsing all around them, because whilst they won the battle within Labour, by defeating through alienation the hearts and minds of those who had thought something altogether better was possible, they ignored another possibility: that the people might decide to take their votes elsewhere, as they have most obviously done. That was a major miscalculation on their part.
They made one other miscalculation, and that was that they presumed that the nodding donkeys whom they nominated as Parliamentary Labour Party candidates in the 2024 election would forever remain loyal to those who had given them their ticket to Westminster. Some of them do, however, now realise that what they have been presented with is a short-term, one-way ticket to their next employment, the chance of securing which might actually be harmed by their having been an MP. As a result, some of them have been willing to challenge Starmer and the hierarchy of power that put them in place, although very obviously not enough as yet, because Starmer is still there.
So, why is he still there?
Firstly, because the Starmer machine has been able to block the return of Andy Burnham, who, in truth, is an alternative face for Labour only a little more attractive to the country at large than Starmer has been, because he too is part of the Blair inheritance that was, again, in large part created by Mandelson.
And then there is Wes Streeting, who may only have arrived in Parliament in 2015, but is a very obvious creation from the same mould, so deeply does he share the views of the Mandelson axis, to the extent that working out what Streeting might think on any issue is as difficult as the same exercise ever is with Keir Starmer. The only role that Wes Streeting has in this fiasco is as a replacement for Starmer to perpetuate the Mandelson–McSweeney plan; but precisely because he is the continuity candidate, he cannot be seen as the person who will trigger the leadership election, and for that reason has not done so. He, like Starmer, has learned to read between the lines and do what is expected of him.
Why else is there no leadership election? Angela Rayner knows she has no chance at present, and probably not ever. She has deeply tarnished her brand.
Ed Miliband has, as yet, not reached the point of desperation with Starmer where he is willing to put himself forward in opposition to the Mandelson camp and go for a job which he is genuinely reluctant to do, but of which he is capable.
As far as I can see, there is no one else in play. The result is an impasse, and for now that is exactly what the Mandelson and McSweeney camp will be happy with. No one knows how to be rid of Starmer as yet, and within Labour and the country as a whole, given the impediment that obviously exists to Andy Burnham getting a run at the Labour leadership, this suits them very well.
Do not doubt that they will also engineer a campaign to prevent Burnham from returning to Parliament. And then they will sit back and rely on Macmillan's old adage that "Events, dear boy, events" will deliver, and sufficient of them will ensue that Starmer survives his term until 2029, by when they think they will have incapacitated the Greens through a programme of deliberate vilification, and against all the odds Labour will be re-elected.
Their inspiration for thinking so is, rather oddly, to be found in Scotland. Two years ago, good money would have said that there was no chance that John Swinney would now be First Minister of the Scottish Government, but he is, and with a commanding lead over all other parties. People can be persuaded of the status quo, after all, and what matters to the Mandelson–McSweeney alliance, and their powerful backers, is that the status quo built around the four pillars I have outlined be maintained.
In that case, their instruction to Starmer is to sit this out, which is precisely what he is doing; because so far it looks as though the Parliamentary Labour Party that they created does not have the courage to replace him, and they think that the threat from Burnham, who is not so far removed from their objectives in any event, can be contained.
What is the result? It is that these people will impose upon this country a government that no one wants, led by a prime minister who is universally loathed, but whose survival will, they think, permit a return to office of a Labour Party that is fundamentally pro-finance and pro-Zionist in 2029, against all the odds, because by then they will, they think, have had the opportunity to discredit both the Greens and Reform, and no one now takes the Conservatives seriously.
All of this is, of course, speculation, but the whole of politics is speculation, and it seems to me to be supported by what we know about what has happened in the last six years, what is happening now, and what is apparent from the agenda, such as it is, that Starmer has advanced whilst in office and which has been supported by key lobby groups such as Labour Together.
That the situation I am describing represents an attempt to destroy democracy in the UK is of no concern to those promoting this agenda. They have no concern for democracy or the will of the people of this country. All that they are worried about is that their view prevails. That, by proxy, is all Starmer is worrying about as well.
We do, as a result, need to worry. The indifference and cowardice of the Parliamentary Labour Party may yet deliver them just what Mandelson and McSweeney want, which is a very bleak future for us all.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Are you saying that Starmer promotes Zionism because the Jews are really in control of government?
No
I said Statmer promotes Zionism
I said nothing about Jews
The two are not the same
The word ‘Jew’ is not mentioned at all in the post. What a response?
A fair number of Jews do however have problems with Zionism – which is mentioned the post.
I am not antisemitic. I have problem with with some forms of Zionism and the government of Israel.
Dear Richard
My ‘what a response’ remark was aimed at Ali because it seemed to be on a well trodden path – not you at all. ‘Sorry for not writing more clearly on this occasion.
I understood that
Richard,
You say you are not anti-Semitic but your relentless focus on Zionism, shoehorning it into almost every post you make, suggests otherwise.
That’s before we get to your rhetoric around Israel. No other state or group seems to receive anywhere near the same amount of attention or criticism.
For example, Russia barely is mentioned and you seem to actively support Iran – also having failed to mention the massacres the regime committed on it’s own people.
You have also allowed many of the people who comment here to make various claims about Israel which would be considered antisemitic, and I’ve seen some downplaying the crimes Hamas committed.
So, for clarity, why don’t you set out your position.
Does Israel have a right to exist?
Does it have a right to defend itself from hostile actors?
Did Hamas commit rape and murder on October 7th and is it a terrorist organisation?
Let me first contextualise your claim, in this first p-art of my reply to you.
I mention Zionism rarely on this blog, and with care.
The same is true of Israel. It is mentioned only when appropriate and because of its multiple abuses of human rights and war crimes that has been far too often since 2023. But I still mention the USA far more often. Iran (whose regime I do not support, and have condemned for human rights abuses) gets mentioned rarely, and Russia (whose resume I likewise condemn) when it is appropriate. China also gets its fair share of appropriate opprobrium on occasion.
Why say this? Because it shows that the framing of your question is hopelessly biased, and reveals your prejudice. Why is that that case, might I ask?
And for the record, I do not think I have ever wittingly allowed antisemitic comment. I have removed some comments, I admit. But that is because I absolutely condemn antisemitism but unlike you, it would seem, I know that condemnation of Zionism and antisemitism should not be confused. The IHRA says so. You seem unaware of that. Why is that?
I will provide a second response to answer your questions.
So, to your questions:
Q: Does Israel have a right to exist?
A: It does exist. I am not challenging the fact, but I do challenge its illegal desire to expand its internationally agreed borders. It has no legal right to do that. Would you agree?
Q: Does it have a right to defend itself from hostile actors?
A: Yes, within the boundaries of international law. That does not permit it to:
– Undertake disproportionate action in response to threats
– Invade territory
– Target civilians
– Commit genocide
– Undertake collective punishment
– Undertake ethnic cleansing
– Permit the rape (including by dogs, as reported by the New York Times), torture or other sexual abuse of persons, including children, held prisoner without trial as a result of war.
Do you agree?
Q. Did Hamas commit rape and murder on October 7th and is it a terrorist organisation?
A. Hamas committed war crimes on 7 October 2023. I have repeatedly said so. People died as a result. I have always condemned that action.
I have not seem reliable reports of rapes. I would unreservedly condemn they if they happened.
Is Hamas a terrorist organisation? That is for a court to decide. That is a legal decision. I have condemned its actions. But if it is, so then, and much more so, is the IDF. Do you agree?
@ Richard,
I learned, only yesterday, that there are a couple of Jewish sects that don’t believe in the state of Israel; one on purely religious grounds, the other on religious and political grounds.
Contrast that with the existence of Muslim Zionists, yes they are rare, who could hypothetically debate in favour of Israel’s existence, against Jews arguing against.
There are an estimated 30Mn Zionists from the Evangelical Christian community in the US alone. The global population of Jews is ~17Mn, not all of whom are Zionists, perhaps ⅓ aren’t; especially from the left, or are secular. There are Druze Zionists too.
I could go on, but Ali; it’s complicated. The lesson for you is that a reference to Zionism is not a reference to Judaism; far from it. Jews are a minority of Zionists, arguably a small one.
To conclude: Israel is a nation state; criticism of it, its defence forces, or its politicians is not anti-Semitism. Zionism is a political movement; criticism of is not anti-Semitism. Judaism is a religion; you can criticise it, but persecution of, and persecution of it, and its followers is anti-Semitism, according to its most widely accepted definition.
Personally, I don’t accept that the descendants of the Hebrews are the only Semites, but that’s another story.
Apologies, I repeated “persecution of it”, when the latter should have referred to “prejudice against”.
Criticism of the actions and policies of the government of Israel is not antisemitic. There are plenty of Israelis who are strongly critical of their government’s actions. Netanyahu and co have put out this lie to shield their actions.
Equally in no way does criticism of Netanyahu and co justify or excuse the actions of Hamas.
Netanyahu and co are undermining Israel’s safety and prosperity by their policies in my opinion.
Today’s Jewish Chronicle has this article,
https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/universities-failing-to-protect-pro-israel-students-from-hate-e5s0g9um
once again pushing for anti-Zionism to be made a hate crime, & conflated with antisemitism, despite the British courts having ruled that it is a protected belief (the David Miller case https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20241015-anti-zionism-ruled-a-protected-belief-in-landmark-uk-tribunal-decision/ )
The pressure against anti-Zionist political campaigning or even straightforward criticism of Israel for war crimes, genocide, piracy in international waters, or ethnic cleansing, is growing, and is putting British Jews at risk of genuine increased antisemitism, by dragging them into Israel’s war whether or not they support Israel’s crimes.
Much to agree with
I’d suggest checking the Wikipedia entry on Zionism to get the difference.
Maybe this will help you. Ed Miliband is a member of this Cabinet. He also happens to be a Jew and was a Labour leader from the soft left. He had to suffer months of anti-semitic campaign against him orchestrated by the (far)-right politics and the media (led by of course Daily Mail). But that was all right I suppose as he wasn’t a right type of a Jew (as is antisemitism against Zach Polanski being normalised now).
Ali – Are you creating an antisemitic straw man in order to discredit the politics of hope?
Because it won’t work. And it is detrimental to the safety and security of British Jews. Which seems to matter to us here, far more than it matters to Zionists, for all their posturing and bullying of progressive thinkers.
Well said.
Starmer’s deepfake Corbynism – read Paul Holden’s ‘The Fraud’ (2025).
Starmer’s Zionism – read Peter Oborne’s ‘Complicit – Britain’s Role in the Destruction of Gaza’ (2025).
One way I look at it is that in the Labour party, Britain has its equivalent of the American Democrat party – a party of no new ideas, that constrains and suffocates progressive ideas until they are given up on or people get so frustrated that shittier ideas become more attractive and the chaos enables more plundering to take place.
The Labour party – like the U.S. Democrats – is therefore like a demonic air traffic control putting progressive ideas (the planes) into a never ending holding pattern but which will never be allowed to land with the hope that they just fall from the sky and go away. It is designed to destroy hope and uphold the grip of capital on state power (or if you like, money).
Much to agree with
The influence of Tony Blair and his Institute should be thrown into the mix. These people are addicted to power and consider themselves exceptional and democracy an impediment to their desires.
Thanks for that excellent analysis. I think many people have reached similar conclusions. I agree.
Many people say Starmer is fundamentally decent. Judging by his actions, particularly the dishonest way he achieved the leadership, his corruption in accepting gifts, his actions in office (initially gutting the winter fuel allowance, initially refusing to lift the two child benefit allowance, and more), I have to differ. From what I can see he is a dishonest, conniving, incompetent, egotist, who feels he is entitled to be PM (a disagreeable trait shared with at least the last 7 prime ministers). That’s why he’s clinging on.
It seems Labour Together’s plan was for Sir Kier to be a precursor to Wes Streeting, who would be a mailable idiot. So far that has failed (but may yet succeed).
The local elections suggest that the public have seen through Starmer and the current Labour Party, as they saw through the Conservatives.
Many Labour MPs probably realise that they are toast at the next election unless there is meaningful change. Whilst Starmer may stagger on I think that is less likely because it is against their interests. Similarly it less likely that Streeting will be anointed because he is clearly the continuation candidate.
P.S. There is a campaign of vilification against the Greens and Zack Polanski personally. I think that is ill judged. It is being over shadowed by the Labour Leadership convulsions. Zack Polanski is not an MP so the dirty tricks that have been used them cannot be used against him. If he is elected, these issues, such as they are, will be old news. I concluded this campaign has peaked far too soon.
I always think it is the mark of a clueless or completely disingenuous commentator when they say something like ‘Starmer, for all his flaws, is a decent man’. A better description would be ‘Starmer, for all his intelligence, has been undone by his lack of decency, his lack of empathy, and his lack of self-awareness.’
‘I am describing…. an attempt to destroy democracy in the UK'<p>
Yes Richard. Not all that long ago – that would have seemed a ridiculously over the top conspiracy theory<p>
But now – as you suggest , it might be worse than that . I am beginning to think that UK democracy is sort of a shadow puppet show , with the security services, infiltrated by CIA / Mossad making sure that only ‘vetted’ politicians and political parties participate.<p>
We glimpsed this when we were reminded that politicians and diplomats (Mandelson) have to be ‘vetted’. And also when Osborne said Corbyn would never have got ‘security clearance’ to be PM<p>
The whole illegally funded Labour Together operation ( described by Paul Holden ) to take over Labour, and spy on and threaten journalists fits. John McDonnel is seeking a full inquiry on all this – he wont get it.<p>
Then there is Starmer’s apparent ‘membership’ of far left groups as a student, and later membership of the CIA front Trilateral Commission when he was a shadow minister.<p>
The shadowy power structure is clearly permeating the BBC . Even this morning Nick Robinson after interviewing someone about Eurovision pro- Israeli vote-rigging, launched into his own extraordinary polemic – saying ‘wasn’t it reasonable after the slaughter of Jews on October 7th 2023 that they would try and counteract what they see as antisemitism across Europe..'<p>
The Labour right use incredibly toxic and abusive tactics, as shown in the Corbyn years against their own. I think you are right that their instinct will be to run a deeply negative campaign for the next 3 years to try to discredit the Greens and Reform (in that order of priority), rather than actually deliver a Politics of Care that the country so desperately needs.
If they really want to win, they should start stealing some ideas from the Greens, or dust off the old 2017/19 manifestos for some inspiration. Even better if they accepted how government spending actually worked and looked at the ideas you’ve shared on this blog – but that is wishful thinking with these lot.
If it still looks bleak, they could go for PR. Again, not hopeful for this. They’d rather try to hold our votes hostage I think.
Even if Starmer was replaced by someone on the “soft left” of the party, I worry they’d still be trapped in an Osbornomic thinking box about the debt and deficit, which means they are doomed to fail at meaningfully improving living standards for the many.
Given that Mandelson and McSweeney (and many others in the Labour Party) are so obviously right of centre, I wonder why they didn’t join the Conservative party from the off. They would have been at home there.
I am of the view that Starmer’s puppet masters will do everything necessary to keep him as PM…..until his has outlived his use to them. What they really fear is another Corbyn-like figure (by which I simply mean one who they cannot control) and so they will set out to destroy anyone who could challenge their project. Both Paul Holden and Peter Oborne have documented this in their respective books The Fraud and Complicit. It is now clear that they are using the same tactics against Polanski. Look at the latest confected scandal about his possible underpayment of council tax. The press articles, including the comments supposedly attributable to Dan Niedle, all stretch but just about stay within the boundaries of libel law by only suggesting he MAY have not paid the correct council tax. This seems to me to be a misleading and intentionally selective technique straight out of the “no smoke without fire” playbook. Nowhere is there found to be a reference to paras 8.1.2 and 8.2.2 (and any attempt to address the questions raised therein) of the current Valuation Office guidance on council tax or the relevant regulations. It is a blatant attempt to smear without actually slandering him. However it does show that some people are going to extraordinary efforts to trawl through the minutiae of his life in order to discredit him. I do not consider Polanski to be a “populist” – that conflates popularity with populism – but I do see the same tactics being employed against him as were used against Corbyn. This tells me that the puppet masters are scared. My response (to borrow from Pete Townsend): we won’t get fooled again. The Greens, however, must buckle up for a bumpy ride.
I can never forget that Dan Neidle was a leading lawyer in a major firm of London lawyers dedicated to tax minimisation who always vehemently opposed all moves for tax justice.
Richard,
I should have also referred to para 8.2.5 of the guidance. Sorry for the omission!
To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln:
A government of the money, by the money, for the money.
And yet….. these people pulling off this coup or fraud on the rest of us, do not even understand what ‘money’ really is, or what it is supposed to do and on a higher plane, what money is capable of doing.
Economists don’t know or pretend that money is something other than it is, the media don’t want to know, and the general public don’t really care or don’t want to think too hard about it.
He will absolutely survive.
Whatever is really afoot, the powers that are really running things will not let him go.
The way things are going, the meltdown that is coming and the lack of addressing it tells it’s own story.
I ask myself – what are they getting out of it? Same for the people supporting Starmer , who have come to his defence?
You have come to the same conclusion that I have, namely, Starmer will do as he is told. He is not a free agent. He is the front man for Mandelson, Blair and ultimately, Zionist billionaire, Larry Ellison.
Thank you, Richard.
I was planning to e-mail Mike and you privately, but this post and your point about support for the City allow me to flag something from yesterday afternoon.
The Times’ Patrick Maguire highlighted Chuka Umunna walking along Downing Street as the media scrummed. Some nerds picked up the tweet, but not the significance.
Umunna has worked for JP Morgan since 2020. One could say he always did, even as a backbencher.
About 18 months ago, a friend who works for a leading insurer and asset manager told me about Umunna visiting them. Umunna implied that if the firm wanted anything, it should go through JP Morgan. It was also implied that Wall Street, not the City, has the ear of the government. I have experience of that, especially Goldman Sachs, going back two decades.
If this carries on, this country will never recover.
This morning, Paul Johnson was interviewed by BBC Breakfast and kept referring to financial institutions lending the government money. Johnson was at the Institute of Fiscal Studies. About 20 years ago, I met one of the IFS’s founders, Nils Taube, a stockbroker. His firm was a client of my bank employer. I don’t consider the IFS to be an impartial observer. The IFS is based in Bloomsbury, but may as well be at Tufton Street.
As I say above, If this carries on, this country will never recover.
Agreed
And Dimon is issuing threats right now
Thank you Colonel. Only last week I was wondering what had happened to Umunna. It is a reminder that predators stay close to their prey, even closer when they know they are coming toward their end.
Of course the current situation has not suddenly materialised although it can be argued that it has recently become a lot worse. I would suggest that the decline of this country started in the early 1970s. The situation of ordinary citizens has largely deteriorated since the 1960s although in many ways materially better. I suspect that the younger generation are not going to have the relatively comfortable existence that I, as an octogenarian, have enjoyed.
Thanks for that cheery thought
Richard, your analysis is, I believe, quite correct. It’s interesting, though – I said exactly the same thing shortly after Starmer took the “Labour” Party hostage in 2020. At the time, my analysis – which was almost word for word the same as yours – was ridiculed by all and sundry, I imagine because people were not prepared to accept that anyone in Labour could be as duplicitous as Starmer was. And is.
Their mistake was assuming his past as a human rights barrister would predict his future as PM. Barristers, however, simply present the case they are given to the best of their ability. They are not emotionally invested in the morality of their client, nor their innocence or guilt. Someone as emotionless as Starmer, who lacks any empathy, fits the bill of a successful barrister to a T. So whereas having no visible commitment to a cause or any expression of personal value yardsticks makes for a good barrister, it makes for a terrible political leader. Hence, I think, why people feel Starmer’s inauthenticity.
He’s done what he was put there to do. Destroyed the Labour Party and made it, finally and forever, unelectable.
Thank you
Talking to people who understand the ins and outs of these things ie NOT Dan Niedle there are very few Houseboat Moorings banded for Council Tax as the Valuation Office almost inevitably loses at appeal
So it looks like Polanski was almost certainly not liable for Council Tax on his mooring
Thank you.
That was my instinct.
I thought Neidle, who said the situation was complicated, was overly confident in his claims.
Now it appears possibly 1000 people will be receiving a council tax bill thanks to clever Mr Neidle. Will he compensate them?
Why would he care?
I think you may misunderstand the situation in Scotland. Sure the MSM and BBC spend their entire time bad mouthing the SNP (I am not an SNP member, but we need to be fair, until you live in Scotland and see the endless one sided abuse you cannot understand). The SNP have passed a lot of good laws and done many things to benefit the people of Scotland. Things that people use and experience every day. Free prescriptions, subsidised/free bus travel, baby boxes etc. They are far from perfect but they were always going to come back, especially after that pantomime of blue tents in gardens and the endless MSM ‘jokes’ about camper vans That is not status quo, that is people seeing that the SNP ( and the Greens for a while) have protected them from the worst of Westminster, and tried to fight back when, yet again, England screwed Scotland (Grangemouth/wind farm factory Inverness- and many many more).
And, yes, the ferries have been difficult for a long time, and there was definite incompetence, but also just some bad luck and the climate crisis doesn’t help (bigger storms, stronger winds that last longer then they used to etc).
Sadly we are now being flooded with disgusting Reform propaganda, gleefully promoted by the BBC, Daily Mail, Express et al. And the more lies are told, the more people believe in them.