I happened to see the tweet below, which mentions events from eight years ago.
Now Rachel Reeves is back in the news, having been appointed Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer by Jewish-lobby puppet Keir Starmer.
What do we know about Rachel Reeves? Wikipedia has this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Reeves.
I have been trying to discover whether Rachel Reeves is part-Jewish. No firm conclusion, though my instinct says yes. Be that as it may, the Labour Party is something of a family business for Rachel Reeves and her sister Ellie [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellie_Reeves]: both Labour Party MPs, and the sister, Ellie Reeves, is married to another Labour MP, John Cryer [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cryer].
All are pro-Israel, as far as I have been able to discover. Certainly Rachel Reeves is. She is the Vice-Chair of Labour Friends of Israel, supports the Auschwitz-Birkenau Foundation, and has even written one chapter of a book which was effectively Israeli propaganda.
Rachel Reeves is married to one Nicholas Joicey, a former Treasury civil servant who is currently Finance Director-General at the Department of Work and Pensions [DWP]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Joicey. He was at one time speechwriter for Gordon Brown.
A few indicators to Rachel Reeves’ character and views:
“In 2013, she caused controversy, especially among the left-wing members of the Labour Party, by stating that they would be “tougher” than the Conservative Party in cutting benefits.” [Wikipedia]
“She caused controversy in early 2015 by stating “We [Labour] don’t want to be seen, and we’re not, the party to represent those who are out of work”.” [Wikipedia]
“Reeves’ parliamentary credit card was stopped at the start of 2015, owing to a debt of £4,033.63, which she subsequently repaid. In 2018, she claimed £188,686 in expenses, of which £149,514 was in staffing costs and £22,089 in office costs, £30,422 more than the average parliamentary claim of £158,264.” [Wikipedia]
So there we have it. Once you take away some kind of early-ingrained Labour tribalism, there is nothing “socialist” or even “social-democratic” there. I am not certain that she can even be described as an example of “managerial socialism” or the like, in the latter-day Blair-Brown sense.
Rachel Reeves is an economist, and I am sure that she has no difficulty separating the concept of running a national economy from that of running one’s own domestic finances, but her apparent inability to prevent herself running up (interest-free?) credit card debt (paid for by the taxpayer?) does sit awkwardly both with her new status and with her former pronouncements attacking the unemployed, poor, those on State benefits etc. Particularly as she and her husband (his salary being about £170,000 p.a.) are getting about half a million pounds in pay, expenses and perks annually out of the public purse…
Where does that leave the Labour Party? Up that well-known creek without a paddle, arguably.
As I have repeatedly blogged, the Labour Party now has almost nothing in common with what it was in 1930, 1960, 1990, or even 2000. The same could be said of the Conservative Party, but we are talking about Labour at present.
The Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves Labour Party will find it hard to appeal to any defined bloc of voters. Even in 2010 (after “Labour” had brought in the ATOS carpetbaggers etc), the poorer sections of society could still view Labour as at least better, less harsh, than the Conservative Party. Now (and now that Corbyn and his supporters have been purged), it is hard to see that voter-demographic as bothering to go out to vote Labour.
Another bloc of voters, those not “affluent” but not actually poor, also probably see nothing to vote for in the Starmer and Reeves Labour Party.
What about the more affluent? Maybe. Some. The metropolitan pro-EU types. Those, maybe. However, they are a minority, a fairly small minority. We have just seen that Labour’s new (supposed) stronghold, London, almost toppled Sadiq Khan from the Mayoralty, despite the fact that the Conservative Party put up a West Indian who was almost a joke candidate.
Labour is said to have a great deal more traction among “the young”, whether that means the under-25s or just under-40s. Perhaps, but whether that will be true now that stale Starmer and Reeves are in control, I wonder. Maybe not.
Labour may find itself reduced to being a niche party for certain black-brown “communities”, and for some of the publicly-paid employees.
Then there is the question of the SNP, the only bloc of MPs likely to give support (on conditions) to any minority Labour government which might be formed somewhere down the line. If Scotland breaks away, that is Labour’s last lifeline gone.
There was much to laugh at in Corbyn-Labour, but this Starmer/Reeves idea of a “managerial”, or “we can run workhouses better!” pseudo-Labourism is doomed from the start.
If Labour wants to have even a semblance of a chance at electoral success, it has to get rid of Starmer, Reeves and their like.
Where Jews exist in any but very small numbers, non-Jews will always be exploited, and can never be free. That is as true in Europe (and including the UK) as it is in the Middle East.
We in the UK are as much occupied as are the Palestinians; the (((control))) in the UK is simply more sophisticated.
So what? What does it matter whether it is “anti-Semitic”? There is nothing wrong with being “anti-Semitic”. Au contraire…
[addendum: I used to have a copy of Margarete Buber-Neumann’s book of her life (up to 1949), Under Two Dictators. She found life as a prisoner under German rule, though hard indeed, far easier than in Stalin’s prisons and labour camps: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margarete_Buber-Neumann; https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.227294]
More tweets seen
Non-Jewish but fervently pro-Israel tweeter Emma Picken opines thus:
Perhaps Jerusalem would be more peaceful if Jewish supremacists did not hold an annual “conquerors’ celebration” march through the East Jerusalem Arab Muslim neighbourhoods currently celebrating Ramadan; or if Jews stopped trying to steal the homes of the Arabs (Palestinians) and evict those families so that Jew extremist families can go from Tel Aviv and New York City to live in those stolen houses? Just a thought, as people say…
I blogged about Bitcoin well over three years ago: https://ianrobertmillard.org/2017/12/10/thoughts-about-bitcoin/
Interesting. I have to admit that I had not heard of the Yorkshire Party before today.
Good to see that “European Housewife” is still around.
Long long ago, in the mid-1970s, I knew a woman, now I imagine long-deceased, whose maiden name was de Lusignan. The de Lusignans were the Norman rulers of Cyprus about 900 years ago.
That woman, rumoured to be part-Afghan despite the other supposed ancestry, had something of the look of “European Housewife”. I remember her well. I last encountered her when exiting the Aeroflot office in London, sometime in the early/mid 1990s. She was walking down Piccadilly. I would probably not have recognized her, not immediately, but a lady accompanying me did, at a slight distance too. There was a brief conversation on the pavement. The de Lusignan lady was amazed when it was pointed out to her that I was the Ian she had known in 1976. She had not at all recognized me.
Between Diane Abbott and Rachel Reeves, Labour is doomed…
I am reminded that today is the anniversary of the gallant and quixotic attempt by Rudolf Hess to call a halt to the conflict between the German Reich and the British Empire: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Hess#Attempted_peace_mission; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Hess.
What a better world we would all now be living in had the Second World War either not started (on the Western Front especially), or had it stopped in 1940 (after Dunkirk), or even had it stopped, or been limited in its scope, in and after 1941.