Putting Labour out of the UK's misery

16Dec24 Verision 2.1 -  (started 10DEC24  Version 1.0 )

There is a lot of glum acceptance that we are lumbered with Labour until 2029 - but dumping this catastrophic administration long before 2029 is not as unlikely as finding a unicorn grazing on the lawn, as many imply.

So we are not inevitably stuck with this fiasco unless we acquiesce, the government can go at short notice in a number of ways - so let's go into the situation room and wargame scenarios that can bring down governments or force them to compromise and seek coalition partnerships in times of national emergency. The idea the electorate can hustle this catastrophically illegitimate government out of office for lying, cheating and incompetence is not an impossible dream. It just requires some effort.

Sending missiles to poke the Russian bear in the eye could get us into a war overnight. Putin can look at the petition result and be forgiven for wondering if he could drive through Dover in a tank and be welcomed as a liberator. He certainly has no fear of being overwhelmed by a well armed and trained civil defence force.

We have taken our eye off the possibility of an attack from other unfriendlies - like Iran; N Korea and even China in the event of an invasion of Taiwan - when we have not got adequate means of defence. And who know what other terrorists might acquire a stray nuke? 

In the case of China it might not be a shooting war, but crippling trade warfare over the withdrawal of access to strategic goods such as semiconductors and solar panels. Granted the UK likes to think it is constrained by civilisation and the rule of law, but the numbers for the July 4th election are outrageous (and some labour MPs will secretly and sheepishly admit it) that there is a real moral hazard if we do not address the democratic deficit with an electoral system that does not disenfranchise 80% of voters.

The government has been progressively disarming the population - firearms became almost unobtainable after Dunblane and Hungerford, and are now only rarely available after deep and detailed investigations into all applications and renewals - recently swords and knives have been taken off the population. But unless we are going to be told to prepare and eat with plastic and wooden bladed "cutlery" ...?

And then there is the very real possibility that senior Labour politicians (including Lords) will be found to be involved in illegal activities and conspiracies to conceal awkward facts from their activist pasts and associates.

Maybe even awkward revelations involving compromised senior civil servants; love children, super injunctions... there are many ways for an apparently immovable government to become so utterly bogged down in sleaze and corruption so the stench of hypocrisy and decay is so pervasive - that it becomes a pariah that cannot survive.

Starmer already used up his allocation of complimentary "honeymoon period" hypocrisy by insisting "HIS GOVERNMENT" would contrast with the previous government and be paragon of probity and virtue - but immediately ran into the Lord Alli freebies, the Rayner housing awks; the Louise Haigh resignation, the disgraced Jacqui Smith Lords appointment, and the Rachel from Accounts' CV fiasco.

So I asked Grok...
How can the British labour MPs  be made financially responsible  for allowing mad Ed Milliband to wreck the country through his insane net zero policies

And GROK says...

"The question of holding British Labour MPs financially responsible for the outcomes of policies they support, particularly those related to net zero emissions under Ed Miliband's [leadership], involves complex legal, political, and ethical considerations. Here's an analysis based on the available information and context:

Legal Accountability:
Personal Liability: Generally, MPs are not held personally financially liable for the policy decisions they support or enact unless there's evidence of gross negligence, corruption, or illegal actions. The democratic process allows for policy implementation by elected representatives, with the assumption that these policies serve the public interest, even if they are controversial. 

Fiscal Responsibility: While the government can be held accountable by the electorate through elections for policy outcomes, the financial implications of those policies are managed through budgetary controls and are not typically directed at individual MPs. Policy failures might lead to political consequences, like losing an election or facing voter backlash, but not direct financial responsibility unless specific legal breaches occur.

Political Accountability:
Electoral Consequences: MPs are held accountable by voters in elections. If the public perceives Labour's net zero policies, championed by Ed Miliband, as detrimental, they can vote against Labour MPs in subsequent elections. This is the primary mechanism for political accountability in a democratic system.

Public and Media Scrutiny: Media, public campaigns, and think tanks can increase scrutiny on MPs and their policies. For instance, articles from sources like The Times and The Telegraph have discussed the potential negative impacts of net zero policies on energy security and costs, which can influence public opinion and political pressure.

Policy Critique and Debate:
Policy Review: There's ongoing debate about the feasibility and economic impact of net zero policies. Critics argue that these policies could lead to higher energy costs or job losses in traditional industries, while proponents highlight long-term benefits like energy independence and environmental health. The discourse around these policies includes voices from both sides, with some expressing concerns over the rapid transition's economic implications, while others see it as necessary for future sustainability.

Economic Impact:
It's argued that the transition to net zero could strain the UK's economy if not managed carefully, with critics like Howard Cox from Reform UK suggesting that these policies might not align with the UK's global emission impact and could economically disadvantage the country.

Conclusion:
While there's no straightforward mechanism to make Labour MPs financially responsible for policy outcomes in the manner implied by the question, they are subject to:

Political accountability through elections - Public scrutiny which can influence policy direction or lead to changes in government.]

Legal accountability only if there are breaches of law, not merely based on policy outcomes.

The debate around net zero policies is significant, involving economic, environmental, and social considerations, with no immediate legal avenue for direct financial accountability for MPs except in extreme circumstances. [Bankrupting the entire country in pursuite of an unproven hypothesis is extreme enought for me!] The effectiveness and impact of these policies will continue to be debated and judged by the electorate in future elections..." 

It's clearly not an open and shut case - the Palace of Westminster would have become the Prison of Westminster a while ago, to save the trouble of transporting the inmates to another location. So we have to work on the points raised, and I think there is an arguable  and straightforward case for negligence in face of endless warnings, and also around the bribery act when votes with conned out of the electorate on promises of cheaper energy. Yes there will a lot of wailing OF "you cannot possibly do that" but  aren't we ready to change the rules and expectations after the failure of 30 years of Blair and his heirs?

Many good people have looked at politics and concluded that they could not bring themselves down to the level of deceit required to be a player in the game. Ben Habib and  Tim Montogomery have both recently been proded by conscience to re-evaluate  their positions in the Tory party. Labour defectors seeking to dissociate themselves from the distastrous consequences of govenment profligacy will take off when the first test case of an MP's potential for their 1/411th share of the many £billions being flagrantluy wasted by Miliband, gets to court....  🤔 

It was Keir Starmer that set the "nasty" intimidatory tone of this government with a vicious burst of lawfare to scare the people into submission to his police state and "bang-em-up" judges - now shall we concentrate minds and investigate and catalogue the assets of every Labour MP who will be liable for their share of the costs of the accumulating fraud in which they are prima facie complicit? Those who decide to do the decent thing and participate in a vote of no confidence in the government in order to respect the will of the people's petition may be granted leniency. 

A defenestration of the Starmer "illegitimocracy" is all the more likely if there is an obvious replacement government in waiting with a leader and credible policies. But there is not one at present, and Rupert Lowe needs to find some more Reform front people with the balls to look the government in the eye to tell it that it needs to prepare to be out of office by next summer. But the announcement that billionaire Nick Candy id on the Reform team will further alarm Labour.

Also remember that Dominic Cummings is still on the loose with scores to settle and he always seems ready to implicate our rogue civil servants in all government failure and  malfeasance; speaking of which I have not once alluded to what Trump and Musk might have up the MAGA sleeve... there is much to hope for if you want a fairly and democratically elected government within months, not years.

But keep in mind when we do get close to disposing of Starmer and his illegitimocracy, the Tory party may well pretend it can't be done - since it is just as disturbed by the almost inevitable prospect of an at leat part-PR electoral system as will Labour and Lib dems - who will be huge losers in a fair voting solution.

Are we put off by the prospect of the winning parties being forced to do deals to form governments? Well, nothing is ever going to be as bad as the abomination Starmer and his student common room politics has wrought, so let's try and be grown up and take into account all the new tech and information innovations that can change the relationship of electors and elected. Our present system was devised in the dark ages of carrier pigeons and rotten boroughs, and if we stick to the wote pledge principles, then what can possibly go wrong if electors are encouraged to be involved and empowered?