radiofree.asia

Polanski responds to Starmer saying ‘the Greens are nuts’

In an interview with the Observer, Keir Starmer has branded the Green Party ‘nuts’. As we’ll get into, this is clearly a sign that Starmer is worried about the Greens overtaking him. Or, to put it as Zack Polanski might, the guy is ‘rattled’.

Polanski himself responded as follows:

The gloves are off but Polanski doesn’t care

The interview begins with the following quote from Starmer:

Going for a walk on your own and clearing your head, being out there with nature, is something I really enjoy. The peace, quiet, taking in a wider world – I’ve always loved it

He added:

Theoretically, I can go for a walk but the police team would come with me. I don’t feel that when they’re walking just behind me I can ignore them and therefore I start talking to them. It’s not the same as going for a walk on your own.

Mate, you’re the least popular prime minister since records began; you absolutely can go for a long walk by yourself (ideally into the sunset or off some sort of short pier).

Suggesting he’s something of a Tory, Starmer also said:

We’ve had Labour versus Tory at every election since the war. I’ve always wanted a Labour government but I’ve never worried about the future of our country under a Tory government.

So is Starmer lying now, or was he lying when he said this?

He literally tweeted this on the day of the 2024 election:

This is what he said three days beforehand:

He’s just a laughably dishonest man; a person who will say anything that benefits him in the moment.

To continue with his quote, he was building to the following:

With Reform, I worry about what will happen to our country in terms of tearing our communities apart. Once you say that diverse communities aren’t British, that reasonable, compassionate people aren’t part of who we are, and that we don’t want to look after each other, and that only points of division count, you’re going in a different direction.

We don’t like Reform either, but let’s not pretend they aren’t Tories with a lick of turquoise paint. Let’s also not pretend you haven’t spent the past few months doing Reform-style divisive politics:

And next we get to Starmer’s attack on the left.

‘Nuts’

As reported by the Observer, Starmer was:

almost as rude about the Greens. “They’re anti-Nato at a time when the world is more volatile than it has ever been.”

Regardless of how you feel about NATO, the fact is it’s always been an American protection racket. This is a problem right now, because the Americans can’t be bothered maintaining it anymore:

We can have security agreements with our European neighbours without NATO, and in future that may be forced on us whether we like it or not.

The irony is it’s not even Polanski who’s pushing for us to leave NATO; it’s Your Party:

Either Starmer is getting the two mixed up, or he’s being dishonest again. Oh, and speaking of the latter, this is what he said next:

The Green party thinks it’s all right to sell drugs and there should be no restrictions. So somebody could sell drugs outside my children’s school but, if you’re a landlord, it should be unlawful.

There is sooooo much to address here.

Firstly, the Greens literally don’t think there should be no restrictions, and Polanski has said “we need to be having a public health approach”. On what that could look like, Transform wrote:

Legal regulation means that access to drugs would be more restricted.

  • Although the legal regulation of drugs is sometimes characterised as a ‘liberalisation’ or ‘relaxation’ of the law, it is in fact the opposite: it is about bringing the drug trade within the law so that strict controls can be applied. Such controls are impossible to impose under prohibition
  • Legal regulation enables responsible governments to control which drugs can be sold, who has access to them, and where they can be sold. Under prohibition, it is organised crime groups and underegulated vendors who make these decisions
  • When governments have control of the market they can put age limits on products, whereas people selling drugs in the illegal market do not ask for ID

Secondly, Starmer’s attack on Polanski is almost word-for-word the same as what what Reform’s Zia Yusuf said:

He wants to legalise all drugs and outlaw landlords.

Thirdly, at least when Yusuf made the case, he phrased it in a way which made sense. Look at this bit again:

So somebody could sell drugs outside my children’s school but, if you’re a landlord, it should be unlawful.

Mushmouth Starmer seems to be suggesting it will be legal for people to sell drugs outside schools unless they’re landlords. It’s almost as if he’s been smoking something himself, because no one is suggesting any of this.

Fourthly, there are already people selling drugs outside your kids’ school; this is the problem with current policy, and it’s why Polanski and others want to take narcotics out of the influence of criminals.

It’s the same logic which led the Americans to reverse the prohibition on alcohol — a policy which caused an absolute boom in organised crime which wasn’t seen again until the War on Drugs took off.

Green surge

While Starmer is attacking Polanski, his underlings are going green — seemingly in an effort to wash the stink of their boss off them:

With his gloves on or off, Starmer is a liar, a fraud, and a national embarrassment. As such, it’s no wonder his own MPs don’t want anything to do with him.

Featured image via Barold

By Willem Moore

This post was originally published on Canary.