What we also know is that large sums of money, donated to the campaign effort by Labour Party enthusiasts, was diverted by the central office of the Party (overseen by individuals hostile to the wing of the Party which Corbyn represented) and funneled toward individuals on the right of the Party who then went out onto the doorsteps and actively campaigned against their own leadership, in all likelihood costing Labour the election.
These are the very individuals who sit within and behind the current leadership (Corbyn and the left having been effectively and ruthlessly purged from the Party) and who, come the next election will ask you for your vote (and will happily take your money if you donate it) in support of themselves and Kier Stamer, to secure office following the the same.
What they did was unethical and immoral, and was a breach of trust in respect of the thousands hard working individuals who donated their money towards the cause five years ago. It is unprecedented in (to my mind) the campaigning of any other political campaign of any other party, past or present, and most certainly in the history of the Labour Party.
For this reason, there are no circumstances under which I will ever vote Labour again while under the current leadership. I will use my time over the forthcoming months to acquaint every person I can with the facts I have outlined, and if in doing so can make even the slightest dent in the voting intentions of a few individuals in my circle of contacts (and I speak to hundreds of people a day), then I will not consider my time wasted.
Such is my anger at what the current leadership have done, what they have quite possibly denied us - for make no mistake, had Corbyn won the history of our country would likely be a very different one to that we have experienced, we would be in a very different place indeed - that I would rather see Rishi Sunak lead another Conservative administration, than see Stamer take the election and become PM of this country.
-----------0---------
It was undoubtedly the sensible thing to do, to cancel the King's forthcoming visit to France, given the parlous state of order in the country as mobs of enraged citizens rampage through the streets in protest against the raising of the pension age from 62 to 64.
It will no doubt be a disappointment to King Charles as the visit was to be his first overseas tour since becoming King, and in addition was to be a visible declaration of the new rapprochement between the two countries after a number of fractious years post the referendum and Brexit. The Sunak administration will also be disappointed as it was to be a showcase - the finale if you like - to their cementing of the Windsor Framework, which despite the success of getting it through Parliament, does not look quite like the crowning achievement it was painted as being.
But back to the French and the cancelled visit, it is not quite clear how the decision was made. Initial reports yesterday said that Macron had phoned Charles personally to request the visit be rescheduled, but today the French are saying it was a joint decision. Some refutation of this has been suggested, with the Palace (if I'm correct) suggesting that this isn't quite correct. But hey - the decision was made by whatever means and it seems to me to be the correct one. The security issues with walkabouts and movements between properties would have been horrendous. And to cap it all, the State Banquet planned for the Palace of Versailles would have been inflammatory to the disgruntled population in the extreme. The optics of the French administrations sitting down with the British royal family in the very Palace where Louis the Sixteenth partied with Marie Antoinette while the French people starved, where the French revolution itself was born - it would have to have become a focal point for French anger and would likely have been stormed by the populace before it was over. Not good. Not good at all.
So yes - I think it was a sensible decision to call the visit off and postpone it to a later date. On the pension reform proposed by Macron (and pushed through by executive decree) I'm with the people.
It was the French who first introduced the idea of a pension so that "the people of France can enjoy at the end of their lives, some of the leisure that the aristocracy have enjoyed for the entirety of theirs". The practice was introduced in the UK following the Beveridge Report, but has been craw in the side of governments ever since. Introduced for men at the age of 65 and women upon reaching 60, the practice has been under seige ever since. First it was the age at which women would receive the payment that was raised from 60 to 65. Then the age for both from 65 to 66. In short order it will raised to 67 with plans for further increases, brought in incrementally in the future. Ultimately it will become almost pointless as people (who might be living longer, but are certainly still ageing at the same rate as they always have) will effectively be working until they drop.
In the UK, we are such a politically indolent bunch that the government can get away with this type of insult to the people and they just suck it up. In France not so: they are out tearing up the flagstones and burning town halls. Maybe a bit extreme to be sure, but they are certainly making their views be taken notice of. Whether Macron will back down - he says the country cannot any longer afford the cost of the pension payments - remains to be seen, but seventy percent of the population think that he should. I'm guessing that he won't have much choice; the pictures of batton wielding policemen weighing into people and being injured themselves as the people fight back is not a good look. And the protests show no sign of dying down.
But there you have it. Enjoy your day and be lucky.
