Only a few weeks in office and Labour is already failing to keep its election promises and our country is divided, angry and tearing itself apart.
It is our duty as UK Citizens to hold Labour and the opposition MPs to account; the future prosperity and happiness of our great nation depends on each and every one of us doing so.
Will YOU write to your MP today using our template?
The template below (and downloadable by right clicking the button) is for those people who have a Labour MP.
If you have an opposition MP, add a paragraph along the lines of “your role in opposition is to oppose and challenge – start doing it!”
Dear [Name of your Labour MP – if sending to an opposition MP, amend as described above],
Labour Party Rule Book 2024 (Rule Book)
As I am sure you are aware, the quote below is Clause IV. “Aims and values” sub-section 2.C from the Rule Book:
“An open democracy, in which government is held to account by the people, decisions are taken as far as practicable by the communities they affect and where fundamental human rights are guaranteed.”
As a Labour MP, I would be grateful for your response to the questions listed below in relation to the above-mentioned quote:
- What are the guaranteed “fundamental human rights” referenced?
- From where are “fundamental human rights”derived?
- Who are “the people”?
- What is the process by which “the people”can hold the Labour government “to account”?
Labour Party Manifesto 2024 (Manifesto)
In the opening section of the Manifesto, “My Plan for Change”, Keir Starmer refers to “the foundations of good government” as “national security, secure borders, and economic stability”.
The Manifesto then goes on to state that Labour is a “mission-driven” government and that in order to achieve the five stated “missions” (kickstarting the economy; Britain as a clean energy superpower; taking back our streets; breaking down barriers to opportunity and building an NHS fit for the future) it is essential to have the three foundations in place.
Under the section of the Manifesto entitled “Secure Borders”, the following statements are made:
“But the system needs to be controlled and managed and we need strong borders. The small boats crisis, fuelled by dangerous criminal smuggler gangs, is undermining our security and costing lives.”
“Even if it got off the ground, this scheme can only address fewer than one per cent of the asylum seekers arriving. It cannot work.” (In reference to the Rwanda Policy.)
“Chaos in the Channel has been matched by chaos at home.”
“The Conservatives’ unworkable laws have created a ‘perma-backlog’ of tens of thousands of asylum seekers, who are indefinitely staying in hotels costing the taxpayer millions of pounds every week.”
“We will create a new Border Security Command, with hundreds of new investigators, intelligence officers, and cross-border police officers. This will be funded by ending the wasteful Migration and Economic Development partnership with Rwanda.”
“Labour will turn the page and restore order to the asylum system so that it operates swiftly, firmly, and fairly; and the rules are properly enforced. We will hire additional caseworkers to clear the Conservatives’ backlog and end asylum hotels, saving the taxpayer billions of pounds.”
“And we will also act upstream, working with international partners to address the humanitarian crises which lead people to flee their homes and to strengthen support for refugees in their home region.”
The Manifesto, in the section entitled “Kickstart the Economy”, states, “so Labour will reduce net migration.”
Keir Starmer Interview
In light of the promise made at sub-section 2.C of the Rule Book and the Manifesto commitments on “secure borders” and “net migration”, do you think Keir Starmer’s refusal, detailed below, to even engage on the question of immigration amounts to a political betrayal?
GB News reporter to Keir Starmer: “If we have indeed turned a corner and seen an end to the violence is now the time to engage with the underlying tensions that are in communities over the issue of immigration?”
Keir Starmer’s response: “The first priority is safety and security of our communities and yes last night was much better than was expected, but we’re not going to give up on our efforts here. That’s why it’s very important that I continue my discussions coordinating with law enforcement, with police leaders to make sure we’ve got the right officers in the right place, to keep pushing on the criminal justice response. I was very keen that we’re able to demonstrate that if you’re involved in disorder, within days you’ll be in the criminal justice system and some people started long terms of imprisonment. That needs to continue and so that is my sole focus.”
You can find a video of this interview here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=4_WuseTbf0o
Keir Starmer failed to answer the question but what he implied was, “no it’s not time to listen to the concerns of the people on immigration.” Is it the policy of Starmer and Labour to attempt to win the debate by not having the debate? So much for “open democracy”.
Would you agree that Keir Starmer’s comment, “I was very keen that we’re able to demonstrate that if you’re involved in disorder, within days you’ll be in the criminal justice system and some people started long terms of imprisonment” is a breach the separation of powers? Surely Keir Starmer should not be seen to be influencing or directing the criminal justice system in any way?
Was the Manifesto merely a means to harvest votes during the election campaign or was it the setting out of a government agenda to be pursued by Labour in office? One should expect the latter since, whilst I acknowledge there is no statutory obligation to deliver the commitments made in a manifesto, I would argue that the Manifesto represents an implied contract between the Labour Party and the people. Upon winning the election, your Manifesto is no longer a campaign tool rather a blueprint for governance as indicated on the UK Parliament website:
“A manifesto is a publication issued by a political party before a general election. It contains the set of policies that the party stands for and would wish to implement if elected to govern.”
I would further argue that whilst it is incumbent upon Labour to follow its own Rule Book, it is failing to do so. Putting the interests, concerns and priorities of British citizens ahead of the interests, concerns and priorities of citizens from other countries is morally correct but seemingly Keir Starmer and the Labour Party do not think so.
Conclusion
Labour rightly states in the Manifesto that “every great nation is held together by shared beliefs”. It should be obvious to Keir Starmer and the Labour Party that a “shared belief” of a significant percentage of the people is the need for “secure borders”. Seemingly, in spite of making promises to achieve the same, in reality it’s not a belief shared by Labour.
The Labour Party acknowledged in the Manifesto that trust is eroded not just through “sleaze and scandal” but also by “the inability of politicians to keep promises made to the British people.” The Labour Party must know that the general election win had nothing to do with enthusiasm for Labour and everything to do with total disillusionment with the Conservative Party, a win in seats only. Yet, instead of attempting to win over the people by listening to their genuine and legitimate concerns, Keir Starmer has chosen to ignore those concerns instead referring to the people as “thugs” and “far right”.
I have no confidence that Labour will keep any of the “promises” made to the British people.
I see no evidence of the “government of service” or “the security of the British people” being “the fundamental priority of government” spoken of by Keir Starmer in the introduction to the Kings Speech (see link below). I do, however, see evidence of Keir Starmer “break[ing] people’s lives, as well as the life of a nation” and taking no responsibility for that whatsoever.
Whilst the opposition may not plan on holding the government to account (mirroring the lack of opposition by Labour during the Conservative government), the people are waking up and I fully believe they intend to, relentlessly, hold Keir Starmer, every member of the Labour Party AND the opposition to account. Indeed, that is the responsibility of every British citizen.
I look forward to your response.
Best regards
[Your name]
[Your address]
