How the British Gov’t is Working to Elect Kamala

The British government’s chief of staff, head of communications, director of policy and director of strategy have allied with the Kamala campaign while the British government’s ruling Labour Party is working with the Democrats to send staffers to work for her in key swing states.

The ‘British invasion’ first began over the summer when top figures in the British government and the Labour party, including Prime Minister Starmer’s Chief of Staff and the heads of the Labour Party headed to the Democratic National Convention with a view, as one put it, to “ensuring we get on the right road to getting a second term”.

In October, the British Labour Party’s Head of Operations announced that nearly 100 Labour Party staffers were “heading to North Carolina, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Virginia” as part of a campaign by ‘Labour for Kamala’.

The British Labour Party building a coordinated campaign operation with the Democrat Party and setting up operations in Pennsylvania and Virginia is an unprecedented level of foreign interference. Russians merely taking out Facebook ads led to widespread conspiracy theories, investigations and censorship by Democrats now actively courting foreign interference.

While both the Democrat Party and the British government have denied there was any official coordination, the Daily Telegraphrevealed that the ‘Labour for Kamala’ activists dispatched to work for Kamala’s election in swing states were to be housed bythe Democrat Party.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Foreign Secretary David Lammy, a close Obama ally, falsely claimed that the Labour party and its faltering government were taking no position on the American election, but they forgot to inform its Under-Secretary of State for Scotland who is hosting a ‘Come on Kamala’ Election Night party complete with ‘Labour for Kamala’ badges.

The level of foreign interference by the radical socialist ruling party goes beyond the 100 staffers dispatched to swing states. A British Labour delegation to the Democratic National Convention was led by Starmer’s Chief of Staff Morgan McSweeney who headed his campaign and had created the Center for Countering Digital Hate to censor conservatives in the UK and America.

PM Starmer initially lied, falsely claiming that “they’re doing it in their spare time, they’re doing it as volunteers, they’re staying I think with other volunteers over there. That’s what they’ve done in previous elections, that’s what they’re doing in this election and that’s really straight forward.”

Labour was then forced to admit that it had funded McSweeney’s trip to the DNC. The DNC delegation also included Matthew Doyle, Starmer’s head of communications, while being hosted by the Progressive Policy Institute: a Democrat Party think tank that is also currently employing Claire Ainsley who had served as Starmer’s Executive Director of Policy.

PPI, the Democrat think tank, also announced that it’s also hosting British Labour “strategist Deborah Mattinson” to share “campaign lessons from Labour’s victory with Democrats.”

Mattison’s bio still lists her as Starmer’s “Director of Strategy” though her status is unclear.

The Starmer government has tried to dismiss the close coordination between top Labour leaders and government advisers with the Democrat Party as mere “individual volunteers” there “on their own time”, but they’re not volunteers and they’re not there on their own time.

The British government’s chief of staff, head of communications, director of policy and director of strategy aiding an American presidential campaign is not a matter of “individual volunteers”. Nor is it a matter of volunteers when the British Labour Party’s Head of Operations is also dispatching staffers to swing states to campaign for that same presidential candidate.

What it is, is a nearly unprecedented level of foreign interference in an American election.

While the impact of the British Labour Party setting up shop in American swing states remains unknown, the impact of Starmer’s advisors on Kamala appears to be far more clear.

British observers of American politics first noted that the Kamala campaign appeared to have borrowed her baffling “turn the page” and “end the chaos” slogans from the Labour Party which had campaigned on a promise to “stop the chaos, turn the page, start to rebuild”. But the Labour Party had been running as challengers while Kamala is running for reelection as an incumbent.

In September, British Labor strategists had advised Kamala to focus on winning back Democrats who were preparing to vote for Trump based on economic issues. Her campaign appeared to pursue that approach, emphasizing economic issues and avoiding ideological messages. Then, as her polling numbers began to collapse, the campaign pivoted back to the old “protecting democracy” message while accusing Trump of being another Hitler.

After the 2016 election, Democrats mobilized to battle what they claimed was “foreign election interference” by Russia based on false claims about its mostly post-election Facebook ads. Since then much more blatant forms of foreign election interference have emerged. Iran hacking the Trump presidential campaign and passing on the materials to the Kamala campaign and the media occasioned little commentary and less outrage. And a foreign government advising and dispatching its own personnel to campaign for Kamala has been dismissed as a trivial matter.

More disturbingly, British government officials have claimed that it should be treated as normal.

According to British Labour Secretary of Defense John Healy, “this happens in every election. It’s commonplace. It is very different to the determination of a Labour Government to work with whoever the American people elect next month as their president.”

The notion that the British government intervening in an American election is “commonplace” or should be treated as such says more about the mindset of the Labour government than anything else. And it also highlights the comfort level of the Democrat Party allying with a foreign government for foreign election interference in an American presidential election.

Source: http://www.danielgreenfield.org/feeds/3562528921581094212/comments/default