The news today is all about elections, whether here in Britain, or elsewhere. But will changing the faces in parliaments and national assemblies make a difference? The working classes, whether in Britain, India, South Africa, or the many other countries which have had, or will have elections this year, already know the answer to this.

    Nevertheless, here in Britain TV's electoral Muppet Show has begun, as if there really was a genuine stake for the rest of us in this one-sided system! Voters were expected to tune in to ITV's "Big Debate" on Tuesday night to watch Starmer and Sunak going "head-to- head". This, apparently, to help them decide which party to choose at the ballot box on 4 July.

    The opponents were even given a score afterwards in a "snap" poll. So Sunak, despite trailing by 21 points in the BBC election tracker, is said to have "won". In other words, his lying and covering up, at least this time, was much better than Keir Starmer's!

    As if most of the electorate is not utterly cynical about these politicians and this 5-yearly beauty contest - and quite rightly so. In the local elections the percentage turnout was, on average, in the low-to-mid twenties - and for the most highly contested mayoral seats, 60% of voters didn't bother to vote.

    As for today's TV debates, the BBC's election expert ("psephologist" John Curtice), admits that political leaders' debates don't even change the final ballot. But never mind. The show business is good for the media pundits and the advertisers. The "look" of it is always far more important than the substance.

Their taxing question

That said, there might, after all, have been some use in the debate this time. According to commentators, the biggest "slip-up" that Starmer made was that he didn't answer Sunak's accusation that Labour would put up everyone's tax bills by £2,000.

    Whether this "costing" (apparently made by Treasury employees) is true or not, the fact of the matter is that a pledge of "no tax rises", full stop, (made by both Labour and Tory), means that nothing can be done in the short or medium term - within this system's framework, of course - to rescue collapsing public services. It's a recipe for continuing social and health disaster.

    So... if the politicians were honest, and they really wanted to repair the ever-growing cracks in Britain's social infrastructure, they'd argue the case for tax rises. And in fact, they wouldn't even have to hit the pockets of working people. They could tax the rich; the profits of banks, corporations, shareholders' dividends, the bosses' (but not workers') NI contributions, etc., etc.

    The Lib-Dems, who know they have no chance of winning the election in this two-party system (although they might be asked to bolster a minority government, like in 2010), can promise free personal social care and openly say they would pay for this by taxing the banks.

    But not Keir Starmer. Even though, when asked, the majority of ordinary people say they'd be prepared to pay more tax in order to help fix the NHS. No, the "responsible" Starmer doesn't dare displease the capitalist puppet-masters for whom the "democracy" of this ridiculous electoral system still provides legitimacy.

    Of course, "it was ever thus"... So the only real question facing the working class today, is whether it will carry on tolerating this political sham, in which most of its union leaders might have a stake, but in which it certainly has none.

No vote for racism, no vote for war

Of course, the behaviour of Labour's leadership comes as no surprise. The across-the-board mistreatment and gas-lighting of Diane Abbott, while it welcomed far-right Tories into Labour's ranks said it all. Even if this was a reminder that when it comes to gaining the approval of the ruling establishment, Labour will defend the indefensible.

    Most damning of all, as always, is the party's foreign policy. It has always been bi-partisan, that is, it follows Tory policy on international matters to the letter. So whichever party is in power, Britain's (secondary!) imperialist forces are placed at the disposal of the USA. It was Labour's Tony Blair who invaded Iraq alongside US President George Bush, helping to start the fire which still rages in the Middle East today.

    But nothing in recent history has exposed Labour's servility more than Starmer's full backing for Netanyahu's bloodbath in Gaza. Only now, when the Gazan house is already burnt down and its inhabitants dead, does he propose to turn on the fire-hose.

    These politicians not only deserve to lose support at the ballot box (and in fact that is what happened in the local elections a few weeks ago) but they need to be altogether dispensed with, along with the system they defend - and for good.

    So until the working class can build an alternative to this degenerate system and its unscrupulous political representatives, it can - at the very least - refuse to vote for any of them.