Starmer’s headlong rush to make us all poorer
SOMETHING very strange seems to be happening under Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour. The former Director of Public Prosecutions blethers on endlessly about generating economic growth. But at least four key members of his government, including the Prime Minister himself, are enthusiastically pursuing policies which will inevitably lead to Britain’s economic decline and the impoverishment of the majority of British citizens.
Crazed eco-fanatic Ed Miliband’s attack on cheap reliable fossil fuels with such stupidities as closing down our North Sea oil and gas industry, possibly cancelling the building of nuclear power stations, and making us reliant on expensive and unreliable supposed ‘renewables’, will increase what are already some of the world’s highest energy prices, making British companies uncompetitive and driving even more manufacturing out of Britain while further impoverishing households. Angela Rayner’s new employee- and union-friendly labour laws will dissuade companies from employing people in Britain and probably massively increase joblessness. Rachel Reeves’s coming Grim-Reaper tax increases on wealth creators will suffocate British business, driving many entrepreneurs out of the country and dissuading those who remain from creating wealth if it is at risk of being appropriated by a tax-hungry government. And Starmer’s active commitment to open-borders, bring-in-the-third-world immigration free-for-all will collapse our welfare system while leading to ever more intercommunity violence and social breakdown.
The whole piece is well worth reading, not because Starmer's government is pursuing a policy of welfare collapse, but because his brand of authoritarian bureaucracy is likely to take us at least part way there. Accident or design, the outcome could be much the same.
I’m not suggesting that Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour are deliberately trying to destroy our country. But I suspect that deep within the DNA of the former chief prosecutor’s government is a belief that, rather than letting us decide how to run our own lives, the country would be better if ruled by an authoritarian bureaucracy which will decide who can come to our country, how much each of us can earn and spend, how much we can travel, how much energy we should be permitted to use, what we may eat, what media should be approved or banned by those in power and what opinions should be allowed.
8 comments:
Inspired by the employment of half of Wallace and Gromit as Energy Secretary I am contemplating setting up a firm to be called Aardvark Animations. Our first film will be called "Kier Starmer and the Wrong Trousers". Then "Angie and The Grand Getaway in Manhattan". Then Kier again in "A Grand Day Out at the Arsenal." Finally Victoria Sponge in "Creature Comforts Part Two".
Socialists believe that the only acceptable way to run a society requires that no-one is richer or more powerful than anyone else (excepting them of course). Running a society requires *control* of everything. But control, at its best, requires comprehensive knowledge of what is being controlled - and this is both mathematically impossible and dogged by previous examples of governments failing to control anything.
They live in their own dream world of ideology and cannot understand why everyone does not support them in their push for Utopia.
Anon - don't forget Shaun the Sheep : Starmageddon
DJ - and control of everything is necessarily framed as top-down, no other way of framing issues is understood. As if leaving people to get on with their own lives just leaves a control vacuum where chaos and exploitation stalk the land.
Are they really intending to provoke some sort of welfare crisis, so that UBI can be imposed? It's tempting to look at simplistic explanations of this type, but we need to beware of the subsequent confirmation bias.
But, as the article points out, these are not stupid people. They might be misguided and malign, but they are at least, we hope, aware of the objections to their plans. And the constant repetition of the idea that "the Tories broke Britain" does fit the bill. A theory to take seriously as a hypothesis, I think.
Sam - the problem seems to arise from not having boundaries such as a "we can only take welfare so far" boundary. The rachet effect keeps taking us up to the next welfare problem where another bit of centralised control or extra spending seems reasonable to enough people and on we go.
Modern MPs won't frame welfare rigorously enough to prevent what is at least partly an accidental drift towards a welfare crisis. We adapt, normalise another erosion of personal responsibility and the rachet is ready for the next step.
You're quite right DJ, their desire doth exceed their grasp. It will be interesting to see them fail though it might not be comfortable.
I beg to disagree. They are profoundly stupid people. Just remind yourself by looking at the Youtube excerpt of the joint interview with Roy Jenkins and Enoc Powell. One of them is manifestly stupid, ( and it's not Powell.)
Tammly - yes they are stupid in the sense that they don't understand human and particular their own limitations. It's an aspect though, and not the only one because they are in their own terms successful too. They pander to stupidity and that can be interpreted in different ways.
Post a Comment