The UK’s recent seemingly modest agreement with France over illegal migrants crossing the English Channel prompted this article at the CityAM news service:
Clearly this is an entirely inadequate response to the Channel crisis: five per cent of current numbers of illegal migrants, who are themselves only five per cent of overall immigration. The idea that this will move the dial on an issue which is now regularly cited as one of the public’s biggest concerns is positively outlandish.
But it is also a patently and laughably poor deal for Britain. It bears comparison with paying Mauritius billions of pounds to induce it to accept sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory, or in domestic terms awarding huge, above-inflation public sector pay deals with no conditions attached. I sometimes wonder whether civil servants now check that the Prime Minister still has his loose change, watch and shoelaces when he returns from the negotiating table.
I suppose the question that also lingers about Keir Starmer is this: is he “Sir Shifty” (to borrow the phrase of former Sun political editor, Trevor Kavanagh) or is he “Sir Stumbler” (Bruce Anderson)? Is he a berk or a knave?
(Correction: It is Trevor Kavanagh, not Patrick. My berk moment.)
“Is he a berk or a knave?”
Those sets intersect.
They do indeed NickM – but I believe Sir Keir is NOT a fool.
He is a knave – he is harming the country on purpose. It is not a matter of a stupid man being a bad negotiator – on the contrary, the worse an agreement is for Britain (especially for England) the better pleased Sir Keir, and the rest of the modern establishment are.
And why not?
The British left, which dominates all institutions, decided long ago that this land, indeed its people, were hateful – that the world would be a better place if they were transformed or replaced (even George Orwell, a socialist, noted the hatred for the British, especially the English, that other leftists had – something he did NOT share with them). Although I think it is more than that – and I will say what I believe the true motive is, a bit later on.
Mass immigration (to take the example of one bad policy – and it is a policy, it has been actively promoted by government benefits and public services) is not inevitable – both Hungary and Denmark, both of which have not even left the E.U., have stopped it.
But why should the Labour Party wish to stop it?
Or indeed wish to stop any of the destructive policies that have carried on for so many decades.
My half brother was not just “Marks by name” he was “Marxist by belief” – and such academics were common advising British government departments even 50 or 60 years ago.
When we see the destruction of the country the question is not “why is this happening?” – it is being made to happen, quite deliberately.
The question is “how come it took them so long to destroy the country?” and these is still much good about Britain much they still have not yet destroyed,
I do not believe the answer is laziness – they worked hard, and still do.
I suppose “there is a lot of ruin in a great nation” – it takes time to corrupt and destroy society.
Although sometimes it can also work quickly.
For example, in Chile the left failed to destroy the economy (Pinochet prevented that), so in recent years, in Frankfurt School fashion, they have turned to destroying SOCIETY.
The success of the left has been astonishing – a once socially conservative nation is being destroyed, both marriage and the fertility rate have collapsed – in only a few years.
“But why do the left do all this….”
Officially the reason is that to have the wonderful new society – the old “capitalist” society must be destroyed.
But, increasingly over the years and decades, I have come to the conclusion that the left no longer really believe in a wonderful new society, that they corrupt and destroy society for the sake of it – for pleasure in corrupting and destroying.
And I can understand that – because I have a lot of that darkness in me.
I understand the modern left rather too well.
I am guessing knave. There is a saying I encountered long ago that would seem to fit.
Once is chance.
Twice is coincidence.
Three [or more] times is enemy action.
Conduct yourself accordingly.
Subotai Bahadur
Starmer, and the left in general, have their ideology and their beliefs and act accordingly. Nothing mysterious about it. People who voted for them believe in the same ideas. That is normal behavior.
Subotai Badadur – correct.
Jacob – not all the people who voted for them.
There is a “tribal Labour” vote, which runs in families (and not families tied any particular social class – they can be well off) which votes Labour regardless of their policies. Fair enough – family tradition, these are often GOOD people.
And there is the “the Tories failed – time to give the other lot a chance” vote, and, fair enough, “the Tories” did fail – Jacob Rees-Mogg (for example) would politely give an order to officials – and they would, politely, NOT follow it.
When this happens in the United States (and it does happen – a lot) President Trump has learned to fight back – but the Conservative Party government did not fight back, not in 14 years (hard to come back from that).
But, yes, there are quite a lot of people in this land who would like to see England and the English cease-to-exist.
It is not just Sir Keir and other top people – they have a following of people of like-mind. Certainly NOT everyone who votes Labour – I would say NOT even a majority of them.
But how many? How many real leftists are there?
I do not know – but a lot of people.
NOT a majority of people who vote Labour, but a lot of people.
Clue – you do not join the Haldane Society of lawyers, if you are a good person.
It is NOT a “let us help the poor” misguided-but-well-meaning group.
This is not Labour as in “help the poor” (which is a noble goal – it really is), this is statism for the sake of statism – a very different thing.
It is about power – and showing power by destruction.
How better to show your power than to corrupt and destroy society itself?
And in case any American feels like gloating – there are a lot of such people in the United States, they are not all here in Britain.
I don’t understand who and for what is UK being governed.
As social democrat/socialist, if politics were at logical level PM Starmer would want the billions for Chagos for him to buy votes instead.
So would he get the money in a roundabout way to some international group of his?
My guess:
If you want one overarching government over the world – a One-World system – you must wipe out nationalism and borders.
By mixing everyone from everywhere throughout all existing countries, you accomplish a large part of this.
You then face fewer pushbacks to your ultimate goal.
But a one-world government is government by China. Can these morons not count?
2Tier
Never Here
Possibly Quare
Granny & Farmer Harmer
Starmer
This one world government, does it actually include any nations not currently part of western civ who might be expected to mount a spirited, if not nuclear, objection to being included in such a scheme?
I am reminded again of Rhett Butler’s observation that you can make money by tearing down a civilization just as easily as by building one up. The key point, however, is that you do it to some other poor bastard’s civilization, not your own.
He comes across to me as a simpleton, bereft of any ability for penetrative thought. But somehow he has been found useful by those who influence/lead him on.
Trevor Kavanaugh, Shirley
Nah, knave for sure. I am usually an exponent of the cock-up school of history (berk) but Starmer is just the end point in a line of knaves starting with Blair & continuing through the Tory years.
Blair gave away our rebate. Brown the gold. Labour is lethal.
The Labour party might not actually be an anti-British criminal conspiracy, but if it were, what would it do differently?
Perry – were there any “Tory years”? Were people such as Jacob Rees-Mogg or even Alexander Boris Johnson ever really “in power”- or were they just in office?
There is still some democracy in Britain – for example as a Parish Councillor (all I am now) I have a real say over how high the “precept” (the additional tax on the parish) will be, and I have to approve all spending.
But I did not have this power as a Unitary Authority Councillor – the Council Tax went up 4.9% a year due to spending demands that were laid upon us by national law, even the leader of the council had no power over such things – he could not, for example, stop the automatic increase in spending on Adult Social Care and Children’s Services – it is “demand led”, by law.
I think the officials and experts enjoyed making Mr Johnson impose lockdowns – knowing he hated them.
And I think they they enjoyed making Mr Sunak spend money like a drunken sailer – knowing he hated it.
“The higher you are – the less power you have”.
Not that Sir Keir having lots and lots of power would make any difference – as he firmly agrees with the officials and experts.
They all want to destroy Britain – especially England.
bobby b.
Yes – the international establishment, including the Corporations, want “world governance” (they are wary of the term “World Government”).
Not a formal World Federation – as with the philosopher Kant.
But rather a net of treaties and agreements – ending any influence ordinary people have, on anything. Making ordinary people slaves in all but name – with the land itself controlled by endless regulations.
“International Law”, “International Cooperation”, “International Community” this-is-the-enemy.
If anyone doubts the existence of evil, actual evil, in this land – consider the “Guardian” newspaper.
Every day (yes – every day) on the front cover of this newspaper there are vicious lies against Jewish people (on the level of “Der Sturmer” in the 1930s) – supposedly in support of the forces of Islam.
The same Islam that would utterly wipe out the “women’s rights” and “Gay Rights” the Guardian claims to believe in.
But the Guardian does not really love Islam, far from it, it is not motivated by anything positive.
The Guardian does not really believe that Islam would usher in a wonderful new society, any more than it really believes (not any more) in socialism.
It is just statism for the sake of statism, power-lust for the sake of power-lust, hate for the sake of hate.
And the Guardian is considered a normal publication in Britain – it is even in the supermarkets.
I do not believe in “Hate Speech” laws – indeed I despise such wicked things, but the Guardian is instructive in relation to this matter.
In Britain a “tweet” can send a person to prison for a long time – even if it is only an emotional “for all I care” tweet as in the case of Lucy Connolly.
But the premeditated (planned – not emotional outburst) Blood Libels (Blood Libels) of the Guardian are not punished (and I am NOT saying they should be). Julius Streicher was hanged (and NO I am NOT saying he should have been hanged) for this sort of thing – but the editor of the Guardian will not be punished at all (and, yet again, I am NOT saying he or she should be punished).
Two Tier “justice” is not justice.
“Is he a berk or a knave?”
I don’t know what a berk is but Starmer is definitely a bad person.
There is simply no benign explanation for any of the policies that emanate from the left. Full stop.
“Berk” is equivalent to “twerp” in Yankland.
@SteveD
I don’t know what a berk is but Starmer is definitely a bad person.
Berk is short for the rhyming slang for “Berkley Hunt”.
Interesting observation — in my experience in Britain “cunt” is used frequently and fairly casually, certainly in some demographics. And, strangely, it seems to mainly be used to refer to men. Whereas in the USA it is an EXTREMELY strong swearword, probably the strongest in the language, and is used almost exclusively about women. I think Germaine Greer once said it is the one word left in the language with genuine power to shock, and I think I might agree with her — in the US anyway, definitely not in the UK.
But in the UK “berk”, as a minced swearword, I think it is pretty mild. Though to my ear it sounds very “south east of England.” Not sure any Glaswegian would ever use it.
So, apparently the government of the Untidy Kingdom is not just substantially enabling the existing invaders, but sending the large (and expensive) inflatable boats back to France, for “re-use”.
Yet: None dare call this TREASON?
Who will be the latter-day Sir Francis Drake, et al.?
Bruce – where is the modern Charles Martell for France?
And where is the modern Alfred the Great for England?
Such leaders do not exist now – so these nations, peoples, may well fall to their foes.
Modern Western governments, and the establishment generally, are filled with “Critical Theory” doctrines such as “anti racism” – and they define a “racist” not as someone who wants to conquer other nations, but as someone who wants to defend their own nation. They encourage mass immigration with benefits and public services, and they persecute even verbal dissent – and have done for many years, starting off with relatively mild Acts of Parliament such as that of 1965 (which we told would only be used against a few very bad people) and then introducing measure after measure to tighten the screw over decades.
And modern “Progressive” people are taught (by the indoctrination from the education system and the media) that is fine to cross London to address an angry mob and tell them to “cut the throats” of their political opponents – if those political opponents are “racists”.
For all his very real faults – Prime Minister Orban does not hold this position, which is why Hungary (the Hungarian nation) is likely to survive.