Labour bigwigs have spent so long portraying themselves as morally superior that they have come to believe their own hype. They really do seem to think they are, as a group, almost beyond reproach. That they are the good guys, the virtuous ones. What they lack in any substantial political vision for Britain, they make up for in skyscraping self-righteousness. Which blinds them to their own hypocrisy.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
Economics |
Samizdata quote of the day – the terminal hypocrisy of LabourSeptember 7th, 2025 |
 13 comments to Samizdata quote of the day – the terminal hypocrisy of LabourLeave a Reply |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
I think there is a lot in that. Labour types honestly think they are the good people and those on the right are bad people. Thus, this current government assumed that once they, the good people, were in power, growth would appear, the vile gangs would be smashed, and all would be well. They did not seem to realise that the Conservatives were not bad people, they were incompetent. And it now turns out that Starmer’s rabble are even more incompetent. Some of them may well be bad people too, but that’s another story.
We think they’re stupid. They think we’re evil.
It always comes down to the seed-corn argument and/or victimhood.
It’s the side of identity politics that doesn’t get talked about. They don’t just make identity political, they make politics an identity. The “what” is less important than the “who”; they really do believe it’s different when they do it.
And one of the major problems for britain is that they [Labour] are so entrenched in power that even if Starmer had to quit they have enough votes that they can caucus to name a new PM and not have to have an election for 4 more years. Making the assumption that they do decide to allow an election in 4 years [what would you brits do if they cancelled them?]. And there is a lot of ruination that can be done to a nation and liberty in 4 years by an egotistical, hypocritical ruling class that believes as a matter of faith that it is superior to everyone else.
Subotai Bahadur
I think it is worth thinking about why the left feels this sense of moral superiority. I think it is best understood with an example I often hear directed at Christian conservatives (I am neither). They will say “Jesus helped the poor, so the government should too”, or “How does allowing old people to live without power to heat their houses sit with your Christian values?”
So the answer seems obvious, I guess, to you and me: “Yes Jesus helped the poor, so get on your bike and go ahead and help them.”
Which is to say they are part of this culture that overemphasizes the importance of government, taking it away from people and the private sector. It is the belief, that is fairly new in human history, that only the government can fix problems.
And I sometimes thing we contribute to that belief here. By being sucked into the constant talk of politics, politics, politics we are just validating the idea that politics and government are at the center of everything. You watch the news and almost every article in the news is about politics and government apparently ignoring the whole mass of the private sector going about its productive and charitable business.
Of course I am one of the worst offenders at this. But as soon as you concede that government is the solution to every problem you have given them the choice of territory on which to fight, and here we come, the French knights galloping through the narrow muddy fields of Agincourt, into the spears of the waiting English. As soon as you accept that government is the solution then you will NEVER spend enough on the NHS, or the OAPs, or the unemployed, or the whole galaxy of issues.
Perhaps we should rather talk about what happens in the private sphere nearly as much as we talk about the government sphere. I think then we’d all be better off, and those lefties would look like the small minded fools they actually are.
Subotai Bahadur,
My belief is that the government is massaging the figures and they won’t be able to keep that up for four more years. If the markets turn against them they will have to go, majority or not.
All of the Labour Prime Ministers and much of their Cabinets have been Fabians. Fabians are committed to bring Socialism in by gentle (i.e. no revolution) degrees. Perhaps their eyes are so firmly directed forward to this glorious goal (sarcasm) that trivia like the economy or free speech are beneath their attention?
Now their mastery of right now may be hobbled by their Progressive views but the views provide a handy identification of the ‘good’, the virtue, they flock around.
You could also argue that the Conservatives lost their way by looking too far ahead (e.g. Net Zero, the fertility crisis etc.) and losing track of the day to day events.
The nation would become ungovernable, no ifs, buts, or maybes. Does that mean literal civil war? Yes, it actually might, that would *absolutely* be the 1642 moment when the state finally & completely delegitimised itself.
In general I observe the application of the flawed logic :”I am clever and good therefore anyone who disagrees with me is stupid and/or bad”
Dangit, just as the British Political Drama Channel has several interesting story lines building up to climax, they suddenly run a filler episode with the same plot that the American Political Drama Channel ran last week. This is why streaming services are struggling: The content is inconsistent, unoriginal, and rarely even good.
…
Wait, these are nonfiction stories?
@CayleyGraph2015
Think of western politics as soap operas. It explains so much.
Ha!
That’s it. Just “Ha!”
Their hypocrisy and corruption is the LEAST bad thing about them – it is their beliefs (their principles) that do the terrible harm.
And, by the way, these beliefs (these principles) give them a justification (an “out”) for whatever they do – they believe that government spending and government regulations (such as the new “Employment Rights Bill”) “help the poor” – and as long as they, the leftist politicians, “help the poor” by this government spending and regulations nothing else they do (stealing money for themselves, rigging elections, putting political opponents in prison – whatever) matters.
Their only morality is government spending and regulations – if they take some of the spending for themselves, it does not matter (to them) and if they use the additional regulations for their own benefit, it does not matter (to them) – as long as they carry on increasing government spending and regulations.
Democrats in the United States are the same – and no amount of evidence that their policies actually INCREASE poverty has any effect on them.
There is actually a formal name for all this in Local Government (and it is the same in national government) – it is called the “Curley Effect” after Mayor Curley of Boston – a very long time ago (although the present Mayor of Boston is a similar type).
Mayor Curley endlessly increased government spending and regulations – undermining the economy of Boston (driving out business enterprises) and he took some (some) of the money for himself, but he still felt good about himself (his conscience was untroubled) as he was increasing government spending and regulations – and this was all that mattered to him.
As for the people – being desperate (not being able to find well paid work – due to the actions of Mayor Curley) they turned to Mayor Curley and the city government for help – which suited Mayor Curley very well.