Can a man whose legacy will be full-term abortion, censorship, digital surveillance, and the abolition of trial by jury really claim to have rescued Britain from the moral abyss? Can a man who gave us soaring youth unemployment, who shrugged at farm suicides, who thinks nothing of bankrupting schools for disabled children and religious minorities, really boast of returning to Britain a sense of pride?
|
|||||
Samizdata quote of the day – shed no tears for Two-Tier KeirJune 26th, 2026 |
 9 comments to Samizdata quote of the day – shed no tears for Two-Tier KeirLeave a Reply |
   |
||||
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 have little respect for Keir Starmer for he has led, or stood by, while the Labour Government have revelled in their envy and malice towards ‘toffs and gammons’ regardless of the impact on society in general. That another figurehead will be shortly in place offers little joy – and we can blame Keir Starmer for that too.
The first item Mary Harrington listed (abortion up to full term) is alone enough to condemn Starmer as utterly evil. Nothing he did, or enabled his ministers and apparatchiks to do, warrants any praise at all.
The horrible thing is that none of this was unique to Sir Keir Starmer – these are the evil (and “evil” is the correct word) policies of the entire establishment and none of them will change under Mr Burnham.
Starmer was like one of those party guests at your home: everyone else has left, you’ve cleaned up the dishes, you mopped the kitchen floor and you come down in your pajamas brushing your teeth and only then does he say “Well, I really should be going.”
But it seems to me that it is an interesting thing about humans that, despite his embarrassing attempts to cling to power, despite being one of the worst Prime Ministers in history, despite him being a rather horrible human being, there still seemed to be a significant amount of sympathy for the guy just because he got a bit dewy eyed. Humans are, by our nature, very empathetic. It is both one of the greatest things about us and our greatest downfall.
Now, now, now. At least he is loyal to his masters [PBUH]. I understand that his parting shot at britons is to pardon and release 5k-6k rapists, child molesters, murderers, etc. It has been conjectured that he wants to make room in the prison system for Thought Criminals.
Subotai Bahadur
The policies of Mr Burnham will be the same as the policies of Sir Keir Starmer – as both take their policies, such as “regional government” (the fake “devolution”, beloved by the Economist magazine, which is nothing to do with tax competition) from the establishment.
Yet even though such things as the demographic destruction of the British people (first in English cities – but Scotland and Wales will, eventually, go down as well) will continue, indeed all the establishment policies will continue, Mr Burnham is popular.
I am reminded of the Netherlands (the land of the grandmother I never knew – died long before I was born, leaving nothing behind but my father’s liking for edam cheese and advocaat – and the knowledge that some Jews can have blond hair) where the left got a new leadership and won the election, and then the Dutch people were astonished to find the police, yes the police, beating them up (and threatening to abduct their children) and forcing them to accept “migrants” (invaders). That is what you voted for – you idiots.
If you vote on IMAGE, on “I like this person” (because the media tell you to like them) – you deserve what you get.
If people will not take five minutes to find out that Mr Burnham stands for the same establishment policies as Sir Keir Starmer it is hard to have any sympathy.
And the hits keep on coming. Just when you thought Britain could not get any worse we get this Conversion Practices draft bill from the government.
I read about it here initially. Summary, parents are threatened with five years in jail and an unlimited fine if they try to stop their child from wanting to change gender, not physically stop but simply discourage in discussion sufficient to cause the child “serious alarm”.
As the X link I mentioned says “Britain is turning into a truly evil country at this point.” This is the legacy of this vile labour government.
Fraser Orr – yes.
This is what one gets when the only measuring stick for what law should be is “the greatest happiness of the greatest number” (Mr Bentham) – supposedly opposing these practices (this Emperor Hadrian practice of trying to turn a boy into a girl) reduces “happiness” – and “therefore” should be illegal – with parents to try and protect their children, being fined and/or sent to prison.
Pleasure and pain, happiness and unhappiness are not the measure of whether something is morally right or morally wrong – otherwise, for example, one would attempt to measure the pleasure of a rapist, or several rapists (in the case of gang rape) against the distress of the victim – in order to decide whether rape should be treated as a crime, or promoted by the state – in reality rape is a crime (against natural law – natural justice) precisely because it is a violation, the pleasure the violator or violators get is not relevant – because good-as-in-pleasure is not the same as good-as-in-moral-good.
Pretty basic stuff – but utterly forgotten (if they ever knew) by the people who make the laws here.
And nor will dodge the other question.
Let us say people were allowed to argue against gender ideology – but were not allowed to argue against homosexual practices, would that be O.K.?
No it would not be O.K.- as people (under natural justice) should be allowed to argue against any position, including against homosexual practices. Argue against – not punish.
The idea that in the 1960s and 1970s we in the West suddenly discovered that practices that had traditionally viewed as immoral were, in fact, morally good, is an interesting idea – but people should be allowed to argue against this idea.
Up to the 1970s most psychologists, perhaps totally wrongly, argued that homosexuality was a mental disorder – they may indeed have been totally WRONG in this belief, but they should be allowed to argue this point of view.
Now we are told that what used to be called gender dysphoria (a male thinking they are female, or a female thinking they are male) is something to be “celebrated” – fair enough, but people should not be FORCED to celebrate it.
And it most certainly should not be applied to CHILDREN – a “Tomboy” girl should not be told “you are really a boy”, and a boy who is not very good at sport and does not like fighting, should not be told “you are really a girl”.
With puberty blocking “medical treatment” and so on.
It is this “treatment” of children that should be banned – not conversion therapy.
Turning? or turned?