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, Patrick Kavanagh) or is he “Sir Stumbler” (Bruce Anderson)? Is he a berk or a knave?
“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.