Keir Starmer has said the state will “take back” more “control” of people’s lives – twisting the Brexit slogan and backtracking on his previous pledge to “tread more lightly” on people’s lives. The Telegraph has more.
In his first speech to the Labour conference since entering No. 10, the Prime Minister invoked the “take back control” slogan popularised during Brexit to warn about the impact of unfettered free markets and a small state.
Areas that he claimed would benefit from Government control included the NHS, energy, justice, education, the office and the economy.
Sir Keir said he was willing to be “unpopular”, saying the construction of more controversial pylons in the countryside and accepting asylum seekers were “trade offs” the public would have to accept.
His speech – which included the words “control” or “uncontrolled” 15 times – marked a stark contrast to his first speech as Prime Minister in July, in which he told the public he would “tread more lightly on your lives”.
Sir Keir told party delegates in Liverpool: “Now don’t get me wrong – markets are dynamic. Competition is a vital life force in our economy. This is a Labour Party proud to say that. We work hand-in-hand with business.
“But markets don’t give you control – that is almost literally their point. So if you want a country with more control, if you want the great forces that affect your community to be better managed – whether that’s migration, climate change, law and order, or security at work – then that does need more decisive Government, and that is a Labour Government.
“Taking back control is a Labour argument.”
The phrase “take back control”, used by the Vote Leave campaign as it won the referendum to exit the European Union, may mark an attempt to connect with Reform U.K. voters disillusioned by the Tories’ failure to deliver on past immigration promises.
Sir Keir said in his speech that he had “always accepted concerns about immigration are legitimate”, insisting: “I have never thought we should be relaxed about some sectors importing labour when there are millions of young people, ambitious and highly talented, who are desperate to work and contribute to their community.”
However, he claimed that to tackle illegal migration, the same process “will also grant some people asylum”. He warned that another “trade-off” the public faced in return for cheap electricity was “new pylons overground, otherwise the burden on taxpayers is too much”.
Worth reading in full.
Stop Press: Starmer has been humiliated by Labour members at the party conference this morning as they voted in favour a union-led motion to oppose the winter fuel allowance cut.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Anyone who pays £199 pa for a subscription to Nature deserves all they misinformation they get for their money.
Fraud? Sounds more like evil to me
The simply the scientific process statement is very telling. The scientific process is obviously that – regardless of any private opinions of people who do The Science[tm] for a living – work on The Science[tm] needs funding and hence, the sciencers must deliver whatever those who are willing to fund their sciencing want. Only naive people believe sciencing would be an open-ended quest to determine true information about natural phenomena. It’s really about fabricating justifications for political goals those who fund sciencing want to achieve. Preferably with lots of math and tables in them so that laymen both end up suitably impressed and rendered incapable of asking unwelcome question like Is the emperor really clothed?
Yes, giving good slide is essential for masking the truth
The NIH doles out $billions each year in grants to private pharma companies. These same companies give back $millions to NIH scientists as royalties (kickbacks) for inventions these scientists created while at work in NIH labs. Legalised bribery.
The standout message for me is the inefficiency of peer review, whether accidental or deliberate. I have a plan. ALL papers should first appear in preprint and be available for anyone to examine. Then any and all informed analysts can dissect work before it gains the imprimatur of full publication. At present the system only allows post hoc comment, from where the taking down of a paper is far more difficult.
This is such a brilliant idea (I would say that of course) that it will never be adopted.
ISTR a retired editor of “The Lancet” saying that in his (long) experience over 90% of fully peer-reviewed papers eventually proved to be wrong – and a depressing percentage proved to be fraudulent.
In reality, “Peer Review” is no better than allowing students to mark their friends’ exam papers.
The Corruption of science for political purposes. ———We no longer have “Science”. It has morphed into “Official Science”. ——–Scientists working for governments have now become an army of data adjusters providing the excuses for government policy on everything from climate to covid. ———-“Ah yes, science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture from such a trifling investment of fact” –Mark Twain. —And boy do governments know that and why they seek to convince us all that since all scientists agree then so should you.
$cientists are now down there with Politicians, Lawyers and Estate Agents in the “honest and trustworthy” stakes.