Is the democratic deficit in the UK catching up with Sir Keir Starmer?
This week saw the UK Justice Minister and the Shadow Justice Minister actually agree over a fundamental legal principal: that sentencing should be equal.
This was in response to the Sentencing Council’s latest guidelines, due to be introduced in April this year, which effectively instruct courts to treat ethnic, faith and other minorities less severely than everyone else – in essence creating a racially, religiously and ethnically divided legal system.
Now the British people are a people who believe in fair play: we invented cricket, we invented football, we invented boxing, we invented rugby and the rules of those sports and many others originating in this country reflect a deep sense of natural justice. I mention this because (and believe me, as a Scot it smarts to admit this) this idea is peculiarly English and is rooted in the Common Law which, I believe, is the single most important contribution to civilisation the English ever made.
Anyway, British people demand fair play. It’s in our DNA as much as queuing, moral outrage, marmalade and marmite. So last summer we had a great example of how our Government and criminal justice system no longer agree that fair play is an actual British value. Two-Tier Keir was on full display urging the courts to throw away the key on hapless working class grannies moved to anger by the murder of children and, lacking the education of a Douglas Murray, expressed themselves in ways our law now feels requires a jail sentence. It is interesting to note that the Great British public sitting on juries considering these cases when a ‘not guilty’ plea is made have decided ‘not guilty’ verdicts. All of which fuels the public’s concern that we have a two-tier criminal justice system: if you are a member of a protected groups as outlined in the Equality Act 2010 then you will be treated differently by our police, prosecutors and judiciary.
No! No! No! No! Goes the brief from Number 10. There is no Two Tier Justice in the UK, everyone is treated the same way. (Sir Keir does seem to think by repeating mantras people will believe him: ‘£20 billion black hole’, ‘We have freedom of speech in the UK’ etc.)
Journalists and politicians were shut down should they dare mention a two tier system, which is a ‘conspiracy theory’ and ‘misinformation’ (proving J.D. Vance’s point that that word is used to protect governments from scrutiny). Well, after all, it worked with those pesky anti-vaxxers so why not repeat and rinse?
And then along comes the Sentencing Council this week and shows everyone that they were right, there is a two-tier justice system in the UK after all, by publishing guidelines for the judiciary effectively instructing judges to kid-glove minorities whilst throwing the book at the whitey.
I’d have loved to be a fly on the wall in Number 10 when they published this. No wonder Starmer looks ill. I wonder if he is on Beta Blockers yet?
So, Robert Jenrick, Conservative Shadow Justice Minister, is all over this like a wee ginger terrier of a Melrose Wing Forward pouncing on a loose ball (channelling my inner Bill McLaren) and in Parliament he asked Justice Minister Shabana Mahmood to reassure us that we don’t have a two-tier justice system in the United Kingdom by ordering the Sentencing Council to reverse its advice.
So presumably, Sir Keir phones Shabana and tells her (I’m imagining Henry II speaking to drunken Norman knights here): “Rid me of these recalcitrant activist judges! I’ve been telling everyone we don’t have a two-tier system and those bastards have just sold me down the river (oops – can’t say that!) I mean, sold me out.”
Shabana dutifully writes to the Sentencing Council and requests that it reverse its recommendations as both Shabana, as a member of an ethnic minority, and His Majesty’s Government believe most strongly that justice must be blind. Now credit where credit is due, Shabana was right to point out that ethnic minorities and others do not wish to be treated any differently by virtue of their race etc. Unfortunately she stopped short of calling them out for the open racism this is. (The elderly white men who make up the Sentencing Council obviously think that (I’ll quote a Nigerian friend here) “growing up in ‘Bongo-Wongo Land’ means that you’re clearly unable to conduct yourself in a civilised manner unlike us white people and therefore the state needs to make allowances, now please can you use some cutlery when you eat?”)
So for once it seems that the Government and opposition are in agreement. Only, Jenrick has played a cunning card here because he’s demanded that the Minister stop this, knowing damn well she cannot. She has no power to do so. All she can do is ask pretty please.
And there is the problem for Sir Keir, a problem created for him nearly 30 years ago by Tony Blair, a man who is increasingly coming to light as behind a level of constitutional vandalism not seen since Cromwell.
The Sentencing Council was founded in 2003, another of these ‘independent’ quangos, sold to all and sundry as a good idea because it would stop pesky politicians interfering with how Things Should Be Done. Only, ‘independent’ actually means ‘not democratically elected or accountable to anyone’. You see. This was part of what Peter Hitchens has repeatedly said about Blair: he was always and is still a Trotskyite who understood that if Labour was going to drive a progressive agenda it must first win power and you did that by dressing in a suit and beginning every sentence with “Look…” rather than taking the Foot/Corbyn approach of larping in a Lenin hat and beginning every sentence with “Comrade…”. Only, Blair was considerably more radical in his long term game than anyone knew at the time and people are only now beginning to wake up to – most disappointingly, the Conservatives who have frankly been asleep at the wheel over this for 14 years.
So Blair introduced dozens of these ‘independent’ quangos, powers were moved from the Secretary of State to these quangos. In reality this moved power from the voters to unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats. Who appointed the members of the quangos? Well, that was the Blair and Brown governments so they chose progressive individuals, who in turn recommended progressive individuals for future appointments. Even when a conservative was appointed, the years of service on such committees ensured that they always lent to the progressive. Fuelling the drive for Left-wing policies were hundreds of publicly funded charities – activist organisations who lobbied the councils. In one swoop, Blair destroyed democracy in the UK and replaced it with a sort of kritocracy (that’s rule by lawyers) via unelected committees. The closest model I can find is a blend of the EU and the Revolutionary government of France under Danton and Robespierre (only the latter was arguably more democratically accountable than our model is). Gone was ministerial oversight and therefore Parliamentary and voter oversight of everything from interest rates to sentencing guidelines.
So why should a judge not be political, what is wrong with a judge deciding to be progressive? Well in the UK no one elects the judiciary; the independence of the judiciary was guaranteed by judges agreeing to honour the requirement to be strictly neutral and objective, as my late father, who was a Scottish Sheriff, did. He always said that the moment judges start to dabble in politics they lose all authority. They are the Crown and are bound by the same laws that bind the Crown.
Yet that is no longer the case, is it? We now have judges, prosecutors and Chief Constables who see it as their duty to ‘be progressive’. This is all done under the guise of ‘supporting human rights’ but in practice it creates a scenario where they start making up laws as they go along. The police do similar.
In the UK Parliament is sovereign. That is the fundamental guiding principle of our constitution. But Blair vandalised this by removing so much actual power from Parliament and allocating it to unelected, unaccountable quangos. He did this to drive the progressive agenda, even when Labour is out of power. And it has worked.
So why the hell did the Tories do nothing about it over 14 years? Well here it is worth listening to two YouTube interviews. Firstly Dominic Cummings’s interview with Chris Williamson and secondly Liz Truss’s interview with Andrew Gold. So in 2010, Cameron and Clegg combine to make a coalition. Now Cameron knew that Blair had set up these quangos and why he had done this, and he knew he had to act. His ‘Third Sector’ plan was actually a move to bring some regulation to the hundreds of activist charities all on the public pound that Blair had established. But Cameron lacked the political clout, in coalition, to do anything about this and one reason was that it would require an Act of Parliament to revoke each of these quangos. Blair had locked them in by introducing the Supreme Court, another undermining of the Sovereignty of Parliament. Since 2010 the Supreme Court has had several showdowns with Parliament where it genuinely seems to think that it is akin to the Supreme Court of the United States. Its members appear to see themselves as superior in authority to elected politicians. This was obvious during the Brexit struggles.
In the interviews I quoted above, both Truss and Cummings essentially said that there is nothing a Cabinet Minister or a Prime Minister can do to change any of this without an Act of Parliament and it is likely that the Supreme Court would challenge this so each reform would result in prolonged, costly and damaging legal challenges in that court. Now grasping this nettle was something that Boris was willing to attempt, hence his instruction to Dominic Cummings to go after the ‘Blob’, but along came Covid. Truss admits she was utterly naïve about the power held by the unelected quangos. She also tells Gold that the priority for any Right-wing Government getting into power must be to dismantle the kritocracy and quangocracy and restore power to Parliament – and thus democratic accountability.
This brings us back to Starmer, who is getting a sharp lesson in the reality that he is as shackled by Blair’s quangocracy as any Tory PM was. You see the problem with removing democratic accountability is that even though power has been moved, Parliament is sovereign, and that is what people expect. Here you have a political hand grenade for Starmer, where the progressive quangos have been left to themselves for 14 years and have drifted further and further away from public opinion. Now Labour is back in power it’s realising that it is as impotent as the Tories were to tackle this problem.
Starmer looks like a man whose philosophy has been shaken to its core over the last six months. The certainties of the neo-liberal progressive West have been turned upside down and he’s floundering to cope. He doesn’t understand why the public is angry, he doesn’t understand why the public won’t play ball and listen to him, he doesn’t understand why everyone from the US Vice President to the Free Speech Union is attacking him for destroying freedom of speech. He seemed to genuinely believe himself when he tried to refute Vance’s accusation in Washington last week and probably thought he had been robust in his rebuttal. To me and I am sure many others, he sounded like a petulant school kid denying they had copied another’s homework.
This is the first time a Labour Government has had to interact with the quangos. The Blair and Brown administrations don’t count as they created these monsters in their own image. Since then public opinion has changed and the monsters have become uncontrollable. Starmer has a serious constitutional fight on his hands as he tries to realign his party with an increasingly angry electorate who will see this as Starmer saying one thing and doing another. Read the comments under today’s newspaper articles covering this subject. Most people commenting don’t understand that Starmer is powerless to do anything about this and they will be even more angry when they find that out for themselves.
C.J. Strachan is the pseudonym of a concerned Scot who worked for 30 years as a Human Resources executive in some of the UK’s leading organisations. Subscribe to his Substack page.
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.
Blair’s Reforms Strangled Freedom
Sadly the Opposition didn’t challenge any of the Blair reforms in their 14 years of government.
Even more sadly, only five MPs (all Tory) had the gumption to vote against Mad Ed Milbrain’s totally uncoated and ludicrous Climate Change Act back in 2008.
This rot set in much earlier than people now remember.
It was worse than that ….. they actually carried on implementing Blair’s destructive programme.
…..with gusto!
Compare and contrast the above article with Starmerism Means the Wholesale Transfer of Power From Parliament to Civil Servants, Judges and Quangocrats. I don’t think the Blob is coming for him. He is the Blob. Resistance is futile.
Your right, he is the blob. It’s the justice ministers that are stepping out of line.
Even Boris as an outgoing PM called him an agent of the ‘deep state’.
Resistance is a patriotic duty otherwise civil war will solve it.
Abolish the Supreme Court would be a first step. Johnson had the majority to pass a Bill to do so.
He had the majority – as long as the rest of the Conservative MPs agreed with his. I suspect many were not inclined to go along with such reform. Which is why the Conservatives were punished the electorate.
The problem for the Lying Oaf was a party full of CINOs that would fit perfectly into a Blairite Labour Party. I have my doubts about Call Me Dave really wanting to do anything about the Blair legacy given he anointed himself as the heir to Blair and was very pleased to be leading a Liberal government so he could absolve himself of failing to be conservative. He was unhappy to win in 2015 as he tried hard not to so his love-in with Calamity Clegg could continue.
There’s a demo about this next month at Whitehall, if anyone was interested;
”There is a demonstration on Saturday 5th of April at 1.00pm in Whitehall.
“End Britain’s anti-white, two-tiered legal system.”
I am going.”
https://x.com/DaveAtherton20/status/1897631260593295594
Patrick Christys here. Yes, it’s obviously racist, and those with a migration background are over-represented in the crime stats, so there is that;
“Is Britain’s legal system officially anti-white, Christian, male & heterosexual.” The sentencing guidelines “seems to enshrine two-tier justice in the law.”
https://x.com/DaveAtherton20/status/1897617683023003879
”Since 2011, the prosecution of Asian men for Group Localised Child Sexual Exploitation (GLCSE) in the UK has led to two opposing positions: (1) Asian men have been unfairly demonized, and (2) Asian men have a disproportionate propensity for GLCSE. We analysed the evidence in the public domain in different two ways. First, we collected newspaper reports of GLCSE cases, and completed a comprehensive review of the literature, government documents and official case reviews. Our data consists of 498 defendants in 73 prosecutions between 1997 and 2017. Using a technique that is widely accepted in medical research, we determined the heritage of these defendants. Second, using census data for 404 local authorities, we analysed the relationship between GLCSE prosecutions, and the religion and heritage of each local population. We conclude that Muslims, particularly Pakistanis, dominate GLCSE prosecutions: and consider the reasons for this, and some possible policy responses.”
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3248665
Education, Education, Education; Lawfare, Lawfare. Lawfare; Quangos, Quangos, Quangos; WMD, WMD, WMD gone AWOL – Millenial decade of perdition all down to the Supreme Leader himself in person, only ever called to account on the small screen…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXxyWHnQEn0&list=PL46CCAC3763F5CDF6
“… More4 – The Trial Of Tony Blair”
Tbh, Regarding Blair, I wouldn’t bother with a trial.
Summary justice with a lamppost and a length of hempen rope, followed by a stake through the heart and burial at a cross roads.
It’s the sort of technocratic, sofa-driven approach he’d surely appreciate.
In the middle ages I believe that after quartering the parts were left in different places, just to be sure.
I’m going to say that I’d prefer the decomposing body be left to drip its humours on the ground beneath the lamppost together with large posters explaining the reason for his demise for the hard of thinking.
The Supreme Court, the human rights legislation, and the quangos were all created by government, and government can remove them. They won’t because they like to blame someone else for policy they actually agree with. They gaslight us on a daily basis.
Exactly. Parliament is sovereign. The “blob” is just a convenient excuse when needed – like the WHO, ECHR etc.
John1T said “government” can change things. He should have said “Parliament”.
Fair point. The two are often synonymous in so far as the government should usually command a majority in parliament on important legislation they are committed to, but MPs can rebel against their leadership.
Government cannot act unless it has delegated legislation. Only Parliament can make and unmake laws. Therein lies the problem. Under the Tories the majority of the Cabinet and the Tory MPs believed in a Blairite, globalist, leftist settlement. They continued to appoint or re-appoint the same sorts of people Blair & Co would have wanted.
The idea of refucing the roles, merging or abolishing quangos or bringing those functions back under the control of Ministers was anathema to them. Ditto Starmer except it is now causing him inconvenience. The elites will demand Starmer tolerate the criticism in order to protect the power structures as they are, much as EU member states were and are expected to take the flack in order to maintain the unaccountable power of the European Commission and institutions.
Whut? Shirley you don’t mean that the so called Bonfire of the Quangos was all a lie?
Don’t call him ‘Shirley’!
The EU commission still has no power, save to power to make legislative proposals to the institutions responsible for deciding on them which is the Council of the European Union (ministers or heads of government of all member states) and the EU parliament. And even these legislative proposals are supposed to implement directives from the European Council (heads of government of the member states). The EU is a governments club and all real decisions rest with these governments.
The EU, like the Blob, the WHO, ECHR, and “Scientific experts” are all useful excuses for governments to do what they really want to do but say it’s someone else’s fault/responsibility/idea/only following the science.
I don’t buy into this government vs the people aka the state vs the people aka (Hello, Marx, nice to meet you again!) the theory that the state is an instrument of oppression employed by a certain class of people to cement their rule over all others.
But that’s an aside. The point I was trying to make is that the EU commission is not “the government of the EU”, just one of the institutions used to govern the EU and specifically, the institution responsible for creating legislative proprosals the institutions invested with actual power of decision-making then vote on.
No, but it might as well be the government of the EU for all the good acting against it does. We’ve all see the various European governments having to beg the EU to allow them to do what their voters want. The EC of course, created by Monnet and Spinelli to prevent electorates having any power, will resist until it is torn down.
The European Commission is no government. What’s so incredibly difficult to understand about this extremely simple fact? The EC is an office in Brussels stuffed with a bunch of pencil pushers, usually politicians the respective national governments wanted to get rid off, and its job is to prepare EU draft legislation. It’s not involved with anything else unless specifically authorized by the EU decision making institutions, the various councils of government members and the EU parliament.
You are fighting a wrong idea someone intentionally placed into your head and you would be much more effective at accomplishing what you probably want to accomplish when you would stop targetting an invisible spot in the air filled with nothing but gas molecules.
The EU is controlled by the exact same partycrats who are also responsible for saving the climate as part of the agenda of some national government, they’ve just ganged together. It’s also a notoriously toothless tiger which has – time and time again – proven to be incapable of stopping a national government which doesn’t want to play ball from anything, not even national governments which rely heavily on EU money — Poland before Tusk, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary — all those evil “populist right-wingers” our lefty governing classes keep whining about.
That’s not the impression I get, the EU governments always appear to be running scared of the EC. Why is it that despite voting for them, none or very few of the ‘right wing’ parties are ever able to achieve anything. And when they try or partially succeed they are fined and threatened by the toothless tiger that you describe.
This happens time and time again, but yet it’s all done using a pig in a poke?
If you have the impression that anybody’s scared of the useless politician dump in Brussels, this impression is wrong.
Western Europe, the core EU, is controlled by a cartel of centre-left do-gooder parties which all want all the usual stuff, more immigration, save the climate, war in Ukraine, COVID until the cow comes home while this was still current. They’re all more-or-less in thrall with the US Democracts (Whom I believe to be secretly pulling the strings here, but that’s just speculation. I have no proof for that). When so-called populist parties, like in the Netherlands or Italy, are forced to govern in a coalition with these, when they really can’t be frozen out, the preferred solution, they’ll either soon have a mysterious Damascene conversion (Italy) or remain effectively side-lined (Netherlands). But this doesn’t happen in the former Eastern bloc countries where the dreaded populists sometimes or all the time rule alone. And the EU hasn’t forced a single migrant according to EU migrant distribution rules onto national governments who simply refused to take them. A lot of hot air as been spent on discussing this, usually about proposals to eventually halt EU payments to them, and a lot of Nazi-calling took place as well, but nothing ever came of it.
I have to agree with tof in this respect: When national governments “blame the EU”, that is, talk of “international law” (aka “EU regulations”) stopping them from doing this or that, they just want to assign blame for something they don’t really want to do to the EU. Eg, the German supreme court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) has ruled in the past the EU regulations cannot automatically become law in Germany but need approval of the German parliament first. And that’s that. The EU government councils can regulate all they want, in Germany, this takes an effect if the Bundestag approves and if it doesn’t, than, it doesn’t (Simplification. And the German parliament obviously rubber-stamps everything which comes from the EU. But it doesn’t have to).
I thought I heard that Poland was going to take in refugees, and not just from close countries like Ukraine. Whatever happens, it won’t go down well with the public there. I had an ex that was Polish, she used to talk loudly on the phone in public in Polish, I told her once not to do that because people would think I’m a foreigner.
Tusk.
RW, the points you make are probably more or less correct in Germany. In the UK all the EU nonsense was immediately gold plated and passed into law without question, and the British people suffered severely as a result. Effectively the British Parliament was bypassed by bureaucrats, who said that we “had to agree with everything, we were a member”. The point you are not seeing is the endless load of pointless but complex plans put forward by the Commission were rubber stamped because opposition was very bad form by the heads of state. Note that the elected EU Parliament had no power to veto anything! Many Countries just ignored things they didn’t like, France and Spain being cases in point. The UK is inherently rule following and ignored nothing, however damaging or foolish, but made it worse in it’s action by the “gold plating” process of our bureaucrats. You can see this clearly in the ECHR problem with immigration in the UK! France, ignores it, the UK finances the immigrants on a grand scale which we cannot afford and is not available to our own citizens!
The EU parliament must accept each and every bit of EU legislation/ regulation by voting in favour of it. But as the majority of its members come from the exact same party cartel which also controls the national governments and the EC, that’s essentially a rubber-stamping process as well.
Aside: If somebody in Germany states that he’ll henceforth only work “according to the regulations”, this means a go-slow-strike. That “regulations” are commandments of the gods in the UK and will always be followed to the letter, regardless of the outcome, has driven me almost nuts at times.
Nice anecdote: I once asked someone working at the bakery counter in M&S if I could perhaps buy half of a loaf of bread. Every German bakery I know of will just do that, so I thought nothing special about it. The English lady I had addressed was literally speechless because of this horrible imposition. After while, she answered in a voice which sounded very much as if I had just proposed to marry her underage daughter: “We have no barcode labels for something like THIS!!” and thus, I was dismissed in disgrace.
Not correct I am afraid. The EU consists of the EU Council, the EU Commission and the EU Parliament. In reverse order, the Parliament is a pretence at democracy as a handful of people in the EU take part in its elections. The Parliament can dream up ideas for legislation and forward them to the Commission. They may or may not act on them. They can vote on Directives from the Commission but in the end the Commission will do what it wants. The Commission is made up of appointees who are scrutinised so that they are ‘on message’ with the EU such that any idea a rogue state like the UK – or now Hungary, Slovakia – could put forward anyone not pro-EU and get them accepted is rubbish. When the Commission is happy with the Directives the EU Council sits down and signs the paperwork. When a new group under Thatcher took over and expected to read what they were about to sign they were instructed quite clearly that this was not how it worked and just sign. So the driving force is the EU Commission and NOT the EU Council.
Hoist by his own petard, as Dougal in the Magic Roundabout occasionally pointed out. 😄
I heard Jenrick on the BBC R4 Radio this morning and he sure had the blonde bimbo triggered. This case reminded me of the Nazi Pug case, because context was mentioned, and regarding the Nazi Pug, the judge stated “context is not important”…..Why would he make such a claim?
So how long was the pug jailed for?
In the end it was a fine of £800, but the process is often the punishment. There is no evidence he was a Nazi, plenty of evidence that he was a libertarian.
“Tony Blair, a man who is increasingly coming to light as behind a level of constitutional vandalism not seen since Cromwell.”
I suspected this is the work of Blair!
Blair empowered by George Soros.
Soros gave the EU 500M to flood the zone with not just skilled migrants, but all and sundry. Ex banker Sutherland and Rockefeller played a part. Was it to just get cheap labour, or the more sinister agenda to destroy sovereign states?
Blair and Brown, wrecked the constitution, wrecked the economy, unleashed the forces of evil into English society. Better they had both stayed in Scotland.
“Conservatives who have frankly been asleep at the wheel over this for 14 years.”
If only they were just asleep at the wheel, I wouldn’t be that generous considering many are Globalists.
” But Blair vandalised this by removing so much actual power from Parliament and allocating it to unelected, unaccountable quangos.”
If I recall, at the same time he got rid of the death penalty for treason. That makes sense.
It is true he can do nothing and so obviously mainstream party politics is a waste of time. Too deeply entrenched in this country to excise. Russian and Chinese intelligence agencies have concluded that the British are unable to extricate themselves from this situation without outside assistance. Of course it is true because the demoralisation of the population is concommitant with the corruption. A long wait perhaps for redemption. And don’t expect any help from the Yanks because this administration has a very strong dislike of the Atlanticist Anglo-Americans and for obvious reasons.
Politicians are fond of saying they’d like to do something, but they “CANNOT”, because of some law or other, some quango or other, some EU court or other, BUT IT’S ALL A LIE.
No Parliament can be bound by a previous Parliament, or previous Prime Minister, because The Law of This Land states clearly that No Parliament shall make any law binding a Future Parliament.
So it’s time for this Labour government to start abolishing quangos, and the Sentencing Council, and the Supreme Court, leave the ECHR, and sack that awful Pakistani Muslim woman Shabana Mahmood.
(By the way, the Sentencing Council is not made up of “elderly white men”, as the author says. There are 8 Ethnic European = White Men, 6 Ethnic European = White Women, including the President, and 1 Ethnic African woman.)
I don’t care about their ethnicity, they are all obviously severely racist and hard left Britain haters. Sack the lot! I now note that the word “racist” has lost it’s never clear meaning, and now means “anti-white British citizens”.
‘[L]eant to the progressive’ not ‘lent’.
You can’t do jack without money. In our time analysis has to be of a mathematical nature. We are homo economicus as Spengler said. And so the battle against tyranny is an attempt to subvert the stranglehold of money. There are many reasons why this is difficult obviously. There was a moment in the life of Jesus when he experienced great sadness because he understood that the realm of the spirit could never fully overcome the tyranny of Ahriman. Rudolf Steiner attests to this in his consultation of the Akashic record. This is a fundamental spiritual problem that faces humanity in our time.
There is no rudder and so any leader will be just as adrift. You want the rudder before it is too late. I visited an area that I hadn’t been to for three years and a pub and the surrounding buildings had been turned into an Islamic Peace Centre. Probably too late to stop the Islamic takeover of the state but it is never too late to mount a resistance.
The money is running out soon and 2TK either gets a loan from China or the USA. I have a dreadful feeling he will go with China and all but RUK will agree the terms.
I have a nasty feeling that he will do another “Chagos” and sell the UK to China in return for personal wealth. This is exactly what Blair did, he took cash and sold our souls to a high bidder. The whole Chagos deal is so obviously bad for Britain that a huge bribe must be on the table. Why give up land and pay to do so? Everyone must see the stupidity of this, and even 2TK must realise that we cannot afford it! His self made black hole of £100 Billion at least is utterly crazy. He just keeps digging, a sign of desperation.
It was lost in about 2021. That was when there was a massive rise in disability among the white population. Debilitation which essentially removes you from the equation. You simply don’t have the energy anymore to participate in anything. And if you have healthy relatives then they will be expending their energy looking after you. This was exactly the intention of the bioweapon and it has worked. Here we are among the ashes of defeat. Is there any point in fighting back at all you might ask. That is the spiritual moment when the steel is tempered in the fire. There won’t be many and they won’t be pretty but we will always have some.
That’s why I don’t think Trump is a genius. he just has a different approach and just comes out with stuff. Saying what a great guy Albert Bourla is in front of a MAGA crowd at this stage is not exactly genius with a stark inability to read the room of his own base.
The issue with Mr Starmer and so many other of the legalese fraternity is that they think in coded, legal, terms but they are not thinking in terms of the underlying societal and global forces that are giving rise to to these wholly dystopian outcomes for British people. It is akin to some huge form of cognitive dissonance. This is precisely why his Government’s policies and those of the Conservatives or Lib Dems cannot possibly fix any of this. Based on the current status quo the situation can only become worse.
Clearly there really isn’t a government anymore: It REALLY is a state-cabal.
A most enlightening summary of what Blair did to us and what the following Tory governments did nothing to change. Many thanks.
When does segregation get enacted? Or ethnic cleansing?
Sensible and slightly rich people are leaving Britain in droves. Ethnic cleansing of ourselves?
With regime help perhaps. Definitions appear flexible in the authoritarian post reality world. Looking over much government policy, I have to wonder if these sorts of DIE approaches aren’t in built everywhere, sometimes implicitly if not explicitly.
When sleepy wealthy areas become unsafe and it’s already happening.
Super article and enormously satisfying to understand that these communist types have been hung up by their own petar. Our Judiciary has been contemptuous of our Constitution for decades.
Reform is coming.
Such an excellent analysis 👏🏻
Dr David Starkey has spelled it out for Reform and the few remaining real Conservatives in the Mis-named Conservative Party: we need a Great Repeal Bill to remove the destructive legislation Blair/Brown created and to restore (as far as possible) the Constitution which existed pre-Blair’s rule.
(I doubt if it would be possible to scrap the warped devolution, so it will have to be revised to make it work.)
I hope Reform and the FRC’s are on the case because they’ll only get one shot at it.
The need is as stark as Liz Truss says in her (very good) interview, we need the foundations of these bureaucracies removing and the primacy of Parliament restored. That’s going to be 1 huge fight, and a key policy that Reform & Conservatives must put forward and bang on about in these next 4 years. Without that reform, unless Parliament is supreme, without democracy, we’re sunk.
When Cameron stated Blair was a role model, we knew then nothing was going to improve.
He’s not powerless. He just needs to go for it and have the fight. Parliament makes the laws not unelected, communist judicialists.
Burn it all down. A great Reform act.
I do not see how the Supreme Court could stop an Act of Parliament from closing down the Sentencing Council as long as the Act has been correctly drafted. This is where you find that like a cancer it may well be referred to in Acts of Parliament that will need amending. This is why those who say leave the ECHR do not know that it is not a simple task as it will be in lots of Acts and may even be in Treaties the UK government has signed up to such as trade deals.