Stormy Weather Ahead for the British Ship of State

The Labour Party, led by Sir Keir Starmer, won the British general election held yesterday on July 4, 2024.

Selected passages from the linked article by Melanie Phillips (incidentally, a model of clear explanation):

Labour’s enormous overall majority of 170 seats means that it can broadly do whatever it wants because it faces a fractured and weak opposition.

However, the country did not express any enthusiasm for Labour. The party achieved less than one third of the popular vote — the lowest of any governing party in modern history, and even less than the 40 per cent secured by the hard-left Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn in 2017. Yesterday’s Labour share of the vote had hardly changed from the last general election in 2019.

The country remains wary and suspicious of Labour and the new Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer. What voters were determined to do was get rid of the Conservative party, whose share of the popular vote accordingly imploded. Some 11 Cabinet ministers were swept away along with swathes of other former MPs, leaving a pitiably small rump of Tories in parliament to face the jubilant and crowded Labour benches. The Conservative party — previously known as Britain’s “natural party of government” — is now in the wilderness for the forseeable future.

[Sir Keir Starmer] inherits an appalling epidemic of Jew-hatred, which will undoubtedly worry him greatly — not least because he has Jewish family members, and because he is a decent man. However, dealing properly with antisemitism will mean acknowledging the symbiotic link between the Palestinian cause and Jew-hatred — which, as a man of the left, he has never done — and standing up to both the Muslim community and the far left, constituencies which are represented within his own party.

Buoyed by the success of the “Gaza” election campaigns and by the refusal of the authorities to stop the pro-Hamas intimidation and disorder on the streets, Islamic sectarianism is now likely to increase. A Muslim bloc has emerged which is likely to demand not just policies hostile to Israel but measures to adapt aspects of British society to Islamic requirements.

Starmer will be less hostile towards Israel than the far-left or the Muslim bloc are demanding; but since his instincts remain those of the radical human rights lawyer he originally was, he is unlikely to stop the demonisation of Israel that oozes from every pore of the liberal establishment (including the Foreign Office) and which is fuelling the harassment of Britain’s Jews.

Moreover, while he will be economically cautious he’ll let rip on the “culture wars”. The result will be more transgender abuses of children and women and more demonisation of white people and British “colonialism”. He’s also likely to outlaw “Islamophobia” — which could have an even greater chilling effect on necessary discussion of Muslim antisemitism or Islamic terrorism than is currently the case.

Starmer is also committed to an insane acceleration of the already ruinous [“climate change”] Net Zero target, and to developing “ever closer” ties with the EU which will further stifle the entrepreneurial freedoms that Brexit enabled but the Tory government never delivered.

Meanwhile Nigel Farage, who has now achieved what he set out to do in pulverising the Conservative party, will be moving onto the next part of his agenda — taking the fight to the Labour government in order to bring about the reconfiguration of British politics, by reconnecting it with the British mainstream and recovering the true centre ground, that he has long envisaged.

Farage — the true and only begetter of Brexit — is the most consequential politician of the post-Thatcher period. He has his own flaws. His free market principles line him up with the wing of the Tory party that disappeared inside its economic tunnel vision. And his tendency towards international isolationism and indifference towards defence are alarming.

But he speaks for millions by his promotion of the independence of the nation within borders that are properly policed and with immigration kept to manageable levels, and his defence of a culture based on its own history and traditions enshrining fairness, social order and a grounding in reality that people can recognise as a shared national endeavour and that they can call home.

Comment:
The Muslim population of Britain is growing – and will grow faster while there is a Labour government. The native population is shrinking. It will surely not be long before there is a Muslim-majority government.

1 Like

Theodore Dalrymple writes with his usual unusual insight and brilliance:

Quote:

No government could have deserved to lose an election more than Rishi Sunak’s in Great Britain. Unfortunately, it does not follow that because a government deserves to lose an election that the opposition deserves to win. It is a persistent illusion among voters, however, that because things are bad, they can only get better. Alas, they can usually get worse—much worse.

The Conservatives, in power for the last 14 years, have been spendthrift, incompetent, directionless, frivolous, and corrupt. They seemingly believed in nothing and stuck to nothing. On their record, it would be hard or impossible to say what they stood for, except for hanging on to office.

The incoming Labour Party has more principles, but bad ones, which is probably worse than having none. Its leader, Keir Starmer, is a former human rights lawyer, a field of activity that combines advocating for the supposedly downtrodden with making an excellent living: a hint of what is likely to come.

In the run-up to the election, Starmer said that the new government would not tax working people further. Pressed by a radio interviewer to define what he meant by “working people,” Starmer said that he meant people with no savings, who therefore had to rely on public services. This was extremely revealing as to his underlying beliefs about how a society works, or ought to work. Apparently, people with savings were not, in his estimation, working people. What were they, then? Having declared himself to be a socialist, presumably he thought that they were all exploiters, who aspired to live by rents or returns on capital, having accumulated in their lives what socialist economists call surplus value. The true citizen was he who was dependent on the government and could arrange nothing for himself.

Except, of course, for the employees of the government itself. By happy coincidence, Starmer had arranged for himself (by Act of Parliament, no less), a special dispensation exempting him from rules concerning the amount of money a person could put into his pension without incurring additional taxes.

After practicing as a human rights lawyer, he had been, for several years, Director of Public Prosecutions, and thus a public servant. His ideal, then, would be a government of the nomenklatura, by the nomenklatura, for the nomenklatura.

A greater number of wealthy people, proportionately, are already fleeing Britain than from any other country in the world. The taxes they pay will be lost, making it imperative to tax even further the prosperous who remain—that is to say, the diminishing number who wish neither to join the nomenklatura nor depend on the government. Eternal electoral victory for Labour beckons, on an alliance between the nomenklatura and the working people, in the Starmerian sense of the phrase.

Nevertheless, Britain’s new prime minister could soon face a crisis of legitimacy. His “landslide” victory was such only because of the system of first-past-the-post in constituency elections, giving him an unassailable majority in Parliament. But Starmer received the votes of only 34 percent of those who voted, who were themselves only 60 percent of eligible voters. This means that he will govern on the basis of the positive choice of just over 20 percent of the adult population, not exactly a popular mandate for radical experimentation.

The road to hell is paved with human rights lawyers.

1 Like

I don’t know how Phillips can call Starmer a “decent man” - he’s a leftist, and like all leftists, his agenda looks anything but decent.
And as Dalrymple notes, having bad principles is “probably worse than having none.”
I’d say definitely worse!
I can’t make much sense of British Parliamentary elections, but it doesn’t look like Farage’s victory is going to amount to much, considering Labour’s majority. If Starmer is just going to keep pandering to the Muslims, there soon won’t be anything left of Britain for Nigel to save.

1 Like