International
Keir Starmer’s left-wing UK government is at war abroad and against its own people
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer
From LifeSiteNews
By Frank Wright
With Britain’s economy facing disaster and its citizens under threat of imprisonment for tweet crimes, Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government is stoking war abroad and charged with starting one at home – against its own people.
On the Fourth of July 2024 Keir Starmer won the U.K. general election with around one-fifth of the vote. This delivered him a huge majority in Parliament, and he vowed on the day that “politics can be a force for good. And that is how we will govern.”
Four months later, over two-and-a half million Britons have signed a petition to call another election. Though few believe this will result in an election, it is a strong sign of mounting dissatisfaction with the Labour government – and the numbers signing are rising by the thousands every minute.
Almost immediately on taking office the Starmer government plunged in popularity. Despite ending his first week in power with a reasonable approval rating in the polls, his support has suffered an “historic drop” in ratings, according to Politico’s report three weeks ago.
“Keir Starmer has suffered the biggest post-election fall in approval ratings of any British prime minister in the modern era,” the report said. He is “languishing on an approval rating of -38,” which is “a precipitous 49-point drop” from early July.
A disastrous budget and a declaration of “class war” on British farmers has followed this survey, with the latest indication of Starmer’s deep unpopularity seeing millions call for him to go.
One major reason for the call for an election is the Starmer government’s response to the knife murder of three girls aged six, seven and, nine by suspect Axel Rudakubana, initially described as a “boy … from Cardiff” on July 29, 2024.
Court sketch of “Cardiff teen” Axel Rudakubana. Source: X
READ: UK’s new Prime Minister Keir Starmer moves toward digital tyranny in response to civil unrest
Some British social media users who expressed outrage at the killings faced swift prosecution and some still face imprisonment. Starmer was accused by Elon Musk of being “Two-Tier Keir” – applying the law unevenly to imprison critics, whilst freeing actual violent criminals to make space for “keyboard rioters.”
“Is this Britain or the Soviet Union?” – asked Musk as news of the arrests for speech crimes broke.
British judges have handed down harsh sentences – up to 38 months – for “hate speech,” including posts on sites such as X (formerly Twitter).
One man, Yorkshire grandfather Peter Lynch, subsequently died in prison. He was described as “the victim of a vengeful, out-of-touch Prime Minister” in the Daily Telegraph. Starmer had vowed to “crack down on far-right thugs” such as Lynch, who was jailed for shouting that police were “protecting people who are killing our kids and raping them.”
A 2015 report said up to “one million British children” may have been sexually exploited by immigrant gangs. The judge who jailed Lynch had also set a convicted child sex offender free.
The convictions were pursued under an official narrative of countering hate speech, as many of those prosecuted alleged a terrorist motive to the killings, linking this to the fact that the suspect was the child of Rwandan immigrants. These claims were routinely dismissed as dangerous conspiracy theories – and hate speech.
Starmer was formerly a lawyer who has worked in the past to secure rights and benefits for illegal immigrants, and once promoted a 2015 petition to “accept more asylum seekers and increase support” for them.
Evidence emerged at the initial hearing before his trial that the suspected killer had been found in possession of an “Al Qaeda training manual” and was attempting to manufacture the nerve agent ricin. He was charged under the Terrorism Act.
In addition to terrorism charges, and three counts of murder, the BBC reported “he is also charged with ten counts of attempted murder and possession of a knife.” Eight children were wounded, along with two adults, during the attacks.
READ: UK’s draconian ‘online safety’ laws are turning traditional values into criminal ‘hate speech’
As this news broke, reports emerged showing Starmer had known that the suspect would face terror charges “for weeks,” whilst he and his government condemned “misinformation” whenever terrorism was mentioned in connection with the attacks.
As The Sun reported, both former Prime Minister Liz Truss and a former adviser to Boris Johnson, Dominic Cummings, said Starmer would have known this “immediately” after the attacks.
Many judges who have imprisoned British social media users for “tweet crimes” have been found to have released child sex offenders without jail time, fueling further outrage. A report from the Telegraph confirmed the trend of releasing “pedophiles” without custodial sentences.
Musk again commented on one shocking case.
With the investigation of a British journalist, Allison Pearson, over a “non-crime hate incident,” the charge of “Keir Stasi” was reprised, with Elon Musk once again chiming in.
Pearson was visited at home by police over an old tweet, in a case which has since been dropped. Yet Elon Musk’s friction with the Starmer government does not end here – nor with him.
READ: Keir Stasi? UK government wants to prosecute ‘non-crime hate speech’
Breaking the ‘special relationship’?
The Starmer government is also mired in a serious scandal concerning the incoming Trump administration. As the Washington Post reported, Starmer’s Labour Party “helped organize 100 members to volunteer for the Kamala Harris campaign, with a focus on the swing states.”
The Trump campaign responded with a legal complaint with the U.S. Federal Election Commission, charging Starmer’s Labour, together with the Harris campaign, with “making and accepting illegal foreign national contributions.”
Though the scandal was hand-waved away by Starmer, his cabinet ministers have a long history of making outrageous remarks about President Trump. U.K. Foreign Secretary David Lammy, for example, has alleged Trump is a member of the Ku Klux Klan and called Trump a “neo-Nazi sociopath.”
That the Trump campaign has called Starmer’s party “far-left” is not the half of it. The U.K. government has long pressed for escalation in Ukraine – a war which Trump has vowed to end.
With the war’s end would come a harsh reckoning of costs – including to energy bills, in human lives, and of course in the once notorious corruption of Ukraine itself. The Pandora Papers revealed the “hidden fortunes of the world’s elite and crooks” and the report, issued in November 2021, even detailed the shady financial dealings of Zelensky himself.
With isolation looming in Europe, Starmer is looking very lonely. His chief continental ally, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, has just seen his government dissolve. Right-wing populism is growing across Europe, with France, Sweden, Austria, and the Netherlands looking to politicians far friendlier to Hungary’s Viktor Orbán than to pro-open borders and permanent war progressives like Starmer.
British intelligence operations under Starmer have also included attempts to “kill Musk’s Twitter,” with Kit Klarenberg reporting on November 3 how “British Intel Again Targets Donald Trump.”
Starmer’s troubles at home and abroad are serious and seemingly insoluble. His Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, has recently been exposed as a liar. She had claimed to have been an economist, when in fact she had been a sort of clerk – and had also been described as “useless.”
With Britain’s economy facing disaster, its citizens under threat of imprisonment for tweet crimes, and with the Labour Party seeing farmer protests in London against its tax and land grab, Starmer’s government is stoking war abroad and charged with starting one at home – against its own people.
His government is an advertisement for a world order which Americans – and Europeans – are voting against in huge numbers. So, what happened in the U.K. in July?
The real winner of the last election in the U.K. wasn’t the Labour Party. Half of all adults did not vote at all, and turnout was the lowest since universal suffrage was introduced, as the IPPR reported.
“If non-voters were a party, they would have been the largest party by some distance,” it found.
Britain does not just face a crisis of confidence in its current government when the largest vote share is won by “none of the above.” It is hard to see how a petition can fix this, but given the level of disengagement with the electoral machine, it is notable that two-and-a-half million people can be bothered to sign it at all.
If you can motivate millions of people who do not vote into taking an interest in politics, perhaps – as Keir Starmer did – you can call yourself a “force for good.”
US Border Patrol Agent at the Montana Canada Spokane Sector
Trump Tariffs
It’s actually quite the dog and pony show between US and Canadian relations, between President Elect – Donald Trump and the current Liberal clowns we have running Canada and this is set to potentially explode on January 20th, 2025.
You see…Trump is not happy about Criminals and Drugs leaking into the United States from Canada and has threatened 25% Tariffs on ALL Products from Canada, if we can’t get our collective (act) together…
And of course, because…Orange Man Bad…the Liberals are losing their minds. 25% Tariffs will harm industry in Canada…even with a 70 Cent Canadian to US Dollar. It’s still cheaper to buy from Canada, but transport alone could stifle the balance of this imbalance.
Should all Canadians, including Liberals, be concerned over this?
Abso-Freaking-Lutely!
In as much as we should ALSO be concerned with the self-inflicted Carbon Tax Tariff on Goods and Services, making us a less favorable trade partner…and with this going up again on April 1st, 2025…with the possibility of an additional 25% tariff from Trump…our clocks are set to be cleaned by our largest trade partner.
This seems simple enough…stem the flow of criminals and drugs into the US from Canada and all is good…right?
But instead…we have buffoons like Marc Miller, downplaying the issues.
“Just as we’ve had concerns with the flow of people coming from the south to the north”.
Well Marc…this was all Trudeau’s idea, wasn’t it?
Because when Trump issued a Travel Ban, Trudeau issued a Public Statement and Tweet, welcoming them to Canada:
And then used Police and RCMP as Porters, to carry luggage and assist these people flowing into the North from the South:
And then lost track of them…before finally closing this border crossing down, 3 years into the Biden Administration.
“In comparison to the border with Mexico, it’s the equivalent on a yearly basis, of a significant weekend at the Mexico Border”, says Marc.
And maybe this is true…even Trump mentioning that a Caravan of thousands from Mexico were headed to the Southern Border from Mexico…
But it’s not just the quantity of people that are coming…
It’s also the type of people that Trump wants to stop flooding into the United States…much was the reason for the previous Travel Ban, from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.
And…if you remember back 20 years ago…when a fist full of individuals did this:
And the security that is still ramped up in All Airports in North America…you can figure out why.
We’d learned, back in September of this year, that Canada had a Pakistani citizen arrested in Canada, charged with plotting a terrorist attack in New York…and you’d think that we’re on top of this already…
But, as it turns out, where there is Smoke, you’ll more than likely find Fire, as well…
And Independent MP – Kevin Voung – was quick to point this out, earlier this morning:
With figures that go up to 2023…where as US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data showed that this number is actually 1,200, over the last 4 years.
We’ve caught one guy…
Two Terrorists were involved in taking down the Twin Towers…19, responsible for all of the 9/11 destruction, including the Pentagon being struck…
63x that amount, have tried to enter into the US – throughout the last 4 years.
So…well Trump will cause some devastation in our trading capacity, you kind of have to understand where he’s coming from…
It’s not another – Orange Man Bad, story.
And to be very honest…we as Canadians should be concerned with these levels of Terrorists on Canadian Soil…and thankful that at least somebody is finally addressing this.
One of the most intriguing developments following Donald Trump’s election victory has been the announcement of Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy’s Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. The initiative, which hopes to cut up to $2 trillion from the federal budget, has generated notable excitement, momentum, and memes. The world’s richest man and a successful biotech entrepreneur, Ramaswamy, have revitalized what seemed to be a mostly dormant libertarianism, drawing on the inspiration of Milton Friedman and promising to slash the bureaucracy to the bone. But what are its prospects for real-world success?
Elon Musk is our era’s most gifted entrepreneur, having revolutionized several industries and run multiple major companies. But the private sector operates on radically different principles than the public sector, which has a way of stalling or disarming even the most determined efforts. I foresee three potential impediments to DOGE’s success.
First is the problem of authority. While President-elect Trump has dubbed the effort the “Department of Government Efficiency,” it is not a government department at all. Rather, Musk and Ramaswamy will remain in the private sector and preside over what is, in effect, a blue-ribbon committee providing recommendations to the president and to Congress about potential cuts. In practice, though, blue-ribbon committees are often where ideas go to die. Politicians who feel the need to “do something” about a given problem often establish such committees to create the perception of action, which masks their true desire or, at least, the eventual result: inaction.
DOGE’s challenge will be to translate its recommendations into policy. It is almost certain that an entrepreneur of Musk’s ambition will not be content with writing a report. His and Ramaswamy’s task, then, is to persuade the president and the director of the Office of Management and Budget to enact real (and politically risky) cuts, and, if possible, to persuade Congress to abolish entire departments, such as the Department of Education, in the face of left-wing backlash.
The second problem for Musk and Ramaswamy is public opinion. Libertarians and small-government conservatives have long promised to reduce the size of government; one reason that they have never done so is that federal programs and agencies are generally popular. All of the major federal departments, with the exception of the IRS, the Department of Education, and the Department of Justice, have net-positive favorability numbers. Congressional members, even conservative Republicans, fear that slashing these departments would expose them to savage criticism from the Left and backlash from voters. They know that Americans complain about the size of government in theory but oppose almost all spending cuts in practice—the key paradox that libertarians have been unable to resolve.
Musk and Ramaswamy have repeatedly appealed to the work of Argentinian president Javier Milei, who has dramatically reduced the number of departments and created flashy video clips of himself stripping down organizational charts and yelling, “Afuera!” But what is possible in Argentina, which has been mired in a decades-long economic crisis, may not be achievable in the United States, which is much more stable, and, consequently, may not have the appetite for such dramatic action.
Which brings us to the problem of politics. Sending a rocket into space requires mastery over physics, but cutting government departments requires mastery over a more formidable enemy: bureaucracy. As Musk and Ramaswamy will see, the relationship between would-be reformers and Congress is vastly different from that between a CEO and a board of directors. To succeed, Musk and Ramaswamy must persuade a group of politicians, each with their own interests, to assume a high level of risk.
DOGE’s first task—identifying the budget items to cut—is the easy part. The hard part will be actually cutting them. They will have to convince Congress, which, for nearly 100 years, has refused to reduce the size of government, even when that notion had bipartisan support, as it did during the presidency of Bill Clinton, who promised that “the era of big government is over.”
This does not mean that DOGE cannot succeed. Though there may not be an appetite for a $2 trillion reduction in government spending, there is a hunger for targeted cuts that would strip the federal government of hostile ideologies that have made our institutions dysfunctional and our national life worse. For example, slashing grant funding for critical race theory would likely win support from voters; cutting the budget for USDA meat inspectors would not, and, given opportunity costs, would probably prove unproductive as well.
Perhaps the name of this committee—the Department of Government Efficiency—is also slightly off the mark. The problem is not only about efficiency, which suggests quantity, but about orientation, which implies quality. The federal government has long been captured by ideologies that misdirect its efforts. Simply making the bureaucracy more efficient will not solve that problem. DOGE must first determine what federal spending is worthwhile; from there, it can focus on creating “efficiencies.”
I hope that Musk and Ramaswamy can dispel my pessimism. Political realities have stifled countless reform efforts before now, and DOGE is an enterprise that would be difficult, if not impossible, under normal circumstances. But these are two remarkably talented men; if anyone is capable of shattering the mold, they can.
Please share your ideas, dissents, and thoughts in the comments. In the next newsletter, we will feature the best material in a“comment of the week” section. In the meantime, have a wonderful Thanksgiving.
The Most Devastating Report So Far
COP 29 leaders demand over a $1 trillion a year in climate reparations from ‘wealthy’ nations. They don’t deserve a nickel.
Another Mass Grave?
Can’t afford Rent? Groceries for your kids? Trudeau says suck it up and pay the tax!
-
Opinion1 day agoCBC on Trial: CBC CEO Catherine Tait Faces Brutal Takedown in Canadian Heritage Committee Hearing
-
Business1 day agoCBC CEO Says She Is Entitled To Massive Taxpayer-Funded Bonus
-
COVID-191 day agoNew book edited by Naomi Wolf exposes Pfizer’s ‘crimes against humanity’
-
Dr John Campbell2 days agoCancer cure experiences
-
Business2 days ago‘Accountability Is Coming’: Joni Ernst Sends Musk’s DOGE ‘A Trillion Dollars’ Worth Of Ideas To Gut Gov’t Spending
-
Business2 days agoBREAKING ALERT: Trump Threatens 25% Tariff on All Goods From Canada and Mexico, Cites Flood of Fentanyl and Illegal Migrants
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days agoLegacy Media Outlets Buried Research Showing DEI Makes People More Likely To Agree With Hitler
-
Business1 day agoTrudeau’s Delusion Meets Trump’s Tariffs: 25% Hit on Canada and Mexico Could Cripple Economies Overnight!