Do those lining up to replace Starmer as PM really believe there is a surging desire amongst the British public for more power to be wielded by unelected and unaccountable EU bureaucrats? Do they yearn for rule by those unelected officials unresponsive to migration concerns, unconcerned about globalisation and convinced there is no problem that cannot be resolved without a technocratic fix, hammered out by lawyers and lobbyists?
The pull towards Brussels seems to be the glue that holds together the different factions of this government, including the motley crew of wannabe Prime Ministers.
Angela Rayner, Andy Burnham, Ed Miliband, and Wes Streeting have indicated they would wish to undo what they see as the folly of leaving the EU.
While for the past ten years, governments have failed to make the most of Brexit, the gravest folly of all would be to take us back into the EU’s circle. Labour’s wannabe leaders believe that EU membership, or virtual membership, is popular with the voters they need to win back. Have they been listening to them? Why is Reform ahead in the polls? Why did Labour do so badly in the recent local elections? Yes, Starmer’s incompetence and personality, or lack of one, is a big problem, but more so is his constant bleating about getting back into the heart of the EU.
The major EU economies do not enjoy, and have not enjoyed since Brexit, growth any higher than the UK. As the former ECB president, Mario Draghi, pointed out, the Continent is an innovation desert scarred with the bleached bones of failed enterprises.
Britain’s growth problems stem from high energy costs, an historic over-reliance on migrant workers, an increasingly rigid labour market, high taxes, over-regulation, and burgeoning welfare costs. More Europe means more of that as well as the possibility of requiring the UK to adopt the euro.
Why are they all so willing to betray the democratic decision made by the British public in 2016? This despite getting into power under a manifesto which stated, “Labour Britain will stay outside the EU. There will be no return to the single market, the customs union, or freedom of movement.”
I should add that without doubt we have an incompetent Chancellor, who is hell bent on destroying innovation, businesses, employment opportunities for the young, farming, and food production, and driving major companies abroad.
Does anyone truly believe that Labour would approach talks with Brussels from a position of strength?
The EU will require us to pay billions of pounds to access the single market, even though its members sell more to us than we sell to them. And any deal would benefit their businesses yet further in comparison to ours. It would be, as one Sunday columnist said, ‘the equivalent of the landlord paying rent to the tenant’.
The EU is so keen on the proposed youth mobility scheme because it will allow European nations to export their young unemployed to take the jobs that British school-leavers are already struggling to secure. Such a scheme is not only economically self-harming, but also a direct insult to the British people who - whenever they have been asked - have voted for less immigration, not more.
And, perhaps most harmful of all, any EU deal would involve dynamic alignment with European rules, depriving Britain of regulatory freedom in those areas – financial services, gene editing, AI, and financial technology – where we retain a competitive advantage. Just last week, both Nigel Farage and Kemi Badenoch pointed out that Brexit freedoms allowed the UK to licence a new gene-edited crop which promises higher yields and greater resilience for farmers, the first in what could be a burgeoning harvest of growth. The EU wants to stall innovation in Britain, and this government appears ready to let them.
The best future for Britain is not less Brexit, but more; an acceleration away from the gravitational pull of the innovation black hole that is Brussels. We need smarter regulation of financial services, a more flexible labour market, an end to the precautionary principle stifling technological breakthroughs and better training for British workers. Not subsidies for idleness.
Is there anyone in the Labour party who recognises this? Or must Britain wait as more of our economy is reduced to rubble and the march of incompetent folly continues?
I really don’t think the UK is ready for Prime Minister Streeting. He has never had a proper job, much like many of the MPs sitting on the green benches. Few have experience working outside the public sector with their guaranteed income, whether they did a good job or not.
The man is also clearly sensitive to criticism, and vulnerable in ways which do not sit well with high office. It now seems he is not that popular amongst his fellow MPs either.
Would Prime Minister Burnham do better? I doubt it. He clearly has a loyal following in Manchester within his little ‘kingdom’. However, that probably does not travel well into Westminster second time round, and certainly not nationally or internationally. I suspect he will struggle to win the by-election but that will depend heavily on who becomes the Reform candidate in the Makerfield by-election.
Then we have the prospect of Calamity Angela. She is larger than life and accident prone. The debacle on the stamp duty will probably come back to haunt her. It is clearly not a done deal as a HMRC whistle blower has let slip. And, unless she starts attending AA meetings soon, she will increasingly become seen as a loose cannon who is unstable and unpredictable. She is joined at the hip with UNISON which is clearly pulling her stings. Do the public really want the country under the thumb of the unions?
I am not going to bother mentioning Ed Miliband, he was a terrible choice last time as leader of the Labour Party. His brother David - who he knifed in the back - would have been a far better choice. His record now as Energy secretary, speaks for itself.
I note we now have a new Health Secretary who claims that Trans women are women. James Murray, chosen to replace Wes Streeting, defines women as “adult female and trans women”.
Following the Supreme Court judgement, clarity on biological sex is not optional. But, as was noted in the Sunday newspapers, the Health Secretary should be able to define a woman without implying it is up for debate. In past interviews when he was a shadow treasury minister, and asked to define what a woman was, he replied: “I believe that trans women are women”. I am not sure I would trust this man in this sensitive role, whatever he decides to believe now.
We got some rain for which we are truly grateful. Not enough though, so please keep dancing!
This terrific image was borrowed from the Spectator’s Website last week.
The pull towards Brussels seems to be the glue that holds together the different factions of this government, including the motley crew of wannabe Prime Ministers.
Angela Rayner, Andy Burnham, Ed Miliband, and Wes Streeting have indicated they would wish to undo what they see as the folly of leaving the EU.
While for the past ten years, governments have failed to make the most of Brexit, the gravest folly of all would be to take us back into the EU’s circle. Labour’s wannabe leaders believe that EU membership, or virtual membership, is popular with the voters they need to win back. Have they been listening to them? Why is Reform ahead in the polls? Why did Labour do so badly in the recent local elections? Yes, Starmer’s incompetence and personality, or lack of one, is a big problem, but more so is his constant bleating about getting back into the heart of the EU.
The major EU economies do not enjoy, and have not enjoyed since Brexit, growth any higher than the UK. As the former ECB president, Mario Draghi, pointed out, the Continent is an innovation desert scarred with the bleached bones of failed enterprises.
Britain’s growth problems stem from high energy costs, an historic over-reliance on migrant workers, an increasingly rigid labour market, high taxes, over-regulation, and burgeoning welfare costs. More Europe means more of that as well as the possibility of requiring the UK to adopt the euro.
Why are they all so willing to betray the democratic decision made by the British public in 2016? This despite getting into power under a manifesto which stated, “Labour Britain will stay outside the EU. There will be no return to the single market, the customs union, or freedom of movement.”
I should add that without doubt we have an incompetent Chancellor, who is hell bent on destroying innovation, businesses, employment opportunities for the young, farming, and food production, and driving major companies abroad.
Does anyone truly believe that Labour would approach talks with Brussels from a position of strength?
The EU will require us to pay billions of pounds to access the single market, even though its members sell more to us than we sell to them. And any deal would benefit their businesses yet further in comparison to ours. It would be, as one Sunday columnist said, ‘the equivalent of the landlord paying rent to the tenant’.
The EU is so keen on the proposed youth mobility scheme because it will allow European nations to export their young unemployed to take the jobs that British school-leavers are already struggling to secure. Such a scheme is not only economically self-harming, but also a direct insult to the British people who - whenever they have been asked - have voted for less immigration, not more.
And, perhaps most harmful of all, any EU deal would involve dynamic alignment with European rules, depriving Britain of regulatory freedom in those areas – financial services, gene editing, AI, and financial technology – where we retain a competitive advantage. Just last week, both Nigel Farage and Kemi Badenoch pointed out that Brexit freedoms allowed the UK to licence a new gene-edited crop which promises higher yields and greater resilience for farmers, the first in what could be a burgeoning harvest of growth. The EU wants to stall innovation in Britain, and this government appears ready to let them.
The best future for Britain is not less Brexit, but more; an acceleration away from the gravitational pull of the innovation black hole that is Brussels. We need smarter regulation of financial services, a more flexible labour market, an end to the precautionary principle stifling technological breakthroughs and better training for British workers. Not subsidies for idleness.
Is there anyone in the Labour party who recognises this? Or must Britain wait as more of our economy is reduced to rubble and the march of incompetent folly continues?
I really don’t think the UK is ready for Prime Minister Streeting. He has never had a proper job, much like many of the MPs sitting on the green benches. Few have experience working outside the public sector with their guaranteed income, whether they did a good job or not.
The man is also clearly sensitive to criticism, and vulnerable in ways which do not sit well with high office. It now seems he is not that popular amongst his fellow MPs either.
Would Prime Minister Burnham do better? I doubt it. He clearly has a loyal following in Manchester within his little ‘kingdom’. However, that probably does not travel well into Westminster second time round, and certainly not nationally or internationally. I suspect he will struggle to win the by-election but that will depend heavily on who becomes the Reform candidate in the Makerfield by-election.
Then we have the prospect of Calamity Angela. She is larger than life and accident prone. The debacle on the stamp duty will probably come back to haunt her. It is clearly not a done deal as a HMRC whistle blower has let slip. And, unless she starts attending AA meetings soon, she will increasingly become seen as a loose cannon who is unstable and unpredictable. She is joined at the hip with UNISON which is clearly pulling her stings. Do the public really want the country under the thumb of the unions?
I am not going to bother mentioning Ed Miliband, he was a terrible choice last time as leader of the Labour Party. His brother David - who he knifed in the back - would have been a far better choice. His record now as Energy secretary, speaks for itself.
I note we now have a new Health Secretary who claims that Trans women are women. James Murray, chosen to replace Wes Streeting, defines women as “adult female and trans women”.
Following the Supreme Court judgement, clarity on biological sex is not optional. But, as was noted in the Sunday newspapers, the Health Secretary should be able to define a woman without implying it is up for debate. In past interviews when he was a shadow treasury minister, and asked to define what a woman was, he replied: “I believe that trans women are women”. I am not sure I would trust this man in this sensitive role, whatever he decides to believe now.
We got some rain for which we are truly grateful. Not enough though, so please keep dancing!
This terrific image was borrowed from the Spectator’s Website last week.
RSS Feed