Starmer Picks a Side

In the first big test of his premiership, Keir Starmer has addressed the ‘far-right’ riots in response to the Southport murders. For anyone vaguely familiar with the concept of cause and effect, it was always obvious which part of the equation Starmer would be most keen to highlight. Statesmanship and leadership are ethereal concepts at the best of times, and both are in exceedingly short supply at Westminster. However, Starmer who has painted himself as the leader for our times would surely have brought his finest pallet and brush to the lectern?

Certainly, he did. And no doubt for the faithful, his painting by numbers routine did the job. For those of us on the other side of the political divide however - the tens of millions of small ‘c’ conservative, closed-borders fetishist, ‘far-right’ thugs, with ridiculous aspirations that our daughters might be permitted to live - his performance was even worse than expected.

It’s a gut-wrenching half hour, but not to worry I’ve saved you the need for antacids and watched it for you. Here is a breakdown of what he said:

“The time for answering those questions is not now”

Of course not Keir, it never is. That is the full extent to which Starmer addressed the ‘cause’ side of the equation. How could he dodge reference to the mass stabbing of innocent children? Simple, because it could ‘jeopardise a fair trial’, and none of the pre-scripted media questions challenged him on it. No matter, long before this trial is over there will be another mass stabbing to distract you.

“A tiny, mindless minority in our society”

Precisely one minute into his speech, Starmer turned his attention to the real problem afflicting Britain: ‘far-right’ thugs and football hooligans, a reference he uses to make clear exactly who is targeting - indigenous, working-class Brits, who lack his degree of sophistication when expressing themselves. Of course, it’s only the extremists and lager louts who have the bad taste to object to the systematic slaughter of little children - terrifying everyone with their apocalyptic war-cry “Save our girls!”

“A community that is not their own”

This was one of the most revealing aspects of the speech. For here, Starmer unwittingly concedes the importance of locale; the notion of ‘belonging’. While Cardiff-born Rwandan scumbag Axel Rudakubana is naturally as British as you and I, the five arrests made in Southport (individuals from St Helens, West Derby, Liverpool, Southport and Southport) clearly had no connection to the turf they were transgressing on.

“We are a country that will not allow understandable fear to curdle into division and hate in our communities, and that will not permit under any circumstances a breakdown in law and order on our streets”

‘Unless it’s the lawless division of hate we approve of’. I find it worrying that this level of gaslighting can be spoken with a straight face, and not simply laughed out of court. What planet is Starmer on? To utter such bilge is to consciously discount the pro-Palestinian riots, the BLM riots, or the machete-wielding entertainment playing out on the streets of Britain on a daily basis. It is crystal clear to anyone paying attention that the police are now strictly operating on a two-tier basis - fleeing from the multicultural mob in cities like Leeds:

but kettling, arresting or brutalising general members of the public who simply stand their ground:

“This afternoon was not about pointing the finger of blame”

Except that it was Keir, that was the only thing it was about. The adjective ‘far-right’ was deployed six times, while the words ‘immigration’, ‘multiculturalism’, ‘open borders’, ‘stabbing’ and ‘little girls’ were in markedly short supply.

“We will establish a national capability across police forces to tackle violent disorder. These thugs are mobile; they move from community to community, and we must have a policing response that can do the same: shared intelligence, wider deployment of facial recognition technology, and preventative action criminal behaviour orders to restrict their movements before they can even board a train”

There’s a lot to unpack here. First off, is Keir seriously suggesting that police forces previously lacked the capacity or nous to communicate and share resources? Of course not. But naturally, facial recognition and restrictions on movement can be brought in to prevent ‘thugs’ (white, working-class) from going about their daily business. If you think the same clamour for new powers is going to be forthcoming with regard to our more multicultural towns, amidst the necessary calls for the burka to be banned (which two-thirds of the public support), think again.

“Let me also say to large social media companies and those who run them: violent disorder clearly whipped up online, that is also a crime”

This is very much at the heart of the Labour Party, and its desire to increase the incursion on free speech in Britain: the problem with the murder of children is not the stabbing per se, but allowing the public to know about it. Clearly if social media simply banned the sharing of sensitive information, then the ‘far-right’ thugs wouldn’t get so uppity.

“The law must be upheld everywhere - that is the single most important duty of government”

Starmer is right for once, but this is a crucial admission. It means his future abject failure to close the borders, to restrict mass immigration, and to defend our sons and daughters will be damned by his very words.

“In relation to the Muslim community, let me be very clear: I will take every step that’s necessary to keep you safe”

This is hard to interpret as anything other than Starmer setting out his stall. I do not recall Starmer’s message to the nation every time a church was vandalised by Muslims, or indeed the recent ‘pro-Palestine’ attacks on a synagogue. Prioritising the safety of one community at a time when unity is of paramount importance, is either dangerously short-sighted or wilfully provocative.

Speaking Truth to Power

We’re not done yet however, because we were then treated to a series of pre-scripted questions; questions as nauseatingly unimaginative as the ‘cross-section’ of the media from whence they were sampled. The leftwing was fairly well-represented, with soft touch questions fielded from The BBC, Channel 4, ITV News, SKY News, The Guardian and The Mirror - n.b. The Times and The Mail were thrown in, in the interest of ‘balance’.

If you wanted tough questions, incisive analysis and speaking truth to power, clearly you had come to the wrong place. Judge for yourselves whether these were the most pressing issues you would have liked to see addressed:

• Extra policing / clampdown on the ‘far-right’

• Police numbers

• Your message to the Muslim community

• Police inconsistencies (Starmer ignored the question)

• The decision to name the suspect

• Social media / Nigel Farage

• Nigel Farage

• Social media

Rather than oratory for the ages, I’d call this dereliction of duty - a textbook display of obfuscation, memorable only for what was not said, rather than that which was. There was no mention of ‘children’, ‘protection’, ‘border security’, ‘failed multiculturalism’ or ‘integration’. The idea that this speech will install calm, reassure the public, or prevent future atrocities is about as close to zero as you can get. This was about Starmer doing what he does best: reassuring those who vote the right way, and blaming the response to crime, rather than the crime itself.

I remember predicting that Labour’s honeymoon would be short-lived - it’s now officially over. And judging by the callous nature of Starmer’s response, if he thinks he’s quelled the ugly, working-class, thuggish ’mob’, Christ he ain’t seen nothing yet!

Frank Haviland is the Editor of The New Conservative, and the author of Banalysis: The Lie Destroying the West.

If you enjoy my work, please consider buying me a coffee - it would really help to keep me going. Thank you!