"Despite appearances, this Labour Government does have a vision – it’s rule by ECHR-adhering judges"
Telegraph: 21st November 2024: Writing for the Telegraph, Lord Frost nails what "Starmerism" is all about - Socialist economics. Imperious authoritarianism. Control. Disdain for you, the voter. And all coupled with a haughty moralism that says “we are the masters now”
"...I think the effort to define “Starmerism” is worth making, not least because Labour itself will be reluctant to do so...
...There’s the moral superiority. Labour ministers can do things... that others wouldn’t get away with... With this moralising approach goes a very clear hierarchy of groups. At the top of the pyramid... are Labour ministers and their advisers. Below them are NHS workers, the Labour aristocracy, followed closely by the public and quasi public professions like teachers and lawyers. Then the trade unions and the Leftist blob of NGOs and professional mega-charities. Then, a long way behind, comes the wealth-creating private sector...
And, finally, right at the bottom, are the modern equivalent of Soviet kulaks: farmers, pensioners, people who send their children to private school, anyone who owns more than one house, and of course anyone who doesn’t like the social change brought about by massive inward immigration. Labour is indifferent to what those people think. It sees them as “populists”... internal enemies in need of re-education...
...Such a hierarchy can only be enforced with a high degree of authoritarianism. We all learnt that pretty fast with the crackdown on free speech over the summer. Many are now frightened to say what they think – one reason why the police investigationinto the great Allison Pearson [read here] has struck such a chord. If they can come after her... who is safe?...
But it’s visible more broadly. Important decisions are taken without scrutiny... And we can all see Starmer’s visible anger when someone has the temerity to ask him a question.
Labour are fine with this... they aren’t politicians in the normal sense, but rather lawyer-politicians who see law as superior to politics. For them the law is not a way of enabling citizens of a democracy to conduct our political affairs in a fair and equitable fashion. They see it as a way of constraining us, of limiting politics to what they consider acceptable, a system to which politics must bend..."