Keir Starmer is evil

Starmer wants to punish people for criticising him

My doubts about Starmer

I have a confession to make: for a long time I've felt there was something off about Starmer, an authoritarian tendency that reminds me of Stalin.

I've felt this ever since Starmer had his predecessor as Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, kicked out of the party. The reason given for doing this was that Corbyn had asserted that the scale of antisemitism in the Labour Party had been overstated for political reasons.

Given the amount of factional infighting in the Labour Party, it's easy to come to the conclusion that the real reason Starmer kicked Corbyn out of Labour was to get rid of a rival, and make it easier for Starmer to gain total control over the party. This is reminiscent of how Stalin expelled Trotsky from the CPSU.

While I don't agree with all of Corbyn's policies, it seems clear to me that as an individual he's a decent person. The same cannot be said of Starmer.

Two-Tier Keir

During the riots in July and August, following the Southport murders, Elon Musk started calling Starmer "Two Tier Keir":

Elon Musk brands Starmer 'two-tier Keir' and asks 'is this Britain or Soviet Union?' over Facebook comment arrest video

The billionaire owner of X posts the hashtag #twotierKeir about the prime minister in reference to "two-tier policing" - a claim often used by the far-right to suggest that police treat certain groups of people in different ways.

The jibe has stuck:

Childish it may be, but ‘two-tier Keir’ chant chimes with the disenchanted

The jibe isn’t going away, because many see it as essentially true:

take the case of Mohamed Osman, who threw a can at protesters amid disorder in Bristol following the Southport attack, and pleaded guilty to violent disorder. Mohamed will not do jail time: last week, he received a two-year suspended sentence, though he did get a measly 150 hours of community service. A stark contrast with the fate of Bradley McCarthy, who, also in Bristol, shouted at police and a police dog and engaged in ‘racist football-style chants’ – and received 20 months behind bars. Does anyone think that’s fair?

Non Crime Hate Incidents

The government seem determined to expand the use of non crime hate incidents to punish those who dare to refer to "two tier Keir" or "two tier policing". Matt Goodwin writes:

Wow. Tonight a leaked Home Office report calls to expand the Orwellian “non-crime hate incidents” & says “claims of ‘two-tier’ policing” are a “right-wing extremist narrative” while the rape gangs are an “alleged” problem “frequently exploit[ed]” by … the far-Right !!

-Telegraph

The Telegraph has more details on the leaked dossier:

Leaked dossier reveals Home Office plans to revive non-crime hate incidents

Police should record more non-crime hate incidents, a leaked Home Office report has recommended, despite a row sparked by Telegraph journalist Allison Pearson. The counter-extremism review recommends that Labour reverses the previous government’s move to limit the recording of non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs) over concerns about their impact on free speech.

The report also says that “claims of ‘two-tier’ policing” are a “Right-wing extremist narrative” and that grooming gangs are an “alleged” problem “frequently exploit[ed]” by the far-Right.

The row over NCHIs and free speech flared last year after Pearson was investigated by police for the crime of allegedly stirring up racial hatred in a tweet about two-tier policing. The case was subsequently dropped.

So, what is a "non-crime hate incident", anyway? The article continues:

Although having an NCHI recorded against a person does not involve any sanction and is not a criminal record, it may show up on an enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service check, potentially affecting employment prospects.

In other words, having a NCHI against you means you could lose your job, not get promotion, or not get a job in the first place.

Starmer has crossed a line

Starmer understands politics. He must do, otherwise he could never have become prime minister. Therefore he must know that if a country punishes its citizens for criticising the leader or the government, then that country ceases to be a democracy, because you cannot have democracy without freedom of speech and debate.

Starmer knows this and has deliberately crossed the line anyway. He knows exactly what he's doing. He is at heart an authoritarian: while he is not going to put his enemies into Gulags, it's clear that if he was born in another place and time, he absolutely would.

It doesn’t even matter whether the “two tier Keir” jibe is true or not. If Starmer thinks it is true, he should change his policies. If he doesn’t, he should explain to people why not. Since he is Prime Minister, he is perfectly capable of getting his message out. (Whether people will agree with him is of course another matter). The one thing he mustn’t do, if he is a democrat, is use state power to bludgeon his opponents into silence. That would be evil. But it appears to be what he is going for.

Starmer's record on democracy and Scotland

Let's have a look at Starmer's record, both on democracy and on Scotland

• After Scotland voted in the 2016 referendum to stay in the European Union, Starmer voted in the House of Commons to force us out anyway, against our will.

• Labour wants to keep the undemocratic FPTP voting system, that gave them 2/3rds of the seats on 1/3rd of the votes

• Labour thinks Scotland should be forced to say in the UK, even if Scots want independence; the Labour manifesto (p.110) says: "Labour does not support independence or another referendum".

The pattern here is that Starmer shows time and time again that he is against democracy and against Scotland.

What will happen

In the July 2024 general election, Labour got of 34.7% of the vote in Great Britain. Now, according to polls they score around 22-28% of the GB vote; averaging that at 25% it shows their support is down almost 10 points, after only 6 months in power. (By contrast, support for the Tories 6 months after the 2019 election was about the same as at that election.)

I expect that the government will continue to make only limited progress in solving the UK's many problems, and that as a result Labour's popularity will continue to fall. In England many will turn to Nigel Farage's Reform Party.

In Scotland, many will turn towards independence, partly because both Tories and Labour will be seen to have failed and partly because most Scots don't like Farage and don't want to be ruled by him.

And as the United Kingdom continues to fail, and support for Scottish independence increases, Westminster politicians are likely to label Scottish nationalists as dangerous extremists, similar to how then prime minister Rishi Sunak did in May 2024:

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has named [...] "Scottish nationalists" as major threats to the UK

[Sunak] is convinced that the next five years will be some of the most dangerous [...] internal threats like [...] "Scottish nationalists".

extremists are [...] set[ting] Briton against Briton. [...] Scottish nationalists are even trying to tear our United Kingdom apart.

So how long before Westminster labels Scottish nationalism as "dangerous extremism" and "hate"? I suspect the more obvious it is that the Westminster entity is failing, the more likely it is they will lash out at any perceived enemy, including Scots.

In any case, Westminster has clearly failed, and increasingly we in Scotland don't want to be ruled by the Tories, we don't want to be ruled by Starmer, and we don't want to be ruled by Farage. We want independence, to rule ourselves, and the sooner we are rid of the failed Westminster entity, the better.