The State Will Take Back Control of People’s Lives, Says Starmer
Keir Starmer has said the state will “take back” more “control” of people’s lives – twisting the Brexit slogan and backtracking on his previous pledge to “tread more lightly” on people’s lives. The Telegraph has more.
In his first speech to the Labour conference since entering No. 10, the Prime Minister invoked the “take back control” slogan popularised during Brexit to warn about the impact of unfettered free markets and a small state.
Areas that he claimed would benefit from Government control included the NHS, energy, justice, education, the office and the economy.
Sir Keir said he was willing to be “unpopular”, saying the construction of more controversial pylons in the countryside and accepting asylum seekers were “trade offs” the public would have to accept.
His speech – which included the words “control” or “uncontrolled” 15 times – marked a stark contrast to his first speech as Prime Minister in July, in which he told the public he would “tread more lightly on your lives”.
Sir Keir told party delegates in Liverpool: “Now don’t get me wrong – markets are dynamic. Competition is a vital life force in our economy. This is a Labour Party proud to say that. We work hand-in-hand with business.
“But markets don’t give you control – that is almost literally their point. So if you want a country with more control, if you want the great forces that affect your community to be better managed – whether that’s migration, climate change, law and order, or security at work – then that does need more decisive Government, and that is a Labour Government.
“Taking back control is a Labour argument.”
The phrase “take back control”, used by the Vote Leave campaign as it won the referendum to exit the European Union, may mark an attempt to connect with Reform U.K. voters disillusioned by the Tories’ failure to deliver on past immigration promises.
Sir Keir said in his speech that he had “always accepted concerns about immigration are legitimate”, insisting: “I have never thought we should be relaxed about some sectors importing labour when there are millions of young people, ambitious and highly talented, who are desperate to work and contribute to their community.”
However, he claimed that to tackle illegal migration, the same process “will also grant some people asylum”. He warned that another “trade-off” the public faced in return for cheap electricity was “new pylons overground, otherwise the burden on taxpayers is too much”.
Worth reading in full.
Stop Press: Starmer has been humiliated by Labour members at the party conference this morning as they voted in favour a union-led motion to oppose the winter fuel allowance cut.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Here is what the slogan should be —-“More Pylons, More Turbines, More Solar Panels, More Electric Cars, More Heat Pumps, More Smart Meters, BUT MORE EXPENSIVE ENERGY AND LESS OF IT.
I don’t know, I feel like as far as slogans go Labour need to be more in tune with the people of Britain and what’s important to them. Therefore, “Take back control with a Greggs Hostage Roll”, as he sinks his teeth into a piece of baked national pride goodness. 🤤
No? OK, how about, “Things might get nasty with a Greggs corned beef pasty”😈😳 There’s a definite sponsorship deal in there somewhere…🫓🥐
Superb
You’re too kind.
I was just having Greggs withdrawals..🤭
I always try to purchase a sandwich from a local trader, not the big blue chips. That is if there are any around!
Yeah, I’ve always hated big blue chips as well. Being back traditional cooked-in-lard chips I say!
Mogs you funny
Maybe we should check who’s providing the catering for them – no doubt it’s provided by a donor as well as everything else
I’m being pestered almost daily by my power company’s agent, trying to get me to agree to fitting of smart meters. How soon before they start getting court orders? As my meter cabinets are outside, next job is to fit locks.
I can see a fight on my hands in the near future in that subject. Mine is inside though.
Mine too. Currently they are trying to make me see how much easier my life will be with Smart(my arse)Meter. But I actually quite enjoy taking a monthly reading and submitting it. In any case I’d still have to take a monthly reading for my spreadsheet…
I have been pestered too but will never give in. However, there is a solution if our fascist government forces smart meters upon us: simply make them “dumb” by completely covering them with aluminium foil, preferably 2 layers . Alternatively, smart meter faraday bags are available on the internet.
After years of pestering by Scottish Power, my brother has now been offered £150 in Amazon vouchers to have one fitted. He’s told them to poke that too…
Go careful with that one – they actually own the meter and have rules about access as needed. Best strategy is to be as big a pain in the arse as possible for them, and they’ll simply focus their attention elsewhere I’ve found…
Thanks. Noted.
blob:https://staging.dailysceptic.org/548ca5e8-b8fb-421d-93b4-55daaac586c0
Trade offs? For what? Let me know what the deal is and I’ll decide if I want to trade.
Unfortunately he’s right: the public will have to ‘accept’ as there’s no way to depose Labour in Parliament before 2029 – unless they completely disintegrate into factions that will not support each other like the Conservative Party did. I really don’t see Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells engaging in violent revolution against Parliament.
“… willing to be unpopular…” Success! And in record time.
‘Markets don’t give you control. That is almost literally their point.’ Eh? Literally the point of markets is, in fact, to give the consumer control. If one supermarket was over officious during covid, as so many were, I simply went to another one. I had control. The Prime Minister calls himself a socialist. In reality, he is a socialist fascist: ‘The State, as conceived and realized by Fascism, is a spiritual and ethical entity for securing the political, juridical, and economic organization of the nation’ ‘Fascism desires the State to be strong and organic, based on broad foundations of popular support. The Fascist State lays claim to rule in the economic field no less than in others; it makes its action felt throughout the length and breadth of the country by means of its corporative, social, and educational institutions, and all the political, economic, and spiritual forces of the nation, organized in their respective associations, circulate within the State.’ Mussolini 1932 ‘So if you want a country with more control, if you want the great forces that affect your community to be better managed – whether that’s migration, climate change, law and order, or security at work – then that… Read more »
The difference is in the implementation. Mussolini’s state was supposed to corporatist, that’s what the ‘organic’ alludes to: Built from bottom to top out of voluntarily cooperating bodies of representatives of all import sectors of economy and society. Starmer’s state is supposed to managerial and technocratic: The experts decide what’s good for us after weighing the available option and all we are supposed to do is accept the resulting trade-offs.
NB: I have absolutely no idea to which degree fascist Italy came close to this idealized description. But it was the reason why ‘corporatist state’ garned at lot of intellectual support outside of Italy at that time.
If Starmer was a fascist, he wouldn’t be “dashing off” to parade himself in front of the UN general assembly while his party is debating the fate of the winter fuel allowance as the UN is the anti-state organization.
Mussolini’s idea was State control over everything. That is top down, not bottom up.
Voluntary, bottom-up is free market – the antithesis of Fascism and its ugly twin Socialism.
That’s an intentional political misinterpretation on your part, as I’ve pointed out in the text above. The top-down state is Starmer’s (among others) idea: Experts decide. Crethi and plethi ‘accept’ the tradeoffs. The corporatist state is theoretically the exact anti-thesis of that, as it’s always supposed to arrive a synthesis solution based on the interests and opinions of the whole and not just on opinions of subject-matter experts. In contrast to this, free market is an anarchist concept: Everyone just does what he believes to be best for him regardless of what others are doing. And the ideal outcome is that an optimal solutions emerges evolutionary as bad choices end up being weeded out over time due to their bad consequences. The obvious problem with that is that – in the real world – not everyone is of equal decision-making power and that thus, some people will end up being prevented from doing what they really wanted to do regardless of its inherent value. To use my example from yesterday: DHL is an international logistics company and when they sometimes just don’t deliver stuff, that’s for customers to suck it up as they have no choice over means of delivery of… Read more »
The point is a simple one: not much difference between what Mussolini and Starmer say in terms of state control.
There is a good discussion to be had as to whether the ‘stakeholder capitalism’ of Blair’s Britain is a form of corporatism.
Just as there never has been a truly Communist state, it is arguable thst there has never been a truly fascist state.
Nevertheless the fact remains that Starmer does, at times, sound like a fascist.
The clincher would be if Mussolini was a bit of sausage fancier.
There is a good discussion to be had as to whether the ‘stakeholder capitalism’ of Blair’s Britain is a form of corporatism. That’s an idea I had myself in the past. I think the difference is again in the implementation. Blair’s stakeholders are mostly synthetic entities created for the purpose of being stakeholders, eg, pro-immigration or climate activism NGOs. In this sense, they’re not really stakeholders. They don’t represent possibly conflicting interests of real people but just pre-existing political notions. They’re really just called stakeholders to justify exercising political influence directed by politicians on economic decision making. To me, Starmer sounds mostly like bad actor: He’s the public face of a lot of people and organizations with scope-limited dictatorial ambitions. Corona’s witnesses wanted “Some Corona again, please, because that’s so rational!”. The anti-smokers faction wanted “Some more state persecution of smokers, please, because that’s so rational!”. The teetotallers have meanwhile also joined the choir and want “Some more state persecution of the hospitality industry, please, because that’s so rational!”. They seem to be passing Starmman around like a ball with occasionally having him stop in some place to hold a would-be “Blood, sweat and tears!” speech. That’s principally the BoJo… Read more »
‘The UN is the anti-state organization.’ The UN is supra-state, not ‘anti’ which suits the Fabian One World Government agenda.
The agenda of the UN is principally to dissolve souvereign states with defined borders and political systems of their own into mere world regions with no borders and no political system beyond “regional representatives” responsible for putting UN plans they have no say over into practice and for dealing with all the issue the UN regards as below it. This makes it anti-state.
The principal property of a state is that it has a border separating ‘this state’ area from ‘not this state’ area. Hence, it makes no sense to describe a borderless planet residing in an inhabitable vacuum as ‘state’.
Transfer of control from the people to the Socialist/Fascist State will give the people more control?
The idea that a bunch of incompetent nitwits can have enough knowledge to produce better outcomes for individuals than the of billions of people in ‘the market’ who know what they want, is what Hayek called the fatal conceit.
I agree with you. The distinction between socialism and fascism is really not very big from an economic stand point. In both instances the state directs everything. In one the state also owns all the production, in the other private individuals in total collusion with the state own some of the production. It’s a similar distinction as between a monopoly and a cartel. Same ultimate effect.
Starmer is of course a techno fascist. And by the looks of it quite unabashedly so.
And yet most of the public just don’t see it.
“socialist fascist” ALL socialist are fascist and communist; all they want is to control you, what you think, where you go, who you talk to, how you talk, what you eat etc etc. Why is everyone so surprised when a Labour Party gets its hands on power it’s the same old same old tax, spend, control? People have very short memories.
Bit more Starmer drama here. Well it looks like control to me;
”Sir Keir Starmer will today use his first Labour conference speech as prime minister—intended to calm frustrations over his premiership to date—to announce a law giving investigators access to personal bank accounts. “Just the sort of thing,” joked politics professor Tim Bale, “that’ll have already-disillusioned Labour Party delegates cheering in the aisles—not.”
Civil liberties campaigners have critisised the proposal as being akin to the previous Conservative government’s “mass bank spying plans that we defeated a couple of months ago.”
Like these measures, Starmer’s law will be introduced under the pretext of “rooting out” benefit fraudsters—those who purposefully claim state handouts they’re not entitled to. But Silkie Carlo, director of the Big Brother Watch campaign group, said monitoring would not be “targeted” since banks could only keep an eye on claimants by “scanning all accounts.
Carlo added that if the law amounts to handing investigators “the same mass bank spying power [as was going to be handed over by the Tories], we will give them hell, and win again.”
https://europeanconservative.com/articles/news/starmer-wants-to-give-investigators-power-to-spy-on-personal-bank-information/
Mogwai, good as ever – but do avoid the word “purposefully”, when what’s meant is ‘on purpose’ or ‘deliberately’. ‘Purposefully’ means something quite different. But perhaps you don’t mean ‘purposefully’ rather than ‘deliberately’?
Socialism = empowerment of the State over the individual; central economic planning and control.
Labour, Starmer = Socialism. Why the surprise?
And what exactly do people think the purpose of the welfare state is – constructed by the first post-war Socialist Government (Labour 1945)?
I have to admit, Starmer is a pretty scary guy.
He seems as if completely convinced that he knows what is best for me, determined to impose it on me and likely to treat me as if I were a stupid idiot if I tried to disagree.
I assume he is a sociopath.
I expect a lot of them have questionable tendencies. That’s why they should have as little power as possible
Here’s somebody that could teach Starmer a thing or two about taking back control. Now why in the world do you think he did this and why now? Baffling…
”The FCC just fast-tracked George Soros’ purchase of 220+ radio stations before November’s election.
The stations reach 165M Americans.
This has never been done before.”
https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1838562719672259032
He promised that he would “tread more lightly on your lives” – but the silent bit was “until I have got my jackboots on”.
I find it bizarre that any politician would admit to treading – lightly or otherwise – on my life. I believe it (not the ‘lightly’ bit), but it’s such a sinister thing to say.
..”Take back control” is something of a mis-statement. You cannot take back control of something that you have never controlled.
Labour are incorrigible control freaks, Orwellian 1984 INGSOC here we come. Here in Scotland we’ve had to put up with this for many years under the oppression of the SNP.
We can all “take back control” of our own lives by joining and supporting a party that will provide the circumstances for us to do just that… Reform UK. In all of the abovementioned areas, immigration, education, NHS, etc. their policies are to reduce the size of the state and its influence.
So, if hard-left governments promote collectivist action in the name of “the greater good”, let’s play them at their own game, and support Reform (and vote for them at the next general election, as well as local council and by-elections), and hopefully we’ll only have to endure this nonsense for the next five years!
A party has to have capability as well as policies. I am not convinced that Reform UK has any capability. For example, they left it to the last minute to put up a candidate in this constituency – someone no-one had time to get to know. It may be that Sunak sprung an early election to catch any rival unprepared, but a capable party will have to be ready for such tactics.
I wish there were a capable Opposition, but I think the absence of one is why Labour is in power.
I doubt that there are “millions of young people, ambitious and highly talented, who are desperate to work and contribute to their community”. There are, however millions of young people in this country who are neither ambitious or highly talented and this is materially undermining the economy.
It is just an attempt at repositioning on behalf of the global elite. He is a Trilateral Commision man that is his job. Every decision even those that seem to be antithetical to market fundamentalism is ultimately a reflection of the requirements of the western banking agenda. Once you understand these people you can identify their fingerprints instantly. The Brits fell for the same spiel that Obama promised – nebulous change. Doesn’t take a genius to see that change isn’t always good. But there is a human tendency to feel that when things are bad they can’t posssibly get any worse and this is a grave mistake.
Nothing left batteries dead already and yet nothing to take the place of even such a ghastly regime. What does that say about you?
Two tier, free gear, no beer Kier.
I despair that so few people saw him for what he really is. Now we’re stuck with him for years unless he’s ousted from within.
Only sausages get a free ride. Free the Palethorpe 6.
2TKier is trying very hard to become a dictator like Stalin, because he knows best. I rather hope that the revenue have an investigation underway into all these gifts he seems to have received, and not even at Christmas. If YOU give a person more than 3 grand, it is taxable, because normal people don’t do that. Any more and there is a suspicion of tax fraud, and while you can give large gifts to family members you have to live 7 years before they are inheritance tax free. I do wonder what is being bought?