All the political chatteratti are wetting their knickers/pants over the prospect of Starmer being forced out and the ‘King of the North’ – Manchester mayor Andy Burnham – rushing in to replace the (IMHO) useless, incompetent, hasn’t-a-clue, recidivist liar Starmer. But there are great dangers with this scenario.
To become the next PM, Burnham would have to give up his position as Manchester mayor and fight a by-election to become an MP. The risks are:
If there was a by-election, even in a supposedly ‘safe’ Labour seat, people are so angry with this pathetic, out-of-its-depth Labour government that Reform might beat Labour and the ‘King of the North’ would have lost his Manchester kingdom and be seen to have failed to become an MP. There woukld be no coming back from that blundering balls-up
There would have to be a new election for the position as Manchester mayor and, for obvious reasons, if Reform put up a decent candidate, Reform might win that too
A Reform win in the ‘get-Burnham-into-parliament’ by-election would be a disaster for Labour. This disaster would be exponentionally worse if Reform could also win the election of a new mayor for Manchester.
That’s why I doubt the ‘King of the North’ will risk taking a punt on becoming PM. He and Labour have too much to lose if Reform stomp all over Labour. So, get ready for a new PM from the wide pool of Labour talent, for example David ‘Mastermind’ Lammy or PM Shabana ‘Religion of Peace’ Mahmood.
Only a couple of months to go before Reeves/Starmer launch their next pillaging of our money in the November 2025 budget. Starmer laughably claims that in Phase 1 of his premiership, Labour “fixed the foundations”. This “fixing the foundations” consisted of turning a largely fictitious £22bn ‘black hole’ in the country’s finances into a real £40bn+ black hole which Reeves/Starmer must fill by taking ever more of our cash.
But are the Reeves/Starmer tax increases really only about raising revenue to waste on our useless, work-from-home, do-nothing, deliver-nothing, over-paid, over-pensioned, self-serving public sector?
You’ll all know about the Laffer Curve – The Laffer curve is a theoretical relationship between tax rates and government revenue, which suggests that there is an optimal tax rate that maximizes revenue and any increase in taxes above that optimal rate actually results in less tax revenue.
A good example of the Laffer Curve may be the imposition of VAT on private schools. This was (we were told) intended to raise about £1.5bn to be spent on hiring more teachers for state schools. However, private school student numbers have dropped by 13,000 in the past year, and 23 private schools have announced plans for closure or possible closure. The average cost to operate a state-funded school in England, including capital expenditure, was approximately £9,120 per pupil for the 2024-25 financial year. This figure reflects the total funding received by the school to cover all aspects of its operation, such as salaries, maintenance, and resources, distributed according to a National Funding Formula.
So, if an additional 13,000 pupils left private schools and joined the state sector, this would cost an extra £118m. That’s about enough money to pay for an extra 3,000 state-school teachers. Hopefully Comrades Reeves and Starmer took this into account when promising us £1.5bn more tax to pay for thousands of extra state schools teachers?
The previous and coming Starmer/Reeves tax increases are supposedly to raise more money. But some people may doubt whether they care whether their increased taxes do raise more money or not. Just like with communism: the advertised aim was the liberation of the proletariat and the totalitarian dictatorship was only supposed to be the means to achieve that aim. There’s the old Soviet joke:
Q: What’s the difference between capitalism and communism?
A: Capitalism is the exploitation of man by man. Communism is the opposite.
The aim of a leftist, socialist government is always total state dependence. Every single individual should be financially dependent on the state, so that effectively everyone is a slave. Private property allows the individual some freedom: this is against state power. According to new analysis by the Adam Smith Institute on March 2025, 52.1% of British adults are reliant on the state for their livelihood. With about 3,000 people a day signing on to out-of-work benefits the percent of the population dependent on the state will continue to rise.
Policies like Net Zero, crushing free speech with the pathetically misnamed ‘Online Safety Bill’ and crippling taxes are just ways to achieve national impoverishment and increasing dependence on the state. Starmer and Reeves and Miliband and Rayner and the rest of the morons in government don’t really want growth. Why would they? An impoverished population is much easier to control. This is why poverty invariably follows socialism.
If I remember correctly, Keir ‘not queer’ Starmer’s big chum, Lord Alibaba, bats for the other side. As does Keir ‘not queer’ Starmer’s other chum Mr Mandelson. But as we all know, Keir’s not queer. Please don’t mention Ukrainian rent boys.
Warning! Warning! Contains sexual content of an ambiguous nature.
I really have to be careful with today’s blog. Given that five of Starmer’s armed thought police recently arrested comedian Graham Linehan for three tweets about some of our more sexually-imaginative citizens, I don’t want my local utterly useless plods dragging me away and threatening to hold me in custody for years while supposedly awaiting trial for some made-up ‘offence’.
So today, I just want to say that I humbly accept whatever utter nonsense our increasingly North Korean government decrees is the truth. For example, should this person declare that he/she/it/they is/are a woman, I completely accept that:
Moreover, should this person decide that he/she/it/they wishes/wish to use changing rooms previously reserved by people who were born biological females, I absolutely accept that. After all, to not accept that is apparently a hate crime even though the Supreme Court has declared (after months of careful deliberation) that there are only two sexes and each person is the sex they are born with.
However, I was more than a bit confused by the video below. I wasn’t sure which changing rooms the person in the video below should use.
I respectfully ask readers to not comment on this blog or this video as doing so might end up with a bunch of armed thought-plods smashing down your front door and hauling you off to the Ministry of Truth to be re-educated:
So the independent, totally uncorruptible bureaucrat, who reviewed the Angela Rayner property kerfuffle, reported that Rayner acted with ‘honesty’ and ‘integrity’ throughout her property dealings. I’ve seen quite a few people fired (I’ve been fired a few times) during my excuse for a career, but I’ve never seen someone forced out for acting with ‘honesty’ and ‘integrity‘. Though, of course, I realise that Rayner was judged to have made the mistake of not taking the appropriate legal advice. However, a small mistake like that does seem to me to be a rather flimsy reason for Rayner, who acted with ‘honesty’ and ‘integrity’, losing her job and a big chunk of her ministerial salary.
Sadly, with Rayner’s departure to the back benches, we’ll never get answers to such niggling questions such as:
why was the value of Angie’s constituency home increased during the property-dealing shenanigans making Angie’s home worth much more than other homes in the area?
was it this ‘up-valuing’ of Angie’s home which allowed her to put down such a chunky deposit on her new seaside residence?
was Angie moving to Hove as part of a ‘chicken run’ – an attempt to get away from a constituency where she was likely to be booted out by Reform at the next election and instead get her a nice safe Labour seat?
was the money used to pay the deposit on the Hove flat part of a fund intended for the care of one of Angie’s children?
In case any readers haven’t seen it, here’s a short video I made about Keir and Angie which has been banned by YouTube but is still available here:
And while we’re on the subject of people acting with ‘honesty’ and ‘integrity’, it would be remiss if we didn’t take the time to mention Lord ‘Mandy’ Mandelson – apparently a great chum of child-molester Mr Epstein, yum yum. We also know that Lord Mandy stayed on Epstein’s ‘Orgy Island’, yum yum.
All the papers have reported a couple of unfortunate incidents in Lord Mandy’s past such as the fact that Mandy was forced out of government not once but twice due to apparent ‘misunderstandings’ about his financial affairs or something like that. So there’s nothing I can add to those reports which you can read elsewhere.
However, I noticed that there was another ‘misunderstanding’ in Lord Mandy’s past which, as far as I can see, nobody has mentioned. If I remember correctly (and at my age one cannot always rely on one’s memory so please don’t sue me), when the lovable Lord Mandy was EU Trade Commissioner, he holidayed at least once on the luxury private yacht owned by a Russian metals billionaire. Around the same time, the EU dropped trade restrictions on aluminium produced in Russia and imported into the EU thus making the Russian billionaire even wealthier. In 2008, the Guardian reported:
Lord Mandelson was forced to issue a fresh denial yesterday that he granted favours to the Russian aluminium magnate, Oleg Deripaska, while he was European trade commissioner.
The business secretary flew to Moscow to start a four day official visit as it emerged that only a month after he accepted hospitality on Deripaska’s £80m yacht, he advocated the removal of trade restrictions which hinder the oligarch’s aluminium business, Rusal.
As the controversy over his links to Deripaska moved into a third week, Mandelson told Sky News: “A lot has been said about the relationship I have with one particular Russian businessman. All I would say about that is that he has never asked for any favours, I have never given him any favours and that is what the European commission in their examination of the issue has very firmly put on record.”
On Saturday he said he first met Deripaska in 2004 – two years earlier than his office had previously stated. But he said he “made no personal intervention to support the commercial interests of Mr Deripaska”.
Unkind voices have suggested that our Lord Mandy seems to get into these regrettable scrapes because he is attracted to rich (sometimes possibly dubious) people like flies are attracted to a pile of fresh steaming sh*t. I, of course, would never be so unkind or uncouth to imply such nonsense.
On Tuesday 2 September 2025 Hansard reported Jess Philips, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls, as saying:
“South Yorkshire police should never have been left to investigate themselves in this matter, and moving those investigations to the NCA is absolutely the right thing to do. I would be lying if I said that over the years I had not met girls who talked to me about how police were part of not just the cover-up but the perpetration. We must ensure that victims can come and give that testimony. It is harder to give than other testimony because it brings fear and a lack of trust, but if that is where the inquiry takes us because that is what victims say, that is what will happen.”
This indicates, as far as I can see, that Jess Philips:
knew the rape gangs were operating
knew the police were trying to cover up the extent of the rape gangs
knew that some police were participating in the rapes.
In Britain it is generally not a crime to know about a crime and not report it. However, there are exceptions where a specific legal duty to report exists, such as for professionals like social workers or teachers regarding child abuse, or for certain terrorism-related offenses. It is also a crime if your inaction becomes active concealment of the crime or if you fail to report a future crime, as this can be interpreted as assisting in the plan.
Jess Phillips originally voted against a national grooming inquiry. Given that it was part of her job as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls to protect women and girls, it could be argued that, like professionals such as social workers or teachers, Jess Philips had a specific legal duty to act on her knowledge that she:
knew the rape gangs were operating
knew the police were trying to cover up the extent of the rape gangs
knew that some police were participating in the rapes.
So, why aren’t the police investigating Jess Philips for her failure to report crimes she knew were happening when her position made her responsible for the safety of women and girls?
You’ll probably all remember that Starmer gave the game away a couple of years before he became PM. When asked which he prefers – Davos or Westminster – he replied “Davos”. We shouldn’t be surprised. At Davos Starmer meets people like himself. People who believe that concepts like countries, borders, national culture, a sense of community are all anachronisms in a brave new borderless world which should be run by ‘experts’ – unelected bureaucrats who know what’s best for the small people. For people like Starmer, Westminster is just a pointless talking shop where puffed-up political pygmies preen and posture and enrich themselves while actually having very little power as that power has been moved to lawyers and international organisations.
Hence Starmer’s obsession with applying international treaties and kowtowing to international bodies like the UN and the WHO and the ECHR the ICJ and the IPCC and any others you can think of. We, of course, saw this most brazenly when Labour went to court to keep the Bell Hotel in Epping open as Labour’s lawyers argued that the human rights of illegal migrants trumped British laws and the human rights of UK citizens. And. of course, there’s Starmer’s policy of flooding Britain with Third-Worlders to destroy any sense of British patriotism or community or social cohesion. For the likes of Starmer, Britain belongs to anyone except the British.
Here’s Neil Oliver explaining, better than I can, the mentality of UK-loathing globalists like Starmer and his ilk (you should start watching at about 1 minute 20 seconds into the video to avoid all the advertising):
About 5 months ago I had some health issues. Actually, I didn’t know I had some health issues. But I had been doing too much exercise and strained a shoulder muscle. So I wondered if I should get some kind of anti-inflammatory medicine. I knew that there was no chance of seeing a NHS GP. Moreover, even if I did miraculously get an appointment at my GP surgery, it’s almost certain that I would be seen by a nurse or a paramedic pretending to be a doctor. So I felt there was no option but to go and see a private GP. Cost (No Health Service tax) about £100 if I remember correctly. Being a real doctor, this GP noticed that I might have some issues with my heart and recommended I see a cardiologist.
The waiting time to see a No Health Service cardiologist was a few months, so I paid to see a private cardiologist. Cost (No Health Service tax) about £250. He recommended some tests. Waiting time for our No Health Service was several months. So, I had the tests done at a private hospital. Cost (more No Health Service tax) over £600. Next I needed a CT scan. But (you guessed it) waiting time for our No Health Service was tyhe usual several months. Ergo, I paid for a private scan. More No Health Service tax of hundreds of pounds. Then another appointment with the cardiologist. Yet more No Health Service tax. The cardiologist recommended an angiogram with angiolasty (possible stent). That would have cost thousands so I enquired about having this done by our NHS (Non-existent Health Service). As the waiting time for the angiogram was ‘only’ 10-12 weeks, I decided to have this done on our NHS (Non-existent Health Service).
The angiogram couldn’t find any problems in spite of the CT scan identifying serious artery blockages. So, now I need to see a respiratory/thoracic consultant. NHS (Non-existent Health Service) waiting time is about 5 months. That means I’ll have to pay even more NHS (No Health Service) tax. That’ll be £300 for the first appointment and then probably a couple of thousand for various tests and x-rays plus hundreds of pounds more for further consultations with the respiratory/thoracic specialist.
Our NHS (which is the envy of the world) and which is ‘free for us all’ is probably wonderful if you don’t die while on an interminable waiting list. But, if you don’t want to risk popping you clogs while waiting for the NHS to deign to treat you, you end up paying an awful lot of money in our NHS (No Health Service) tax.
Oh, and while I’m being bankrupted while trying to avoid dying, I noticed that our useless excuse for a health service is still busy using our tax money to hire even more DIE (Diversity, Inclusion and Equality) wastes-of-skin:
You might remember that there was an arson attack on an Indian restaurant in London about a week ago. Two people have been arrested. We don’t know who they are, nor do we know the reason for the attack. But I noticed that next door to the attacked restaurant was the “Shalom Hot Bagels” shop. That made me wonder if the arsonists hit their intended target – the Indian restaurant – or whether they were idiots and mistakenly attacked the Indian restaurant rather than their real target – the “Shalom Hot Bagels” shop.
Britain’s political komissars
I’m not a lawyer so I’m confused at the judgement allowing illegal migrants to remain in the Bell Hotel in Epping.
In accepting the Government’s appeal, the three ‘judges’ blethered on about the consequences of forcing the illegal migrants to be moved. For example, the three appeal judges ruled that forcing the illegal migrants out of the hotel could:
encourage many other councils to take action to empty their migrant hotels
cause massive disruption to the Government’s immigration policy
increase the risk of civil disorder
But I had understood that it’s not for courts to read the mood of the public, nor is it for courts to consider the consequences of their decisions. Courts must apply the law as written and if that causes political problems then it is up to Parliament to change the law.
For esample: in rejecting the initial judge’s decision to have the illegal migrants moved out of the hotel, Lord Justice Bean said: “The judge’s approach ignores the obvious consequence that the closure of one site means capacity needs to be identified elsewhere in the systemâ€. But there is no requirement stipulated in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 that a court must take into consideration wider political issues in applying the law. If the Government wishes such consideration to be included in planning decisions, then it is up to the Government, not the courts, to change the law.
But we should perhaps not be surprised that the three appeal court ‘judges’ ruled in favour of the Government and against the initial decision to move the migrants. Some degree of ‘personal animus’ against the original judge could seem inevitable when you have an ex-chair of the Fabian Society, leading member of ‘Lawyers for Labour’, or some such, and co-creator of Matrix Chambers, pronouncing on the judgement of another judge who stood as a Tory candidate.
The Appeal court seems to be a matter of Labour members and friends helping out their mates in government. The only good thing is this debacle has kept the issues of illegal immigration, excess crime by illegals and ECHR firmly in the public eye and they are streaming to Reform as a result. Yet another own goal from the most incompetent and most hated government in British history
By giving an interpretation to the Country Planning Act 1990 which isn’t included in the Act, the three appeal court ‘judges’ have proved what we all suspected – our courts are no longer interested in justce, and our ‘judges’ are just political komissars carrying out the wishes of their political masters.
Just another example, not that one was needed, of Two-Tier Keir’s two-tier justice system.
David Craig, on September 16th, 2025
