The Tyranny of Modern Britain

Last week, Andrew Burnham, along with key cabinet members, flew to New York for the general assembly of the United Nations. The “United” Kingdom’s participation at the “United” Nations must spark questions for those condemned to live in modern Britain. Tell me if I’ve missed any polls that show the general public’s desire for “international collaboration” to take precedence over issues such as, say, the economy and Britain's border. Please, feel free to get in touch. 

Alas, the role of Britain's prime minister now requires him or her to entertain such escapades in the name of closer international ties. Given this latest trip however, as to whether they assist Britain's place in the world, or merely establish its irrelevance is up for your interpretation.  

On the surface, as his social media accounts would suggest, Andrew Burnham prances around New York with a kind of childish glee. Which is befitting really, given that, just half a year ago, he was in charge of a Regional Authority which had an annual budget of 3 billion pounds. 

On the other hand, such opportunities offer reshuffled cabinet ministers the chance to escape genuine scrutiny. Unlike Whitehall, the bright lights of Midtown Manhattan coupled with the sheepish scrutiny of international media organizations, allow the Foreign Secretary to evade questions surrounding his apparent concern for occupied Palestinians in Gaza, over his concern for those living in areas of Britain that are no longer recognisable. (Of course, given the standard of modern journalism, such questions will never actually be asked.) “But hey, it gives Our Andy a chance to get face to face with the US president, who, until two minutes ago, we were all calling deranged, immoral and every other name under the sun.” Because, for Burnham, “Our work together already shows what can be achieved when our two countries combine our expertise and innovation.” 

How far does such expertise extend for Burnham? Long into the treacherous, overfunded machinery of the pentagon, which is still refused use of British airfields and strike Iran? Perhaps more importantly, does Trump see the UK as an example of “expertise and innovation”? So far, Burnham is yet to onboard any of the advice that the US president offered to his predecessor. So you can guess what my assumption is. Isn’t international collaboration just brilliant! 

Since returning home, Burnham has delivered a speech to the Labour party conference, which shares all the hallmarks of a confused policy platform and, more alarmingly, many authoritarian sensibilities. He talks of “taking back control” of water, housing and several other key industries. Which is ironic, given that at the present moment, the UK has never been more regulated or controlled. In the latest tranche of housing regulation, for example, new rules prohibit “Any rent increase” to be “no higher than the open market rent”; a right to keep a pet which cannot be “unreasonably refused”. Meanwhile, endless environmental regulation only deters people from entering the market, with the government determining the environmental rating of commercial property, thus controlling what can and can’t be sold.

A.J.P Taylor, a British historian, once asserted that a “law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman." As I have said before, 

“the scope and size of the government of the United Kingdom necessitate any British prime minister to occupy the role of a kind of Soviet Union leader: countless bloated governmental departments, spiralling deficit spending and unending programmes and schemes to keep abreast of. For any bureaucrat, however, the expansion of the government is in his or her best interest, with guarantees to pay increases for increased regulation on the environment, housing, and indefinite employment. For the PM, though, trying to ‘run’ the country requires over half a million employees and endless civil regulatory agencies. It now feels impossible to escape the long-arm of the state.”

Meanwhile, canvassing in Keir Starmer’s seat is well underway, where the Labour candidate is Somalian. Meanwhile the Green Party candidate, their leader, is wrapping leaflets in Palestinian flags and endorsements from The Muslim Vote and the Camden Muslim Alliance. If you object to such policies, the local constituents will prevent you from participating in the democratic process. While the police stand by and do nothing. Because in Holborn and St. Pancras, the Nazis are the ones that participate in electioneering, while the ones who try to stop it are the good, centre-left dads. Would Andy Burnham say anything if it were the reverse?

As you can tell, the state of British politics is fraught with inconsistencies, hypocrisy and a disease in the mind of many who participate in it. The latest form of His Majesty’s government takes the view that, despite being the most highly-taxed UK economy since the Napoleonic Wars, more government will solve the problems in the long-run. Andrew Burnham is a political poseur, engaging in sly rhetoric, that has 22% of the British public convinced that more, not less government, is the way forward.