Cartoon Communism for a Clown Country
But don't let the Gobbledygook Emoji Politics of Manchesterism fool you into thinking it should instill 'hope in every heart'
What fresh hell is this.
In a small corner of the UK, 24,927 people voted for an emoji to seal a left wing coup to seize control of the world’s 6th largest economy and home to 70 odd million people.
That’s 0.035% of the population. A slither of so-called democracy so minute you would need the James Webb Telescope to locate it.
But to distract us from what is in effect a bloodless Communist revolution, we have been flooded with puerile cartoons, facile slogans and infantile promises.
For those of you in the South, let me be clear. Andy isn’t for ‘us’
That ‘Us’ is a Northern ‘Uhz’. And means jobs for a cooing clique of uppity fan girls who appear to form The Burnham Harem, about to apparently run the country from a shiny new Headquarters in Hip Manchester, doubtlessly replete with bean bags and break out spaces. Women who 6 months ago probably wouldn’t qualify to run the local library.
It is Lanyardism on steroids.
First of all, the audacity of it all is chilling. Talk of a 10 year plan, yet not a mandate in sight.
A new slab of faceless, painfully Leftist apparatchiks squawking about radical devolution and mass nationalisation, which essentially means StateMaxxing, coffer-busting bleakonomics where money generating output is replaced by layers of bureaucracy.
Make no mistake: devolution is the negative of evolution. It sends the country backwards.
In Wales, where devolution has essentially turned the country into one giant miserable, municipal office, 1 in 4 jobs are for the Government.
Under Andyism in the UK, that ratio would be even higher.
Metro Mayors and their staff, their expenses, pensions, generous holidays, trans flags and menstruation days, the pen-pushing, pettifogging personnel all have to be paid for by somebody. And that will be any mug reading this who has an actual job. Who generates capital.
The Welsh economy makes significantly less in tax revenue than it receives in overall public sector expenditure, resulting in a structural fiscal deficit of over £21.5 billion.
Wales raises approximately £36 billion annually in taxes. The combined spending in Wales by the UK Government and the Welsh Government totals approximately £57.5 billion.
In Scotland the deficit is £26 billion.
Devolution is the opposite of growth. It is a false economy, highway to fiscal implosion.
The UK currently has - wait for it - over 20 thousand elected officials. Soon the only jobs to exist if Burnham does nationalise and devolve everything will be direct appointments of Big Brother.
We will all be Winston Smith soon, either working for a Mayor, a Ministry or a state owned factory.
That is, after all, the end goal of Communism. Get ready for Collectives and Gulags, toiling in the mizzle harvesting rays from solar panels out in the once fertile fields while migrant kids pick through piles of uncollected rubbish.
Should I start prepping for our own Holodomor - the Soviet Union’s mass famine of 7 million poor souls driven by Joseph Stalin's rapid collectivization policies and the state-mandated take overs?
Think I am being dramatic?
I find it pretty bloody dramatic that just like that, the UK can seemingly have imposed radical new government with a 10 year plan, led by a man who was not even elected to Parliament 5 seconds ago, who plans to dodge accountability by swerving the lobbyists, the press pack, parliamentarians and mandarins who are all, naturally, in the capital city. He may as well establish a volcano bunker on a remote tropical island at this point and get an irritable white cat to clutch to his black t shirt.
Now there are mutterings The Other Miliband might be brought back as Foreign Secretary, despite having left the UK 13 years ago. Ah well, lob him a peerage and away we go. Who needs democracy anyway? May as well go full CCP and just appoint people.
Burnham, of course, is a mega Fabian. Mass producer of essays and pamphlets for the shady Socialist organisation, he is clearly their pick as youthful, smiling poster boy, echoing the Blair buzz of the 90s, the smiling pin up here to deliver Statification and Surveillance. To finally impose those digital IDs and finish the project of breaking Britain up into easy to control zones.
Even Left Wing Magazine of choice The New Statesman refers to Burnham as The Wolf In Sheep’s Clothing in their reportage of the annual Fabian bash at the start of the year.
In Notes from A Small Island by American author and essayist Bill Bryson, he tongue-in-cheek laments how the British are very well suited for Communism:
All those things that are necessary to the successful implementation of a rigorous socialist system are, after all, second nature to the British. For a start, they like going without. They are great at pulling together, particularly in the face of adversity, for a perceived common good. They will queue patiently for indefinite periods and accept with rare fortitude the imposition of rationing, bland diets, and sudden inconvenient shortages of staple goods, as anyone who has ever looked for bread in a supermarket on a Saturday afternoon will know. They are comfortable with faceless bureaucracies and, as Mrs. Thatcher proved, tolerant of dictatorship. They will wait uncomplainingly for years for an operation or the delivery of household appliance. They have a natural gift for making excellent, muttered jokes about authority without ever actually challenging it, and they derive universal satisfaction from the sight of the rich and powerful brought low. Most of those above the age of twenty-five already dress like East Germans. The conditions, in a word, are right.
Perhaps we are about to find out.
What is “good growth”? He seemed to tell us we were going to get it over and over again. Well “good growth”, from what he was saying as far as I can tell, isn’t turbo charging our economy, rocket firing businesses and giving them the right atmosphere to grow, thrive, employee people (except by what seems to be his state enforced upon business apprenticeships when business are already struggling to employee people due to his predecessor’s actions) - it means growth of state - layers of state intervention, rules by how you may live your life, even more layers of government employment, state ownership of industry - all to be paid by by the ever more poorer non- governmental working class who pay the taxes to provide the funding for this. Add in devolution by splitting up our tiny country (not the whopping big one, Germany, he described as his reasoning for this) and this is, as you say magnified in by an indescribable factor.
The reason I presume that he didn’t take questions because the whole plan could be ripped apart by a few small questions - the biggest is who the hell will pay for this? Well we know that will be the ever dwindling number of people not employed in the state sector because they are the ONLY people who generate new tax revenue. From within the state that is just recycled tax revenue. With that extra burden we will end up with a recession we cannot remember in living memory. What about local taxation generation - given extra powers we will see an added layer of taxation without any control if it is “for the good” of that area so will council tax be replaced or will we be told any extra remuneration we earn over a state legislated amount per person living wage so we are “all equal” (exemption applying to anyone in high governmental office because of course none of their dictate ever stop them having all the luxuries in the world they want as the chosen ones) be taken to pay for the local area. One thing is for certain taxes won’t go down they will go up, which ever way you look at it.
And then I would ask what about the possibility of social enclaves….. as he said he wanted places to govern themselves for what is best for them…. Does that mean we will start to see places that no longer use the law of our land, do not use our language, where sectarian rule exists, the loss of rights for certain parts of our community…. If you are reading this I am sure you understand what I am talking about and who those people may be.
And finally I would put to me burnham that this is just a teenage temper tantrum that he has carried into his Middle Ages to take revenge on a long deceased prime minister who actually wasn’t the one who ruined his area of the country because it had been started by his own government before and therefore wants revenge. This isn’t about uplifting the country so the north is as rich as the south it’s about punishing the south for having the audacity of having the capital city for millennia. It is about that pure and simple. In all of that speech he just talked about the south and the north. Not once did I hear him talk about the midlands so are we to become the no man’s land between the two countries hilts his bitter twisted nasty little man wages his own little war.
He talks of a ten year plan. I suspect we will be trying (I hope will
Be successful) in removing him within ten months.
But then I never trusted Starmer and I never trusted him. So who do we blame for imposing him
On us?
We rebelled when Prescott tried to regionalise England, the better to fit into the EU, and it was dropped. Burnham's trying to do it through the back door. The left never, ever play with a straight bat. Democracy is something to be outwitted.