Paying attention? Keir Starmer is preparing to hammer the final nail in Britannia’s heart - Alex Story

On the spending front, there is little choice. He is preparing to disappoint his state-dependent constituents.

To deflect from his inability to divert more taxpayer-funded goodies from the most productive to the least, he will travel down two tracks.

First, he will hark back to the recent past to better justify the so-called difficult fiscal decisions he must make in the present.

As markets force his hands, the 14 years of Tory Rule jingle will be sung ad nauseam. The second, cheap in the short term but devastating in the end and fitting with his Gramscian worldview, will see him unleash the unsatiable hounds of Culture War.

On apportioning blame to the Tories, Starmer is on strong ground, however.

The Conservative Party accelerated our country’s decline.

In the detail, we could argue that its greatest failure was to worship at the Blairite Church of Eurocommunism and to implement his deleterious worldview with the passion of a convert.

By espousing Labour’s politics, the Tories aped their spending habits.

They oversaw the massive expansion of the state, embedded the quangocracy, accelerated mass immigration, politicised all our institutions and, after the referendum, expediently tore our constitution to shreds to better punish the hoi polloi for having had the temerity to wish to live in a sovereign country.

From 2010 to 2025, UK debt nearly tripled to £2.8trillion, while the economy grew by less than half.

That is to say that every pound spent by the state produced 16 pennies of growth, or 84 pennies of destruction, delivering no improvements at ever greater costs.

Our deficit as of January 2025 was close to five per cent of GDP, or £131billion, according to House of Commons research.

Should nothing change, an international bail-out is a distinct possibility.

On the positive side out of the rubble left behind by the Tories, we have gay marriageto celebrate,introduced in 2013 by Cameron and one of his proudest achievements, so he said as we sighed.

In short, our country has been run along social democratic lines for three decades.

So Starmer is right to blame the Tories, even though their policies and his beliefs overlap much more than he would care to admit.

Now officially in power, though, Labour will need to implement austerity measures to avoid an economic collapse.

The precariousness of the situation was made apparent to Rachel Reeves, the lady of whose work experience no one is really sure, last October when UK government yields shot up by 235 per cent to 5.18 per cent, after a summer of splashing out on Labour’s core constituencies, threatening to blow up the financial house of cards that is the United Kingdom.

To achieve some kind of fragile financial stability, team Starmer will need not just to cut spending but also to focus on productivity and growth, something with which human rights lawyers are not usually well acquainted.

Given the Left in the UK, for Starmer, that path ahead will be thorny.

The other will provide the balm, it is hoped, to the wounds inflicted by a budgetary reduction.

Starmer will distract his hounds away from “cuts” to better unleash them on the much-despised indentured middle Englander.

Of course, we can expect accelerating mass immigration, which will ironically act as a brake on productivity, as the much-heralded superior output of Somalian, Albanian and Afghan doctors, nurses and scientists still fail to materialise. In our usual forbearance, we wait patiently.

The United Kingdom will thus turn from a formally unified Nation into an unrecognisable mosaic of disparate and antagonistic ethnic and religious shells.

The full-on and persistent assault on the foundation of our country is there for all who want to see.

It is not just to be observed in Angela Rayner’s creation of a Council on Islamophobia and the threat that causes to free expression.

It is also in the amazing appointment of Sir Hamid Patel, as Chairman of Ofsted, our national School regulator, whose attire and comportment reflect the fully enlightened views of that prophet, which we have been, as a sign of Progress, invited to revere but whose teachings we have been admonished not to question.

Although these, on closer inspection, stand in total contradictions to those of our civilisation.

The onslaught has also been opened across our national buildings, in the offices of our elected officials, and across the entire field of culture.

Our national figures are being disappeared.

Portraits of Nelson, Churchill, Thatcher and Queen Elisabeth I, no less, are being removed for ones of Yvette Cooper, in the name of diversity, as if the daughter of Henry VIII was not herself worth celebrating for having defeated the Spanish Armada in 1588 while remaining solidly a member of the fairer sex.

We read also that the Trust in charge of Shakespear’s legacy is set to decolonise his birthplace because of fears of “white supremacy”, a hazy, ill-defined but useful group of men, who are nonetheless probably less numerous than members of that quasi-fictitious trans community.

Further, from April Fool’s Day onwards, the Sentencing Council demanded that our courts consider the ethnic, cultural, and religious minority status of offenders as potential mitigating factors when pronouncing a judgement, heralding the deadly reality of a two-tier justice system.

If doubts persist, we see the insertion race, religious and various national groups in the current Planning and Infrastructure Bill no less.

Indeed, the bill says that the “strategic planning authority must consider notifying”, among others, bodies “which represent the interests of different racial, ethnic or national groups in the strategy area”.

The interests of different national groups? In local planning law?

Starmer has a long history of talking about supporting “communities” as set against the nation, not least as a human rights lawyer.

These are held together by nothing other than government subsidies and the “Diversity is our Strength” dogma.

By “communities” Starmer means segregation and, more accurately, apartheid.

As Starmer himself said, he believes in the power of the state, but, evidently, not in our country right to exist.

While he tries to reduce the costs of the state for short term survival, he is preparing to hammer, in an effete way, the final nail of segregational injustice in Britannia’s heart.