The ECHR could be McSweeney’s downfall

The next election is about to be decided

This is part two of a series, the first article can be found here.

J’ACCUSE

The ultimate test of Morgan McSweeney’s political career is still yet to happen. Labour’s hired hacks, such as Tom Baldwin (“the official biographer”) have already been making noises about the ECHR, alongside former Labour Home Secretaries like Jack Straw, and Labour backbenchers. If McSweeney is able to force Keir Starmer, a former “Human Rights” inquisitor, into abrogating the ECHR whilst forcing out Lord Hermer, and are then able solve the small boats crisis in this term and reduce legal immigration they are almost certain to win the next election.

It is one thing to crack on with Farageist dreck about cutting foreign aid to fund our tommies, another to actually drag non-white people out of council estates and put them on flights home. Starmer has already made clear that he will not be leaving the ECHR since becoming PM, and a full-fat version of the withdrawal will not be possible with the Parliamentary Labour Party, no matter how much dirt McSweeney has on the individual MPs. That is probably why the compromise advocated for in the aforementioned Tom Baldwin piece is an insubstantive fiddle; more flexible domestic interpretations of Article 8 etc.

No doubt exciting for the various boring right figures who inexplicably support the Labour Party and get very excited at the idea of ‘Dark Starmer’, but we’ve seen this all before. In 2006, Blair called for a ‘review’ of the ECHR (which he himself had incorporated), specifically Article 8, after a series of high profile incidents including a British judge refusing to deport Afghan plane hijackers. After a confected battle with the left-wing press, some minor changes to Home Office guidance, nothing actually happened. In 2009, during the Brown Government, Jack Straw called for the Human Rights Act to be overhauled completely with a new British Bill Of Rights in the 2010 election Manifesto – again, to no actual effect.

The Tories continued the same trend of whingeing about the ECHR whenever the press made much of a series of bonkers decisions, the 2012 Immigration Act attempted (and failed) to contravene Article 8, Theresa May tried to combine the EU referendum with a mandate to leave the ECHR, and later, Dominic Raab would also attempt the ‘British Bill of Rights’ malarkey. The British political establishment has been in agreement with itself since about 2005 that the ECHR has gone too far but has proved totally incapable of preventing foreign paedo rapists blocking their own deportations. This nonsense continues today various gobshites proclaim that they have found the precise fiddle which will allow the ECHR to remain in place while facilitating mass deportations. This latest Glasmanite edition of Keir Starmer shows little promise for breaking from this circuitous nonsense by taking a clear stance on whether or not the international faith of human rights should subject young women and children to living in ‘communities’ blighted with foreign rapists.

Both Starmer and McSweeney are now at the crossroads which will define their shared legacies. Keir Starmer, who has in times past called all immigration law racist and spent much of his career defending the rights of terrorists, and has trampled over so many of his own principles and friends to reach this point – will now be asked by fate to weigh up his religious faith – “human rights” – against the unanswerable electoral logic of withdrawal from the ECHR. Will he abrogate his most cherished beliefs to stay in power? Will the Nero within him slit the wrists of his Seneca?

If McSweeney is able to cajole his puppet into this course of action he will virtually guarantee a second term for Labour. I believe that he has concluded that this is the right course of action to take, as the series of briefings and ‘flag-raising’ around the ECHR mirrors a pattern which we saw with the abolishment of NHS England. First there are a string of high profile sackings to show intent (Hermer will suffice for this), outriders begin to question what the point of the institution is, there is virtually no pushback, and then a compromise position is suggested – in the case of NHS England some form of merger – then the rug is abruptly pulled.

Let me disclaim; this article should in no way be read as an endorsement of “Dark Labour”. As far as I can make out, Morgan McSweeney has politics that are indistinguishable to that of Yvette Cooper. Crackdowns on Online Hate, support the pressures. His main guiding principle appears to be that the Labour Party should remain in power. As alluded to in the first article in this two-parter, his Irish background and concomitant crude ability is what makes him worth writing about.

Shabana Mahmood has a similar utility. Pogrund writes her up as an anti-Corbynite and mildly pro-muslim – this is either a deliberate misrepresentation or a failing on the author’s part – this is a woman who, as a sitting MP, participated in a die-in for Palestine – but she grew up with a Pakistani father for a councillor, which means Keir and the people around him have to rely on her intimate understanding of Islamic political networks to actually implement politics in practice.

At the risk of sounding like Maurice Glasman; I approve of neither the means, nor the ends, of Labour. I do not want to live in a country with Biraderis where local government is implicated in the rape gang crisis. Nor do I want the system which McSweeney is fighting so viciously to defend and uphold; both by maintaining the power of the Labour Party and attacking “Digital Hate” online with the levers of the state. Apart from anything, as an example of “Digital Hate” myself, I do not wish to be ‘Countered’. If I want to send abuse to female MPs on Twitter that should be my liberty as an Englishman. As the Pogrund book has been written at the behest of McSweeney and is really just a series of his personal briefings to the writer, we see insights into what I would describe as an inelegant narcissism. Take the below passage as an example:

It’s insulting to the intelligence of the public to tell such tall tales. I write this not to praise McSweeney but to highlight an incoming political event which will likely determine the outcome of the next general election. A Labour Party which has left the ECHR will crush a divided right in 2029. This will delay electoral reform and serious structural change into the mid 2030s, at which point the demographic picture is even less attractive. For that reason, I hope that Starmer’s conscience prevails over his self interest. That the little fat man inside him, as described by George Orwell, is ignored in favour of a principled stand in defence of the rights of foreign rapists.

It is perhaps a stretch to wrap the internal moral strife of Keir Starmer in classical allusions, it is hard to recast this chubby Arsenal fan, with moobs peaking through his England shirt, within some poetic framing. So perhaps we should finish this with a Footy metaphor. Starmer is up for a pen, at the World Cup. The goalie has forgotten his gloves, so he’s gone to the post. Dare he slip one in the back of the net?

It would go against that sense of Sportsmanship. He wouldn’t be fit to wear that jersey.

But – to end thirty years of hurt.

Will Starmer go offside?

---

This article (The ECHR could be McSweeney’s downfall) was created and published by J’Accuse and is republished here under “Fair Use”

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.