UK Needs To Ditch Censorship, Mass Migration, Not Just Starmer

United Kingdom Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced his resignation Monday morning after less than two years of overseeing civilizational decline in Britain. But just because the country got rid of “the worst Prime Minister of the worst Government of the worst party,” as one member of Parliament said, does not mean it is very much closer to solving its anti-Western crises like censorship and mass migration.

Starmer was the U.K.’s sixth prime minister in less than a decade — a churning in leadership consisting of Labour and Conservative governments starting right around the vote of the British people to leave the European Union. Reform U.K. leader Nigel Farage, who led that Brexit charge as a member of the European Parliament and is now a member of the U.K. Parliament, said that turnover is a result of Conservative and Labour — the “uniparty” — refusing to truly fulfill that Brexit mandate.

A major part of that mandate was to lower migration into the country, and yet the U.K. government has been allowing more than half a million non-EU nationals into the U.K. every year.

The consequences of non-EU migrants in Britain were on full display last week with the publication of the Rape Gang Inquiry Report, which reported that at least 250,000 white British girls were raped, tortured, and trafficked overwhelmingly by Pakistani Muslim men. It also stated that Starmer, while director of public prosecutions (something comparable to the U.S. attorney general), protected about 13,000 “rape gang members and paedophiles” by “let[ting] them off with warning letters” as opposed to prosecutions.

“Starmer resigns — he has been a truly disgraceful Prime Minister. I do not believe him to be a good man or a patriot. He has deliberately and rapidly accelerated the destruction of our Britain, of our home,” Member of Parliament and Restore Britain Leader Rupert Lowe, who led the Rape Gang Inquiry Report, said. “History will not remember him kindly, nor should it. I sat in Parliament, looking him in the eye, listening to him attempting to justify his decision to block a national inquiry into the mass rape of young British girls.”

The report makes clear that the many thousands of Muslims responsible for these crimes were let off because those responsible for enforcing the law at every level were afraid of being called racist.

Nonetheless, knowing mass migration was unpopular in the U.K., Starmer’s government boasted a 2025 decrease in “net migration” to just around 171,000 per year, with Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood claiming the government was “restoring order and control to our borders.”

But that “net migration” number is calculated by subtracting the number of migrants moving into the U.K. from the number of people moving out of the U.K. In reality, 813,000 people moved into the U.K., 77 percent of whom were not from EU countries, while 642,000 left the U.K.

These are not just bodies being moved in and out of the country. Particularly in light of the Rape Gang Inquiry Report, this kind of migration results in a negative civilization quotient that is a compounding force in an existential crisis for the U.K. Beyond that report, statistics show that Western Europeans actually contribute to the economy and are much less likely to commit crimes, whereas Third Worlders are generally unproductive and commit crimes.

Of those who emigrated out of the U.K., around 250,000 were British nationals and roughly 118,000 were from a variety of EU countries. That is at least 368,000 Westerners leaving Britain. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of migrants from India, Pakistan, China, and Nigeria make up the largest portions of the 627,000 non-EU migrants entering the country.

In other words, Westerners are being replaced with Third Worlders.

That reality can only be understood in context of the mass censorship regime put in place by the U.K., which does not allow the British people to talk about these major crises in the public square.

According to Sammy Woodhouse, a survivor of the rape gangs, British media will not let her talk about the demographics of the perpetrators because they are largely Pakistani Muslims. Lucy Connolly was sentenced to 31 months in prison for calling for “mass deportation now” because according to British authorities, it incited racial hatred.

The censorship is not just about migration, however. Adam Smith-Connor was tried and convicted for praying across the street from an abortion facility. Comedian Graham Linehan was arrested over suspicion of inciting violence online for a post critical of “transgender” ideology: “If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls.”

Thousands of Britons have been arrested simply for posting messages online that the British government deems to be “offensive,” and at every turn, it makes genuine political discussions about some of the country’s most pressing political concerns totally untouchable.

Part of that is because of its wide array of censorship laws like the Online Safety Act of 2023, which requires online platforms to remove content the British government does not like, as well as the Malicious Communications Act of 1988, the Communications Act of 2003, and others.

As The Federalist reported, the Trump administration has been critical of the British government’s censorship regime and has promised to hold its leaders accountable for eschewing their responsibilities toward upholding Western civilization. The administration needs to do the same for whoever takes Starmer’s place.

Breccan F. Thies is the White House correspondent for The Federalist. He is a co-recipient of the 2025 Dao Prize for Excellence in Investigative Journalism. As an investigative journalist, he previously covered education and culture issues for the Washington Examiner and Breitbart News. He holds a degree from the University of Virginia and is a 2022 Claremont Institute Publius Fellow. You can follow him on X: @BreccanFThies.