The ‘New Right’ Is Not a Reaction to Neoliberalism, but Its Offspring

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 17/07/2019 - 7:30pm in

Why the success of the far right shows that neoliberalism is very much alive and well.

Satirical Song: Jeremy Hunt Does a Version of Eminem’s ‘My Name Is’

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 13/07/2019 - 2:34am in

This is another satirical piece by JOE, whose videos are like those of Cassetteboi. Like them, he edits snippets of his subjects’ appearances on TV, and arranges them so that they appear to be saying something monumentally stupid, deeply satirical and very, very funny.

In this piece, he has Jeremy Hunt, the former Health Secretary and now Foreign Secretary singing a version of the above track by Eminem, which reveals precisely what’s he like. It begins with him singing ‘My name is’, interrupted by Boris singing, ‘Who,’ and ‘what’, before going on to ask kids if they like Brexit and are worrying about their grandchildren. And export marmalade to Japan like him, f**k things up, but come up smelling of roses. He then goes on to explain that he’s the secretary of state, who’s campaign’s dead weight, ’cause he can’t work out, which said to advocate. Theresa May has also told him he’s a remainer, asked him what he’s afraid of, and told him he’s worse than Labour. Since 2016, he’s changed his mind, like on homeopathy and whether the NHS should be privatised. When he was health secretary he ripped the junior doctors off by working them so hard that they went go on strike. He’s a bloke from the ruling class, who can afford to fall on his rear end, receive dividends in property, to avoid paying tax. At this point Johnson interrupts, telling him that’s his job. Hunt continues by saying that God sent him to p*** the world off. The video ends with him singing ‘Hi, my name is’, followed by Johnson singing ‘what?’, ‘Who?’ and others say ‘Jeremy Hunt’. Or a four letter obscenity that rhymes with his surname, just like the do throughout the video.

All of which precisely sums up Hunt’s career in government.



Brexit: Will Boris or Won’t He?

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 12/07/2019 - 6:49pm in

Does Johnson have any Brexit wriggle room?

BREAKING: Leaked Aptitude Test For Next UK Ambassador To The US

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 11/07/2019 - 8:29am in


With Sir Kim Darroch’s resignation as British Ambassador to the US, brought on by the leaking of emails in which he described President Trump as “clumsy and inept”, the next Prime Minister of the UK will need to appoint a replacement. The (un)Australian has obtained documents outlining a written test that front runner Boris Johnson would require a candidate for the role to pass.

Questions include “What is Climate Change?” (the hoped-for answer being “Al Gore’s fever dream. Medical fever that is, not anything to do with the planet heating.”), “Describe fracking in three words,” (“Monetising Wilderness Beautification”) and “What is the role of women in the Trump administration?” (“Shut Up”)

But the key test that any candidate will need to pass is the ability to look at a hairstyle that appears affected by a series of tiny explosions and repaired with porridge and describe it as “reasonable for public appearance”.

When asked for comment, a spokesperson for Mr Johnson provided one, but we’re damned if we can figure out what they said.

Matt Elsbury 

You can follow The (un)Australian on twitter or like us on facebook

Question Time Now Stoops to Getting Guido Fawkes Propagandist on Panel

Another character from the sewer of the British far right appeared on Question Time on Thursday. This was Tom Harwood, a member of the Paul Staines’ malign team over at the Guido Fawkes blog. Yes, that cesspool of borderline Fake News was invited to give his opinion on the BBC’s flagship current affairs programme. As Zelo Street points out, this shows how low the programme has sunk after it has been revealed to have used Tory plants in the audience, Tory and other extremely right-wing panelists spouting facts that are just plain wrong, using spurious statistics and gaslighting left-wing panelists, like Diane Abbott, when they have been right.

As Zelo Street points out, many of the peeps on Twitter were not impressed.Comments included

“Question … what does Tom Harwood have that makes him qualified to stand on Question Time? He’s not a serious journalist, he’s just a snot-nosed brat on a Right-Whingers blogging site” … “The fact we have people like Tom Harwood on question time shows how low this country has sunk. Surely it starts getting better soon?” [Ron Hopeful there] … “You can definitely tell what Tom Harwood is going to look like at 80 years old when he’s standing in the street shouting at nothing”.

And they continued, with the language including what Spock describes in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, as ‘colourful metaphors’. Very colourful metaphors. Mark Taggart commented on the whole charade

“Typically dreadful Question Time with Tom Harwood, an absolute nonentity, being this week’s BBC choice as cheer-leader to the bigoted, cheering, jeering, drown out any opposition Brexit mob. For anyone with a brain the whole show has become utterly unwatchable”.

As for the reason such an odious figure was invited on the programme, ‘Darren’ suggested this

“He’s risen through working for an extreme right wing blog which encourages racism in its forums and does things like misrepresents tweets to get people sacked and doxed. He then gets congratulated by BBC journalists and accepted into #bbcqt. The whole thing is sickening”.

Quite. As Zelo Street says, it’s rewarding dishonesty and dirty tricks. They conclude that one day the Beeb will learn not to get into bed Staines and the rest of the Fake News merchants, but by that time it’ll be too late.


The programme also bears out the French Philosophical Feline’s observation, over Guy Debord’s Cat, that the TV companies are always softer on the far right than they are on the left. And this now includes Question Time, despite the savaging the panelists gave the then head of the BNP when he appeared on it all those years ago.

And Paul Staines is far right. Very far right. He’s a Libertarian, and was a member of the Freedom Association. But for Libertarians and particularly the Freedom Association, ‘freedom’ only means ‘freedom for the corporate rich’. It certainly does not mean freedom for working people as they are strongly opposed to the welfare state, including the NHS, trade unions and any kind of state intervention in industry. In the 1980s Staines attended an official dinner in which the guest of honour was the leader of one of Rios Montt’s death squads in El Salvador. Because killing, torturing, raping, castrating and mutilating peasants in ways so horrific that they can’t be decently described is a thoroughly respectable defence of free trade economics as preached by Thatcher and the Chicago School. Keeping starving rural workers in conditions of serfdom is entirely consistent with saving them from socialism, as advocated by von Mises and von Hayek in the latter’s The Road to Serfdom.

And in addition to his Fascist views, Staines was a fan of psychedelic drugs, particularly DMT, and complained that because of his advocacy of such psychoactive chemicals he wasn’t taken seriously.

Paul Staines and his wretched crew thus are another bunch of rightists, who have much in common with Mosley and his Fascists. And the fact that the producers of Question Time seem to consider members of his shabby outfit suitable guests on their programme also shows how biased the show has become.














The week when money suddenly became available…

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 06/07/2019 - 8:32pm in

Confused woman shrugging her shoulders and gesturing with her hands as if asking "What?"Image by Robin Higgins from Pixabay

Last week GIMMS covered the Conservative Party leadership contest, which this week continues unabated and dominates the news. In a game of one-upmanship, each contender woos the voters with fancy promises whilst at the same time surely leaving the public puzzled. For almost 10 years the government has claimed there was no money and this week the money tap has started to flow – well at least in promises.

This week we’ve had Boris Johnson promising to review so-called ‘sin taxes’ to see if they unfairly target those on lower incomes, pledging to recruit 20,000 more police officers and talking in warm terms about being a champion for those working in public services but not quite going the full hog by promising to increase public sector pay as Matt Hancock had pledged on his behalf!

On the opposing side, Jeremy Hunt has promised a £6bn ‘war chest’ to help farmers and fishermen in the case of a no-deal Brexit and has called for a cut to corporation tax.  He also told firms that might go bust in the case of a no-deal Brexit that their sacrifice might be necessary which, on the other hand, doesn’t seem to be much of a vote attractor, at least for the business community.

As noted in last week’s blog, it beggars belief that, after having been told for almost a decade that there was no money, both Hunt and Johnson seem to be pretty flush with it in the run up to the leadership election. Of course, previous experience of politicians’ fine words should tell us that once an election is over they can flow like water through the fingers and down the plughole.

Unsurprisingly, Chancellor Philip Hammond who, like his predecessor, advocates fiscal discipline, has criticised their spending pledges saying in a tweet that:

The ‘fiscal firepower’ we have built up in case of a No-Deal Brexit will only be available for extra spending if we leave with an orderly transition.

“If not, it will all be needed to plug the hole a No Deal Brexit will make in the public finances.”

Here we have yet again the classic language narrative that suggests that the state money system is like our own household budget; limited by income, savings or the ability to borrow.  The ‘building up fiscal firepower’ ‘war chests’ and ‘plugging the hole’ analogies are quite simply incorrect and are used cynically by politicians to create public confusion about how governments actually spend. And just to be absolutely clear and to correct misunderstandings, in the case of the UK the government is the sovereign currency issuer and unlike currency users cannot ‘save’ its own currency. It spends it into existence and taxes it out of existence. Quite simply, governments issue money via computer keystrokes as a result of a policy choice unrelated to the state of the public purse. Its ability to do so is unaffected by Brexit, a no-deal Brexit, Remain or any other combination.

It is cold comfort to realise that austerity, which has been so damaging to whole sections of society including those who are the most vulnerable, was a ploy with no financial basis.  The public surely should be sceptically scratching their heads when Johnson suddenly pledges to recruit 20,000 more police officers after having voted consistently for cuts to central government funding for local and regional governments on the basis of the lie that public services were no longer affordable. As a result, 45,000 of the police work force have lost their jobs since 2010 and the consequences (even if denied by government ministers) are the rise in violent and knife crime and increasing pressures on prison services. In short, when you remove money from the economy through austerity policies people suffer in all sorts of ways – the public and social infrastructure we all rely on is starved of funding and redundant workers either can’t find jobs or end up in lower paid and more precarious ones. The obsession with fiscal surplus is literally driving the economy over the cliff and we haven’t even left the European Union yet.

If Johnson and Hunt, after almost 9 years of politically imposed government austerity, can suddenly find the money as a vote winning ploy, they could by the same token find the money to fund the NHS, education, local government and other public services if they chose to do so – in the same way that the previous government bailed out the banks with not a taxpayer in sight. No-one passed the tax bucket around for that!

Despite all the warm words, displays of phoney compassion and promises for change, this is not likely to be about a reversal of the status quo. Even though people from all sides of the political divide are beginning to wake up to the realities, the lie of trickle down is still being enacted through, for example, promising tax cuts for business. It is unclear how such cuts could stimulate a faltering economy when people are struggling under the weight of increased personal debt, low wages and insecure employment. It should be seen quite simply as more corporate welfare at the expense of the health of the nation and its economy and yet more evidence of government serving the interests of the global corporations instead of citizens.

Even Johnson’s pledge to review so-called ‘sin taxes’ to see if they unfairly target those on lower incomes should be viewed with suspicion. The sugar tax was announced by George Osborne in 2016 and was aimed at reducing childhood obesity (with the added benefit of raising revenue or so it was said – even though tax does not fund government spending).

Given the life-threatening nature of obesity from diabetes to heart disease and cancer, it is difficult to see the logic of such an approach even if viewed as a populist move to gain support. The costs of such a reversal would have huge implications for the health of the nation, not to mention the health service already struggling under the burden of years of crippling funding cuts.

Whilst the issue has caused some disagreement within the party, it remains mind-boggling that the Treasury Minister Liz Truss said ‘taxes on treats’ hit those on the lowest incomes, and people should be ‘free to choose’.  That phrase ‘free to choose’ is again indicative of the ideology of personal responsibility and blame in an environment where the state plays an ever-smaller role in public well-being. On the other hand, one might see it as an extension of Conservative welfare policies in which people have died.

Predictably, Jeremy Hunt’s preferred option would be to target manufacturers who produce less healthy products and threaten them with legislation if they don’t comply. But as the evidence shows voluntary agreements between the food industry and government have proved ineffective in improving public health and governments have shown little inclination to rectify that through legislative intervention.

It is truly to be regretted that whilst the focus in the media has been on the political games and posturing associated with the race for the leadership, other more important news has taken second place as both politicians have relegated climate change and the UN Rapporteur’s report on the consequences of austerity to the realms of indifference.  It is truly a shameful circus of which none of the participants should be proud.

At the end of last week, Philip Alston wrote in the Independent that the architects of austerity were doing all they could to undermine those who have pointed out the predictable effects of their own policies. And more worryingly this week scientists announced that since 2014 there has been a precipitous fall in Antarctic ice which could potentially lead to further warming of the climate.  While the human race faces two of its biggest challenges – climate change and human and planetary exploitation – to satisfy capitalist greed and keep profits flowing, we have politicians either in denial or worse prepared to accept the consequences and putting their own political careers over and above that of human well-being and survival. further warming of the planet.

Yes, Theresa May might have pledged to introduce a legally binding target on green-house gas emissions, but political promises are one thing, making it happen quite another, particularly when corporations lobby in the corridors of power.

In the midst of what could be described as a potentially defining moment whether a further shift to the right or a move to the left, we should not forget that these political manoeuvrings are taking place within a much wider context. For the last forty years or more, we have been living in a rigged global system from the power of big business and governments serving their interests to institutions like the World Economic Forum, the World Bank and the IMF which underpin their power structures. The big players shift around like pieces on a chess board. Recent dubious appointments in Europe including Christine Lagarde as President of the European Central Bank are symptomatic of a whole system which is past its sell by date.

It is particularly shocking given that the IMF, with Lagarde at its head, was part of the Troika that imposed harsh structural adjustment programmes in countries like Spain and Greece as a condition for bailouts. People are still living with the harmful consequences of austerity which has occurred not just because of a dysfunctional Eurozone but also adherence to a neoliberal corporate inspired agenda. And if that wasn’t enough, only yesterday we hear that the architect of UK austerity, George Osborne is planning to throw his hat into the ring to replace Lagarde at the IMF.

Who was it that said ‘There’s something rotten in the state of Denmark” only it’s not Denmark and WE have to root it out.  

Whilst it seems the political establishment is hunkering down and not for turning whatever the cost, this is a real opportunity for left-wing progressives around the world to unite and dislodge the forty -year old market-dominated dogma for good. A part of this process should be a drive to give people a better understanding of the role of a nation state in delivering public purpose reinforced through a democratic framework which gives people a real voice.

In addition, the left needs to challenge the current household budget framing of government spending and demonstrate the importance of the role of the currency issuer in initiating change, both at national and local level. The organisation of local economies and supporting infrastructure can only be achieved in conjunction with the spending powers of central government.

The left also needs to challenge the worn-out record of “taxes fund government spending” which forms part of the daily campaigning diet of the right and the left. By hovering between two stalls, one proposing radical change and the other framing plans in the household budget narrative, the left wing will reduce its ability to deliver a progressive agenda for a secure and sustainable future.

Howard Zinn, the American historian, playwright and socialist thinker said:

“I believe there are huge numbers of people in this country who would be willing to have radical changes in our economic and social system in order to make it a more egalitarian society and do away with homelessness and hunger and clean up the environment. But these people have no voice.”

We need, as a matter of urgency, to start building public confidence in the electoral system and restoring trust in our politicians to serve citizens and deliver public purpose.

Let’s remember that the ‘government is us.’



MMT Talk and Social in Abergavenny – 13th July 2019

Free – details and tickets available from Eventbrite





Google Plus




Viber icon

The post The week when money suddenly became available… appeared first on The Gower Initiative for Modern Money Studies.

Attack of the Clowns: Widdecombe Compares Brexit to Slaves’ and Serfs’ Revolts

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 06/07/2019 - 7:24pm in

How stupid, moronic and just plain offensive can the Brexit party get before the British public wake up and realise that they’re a bunch of Fascist buffoons turning Britain into a laughing stock. A few days we had Nigel Farage himself going full Nuremberg at a rally, which began with the sound of air raid sirens. You know, to evoke the spirit of the Blitz, because Britain leaving Europe is exactly like that time in the Second World War when Britain stood alone against the might of Nazi Germany. Except that, er, we didn’t. We had the resources of the entire British Empire, as well as the members of the free forces of occupied Europe to help us. Like the Poles, who served in the RAF, and who shot down more Nazi planes than the bryl-creem public school boys. Zelo Street was particularly offended, posting up an article about the real horror of the Blitz, and the carnage Britain suffered, especially in area vital to the war effort, like Liverpool. Of course Brexit isn’t remotely like the horrendous death and destruction Britons suffered during the War, and to make the comparison trivialises it.

The at the opening of the European parliament, they all turned their backs as the EU’s anthem, Beethoven’s ‘Ode to Joy’ play. Despite their bluster and protestations, this is exactly what the Nazis did in the Reichstag, and similar shows the Brexit party’s Fascistic psychology. Especially as Beethoven’s ‘Ode to Joy’ looks forward to peace and harmony amongst the world’s peoples.

And now the woman one gay Christian I know refers to as ‘the Widdy bigot’ position of her attitude to gays has also joint the ultra-patriotic orgy of crass stupidity, and compared Brexit to slaves’ and serfs’ uprisings and colonial revolts.

After first stating her objects to what she considered the unelected status of particular EU officials, Widdecombe declared

“There is a pattern throughout history of oppressed people turning against their oppressors. Slaves against their owners, the peasantry against the feudal barons”. 

To which she added her comment about ‘colonies rising against their empires’.

She’s wrong about the various officials and leaders of the European Union being unelected, as Zelo Street has pointed out in this article here:

As Mike reported yesterday, EU leader Guy Verhofstadt’s response to her nonsense was to call her a ‘clown’.

Widdecombe says Brexit is like the emancipation of slaves. No wonder Verhofstadt called her a clown

Black politico and activist David Lammy was particularly offended by her comparison to slavery. He tweeted

Anne Widdecombe just compared Britain leaving the EU to “slaves” rising up “against their owners”.

It is impossible to explain how offensive and ahistorical it is for you to equate my ancestors tearing off their chains with your small-minded nationalist project. Shame on you.

Exactly. To show how grossly offensive Widdecombe’s statement is, let’s consider the status of Black chattel slavery in the British Empire.

There have been different types of slavery throughout history, some types milder than others. But Black chattel slavery – which is the closest in history, and whose effects are still being felt – was particularly horrific. In this form slavery, which Mr Lammy’s ancestors suffered along with millions of others, slaves have zero rights. None. Nada. Zilch. They are property.

  • They have no political rights. They cannot vote in elections, nor stand for election to parliament or some other representative assembly. They cannot act in any official capacity whatsoever.
  • They have no legal protection under the law. They cannot serve on juries, nor can crimes committed by slaves be decided in a court of law. They have absolutely no right to due process or legal protection.
  • They may not claim equality or associate themselves with Whites.
  • As property, they have no property rights. Any property they hold is that of their master.
  • They have no right to family life. Families can be split up at their master’s pleasure. Slave women may be separated and sold apart from their men. Slave children may be separated from their parents and sold.
  • Their masters may feed, clothe and work them how they wish. Some colonies passed legislation providing that their masters had to provide some clothing for them. This was a shift – petticoat – for women, and drawers – underpants – for men. That’s it, provided once a year. Visitors to the West Indies described slaves frequently working naked in the fields.
  • They are absolutely and completely at their master’s mercy. Their owners may treat them how they wish, as they are property, not legal persons. Punishments for slaves include gagging in horrific iron masks, flogging, castration, amputation and being dissected alive. Along with other punishment too disgusting to be described here.

The status of European serfs during the Middle Ages is similar, but less severe. Serfs differ from slaves in that they are bound to the soil, while slaves are the property of individuals. European serfs also had some property and legal rights. However, they were still considered property themselves.

  • Serfs are not free but the property of the lord of the manor. Crimes between serfs are decided in the manor court.
  • They have families, but these are referred to in law as sequelae – broods.
  • They have their own land to work, but must work several days a week for their lord. They are subject to a beadle, an overseer, who presides over them with a whip as a mark of his authority. Like the slave drivers in later chattel slavery.
  • Women are not free to marry as they wish. Apart from being under their father’s authority, they are also considered property of the lord. Thus, if a serf’s daughter wishes to marry, then her father has to pay the lord compensation, called a merchet.
  • At a serf’s death, any property he holds from the lord immediately escheats back to him, and the parish priest may take his ‘best beast’. Widows have to plead in the courts, and follow various ceremonies in order to be granted their former husbands’ land and property.

Widdecombe’s stupid speech recalls the reasons why the great Black anti-slavery activist, Frederick Douglas, once attacked White American patriotic celebrations of independence in his speech ‘What To The Slave Is The Fourth of July?’ Douglas pointed out the complete irony of White Americans claiming to have thrown off the yoke of British slavery, when their Black brothers and sisters were still very much in chains.

American independence did not free all Americans from slavery. And Brexit isn’t remotely like any slave revolt or uprising. And it’s massively offensive and ahistorical, as Lammy says, for Widdecombe to claim it is.

Brexit Radicals

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 02/07/2019 - 5:25pm in

Looking for cheery news on Brexit? You'll have to look awfully hard.

US Police Arrest Owner of Meth-Addict ‘Attack Squirrel’

Before the really serious stuff, I though I’d start with a funny story from yesterday’s I, for 29th June 2019. This reported that cops in Limestone, Alabama, had finally arrested a man, who owned a vicious squirrel. This was no ordinary fluffy-tailed denizen of the trees, but an attack squirrel kept on methamphetamine. The article, ‘Owner of meth-fuelled ‘attack squirrel’ arrested’, by Francis Blagburn, ran

An Alabama man who allegedly kept a so-called ‘attack squirrel’, fired up by giving it methamphetamine, has been arrested on new charges.

Limestone County Sheriff’s Office in Alabama tweeted that 35-year-old Mickey Paulk was apprehended following a chase in which he rammed an investigator’s vehicle.

Authorities had been seeking Mr Paulk on multiple warrants unconnected to the squirrel he named Deeznutz, which was made infamous after police said they were warned about a meth-fuelled squirrel that had been trained to attack. Earlier this week, Mr Paulk posted a video to Facebook of himself with Deeznutz, which he considers a pet, in which he denied accusations that the squirrel represented a danger to the public, or that it had been given drugs.

“You can’t give squirrels meth; it would kill ’em”, he said in the video.

In a phone interview with Associated Press, Mr Paulk said he had “a few loose ends to tie up” before he surrendered himself to authorities, including sorting out alternative accommodation for the squirrel.

The sheriff’s office said narcotics investigators spotted Mr Paul leaving a motel on a stolen motorcycle and chased him. He has been booked into Lauderdale County Jail on charges of attempting to elude, criminal mischief, receiving stolen property and felon in possession of a pistol after it was discovered he had a handgun in his waitband.

As for Deeznutz, authorities say he could not be tested for meth and has been released. (p. 27).

Okay, it’s clear from the article that, squirrel aside, Paulk himself was a crim, and the cops were right to arrest him.

But it also made me wonder what the press and various politicos on both sides of the Atlantic would do, if they thought they could get votes out of this.

Donald Trump would probably start claiming that it was all down to Mexicans. They were not giving the US their best squirrels, and instead Mexican drug gangs were smuggling meth, cocaine and crack-fuelled squirrels into the country, to embark on a reign of crime. It would be categorically proven that most rapists and murderers were Mexican squirrels, and that was why America needs that wall.

Hillary Clinton would claim, regardless that Paulk’s colour isn’t mentioned in the article, that a new breed of superpredator was breeding these vicious, meth-addicted squirrels. She would then demand harsher legislation against Black men feeding squirrels in inner-city America.

And the corporate Dems as a whole would claim that this was all part of a plot by Putin. The Russian spy services, in collaboration with RT America, had infiltrated the American eco-system, radicalising squirrels and turning them away from true, patriotic American values. At a secret signal from Moscow, the squirrels would all leap into decent Americans’ homes, grab the TV remote control and occupy the computers, and change them over to Russian fake news promoting Donald Trump.

Over here, the Scum and the Times would declared that it was Corbyn and his supporters, who had radicalised the animals, brainwashing them with the works of Trotsky and Stalin. They were being trained to jump on people and start indoctrinating them with socialism. Momentum had already sneaked thousands of these squirrels into the Labour party as part of a far-left take-over, and it was well-known that Corbyn himself and other members of his group had squirrelist tendencies.

And the Scum, Heil, Depress and Sunday Times would also claim that the squirrels were anti-Semitic, Corbynist squirrels. The animals were known to believe in and promote evil, anti-Semitic conspiracy theories about Israeli interference in British politics. Corbyn had several times in the past attended conferences held by squirrels, attacking Israel. And it was well known that leading squirrels were also Holocaust deniers. The CAA would declare that the typical anti-Semite was a young Muslim male who kept a squirrel as a pet. Squirrels were also being recruited by ISIS as suicide bombers, and it was well-known that there were already no-go areas up and down the country, which non-Muslims couldn’t enter, patrolled by squirrels trained in sharia law.

And all the right-wing newspapers would fall in, saying that only a strong Tory party under Boris Johnson could deliver Brexit. This would be good for Britain, and allow us to take control of sovereignty and immigration, and allow us to combat squirrelist subversion.

All right, so the papers aren’t that bonkers yet. But all the racism, bigotry and prejudice is there, as well as the sheer desperation to smear Corbyn with whatever they can. And the latest attack on him by the Times, claiming he’s too elderly, smells to me of very rank desperation. So perhaps it won’t be long at all before they sink to trying to run stories about him and Labour, smearing him as the leader of vicious, subversive squirrels.

Scots Tory Davidson Warns Boris Willing to Destroy UK for Brexit

On the 18th of this month, Mike at Vox Political wrote a piece noting a YouGov poll that found that the majority of Tory members are hellbent on getting Brexit, even if it means the break-up of the United Kingdom, significant damage to its economy and even the destruction of the Tory party itself.

The poll found that, when asked the question whether they would be willing to avert Brexit if it meant Scotland or Northern Ireland leaving Britain, 63% and 59% of Tories would be quite happy to see those nations leave Britain. 61% said they would also be prepared to accept significant damage to Britain’s economy if we left the EU. 54% also said that they would be happy to see the Tory party destroyed for Brexit. Only 36% put their party’s survival before Brexit.


Commenting on this, Mike predicted in his article that Scottish SNP First Minister Nicola Sturgeon would mention it in her speech marking 20 years of devolution.

The Tory death wish: They’ll have Brexit even if it destroys the UK

And now, according to the front page of today’s I, 28th June 2019, the leaders of the Scottish Tories, Ruth Davidson, has warned that Boris’ determination to achieve Brexit whatever the cost – ‘do or die’ – risks breaking up the UK. She was therefore backing Jeremy Hunt instead. Davidson said

‘I want to see him [Johnson] make assurances that it’s not Brexit do or die, it’s the Union do or die. That’s exactly what we’ve seen from the other candidate in the race and that’s why he’s going to get my vote.’

The newspaper also reports that

Polling has suggested that if the former foreign secretary becomes prime minister it could boost support for Scottish independence. (p.6).

Mike reported that the only thing that would stop the Tories from demanding Brexit at the first opportunity is the likelihood that this would lead to Corbyn taking up the reigns of government. But, he concluded

such a government is more likely if they choose a leader committed to Brexit at any cost.

And at the moment, Boris Johnson is the the leading candidate in the Tory leadership contest, despite his determination to force through Brexit whatever the cost. The I has also reported that he’s said that those Tories opposed to a no-deal Brexit will not get posts in his government.

And I’m not at all surprised that the Tories are willing to risk the break-up of the EU. I’ve mentioned before that I’ve heard rumours that the Tories were on the verge of collapse during Blair’s tenure of office. So much so that they were considering changing their name to the ‘English Nationalists’. And I do remember reading an opinion piece in the Heil, which considered that the departure of Scotland from the Union would not significantly harm Conservatism. This claimed that it was only recently that the Tories in Scotland had called themselves Conservatives. Before then they were called the Unionist party. But this still goes back to the period after the early 18th century union with Scotland. What would be the point of having a unionist party, if there was no union, and no real likelihood of ever reviving it?

It just confirms that Brexit is very much an English demand, and the Tory Brexiteers are bitter English nationalists, neither more nor less.

And it flies in the face of the way the Tories under Thatcher appropriated Britishness, its symbols and history. I can remember one headline in the Sunday Telegraph, unsurprisingly about how wonder Thatcher was, had the headline ‘Don’t Call Them Boojwah, Call Them British!’ I think it was a quote from Maggie herself. But the Conservatism she promoted was deeply bourgeois and nationalistic to its core. They seemed to waste no opportunity to drape themselves in Union Flags, like Tim Brooke-Taylor in his Union flag waistcoat on the Goodies, but without the comic trio’s irony. In one programme about Thatcher and the Tory party, her husband, Dennis, declared that his favourite song was Rule Britannia. Which he then tried to sing, only to realise he didn’t know the words. And then there was their infamous 1987 election film, which seemed to show that they had singlehandedly won the Battle of Britain. This showed old wartime footage of Spitfires chasing about the skies, while an excited voice declared ‘Man was born free. It’s our fundamental right.’ Really? I thought the complete quote, from the first sentence or so of Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s The Social Contract was ‘Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.’ Which effectively describes the condition of everyone, who isn’t massively rich, under the Tories. The sadly departed Alan Coren commented drily about it on the News Quiz, calling it the Royal Conservative Airforce, and saying what a pity it all was for the Tories that after the War the servicemen all came back and voted Labour. Quite. But it does show how the Tories appropriated British patriotism.

And it also shows the reverse: how the Tories demonised anyone who didn’t share their chauvinism and racism – who wasn’t, as Thatcher put it, ‘one of us’ – was really an evil subversive intent on destroying Britain. Left-wing members of the Labour party, who supported the ‘troops out’ movement, like Tony Benn, land who made the reasonable point that to stop the violence we had to talk to Sinn Fein, were vilified as supporters of the IRA. And the same people, who wanted to thaw relations with the USSR instead of ramping up tensions like Reagan and Thatcher, because of the very real danger of nuclear Armageddon were also vilified as Communists by the Tories, the Tory press, and the press secret state.

Oh yes, and if Labour got in power under someone like Benn, Foote, Livingstone or even Neil Kinnock, when he actually believed in traditional Labour values, would destroy the economy.

But it isn’t Labour threatening to destroy the UK. Corbyn and his supporters aren’t telling the world that they’re content to break up the EU or consciously wreak the British economy, provided they get a disastrous policy through. It’s the Tories.

They’re the real subversives and destroyers of this nation. Which is why they have to make up bogus stories about the Labour party being full of anti-Semites, Trotskyites and Stalinists.

If you want to see a genuinely prosperous, united Britain, that’s fair to working people of every nation in this great country, vote Labour.

Because the Tories are happy to see it destroyed and impoverished.