Centrism has always been the same product as standard conservatism with a different brand name.
Sometimes – Blair in Britain and Trudeau in Canada – centrist governments have thrown a few pacifying crumbs down to keep the liberals happy and to pretend to differentiate themselves from the worst puppets of financial gangsterism.
Sometimes centrism is blatant exploitative conservatism presently fraudulently during election campaigns as something else – Macron’s arch Thatcherite ideology in France.
Intrinsically, centrism is a con. To perpetuate a con, its enablers need to be either people of quick wit and high intelligence who can focus expertly and relentlessly on a well-designed complicated ruse or else they need to be thick-as-mince platitude spouters who lack the intellectual capability to be distracted by reality or truth.
Labour MP Chuka Umunna has appointed himself as chair of Progressive Centre UK. Umunna is an archetypal centrist politician. His career is dependent on him being ever so slightly shifted from visible conservatism while not offering anything of substance to the public. It would be unfair to label him as just a careerist because his role has its use as a waster of time and a distraction.
“We bring together progressive policy-makers and policy-implementers to promote innovative responses to the most important trends shaping our society. As a non-partisan, next generation ideas lab Progressive Centre UK develops and shares forward-looking thinking to address the challenges of the digital age, drawing on the latest innovations and best practice from around the globe. Progressive Centre UK believes we can only build a better tomorrow with modern solutions tailored to our times. At the heart of our mission is the pursuit of inclusive prosperity, opportunity for all, social justice, the defence of the rule of law, a green and sustainable society and fair migration policies.”
At whom could such a statement be aimed? It means nothing to potential voters apart from a very small group of conservatives who try to convince themselves that they aren’t conservatives. But Anna Soubry has only one vote in an election.
The intended recipients of the Mission Statement are compliant media hacks and members of other think-tanks who will willingly regurgitate the tripe to use up TV and radio airtime and newspaper column feet.
In Umunna’s philosophywoolly centrists were called “progressives,” the centre was depicted as an alternative to “far-right and far-left” and criticism of the useless centre was dismissed as “fashionable.”
A précis of Umunna’s explanation of his philosophy is “we are a bit of this and a bit of that” where the “that” is exploitative capitalism and the “this” is a counter balance to the “that.” He is aware that such a stance is contrary to logic and unworkable and that the claim is at the heart of the centrist con. “That” always wins.
“At the core of our beliefs is the value of work,” proclaimed Umunna. Karl Marx discussed “labour value.” It is certain Umunna and Marx had entirely different perspectives and understanding of what “labour value” meant. Umunna perceives the world as employers and employees, a scenario he thinks is unchangeable.
As part of the marketing strategy of his non-politics, Umunna positioned himself and his like-minded colleagues as “leading the progressive charge internationally.” He mentioned changes in government in Spain, Canada and New Zealand, where hard-right conservatives were replaced, and he discussed the policies and intent of the new governments. Interestingly, the respective governments’ policies Umunna applauded are similar to some of the stated aims of Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell but Umunna is vehemently opposed to those two. Did that mean Umunna was deceptive in his appreciation of what he called other “progressives” in other countries or, more likely, does he support “progressives” who only address symptoms but not causes of exploitation? His note that New Zealand’s prime minister said any changes would be “fiscally responsible” suggested the latter option is the correct answer to the question above.
Umunna was careful to not explicitly include himself in the “many [who] cite the election of Macron and the formation of En Marche in 2017 as further evidence of the progressive renaissance” as even he has recognised the ardent Thatcherite behaviour of Macron.
There was a defensive undertone to Umunna’s article. He tried to prove he wasn’t useless by associating himself with others who actually exist actively in politics. He concocted the phrase “popular progressive platform” because he thought “populism” is currently popular. An air of desperation permeated his comments.
Progressive Centre UK is part of an international network called Global Progress that includes think-tanks
Volta includes David Miliband as a board member and described itself as a challenge to “populism.” The others have their own versions of David Miliband several times. All are obsessed with cosmetic changes that are designed to con voters and deter them from considering genuine alternatives.
Progressive Centre UK’s other director is Matthew Laza, formerly of Policy Network and a former communications adviser to Ed Miliband. He wrote this nonsense in 2016:Laza on Corbyn.
Umunna’s time as an MP is nearing its end. He has no future in politics. His future lies as a professional voice for an empty anti-ideology.
The dimensionless singularity known as the centre has no location; it is outside the political universe.
Universal Credit has been designed to cause destitution, homelessness, illness and death.
Massive cuts to necessary benefit payments, endless delays to payments and automated spurious suspensions and denial of payments are inserted features of Universal Credit.
Universal Credit was never conceived as an attempt to simplify benefit payments. That claim was always just a lie.
It was never intended to save tax payers money. Any reductions in total payments to all claimants have been offset by money handed to privateer vultures who administer Universal Credit and also by the millions spent by the government on legal cases fighting challenges to the implementation of it.
Universal credit is merely the name attached to a policy of destroying the vital welfare safety net so that people who are in low-paid work become absolutely terrified of losing their jobs.
A terrified employee is more easily exploited by an unscrupulous employer. Thus, poor pay (often sub-minimum wage), appalling (often dangerous) working conditions, no job security, fake self-employed status and no access to unions have to be endured by millions of people because the alternative is no income and its consequential disastrous and possibly fatal effects on their lives.
The purpose of Universal Credit is to display its vicious effects to those who are working to keep them in line. Every story of starvation, of exacerbated illnesses, of terminally ill people forced to work, of disabled people forced to look for work that they cannot do, of eviction, of homelessness, of destitution and of death is a story that sends the intended message to people who are working or looking for work: Accept any exploitation in the workplace and any denial of your human rights or else you could be next!
CPS exists to promote hard-right destructive economic policies that urge the end of public ownership of vital public services and the handover of these services to privateers to provide a steady torrent of unearned income for the latter while the services decline rapidly and their costs rise for both users and for tax payers. CPS is vehemently opposed to the NHS and is fully supportive of tax avoidance for corporations and for the wealthiest.
CPS board includes Fraser Nelson, Niall Ferguson and a member of the notorious tax-dodging Rothermere family.
CPS is very secretive about the identity of its wealthy corporate donors. Its (lack of) transparency on donations was described as “very opaque” in a Transparify report (page 6) in 2017.
All essays published by CPS must support policies and/or views that assist its ideology and methodology. One tactic used by CPS is to publish articles or host speeches that are designed to deflect blame for problems away from the culprits (whom CPS works for) and onto invented targets as a distraction and as a means of division. Shaun Bailey’s essay is an archetypal example of this tactic.
In ‘No Man’s Land’Bailey trotted out familiar offensive Conservative misdirectional clichés with familiar targets and familiar attempts at division.
He summed up the philosophy in his essay with “the more Liberal we’ve been, the more our communities have suffered. This liberalism is destroying our young people.” So, not a lack of good schools, not a lack of jobs, not a lack of good housing, not institutionalised racism from police, border agency, employers and landlords?
Sounding like a Norman Tebbit clone, Bailey claimed “there is a real culture of dependency [on the state] amongst the people on these estates.” This comment was written in a paper produced by CPS, strident enablers and defenders of multi-million pound tax-dodging, whose aim is to enhance the welfare state for the wealthiest.
He disapproved of people expecting to have the basic human right of somewhere to live: “The real reason it is so bad is because people expect to be housed and expect never to be kicked out.”
Parenting to blame? In typical Tory fashion Bailey was keen to deposit the blame for any problems that young adults encountered onto their parents. But, this directing of blame by Bailey was aimed only at low-income parents.
“Compare what the well-off expect from their children with what the poor think they can achieve: it is so vastly different that it is unbelievable.”
Clearly, a reasonably wealthy person would assume that their child would have a better start in life and would have a bigger safety net than a non-wealthy person would assume of their child; that is logical economically. It was intrinsically insulting and extremely class prejudiced for Bailey to claim to assume that “poor” people lack enthusiasm, optimism or drive regarding their children’s futures. His comment was straight out of the nineteenth century.
Bailey pretended to be a psychologist: “It [parental discipline] should start from birth. It goes wrong when they have no routine when their child is a baby; then it goes into the young years; and then into the teen years.” Does Bailey look around his Tory party at the venal products of privileged backgrounds and wonder if any of them had the right type of parenting when they were young? Was bad parenting the cause of the relentless lies from Theresa May, Jeremy Hunt, Brandon Lewis, Michael Gove, David Davis, Liam Fox, Dominic Raab, Matt Hancock, Priti Patel and James Cleverley; was it the cause of the racism of Etonians Boris Johnson, Zac Goldsmith and Jacob Rees-Mogg; was it the cause of the carefree Social Murder of Iain Duncan-Smith and Esther McVey?
Single parents have always been a target for Tory attacks. “None of this [discipline among young people] is helped by the lack of married families” declared Bailey before spouting the oft-repeated Tory drivel about single parents being financially better off if unemployed or being more able to find somewhere to live.
“People with our lives, in our circles, understand that you are better off if you are a single parent. It has reached the point where you get a lot of people who are not single parents but who present themselves in that manner because it makes financial sense. If anybody thinks that people like us don’t sit around and have these discussions they are deluding themselves. We soon figure out which way it will make us the most money. And that’s an example of how we are trapped by government policy. Because it discourages us from raising our children in nuclear families.”
A few years later at a CPS event at the 2008 Tory conference Bailey said “gals getting knocked up to get housing? It’s a cottage industry where I come from.” Such a statement from Bailey was exactly what the enemies of public services at the CPS wanted to hear and he obliged obediently.
Never go full Mary Whitehouse Back in his ‘No Man’s Land’ essay Bailey’s search for other things to blame took him to a list of targets of which the late Mary Whitehouse would have heartily approved;
Hip-hop music: “All they talk about is ‘you’re not the man’ unless you’ve got a gun, a hundred million pounds or are willing to put someone on their back. It’s all about you and you’ll only get as far as what you do. Ragga music is the same.”
Video games and films: “Young people have sex and violence pushed down their necks. It is no surprise that they copy it. It is commercial exploitation. Our children are consuming far more sex and violence than ever before. If you look at the violence in films, the violence in computer games and the violence in music it all adds up.”
Sexual content in magazines and television: “If you look at all the magazines they read they are full of sex, television is full of sex, computer games are full of sex. One of the main things that drives teenage pregnancy is horny young men, young boys. What we have is a creeping liberalisation of the law with regard to the sexual content of TV and magazines. Children have far too much access to porn.”
Full Mary Whitehouse: “Words fail me for how evil and wicked MTV is.”
Liberal schooling Bailey’s attacks on teaching in Britain in 2005 were written in the middle of three Labour governments. He was appalled, apparently, by too much liberalism in the classroom.
“School was where young people could have learnt some moral fibre. This is where we are going wrong. Governments have got rid of schools that gave strong moral messages.”
For any Tory to preach morality is gross hypocrisy; for a ‘fellow’ of CPS to do so is even more offensive given the anti-society pro-financial gangsterism ideology of CPS.
“Children in Jamaica and also Malaysian children love school. They see it as their way out, they see it as a good thing. The difference is that schools in those countries have what can only be described as hard moral guidelines. Another is the respect that teachers carry in the community is huge and underlined by the position that the government accords them.”
In the quote above Bailey attacked all British pupils and teachers, and the government. What would he write now after several years of Tory governments have drastically reduced the quality of state education?
Ethics The paragraph below is quoted word-for-word as a complete paragraph from Bailey’s essay with no omissions.
“Removing religion and what it is to be British from school has been a disaster. Ethics should be taught in school. Where else are young people going to learn ethics? Citizenship is not enough. It’s trying not to be offensive to anybody. Tough. If they don’t like it, tough. Tough, because that’s how we’ve had bombers here. They’ve come here and have not been exposed to some of the good things about being British.”
So many alarm bells ringing.
Bailey objects to religion being removed from state education – it hadn’t been – but does he mean all religions or just Christianity?
How does not being offensive lead to people bombing?
“They‘ve come here..” They? Who are they?
Bailey answered these questions.
“By removing the religion that British people generally take to [Christianity], by removing the ethics that generally go with it, we’ve allowed people to come to Britain and bring their culture, their country and any problems they might have, with them.”
Tommy Robinson would approve of those comments.
“They [recent immigrants to Britain] are alienated because they haven’t been exposed to the good things in Britain – our ethics. That’s why we’ve now got a nation of people who wouldn’t do anything for the country. They wouldn’t fight for their country. Why would they? The nation has done nothing for them as far as they are concerned. They are not aware of the fact that they have been clothed, educated, housed.”
So, according to Bailey, basic human rights to clothing, education and housing means that the recipients should risk their lives in war.
He mentioned “ethics” in his essay often but he meant “Christian ethics.” He tried to argue that such “ethics” should be imposed on newcomers to Britain by claiming British law is “Christian-based.” Just like extremist evangelicals in the USA, Bailey tried to confuse religious fundamentalism with the law as an excuse to be prejudiced against other religions.
“I can see the argument of taking religion out of the state, out of politics, but as a moral guideline – arguably our laws are Christian-based – well, they need to be maintained. Losing them has meant that people have come here and had very little respect for us. That lack of integration and that lack of saying to people: if you are going to come to England, this is what we expect.”
“You bring your children to school and they learn far more about Diwali than Christmas. I speak to the people who are from Brent and they’ve been having Muslim and Hindi days off. What it does is rob Britain of its community. Without our community we slip into a crime riddled cess pool.”
Bailey mixed up Christianity, ethics, law and community in random combinations in his essay to try to distract the reader but his bigotry shone through with the last comment above.
Abstinence Bailey admitted that he had been invited to speak at girls’ schools where he talked about abstinence (from sex). No-one from CPS, or any other secretly funded right-wing think-tank, should ever beinvited to speak to school pupils.
Who is Shaun Bailey? ‘No Man’s Land’ was written thirteen years ago and discussed Bailey’s work that had happened earlier than that. It is possible he has matured intellectually and morally since then; it is also possible that he hasn’t. Some of the comments in the essay were straight from the Thatcher/Tebbit guidebook, some were closer to EDL/UKIP, some could have been spoken by Mary Whitehouse and some would have been applauded by Mike Pence and Sarah Palin.
Bailey’s essay was pessimistic and negative throughout. Bizarrely, he was very self-congratulatory, particularly when comparing himself to the people he worked with and wrote about.
Bailey produced exactly what CPS wanted from him: Misdirection, blame switching, othering and deliberate omissions.
Today (7th October), The Guardian’s sister newspaper The Observer gave a platform to hard-right charlatan Theresa May.
The purpose of providing the platform was to assist the Tory prime minister to promote her party’s con trick of pretending to not be focussed on extreme exploitative hard-right economic ideology.
Theresa May’s article restated and expanded on lies, con-tricks and blatant fraud from her conference speech. The Observer was fully aware of the intent of May’s misrepresentation in her speech and very keen to present the Tories as not being corrupt gimps of wealth terrorists intent on destroying society. This does not necessarily mean that the newspaper agreed with actual Tory policy but it re-revealed how committed it is to objecting to a left-of-centre government.
For the centre and for liberals, fear of socialism trumps fear of any other political ideology.
Rightly, left-of-centre activists and journalists criticised The Observer’s decision to be the prime minister’s enabler. The reaction from the centrist bubble to this criticism was petulant. A few examples below; all are actual word-for-word quotes.
David Aaronovitch: “She’s the prime minister, you utter buffoon.”
Nick Cohen: “She’s the prime minister you wombat-thick pillock.”
Gaby Hinsliff: “I see a lot of people who think all moderates are Tories, are outraged that a Tory leader would pitch for moderates’ votes in the Observer.”
Jane Merrick: “I’m pretty sure Observer readers are open-minded enough to cope with a newspaper that prints articles from all parties. It’s not like it’s the Canary.”
The only reason the newspaper prostrated itself was desperation in its fight against socialism. The centrist politicians – Lib Dems, Progress, etc. – are so utterly pointless and absurd that pretending the Tories are something they aren’t is all that the anti-socialists have to grasp onto.
At their Autumn conference the Tories couldn’t decide whether austerity would end soon or not. Theresa May claimed in her fraudulent speech that it will end after Brexit but chancellor Philip Hammond announced another dump of vicious cuts.
Persistent relentless lies from May are the norm but what would it mean if austerity were to end?
End of austerity? What will not happen if, somehow, austerity ended?
All the police stations, fire stations, hospital buildings, libraries and other former public buildings, that had been handed over to offshore property developers and donors of the Tory party, will not miraculously return to public ownership and miraculously redevelop themselves back to their original purposes.
All the huge cuts in staff numbers in the health service, fire service, police service and education will not magically be reversed.
All the people made homeless due to savage cuts to welfare, particularly for people with disabilities, will not suddenly find homes.
All the young people from less well off backgrounds saddled with massive student loans will not see their debts wiped.
The people whose lives and livelihoods were ruined due to the racist Windrush policy will not be able to return to their former lives.
All the people who died due to reckless cuts to the NHS will not come back to life.
All the people who died due to welfare cuts will not come back to life.
All the residents who perished in the Grenfell Tower fire will not come back to life.
None of the billions of pounds of avoided tax will be paid.
The removal of legal aid will not be reversed.
Zero hours contracts will not be outlawed and will continue to replace real employment.
Huge cuts to central government funding for councils will not be reversed.
There will be no new affordable and/or council homes.
Gas, electricity and water will continue to be a cash cow for tax haven gangsters with poor service and rip-off prices.
Public transport will continue to be a cash cow for tax haven gangsters with poor service and rip-off prices.
Universal Credit will still exist causing further destitution, evictions and death.
The only consequence of austerity ending, even if it were to happen in the sense the liar May means, is that the current misery will persist. Nothing will improve. Nothing will return to any previous state. Residual effects will exacerbate the pain.
But, May is a liar. The Tory policy described as austerity is not about to end.
Brexit austerity The Tories are keen on a no-deal Brexit. They have spent two years avoiding making any progress in discussions with the EU by deliberately making spurious suggestions for a post-Brexit relationship with the EU that they know the EU cannot agree to.
A cliff-fall no-deal Brexit suits the Tories because it suits criminally minded disaster capitalistswho make money out of acquiring public service infrastructure for free if a country faces a negative jolt to its fiscal economy. The disaster capitalists’ PR and marketing teams – right-wing think-tanks Institute Of Economic Affairs, Tax Payers Alliance, Centre For Policy Studies, Adam Smith Institute, Initiative For Free Trade – employ senior cabinet members including Brexit Secretary and Minister For Health Dominic Raab and Matt Hancock.
Regardless of the veracity of May’s comment about austerity ending, or not, its effects will be enhanced after Brexit. Hastened destruction of all public services and giveaways of public service infrastructure will be immediate consequences of no-deal Brexit. The NHS will be destroyed. Unemployment will increase rapidly. The ensuing effects will be an intensification of austerity. All the current sociopathic savagery will be reinvigorated.
These effects of a no-deal Brexit will be deliberate .
Tory austerity isn’t austerity; it’s ideology The Tories’ definition of austerity, a definition supported by most of the media and by many opposition politicians, means a reduction in the percentage of fiscal revenue (raised by taxation, borrowing, etc.) that is spent on services. The Tories have claimed, backed by the same hapless cheerleaders, that such a reduction means fiscal debt can be reduced.
There are several problems in the Tories’ definition of austerity and of its stated intent.
The fiscal debt under the last eight years of Tory government has increased more so than in any time in Britain’s history
Money not spent on public services has not been saved but handed over to privateer fraudsters viaToryprivatisation
The Tories have spent hundreds of millions of tax payers’ money on legal cases fighting against people who have tried to resist savage cuts to vital public services
Tax avoiders and tax evaders have been encouraged and assisted by the Tories to steal billions of pounds from the British people
Tory austerity has never been about saving money. Tory austerity is an ideology. It is the ideology of using tax payers, public service users and most of the people in Britain as sources of income for a handful of wealth terrorists. It is a tool to enrich an elite few at the expense of everyone else. It is a criminal racket.
“Guilty feet have got no rhythm.” – George Michael
Every dishonest word spat out by Tory prime minister Theresa May in her conference speech today was predicted easily.
She knew she could talk utter drivel, she knew she could lie shamelessly and relentlessly, she knew she could make false promises that the Tories have no intention of fulfilling (on education, housing, Brexit consequences, etc.), she knew she could make any absurd claim whatsoever about post-Brexit Britain, she knew she could make libellous accusations about Labour on antisemitism while ignoring the institutionalised racism of the Tories (including May’s racist attacks on the Windrush generation when Home Secretary), she knew she could make fraudulent claims about Tories funding public services that are just sleight of hand con tricks and she knew she could happily make thinly disguised bigotted pleas to grab far-right support. She knew she could do all that because she knew that the media would lap it up and twist it into positive soundbites for the Tories.
May’s speech was, predictably, one of the most hollow speeches ever delivered by a British prime minister and one of the most dishonest and fraudulent ever. But there was no need for May to fear being exposed because of the lickspittle behaviour of the media and of political commentators. Right-wing media’s support for the Tories is the norm but support from the centre and from TV broadcasters is guaranteed as well.
BBC‘s Laura Kuenssberg was impressed with May’s performance.
ITV‘s Robert Peston was similarly wilfully self-fooled
In a BBC articleKuenssbergwas gushing in her praise of May’s vacancy.
“Well today she found it [her voice], and in the words of one of her cabinet colleagues, not a particularly close ally, ‘she found her mojo.’ From the moment she danced on to the stage – who would have thought we’d ever see that – she looked comfortable in her own skin, actually happy to be there.”
Kuenssberg joyfully lapped up the lies and deceit that May presented.
“There was a consistent message – this was May the moderate of summer 2016. A direct appeal to Labour voters, and indeed Labour MPs, who may be uncomfortable with the direction of Jeremy Corbyn’s travel. Overtly centre-ground stuff, a pitch for an era after Brexit when, perhaps, perhaps, the tensions and bitterness of the last couple of years could fade.”
The conclusion to Kuenssberg’s drivel might have been written by Theresa May’s script writer or Philip May’s accountant.
“Theresa May looks today like a prime minister who knows what she wants and might, just might, have an idea how to get there.”
Tories in the centre? There is no shifting to an imaginary “centre” from the Tory government. The reality is that May needs the Tories to continue to be hard-right enablers of a no-deal Brexit with the constant concomitant necessity of finding others to blame.
Equally, the savage Social Murder policies of the last eight years, falsely referred to as austerity, will continue and will increase in ferocity.
For the Tories, taxes are free money to be handed to their wealth terrorist friends via abuse of public services otherwise known as Tory privatisation. The vulnerable, the elderly, the disabled and the ill – people who need good public services and support – are used by the Tories as pawns for further transfer of public money into offshore accounts of a tiny financial elite. Destitution, homelessness and death have become normal consequences of eight years of Tory destruction of public services and society.
At the Tory conference further huge cuts to the NHS funding were announced, further cuts to education funding were announced and there were no plans to address the desperate shortage of affordable homes. A succession of ministers lied blatantly about funding and cuts led by stain on humanity Esther McVey. Barely-disguised racism spluttered from the mouths of Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg, and Michael Gove performed a bizarre prepared pantomime that accused Labour of racism while he conveniently forgot about Windrush and forgot the Tory MEPs’ love-in with anti-Semite Viktor Orban.
Meanwhile, Brexit Minister Dominic Raab spent the conference week in a dionanistic experience with various extreme right-wing think-tanks who are funded by the most despicable disaster capitalists. These vermin are salivating at the prospect of a cliff-fall no-deal Brexit providing them with cheap fire-sale purchases of public service infrastructure as the country collapses.
The Tories are as far-right economically as any previous British government. To claim they are near the centre is offensively fraudulent.
Theresa May’s lies and deception are screamingly obvious but the media – right-wing and centrist – are always desperate to cling onto anything to help her and the Tories survive.
Following a successful, cohesive, confident and determined Labour conference with strong policies, and with the Tories’ anti-preparation for Brexit in utter shambles, what can we expect from the Tories at their conference?
Brexit is heading inexorably to a no-deal departure that will bring joy to the disaster capitalists and their gimps in the Tory party and in the dark money DUP. Some Tories are pretending to oppose a no-deal Brexit as a ruse to distract and to use up media airtime. False debates between allegedly no-no-deal and no-deal Tories, with help from a compliant media, will be staged during the conference; meanwhile, Rees-Mogg, Gove, Johnson, Raab, Patel, Hancock, etc. (and Philip May) will be taking instructions from the disaster capitalists and their PR teams in various secretly funded right-wing think-tanks on how best to ensure that vultures can make money out of a cliff-fall Brexit and sod the majority of people in Britain.
The Tory party has always used racism as a tool to generate division and to distract. The attacks on the lives of the Windrush citizens continues: Homelessness, untreated illnesses (due to denial of NHS care), destitution, deportation and death are the consequences of the deliberate racist policy introduced by Theresa May when she was Home Secretary. Current Home Secretary Sajid Javid is happy to continue the attacks.
Anti-Islam rhetoric and actions are routine for the Tories. Recent examples include Tory candidate for Mayor of London, Shaun Bailey, endorsing anti-Islamic comments aimed at current mayor Sadiq Khan and Boris Johnson campaigning for the EDL by writing some childish comments about the clothes worn by some Muslim women.
Antisemitism is not a stranger to the Tory party: Tory MEPs gave full support to the anti-Semite Viktor Orban in the EU parliament, a decision backed publicly by Tory MPs in the UK.
However, the Tory plan is to claim that Labour (and other left-wing politicians and activists) are racist and antisemitic and to equate left-wing politics with the extreme-right. The Tories know that such claims are unambiguous fabrication but they will be backed vociferously by the right-wing media and, even more loudly, by the centrist media including BBC news and Channel 4 news, and by Progress MPs. Theresa May showed this deceitful intent in advance of the conference in comments reported by Channel 4 news: May spouts nonsense.
The conference will alternate between and combine two contradictory but equally untrue assertions: LIES about Labour’s plans announced at its conference and LIES about Tory plans on similar vital issues.
Labour has plans to stop the destruction of NHS, education, welfare system, police services, etc., to improve workers’ rights, to stop tax avoidance and to unprivatise vital public services. The Tories will attack all these plans from dual (dishonest) perspectives of cost and, in a gross reversal of truth, attacks on freedom. Simultaneously, the Tories will pretend to have plans for homelessness, cost of housing, NHS, policing, education, jobs, etc. but every word will be a LIE. They have no intention to make any improvements in any vital public service – they view public services as cash cows for privateer vultures, they have no intention of helping workers and they have no intention of creating affordable and/or social housing.
TheLIES about fake policy intent will gush forth relentlessly at their conference, shamelessly, and will be lapped up obediently by useless media. The Tories couldn’t care less about deteriorating public services; they couldn’t care less about huge increases in homelessness and destitution; they have created laws that attack workers’ rights, wages and job security; they have steadily removed access to justice via removal of legal aid; they are indifferent to people with disabilities being evicted, starving and dying due to vicious reductions to welfare assistance; they are handing the NHS, and all other vital public services, to gangsters who receive a steady stream of tax payers’ money while the services decline rapidly and the costs for users increase exponentially. That is the essence of Tory privatisation.
Fear will palpable throughout the conference. There will be real fear of a real challenge from Labour. This fear will be a driving force behind the LIES. There will also be clumsy embarrassing attempts to create fear of socialism and, in a strange extrapolation, fear of communism. Spectres of Lenin, Marx, Engels and Trotsky will be summoned and thrust in the faces of the public. Communist boots on England’s pleasant pastures seen.
The Tory conference: Fear, LIES, distractions, xenophobic rhetoric, libelling of political opponents, smarm, snide, contempt for the British people, arrogance and total absence of humanity.