Onward! Tories Attempt To Emulate The Con Of Macron

En Marche
If a political party is tumbling inexorably into a pit then a popular con-trick to rescue the ideology of the party is for its members to pretend that a new party has formed that offers a nuanced take on the same ideology.  In such a scenario, after some shuffling and side-stepping, a change of leadership has occurred, a new name has been appended to the party and there is a marketing campaign to con the electorate into thinking there is a new party with new ideas.  Technically, this process is known as ‘polonais un étron d’excréments.’

Macron1
L’homme polonais

Emmanuel Macron successfully conned the voters of France who believed that he was different from the party from which he had emerged and that he had a political outlook that differed from being a willing puppet of bankers and financial gangsters.  He is, of course, exactly that type of puppet: Within days of his election he had deliberately provoked a battle with trades’ unions and he had uttered some very colonialist language about Africa.  The polish wore off quickly.

Meanwhile, in Britain, the Tory Party is eating itself as it gets stamped on by the reality of Brexit, the Liberal Democrats could not find a leader and have returned to Vince Out-Out-Brief Cable and the right-of-centre chunk of Labour is evaporating into a malodorous cloud circling Peter Mandelson’s head.  The full range of democratic capitalists in Britain, all the way from a bit right-of-centre way over to a bit more right-of centre, fear their demise.

To counter the impending collapse of their footholds on the gravy train of British politics, many careerists from all of the above three groups are yearning to emulate Macron’s self-polishing act.  Armed with virtual Mr. Sheen they are preparing to “launch” rehashes as soon as enough enthused associates can be found.  Drab rumours of new flaccid faux-centrist parties permeate the insipid gossip of the political hacks but a more likely scam would be a Titanic-like shifting of deck chairs in a single party.

Tories get polishing
Fearful of election wipeout, Tories are too weak-willed to leave their party and form a new brand.  Instead, as David Singleton explained in January in Tory jump start, the Tories prefer to mobilise “an intellectual platform” within the party to act as an “ideas factory” for the leadership, if that is May or a successor.  

Singleton claimed that the “campaign group” will try to emulate Labour’s Progress group.  Progress was dormant until Corbyn was first elected leader of Labour and then it morphed into an attack-and-smear gang.  Now, bereft of its major corporate donor and with its influence in Labour being crushed via internal election victories for socialists, Progress has become a motley crew of right-wing trolls.  So, the comparison with Progress cannot be based on its success; rather, like Progress, the proposed Tory subgroup will pretend to be positioned in the ephemeral centre in order to con people into believing that the Tories are more than just financial gangsters’ puppets.

One of the main protagonists of the new subgroup is Tory MP Neil O’Brien.  Like many Tory MPs, O’Brien is a plant from one of the right-wing think-tanks – he was the director of Policy Exchange from 2008 to 2013 before he was elected to parliament.  Policy Exchange is a playground for right-wing MPs to spout drivel.  It is also a vomit machine of confidence tricks that simultaneously disguise Tory intent and assist the party with methods of false presentation.  For every Tory policy that attacks the lives and living standards of British people – related to healthcare, education, housing, welfare, etc. – there are a sackful of Policy Exchange articles that falsely claim the need for such a policy, that wilfully misrepresent the intent of the policy and that suggest a variety of cons that the Tories can use to sell the policy to the public.  Alongside O’Brien are professional conman Nick Faith, co-founder of WPI-Strategy, “a recognised expert in political communications and media strategy” according to the WPI website and, coincidently, Director of Communications at Policy Exchange, and Will Tanner, a former “adviser” to Theresa May and a contributor to right-wing think-tank Reform.

O’Brien, Faith and Tanner intend to bring think-tank and political comms tactics to the Tory party.  They want to polish the marketing of harmful policies without altering their effect.  The Tories are no longer able to convince the public that the current government’s actions and plans are beneficial for the majority of people, but their objective remains as service to elite financial gangsters.  The changes they need are improvements to the effectiveness of their fraudulent misrepresentations of policy.  This con needs to be enhanced not just for specific policies but also for the perceived ethos of the party.

Seven years of relentless lies, disinformation and supercilious behaviour have permanently damaged the Tory front bench’s capacity to be believed by the public.  Therefore, a facet of O’Brien, Tanner and Faith’s plan might be the gradual removal of the spent forces such as Johnson, Fox, Hammond and Davis to be replaced with new faces from the back benches and from junior ministerial posts.  But, new faces will not change the over-riding Tory ethos.  Any new faces will be used to give a false impression of change.  

Onward
A false rehash, revamp or rebrand is the only option for the Tories.  Onward is a loose translation of the name of Macron’s invented ‘new’ party En Marche and is equally as meaningless.  So empty is the Tories’ bucket of ideas that they have to borrow a name.  They also borrow Macron’s hollow dishonest rhetoric:

Onward is a powerful ideas factory for centre-right thinkers and leaders. We exist to make Britain fairer, more prosperous and more united, by generating a new wave of modernising ideas and a fresh kind of politics that reaches out to new groups of people.”

It isn’t an “ideas factory.”  It is a tool to acquire more media time for conservative speakers aided by a compliant media.

“We believe in a mainstream conservatism – one that recognises the value of markets and supports the good that government can do, is unapologetic about standing up to vested interests, and assiduous in supporting the hardworking, aspirational and those left behind.”

The value of markets” is an utterly meaningless phrase.  They are Tories who believe in feeding the elite and nothing else. 

Every word is a marketing soundbite with no substance and entirely divorced from what the Tories do or are planning to do.

Our team has worked both at a high level in government and for successful think tanks. We know how to produce big ideas that resonate with policymakers, the media and the public. We will engage ordinary people across the country and work with them to make our ideas a reality.”

The emptiness of Onward is writ large by the claim of “big ideas that resonate with policymakers, the media and the public.”  They mean, of course, crafty ways of misrepresentation, distraction and blatant lies.

Onward people
Onward is a mix of Tory MPs, former members of the Tory (con)marketing team and some right-wing think-tank veterans.  Alongside the aforesaid O’Brien, Faith and Tanner, the Onward people list includes Ben Bradley MP, Tory vice chair for youth, who had to issue a public apology to Jeremy Corbyn and who is famed for petulant offensive social media comments, and Sian Hansen who has been Managing Director of Policy Exchange and Executive Director of the notorious Legatum Institute. 

Other Tory MPs, including Murdoch’s little helper Michael Gove and bag of hot air Ruth Davidson, are helping to “launch” Onward.  In Davidson Onward, the latter bemoaned that “we [the Tories] have, all too often, let our opponents write our history for us.”  Davidson meant that criticism and exposure of Tory ideology needs to be buried by deceptive marketing and PR trash, and that is where Onward can help.

Rehash/revamp/rebrand/remake/remodel
The mechanics of the Onward rehash mimics the processes of confidence trickery that are the norm at the right-wing think-tanks but such trickery no longer works on enough people.  Equally, the strategy and methodology of characters like Lynton Crosby and Nick Timothy are more likely to induce mirth than con people.  All of the shenanigans are transparent.  Like the laughable Activate campaign, ‘Onward’ is likely to fizzle out before it begins.  It is a mere death rattle for an exposed fraudulent ideology.  

Ultimately, it doesn’t matter how much polish one uses on a turd because it will still stink.

Related blog links
Policy Exchange
Legatum Institute
Progress
Tory Bratboys
Macron’s election
Transparent RW manipulation
Lynton Crosby
Activate! De-activate!

Advertisements
Onward! Tories Attempt To Emulate The Con Of Macron

The Royal Family is elitist extremism; the royal wedding was a con

Woolly untrustworthy liberals, centrists and cod-left observers have spent the day uttering such fraudulent concoctions as

I’m not a royalist but Meghan Markle has a nice dress on.”

I’m not a royalist but the choir sounded great.”

I’m not a royalist but Bishop Curry preached a good sermon.”

I’m not a royalist but there’s David Beckham.”

I’m not a royalist but that was moving.”

Most of these comments have been uttered by white middle-class voices with privileged positions of influence in the media. 

It was a royal wedding.  The sole purpose of this public spectacle was to promote the royal family.  The wedding existed to enhance the popularity of an entity whose role is part distraction and part a reminder of everyone’s place in society. 

Every aspect of the wedding was chosen carefully by marketing and PR teams.  It was another attempt to reconstruct the royal family’s false image and to pretend that they are something other than defenders of elitist exploitation.  

Prince Harry is an immature prat who thought dressing as a NAZI officer was funny, who described machine-gunning Afghanis from his helicopter as “like a computer game” and who celebrates that working-class kids are forced to risk life and limb in the British army as the only hope of a career.  Meghan Markle is an actress in TV soaps.  They are dull and lack any original thoughts.  It is all an act.  He has been taught how to act since he was born and she is a professional actress.  Their combined role now as actors is to con the public into thinking that they are different from the rest of the royal gloop.  

New features of the royal con were appended at the wedding and hapless, dishonest observers fell easily for it; far too easily.  

A gun with a peace sign on it is still a gun, a fist about to smash into your face is still a fist about to smash into your face even if the letters of the word ‘love’ are spelled out on the knuckles, and extreme elitism is still extreme elitism even if the extreme elitism hired a preacher who preached about liberal values.  The royal wedding, and its endless preamble, was a carefully constructed scam.

CharlesMeghan

Spineless liberals, who appear to have fallen so easily for another rendition of the royal scam, are doing so willingly.  Any pretence of opposition that they had to elitist exploitation magically evaporated at the sight of a pretty dress and at the sound of an entertaining preacher.  Their true intent revealed itself.  Whenever any of these fraudsters, henceforth, choose to pretend to object to NHS cuts or welfare cuts or the lack of affordable housing or education cuts or deportations of Windrush generation, then those false objections should be shoved right up their royal-loving arseholes.

Related blogs
Abolish the monarchy
Royal wedding rammed down our throats
Prince William and racial eugenics

The Royal Family is elitist extremism; the royal wedding was a con

BICOM

(Website: BICOM)

The Britain Israel Communications & Research Centre is an independent research centre producing research and analysis about Israel and the Middle East.”

The quote above, the first sentence on the BICOM website ‘About’ page, has been changed from an earlier version:

“The Britain Israel Communications & Research Centre is an independent British organisation dedicated to creating a more supportive environment for Israel in Britain.”

The original introductory sentence is more accurate. 

BICOM promotes the political stance of the government of Israel, relentlessly and voluminously.

The FAQs on the BICOM website are a deluge of lies, misrepresentations and fraud.  The answer to the question ‘Why are there settlements in the West Bank?‘ asserts that 

As Arab states refused to recognise Israel prior to the Six Day War, permanent borders were never fixed.”

That is a blatant lie.  Perhaps BICOM should check with the UN or look at a map.  The answer also said 

Most of the settlers in the West Bank went to a small number of large settlement blocs, which are located along the Green Line and around Jerusalem.”

So, the violent expulsion of Palestinians from their lands and the daily destruction of homes of Palestinian people to make way for gated settlements are an invention are they?

The answer to the question ‘How does Israel avoid harming innocent people in conflict? is sickeningly dishonest and shamelessly brutal.

The IDF considers itself bound by international humanitarian law and makes use of all available measures to distinguish combatants from non-combatants and to act with proportionality. “
[Before carpet bombing civilian buildings in Gaza the Israeli military] issued widespread warnings to civilians with leaflet drops and telephoned residents of individual buildings to warn them they were going to be targeted.”
In 2013 Israel announced it was all but stopping the use of white phosphorous, except for a very limited number of specific situations.”

The use of white phosphorus is illegal.

There are many, many questions on the FAQ list and every response is packed with lies and disdain.

The blogs by BICOM contributors are no less far away from any truth.  For example, in Ahed Tamimi James Sorene blamed her family for the constant attacks on them by the Israeli soldiers.

From a very young age Ahed was sent out to take part in violent attacks on Israeli soldiers as her parents encouraged her and filmed her. As a young child, she was in no position to consent to being used in this way and the constant filming and grooming to perform violent attacks, is nothing short of abusive.”

Translation: A child objected to soldiers invading her family’s property; she shouted at them and slapped one of them.

AhedTamini

BICOM is a British think-tank.  It’s director Richard Pater “joined BICOM from the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office, where he spearheaded the engagement with the foreign press. Following the Second Lebanon War, he received the Prime Minister’s prize for excellence. Richard served in the IDF armoured brigade, where he twice received commendations, and continues to serve in the reserves.”  Pater “regularly briefs British audiences on Israeli politics and security issues.”  The phrase “regularly briefs” translates as “concocts a narrative for.”

BICOM is a British think-tank.  It’s Director of Research Calev Ben Dorworked for several years in the Policy Planning Division of Israel’s Foreign Ministry and additionally as a senior analyst in the National Security team of the Reut Institute, a non-partisan Tel Aviv-based strategy group.  Prior to moving to Israel in 2005, Calev worked in the Public Affairs Department of the Israeli Embassy in London.”

BICOM is a British think-tank.  Senior visiting fellow Michael Herzogserved as head of the Strategic Planning Division of the IDF and worked with four defence ministers as senior military aide and advisor, and as chief of staff.  From June 2009 to March 2010, he served as special emissary for Israel’s prime minister and minister of defence.”

The BICOM website ‘About’ statement concludes with a claim that BICOM is funded through private UK philanthropy.”  Some details to back up that claim would be helpful.

BICOM faces that appear in the media include

RichardPater
Richard Pater and Charlotte Henry

Links to brief descriptions of other right-wing think-tanks

BICOM

The ‘variety’ of comments from British supporters of Israel’s assault on Gaza

This week, the Israeli military repeated their actions of March 30th with a military assault on Palestinian protesters who were the opposite side of a fence installed by the Israeli government.

The IDF used snipers hiding cowardly behind sand dunes and drones dropping chemical weapons.  The snipers used (illegal) explosive bullets designed to cause amputations.  They targetted lone protesters including children.  Journalists were sought out for execution.  The drones dropped their teargas on groups of people.

Over fifty people were killed and over a thousand injured.  The medical staff trying to attend to injured people were targetted by snipers and drones.

Political support for Israel’s actions
The Israel military created a story as an excuse for its actions.

IDFGaza

Below are some supportive comments in Britain for the Israeli military’s actions; it is interesting to see how varied they were and how they compared to the official Israeli military line described above.

Right-wing political group Board of Deputies

BodCommentGaza

Prime Minister Theresa May‘s statement included the following

TheresaMayGaza

Tory Minister of State for the Middle East Alistair Burt

AlistairBurt

Conservative Friends Of Israel statement

CFOIGaza

Labour Friends of Israel statement

LFIGaza

Labour MP Joan Ryan

JoanRyanGaza

Former Tory party leadership candidate Stephen Crabb

StephenCrabbGaza

Postscript
As a slight variant, Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson scuttled cowardly out of the House of Commons yesterday just as Labour’s spokesperson was about to ask an urgent question on Israel’s attack on the protesters in Gaza.

BorisJohnsonScuttles

The ‘variety’ of comments from British supporters of Israel’s assault on Gaza

The Tories’ cowardice is absolute

Today, the Tories are kissing the backside of Turkey’s president Erdogan.  His government has jailed thousands of opposition politicians, activists, journalists and teachers and ordered an invasion into Kurdish regions of Syria to annihilate the Kurdish people living there. 

Also today, the Tories are steadfastly refusing to offer any criticism of the Israeli military’s slaughter of protesters in Gaza yesterday during which over fifty people were killed and over a thousand injured by (illegal) explosive bullets.  The Tory reaction to the slaughter in Gaza is to parrot the lines of the Israeli government.

(Update: On May 18th the UN Human Rights Council voted to hold a commission of inquiry to look into the assault on protesters in Gaza by Israeli forces.  The Tory government abstained on this vote.)

This behaviour by the Tory government is extreme cowardice

The Tories fear vicious, murderous, fascist brutes and they are unable to criticise them or to do anything other than fart out fawning obsequiousness.  They fear the international arms manufacturers and they will do everything they can to aid the profits of the arms industry regardless of consequences.  The Tories would broker arms sales to ISIS if they could; it could be argued that they already have, via Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

There have been many British governments (not exclusively Tory) that have served a small elite and who have fornicated themselves for the benefit of the arms industry but there has never been a British government that is as cowardly as Theresa May’s gang of lickspittles.  They never answer questions, they lie relentlessly and they kowtow to whichever dictator has ordered them to.  Filth.

TheresaMaySalman
A coward (left) receives her orders

Related blogs
Tories’ laughter at Saudi brutality
Gavin Williamson
Tories follow orders from orange buffoon
Tory silence on Israel’s brutality
Theresa May the collaborator

The Tories’ cowardice is absolute

Royal wedding rammed down our throats

I’ve never watched US drama series ‘Suits.’  I’ve heard that it is a mediocre time-filler with underdeveloped characters, plodding plot lines and clunky acting.  One of its stars marries a British royal celeb on Saturday.  It is difficult to know what a jobbing TV actress sees in a dopey immature private school caricature who will have a lifetime of massive unearned wealth at his disposal.  Is it his jokes about machine-gunning Afghanis from his helicopter being “like a computer game,” or is it his fancy dress party costume choices that have included a nazi uniform (officer’s uniform of course) and nude billiards, or does she just enjoy grinning insincerely, accepting bunches of flowers and spouting hollow platitudes?

This wedding has been rammed down the throats and up the rectums of the British people by the desperate royal marketing and PR industry and by a complicit media.  The couple of bores indulged in a tour of Britain, including an unannounced politically-motivated visit to Belfast, to promote themselves as if they are weak celebs deserving of attention.  All this promotion was paid for by the British public.  But, it’s been a damp squib: A handful of ‘fans’ waving miniature flags handed to them; there were more gormless paparazzi than members of the public.  If there wasn’t a bottomless pit of tax-payers’ money available to pay for the tour then the marketing team would have pulled the plug a long time ago. 

All celebs with limited or no talent, who have no useful contribution to society and have vacant witless personalities, try many stunts to beg for fame and notoriety and, subsequently, money, but such chancers are limited by the cost of stunts and by the need for a favourable response from the customers.  For royal celebs, the money keeps flowing regardless of how much the popularity is failing.  It’s like being forced to pay for an incurable disease.

The bill for every aspect of the wedding will be sent to the British public: The policing of the wedding, the British soldiers at the wedding, the entertainment at the reception, the pre-wedding hotel stays, the honeymoon, the wedding dress, the ring, the upkeep of the carriage, the grooming of the horses, etc. – every damn thing is paid for by the British public, even the toilet paper that they wipe their arses on during the day.  Everything apart from the food for the public guests who, though invited, have been told to bring their own sandwiches. 

PrinceHarryLaughs
“Give me your dinner money!”

It’s been good to see that members of the bride’s family have tried to make some money for themselves from her wedding without forcing the public to pay for it.  Her father staged a few photographs that made a nice sum when sold to the media and her sister rediscovered her family connection and indulged in a little self-promotion.  

For the groom’s family, it’s just another day of scrounging and posing for photos.  If his hip will allow him to be there the decrepit old racist will need to watch his quips, the arms dealer will need to get off the phone to his contacts in Bahrain and the groom’s friends should try to keep their clothes on.  Fascinators and fake military medals will be the attire of choice for the most venal family in Britain.

Watching the royal wedding on TV is optional but paying for it is compulsory.  Being a recipient of the royals’ fame is also compulsory whether the majority of people want them or not.  No matter how mind-numbingly dull they are, with personalities capable of inducing spontaneous catatonic states, their PR machine continues ramming the soulless banality of their weddings, babies and deaths into all our orifices.  Royal funerals are the worst – all the fascinators are black.

Related blogs
Abolish The Monarchy
Royal couple visit Belfast
Kardashians Versus Windsors

Royal wedding rammed down our throats

The Palace Of Westminster is falling down

Cracks in the walls
As an unintended symbol of the diseased state of British democracy, the Palace Of Westminster is decaying irreparably.  Decades of neglect, extending over a century, coupled with the Thames lapping ever closer has led to crumbling masonry and a growing danger of collapse into the river.

Rather than channel hundreds of millions of tax-payers money into trying to resurrect the building from its impending demise, an opportunity should be taken to start anew. 

Let the palace sink slowly into the Thames or dismantle it brick-by-brick and sell to someone with too much money and no sense; perhaps, Elon Musk could rebuild it on Mars?  

Parliament, or its replacement, needs a much better venue.  The debating chamber of the House Of Commons (HoC) has an insufficient number of seats, a very poor layout and a lack of facilities at the MPs’ seats.  The two sets of rows of seats facing each other do not encourage intelligent debate or discussion; the layout encourages childish combat. 

HoCEmpty

It was designed to suit dim-witted, verbose landed gentry in the 19th century who enjoyed yelling and laughing at each other pointlessly achieving nothing.  Although there are many such shouty morons still infecting parliament’s space, a new chamber needs to have a very different design.  It needs seats for each member of the government and each seat should have sufficient desk space and internet, phone and TV access.  The cabinet, or equivalent, should face the rest of the chamber.  A speaker, if required, should sit nearby but not in an elevated position.

The poor layout of the current debating chamber in the House Of Commons and its lack of facilities for the MPs are contributing factors to time-wasting as is the necessity to file in and out of the chamber to vote.  A better more user-friendly layout, including at-seat voting, would cut time wastage.

NewParliament
 An simple example of a usable seating plan for parliament or equivalent

Cracks in democracy
Alongside the new improved physical structure of parliament the opportunity should be taken to eradicate uselessness in the processes and procedures in parliament. 

Most of what is said in the HoC has no useful purpose for the public.  There is too much posturing and too many statements of the screamingly obvious.  The repetition is absurd.  Debate should always have a clear purpose and, in any parliament, should always be concluded with a meaningful vote.  In the HoC there are debates without a concluding vote and there are some with a meaningless vote.  Even the debates with a meaningful vote could be reduced in length; if those voting know how they intend to vote then why spend hours and hours “debating?”  Most of the activity in the HoC is partly light entertainment and partly deliberate obstruction.  For Britain, democracy appears to mean wasting as much time as possible so that little gets done.

One solution to the waste of time in parliament is to separate the legislating from the debates.  The debates are, predominantly, performances for TV and the speeches are delivered for posterity in Hansard.  The personality driven design of parliament has encouraged limelight hogging at the expense of useful activity.  Separation of the legislating from the verbal jousting would hasten the process of the former and allow the latter to continue for the respective combatants’ benefit and amusement.

HoCSunset
Sun sets on Westminster

The cracks in the walls of the Palace Of Westminster are matched by the cracks in the structure of parliamentary democracy in Britain.  Both are stumbling on to inexorable demise.  Both need replacing with something better and much more useful.

The Palace Of Westminster is falling down