Libertarian commentator Matthew Parris, gatekeeper of an extortion racket

Throughout its existence capitalism employed a team of protectors to guard its reputation.  The protectors cannot defend capitalism’s destructive effects via didactic reasoning or via logic.  They must, by necessity, use deception.

One deceptive tactic used by protectors is to nudge focus onto poor behaviour by individuals, single businesses or single countries and to claim the behaviour is the exception and should not be understood as proof of capitalism’s intrinsic criminality. 

It is not a new tactic.  In 1980 Milton and Rose Friedman’s book ‘Free to Choose: A Personal Statement’ argued that the American public falsely perceived the depression (of the 1930s) to be a result of a failure of capitalism rather than, as the Friedmans claimed deceptively, the result of ineptitude of particular capitalists.

It suits beneficiaries of exploitative free-racketeering if all critical eyes are on the aptitude for governance of politicians (or lack thereof).  If prevailing debate discusses the extent of politicians’ capabilities, intelligence, honesty, morality or ethics then systemic exploitation evades blame and its effects evade inspection.

Willingly, or via an absence of critical thinking, alleged opponents of extreme exploitation are easily led away from what should be their targets and onto circular and pointless investigations of side issues.

Boris Johnson’s Special Adviser Chloe Westley, an alumnus of Ron Manners’ Mannkal Economic Education Foundation, is well-trained and skilled in feeding stories to obsequious media and “opposition” politicians, stories that have the appearance of being critical of Johnson or exposing his wrongdoing but have the intent of nudging focus.  The fact these stories pretend to be problems for Johnson allows “opponents” an excuse to be led by the nose.

Members of the centrist gloop, particularly Guardian’s Marina Hyde, enjoy comfortable careers as regular and frequent essayists on Johnson’s shenanigans.  Their satire and witticisms sit beside crafted expressions of despair and annoyance at refurbishment, at smirks, at duplicity, at anti-intellect and at laziness.

This year (2022) several new acts of parliament will gut liberty, freedom, justice and democracy from British society, Tories are destroying the NHS deliberately as a ruse to make a claim that privatisation is needed, the Brexit heist’s consequences get progressively worse, and Shanker Singham is planning his fascist charter cities, but news outlets fill their space with gossip and complaints about misbehaviour.

Murdoch hack Matthew Parris‘ skillset has a single element: Convince news outlets and, to a lesser extent, the public that he is detached from and elevated above political trends in journalism, whether centrist, liberal, conservative or libertarian.  However, Parris is embedded as deeply and as rigidly as is possible to be in the complicit hole of media support for establishment rhetoric.

On 8th January 2022 in Rupert Murdoch’s The Times, Parris went after Boris Johnson.  The only motivation for his decision to “eviscerate” Johnson was Murdoch’s realisation that the Etonian has outlasted his usefulness and needs to be replaced with a more focussed extremist libertarian such as Liz Truss, Steve Baker or Jacob Rees-Mogg.

Evisceration” was used plentifully by commentators (Journalists and politicians) as a means of praising Parris.  Their shared compliment was inspired party by the incestuous nature of British journalism and partly by their support for a perspective that isolates an individual – Johnson – as the cause of all ills as a ruse to absolve systemic causes. 

In Parris for Times the author’s key objective was not to denigrate Johnson but to excuse others, all of whom are at least as culpable, and some more so, than the prime minister. 

Parris expressed sympathy for contributors to exploitation whom he cast as victims by association with Johnson.  His list included David Cameron, Theresa May, Jo Johnson, Dominic Cummings, Lee Cain, Robert Buckland, Julian Smith, Theresa Villiers, Esther McVey, Andrea Leadsom and Arlene Foster.

According to Parris the people he listed “have this in common: For a while their lives touched Boris’s, after which they stormed, wobbled, were kicked, staggered, limped or walked away, variously embittered, alienated, vengeful, damaged, broken or resolved to turn the page.”

He presented the old con-trick of blaming a person not the political system and he took it to its limit.  “When contemplating this column I was asked whether we might finally step back from close focus on the present prime minister, look more widely at rascality and high public office and draw some general conclusions.  But I must conclude that there are none.  Johnson is a one-off.”

The reality is that Johnson is a cog in the machine.  He had a single purpose – obtain a parliamentary majority which he achieved in 2019 – and afterward his role was cheerleader, distractor and fool.  It was necessary for him to have an abject lack of cognizance of morality, ethics and humanity as much as it was necessary for him to be shamelessly stupid.  Those around him are more dangerous.  Libertarian fascism of Truss, Baker, Raab, Rees-Mogg, Gove, etc. will destroy society and democracy in UK.

Parris picked out a few of Johnson’s associates whom he claimed were undone by Johnson.

David Brownlow paid well via donations for his peerage he received in 2019.  In 2020 he paid for refurbishment of Johnson’s flat in Downing Street, the details of which were kept hidden from investigators.  Brownlow is as guilty as Johnson, but Parris said he was “now caught in a stupid and horrible web of Downing Street’s making, his name plastered across the newspapers.”

Christopher Geidt, a member of House Of Lords, is a standard obsequious lickspittle who does what his employers ask for including sitting on Sultan Of Oman’s Privy Council, a paid role he declined to declare as required by parliamentary rules for MPs and peers.

Geidt was appointed by Johnson to be Independent Adviser On Ministers’ Interests with the intent to deny wrongdoing by Johnson, a task that Geidt performed to instruction, but Parris indulged in cringeworthy PR for the establishment gofer: “Geidt will have thought his present post offered quiet stature and the interesting challenge of an almost judicial role.  Picture him this weekend, accused of playing patsy to a furtive PM who allowed him to be misled: The whole thing will disgust and sadden a man who has built his reputation on discretion.”

Self-described “libertarian conservative” Tory MP Paul Scully was a director of a lobbying business and tabled a question in parliament on behalf of one of the business’ clients.  He filibustered a bill in parliament that sought to stop fire-and-rehire exploitation. 

Parris blamed Johnson for Scully’s presentation in media interviews of Johnson’s lies rather than blaming Scully for lying.  “Paul Scully was put up on the airwaves to defend the prime minister.  He did the job in the only way you can: by asserting the unassertible and making himself look like an idiot.  This will not destroy Scully’s career, but he’ll be remembered for the first time he came to our attention — and not in a good way.”

Etonian Kwasi Kwarteng, Business Minister, is a libertarian activist.  He is directly involved in several extreme think-tanks and lobby groups including Le Cercle.  He is as committed to acute concentration of wealth as any politician is able to be.

When Tory MP Owen Patterson was found guilty by Parliamentary Committee On Standards Kwarteng attacked Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards Kathryn Stone and said she should “decide her position“.  However, Parris, again, claimed “this wasn’t Kwarteng’s idea.” 

MatthewParris
Matthew Parris

Parris is a straightforward conman.  We have the most anti-democratic and most right-wing government since Wellington’s government in 1820s/30s.  Johnson had a role that is now spent.  What will follow will be worse and Parris is part of its marketing team.

Libertarian commentator Matthew Parris, gatekeeper of an extortion racket

Free Speech Union: Intimidation, anti-dialectics and invented legalese

The ideology and the intent of Free Speech Union (FSU) were obvious at its launch.  Its personnel and its description of itself meant there was no ambiguity about its purpose.

In FSU (22nd June 2020) I said its main aim is “to channel funds for legal action to impose yes-platforming of bigotry, to stop action being taken against perpetrators of such bigotry and to shut down oppositional voices.”  

A year ago (8th December 2020) Nafeez Ahmed described the scientific racism and racial eugenics at the core of FSU’s philosophy in Alt-Right Pseudoscience: ‘FREE SPEECH’ & SCIENTIFIC RACISM for Byline Times.  He noted the strong, continuous relationships between prominent members of FSU and other extremists who advocate racism based on false science, particularly eugenics, including Pioneer Fund, a “Nazi endowment specialising in production of justifications for eugenics since 1937” according to Professor Steven J. Rosenthal in The Pioneer Fund: Financier of Fascist Research.

I advise reading Ahmed’s piece to understand what motivates and inspires FSU.

FSU does not state its extreme philosophy openly.  Interviews, statements, essays and articles by its main contributors that promoted racial eugenics are not mentioned or linked to on its website.

The strategy of public presentation of FSU is to assume that its motivation is unknown to most people and to rely on ineptitude of and collusion by broadcasters who fail to explain its ideology when yes-platforming FSU, and to rely on the Tory government to corroborate and collaborate with its fraudulent presentation when members of the government cite the FSU or hire its members as advisers.

Letters of complaint by FSU
FSU publishes letters it sends to various public institutions wherein it complains about actions or lack thereof taken by the institutions.  Many of the institutions are places of education. 

Each letter follows the same pattern

  1. A complaint is stated about a decision taken by the institution
  2. A claim is made that an attendee, employee or customer at the institution contacted FSU for assistance
  3. FSU explains why it thinks the decision is incorrect and should be reversed
  4. Various rules and regulations of the institution and laws are referred to as being breached by the decision taken by the institution
  5. Threats of legal action or other further action by FSU against the institution are issued

The letters are riven with contradictions, wilful misinterpretation, selective quotations of rules, regulations and laws, comical pomposity and ridiculous self-aggrandisement.

Sat beside the ridiculousness is the neon-lit political agenda of FSU.  The issues it complains about are in two categories

  1. An institution has made a decision that promotes fighting against racism and bigotry
  2. An institution has taken action against a person or body as part of the institution’s fight against racism, bigotry and stupidity

The consistent perspective of FSU throughout its letters to institutions is opposition to anything that fights against racism and bigotry.  Its tactics are similar to those of far-right lobby groups Turning Point and Bruges Group and to those of extremist libertarian racists in USA in education.

A key similarity between FSU and USA extremists in education is discourse about “critical race theory” (CRT).  CRT, a “theory” that is not clearly defined, is referenced by far-right legislators and commentators in USA as their enemy because they perceive knowledge of history of racism and knowledge of systemic racism to be threats to their white supremacism.  

Each letter of complaint, written by Toby Young, General Secretary of FSU, begins with an unashamed misrepresentation of FSU with no indication of its true intent: “Free Speech Union [is] a non-partisan mass membership public interest body that stands up for the speech rights of its members and campaigns for free speech more widely.”  He assumes the recipient of each letter will be unaware of his history and that of his colleagues and associates.

In his letters to places of education Young evokes the Tories’ Higher Education (Freedom Of Speech) Bill within his threats of legal action.

Nadhim Zahawi
Education Secretary Nadhim Zahawi

Higher Education (Freedom Of Speech) Bill
Brexit, followed by election success in 2019 general election, allowed Tories to launch a multi-pronged attack on freedoms, rights, liberty and access to knowledge.  One of the tines of their assault on democracy is Higher Education (Freedom Of Speech) Bill the aim of which is to impose far-right libertarian views on students and staff at universities and college while simultaneously banning the impart of knowledge, particularly of racism. 

The bill’s intent was devised by members of and associates of FSU.  On 10th December 2021 Nafeez Ahmed exposed connections between FSU (and its associates in Peter Thiel’s network of libertarian academics) and the development of the bill.  The bill seeks to create exactly the same political control of speech and of education as that demanded by FSU.

Young uses Higher Education (Freedom Of Speech) Bill in his letters to say “if you don’t like what I’m demanding then tough because the government will soon make it law to do exactly what I’m demanding.”

Intimidation of universities
Young wrote to several universities to respond to various actions taken by them as part of their polices to fight against racism.

EXETER: On 15th June 2021 he wrote to University of Exeter to say he was “concerned the College Of Social Sciences and International Studies requires academics who propose new or revised courses to integrate content that moves away from white Eurocentric curriculum.”

A reasonable person would wonder why someone would object to a university asking for a more balanced education, both in terms of race and geographically.  The university asked for non-white Eurocentric content to be “integrated,” not to replace current content.  It would be absurd and objectionable if a university did not pursue such an intent.  The only reason to oppose the university’s intent would be to preserve bias in favour of superiority of white Eurocentrism.

Young’s legal threats to University of Essex were twofold.  “This requirement is, in our view, vulnerable to legal challenge under employment law.”  He claimed the instruction to staff contradicted an written Agreement between the university and the University And College Union.  “The university’s backsliding on the Agreement exposes it to legal challenge.”  “We believe the university should also seek legal advice on whether the requirements constitute a breach of its contracts with individual academics.”

The second legal threat was a claim that if the university ignored its Agreement then it could be in breach of Human Rights Law.  The contortions Young and his legal advisers adopted to reach their conclusion on legality were twisted and knotted.

Echoing the philosophy of the most extreme commentators on race, such as David Duke, Anders Breivik and Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, Young said the quiet part out loud.

There is an established history at Exeter of what seems to be casual anti-white racism.”

Young felt confident to express his extremism because of government policy backing up his stance.  He warned that “the university should consider that the new obligations proposed in the Higher Education (Freedom Of Speech) Bill are highly likely to result in regulatory intervention unless there is a change of course.”

He ended the letter in a sinister tone.  “The Free Speech Union will support any academic at Exeter who challenges this policy.  However, an adversarial approach is not the only way forward.  We are willing to work with you in any way we can, without cost, to enable you to get ready for the new legal regime that will soon be in place.”

That is, he said the university should do what FSU tells it to do, with FSU directly involved, or else “the new legal regime” will deal with it “adversarially.”

Young displayed constructed confidence that government policy will agree with FSU’s political agenda, and he positioned FSU as spurious authority.  Such confidence and positioning are standard features of far-right strategy and presentation, resembling strategies of Steve Bannon, Charlie Kirk, Candace Owens, Dominique Samuels, Tom Harwood, Daniel Hannan, Matthew Elliott, etc., and have been features of Young’s methodology throughout his career as a Git.

KirkOwens
Candace Owens (left) and Charlie Kirk

CAMBRIDGE: In July 2021 the Faculty Of Classics at University Of Cambridge published an Action Plan to address a lack of diversity in the Faculty and wrote a response to an open letter on anti-racism it received a year earlier that asked several questions about the Faculty’s responsibilities.

The Action Plan and the explanation of the Faculty’s responses were not controversial or problematic.  The former listed standard policies for the Faculty to follow to attempt better diversity, to address any staff and students’ concerns correctly and not dismissively, and to be aware of problems with some texts and context in course material.

On 26th August 2021 Young wrote to the Chair of the Faculty Board Professor Robin Osborne and said “we are concerned that the Faculty’s Action Plan fails to take any account of the University Statement on Freedom Of Speech and may, without remedial action, constitute an unlawful inhibition of academic freedom.”

The Action Plan asked the Faculty to “increase diversity of seminar speakers and topics.”  Young said that request should “be subject to convenor’s [organiser of seminar] discretion to invite speakers best qualified to speak according to their own judgement.”  His response was unnecessary because the Action Plan did not preclude “best qualified” speakers.  He insulted the intelligence of Professor Osborne.  Young, who failed to achieve sufficient qualifications to attend University Of Oxford but was accepted due to an administrative error, decided he had to explain simple logic to a professor of classics.

He objected to the Action Plan’s request that “staff refresh Implicit Bias training every three years.”

Again, he said the quiet part out loud:

Where Implicit Bias training involves demonising people of particular ethnicities, (e.g. white British), it is potentially unlawful.”

Any training that relies on ‘whiteness’ and ‘white privilege’ and holds all people of a particular race of ethnicity responsible for the suffering experienced by people of another race or ethnicity might open the University to claims of harassment and/or discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.”

The intelligent response to such malicious contortions of reality, logic, history and morality uttered by Young is obvious, and is a response that has been made many times before by many people when faced with acute mendacity from opponents of anti-racism.

Young is proud, or Proud, to be ridiculous.  He wallows in a pit of fetidity.  He doesn’t care if his comments are clear endorsement of white supremacism.  Every “classical liberal” is worried about the decline of superiority of white European hegemony.

His comments quoted above were not primarily for the reading pleasure of Professor Osborne.  Young knows an intelligent academic won’t be misled by base ultra-simplistic extremist drivel.  The letters FSU send are published on its website, and press releases advertise their existence; his comments are for general propaganda.

The Action Plan asked for increased “awareness of harassment and microaggressions” to which Young replied “there is no basis to believe that microaggressions can ever constitute harassment without the law.”   He claimed harassment is a matter for the law and, so, if the Faculty takes action because it deems harassment results from microaggressions but also doesn’t think law has been broken, then, Young argued, “the Faculty may be acting unlawfully if it attempts to inhibit staff and students’ right to speak freely in an effort to prevent microaggressions.”

His patter included a reference to the government’s proposed change to the law designed to stop universities from not inviting objectionable speakers.  “In light of upcoming new legislation on free speech at English universities, we suggest the Faculty urgently revisit the Action Plan.”

The Action Plan asked the Faculty to “ensure that the Tripos gives due prominence to addressing and engaging with the often uncomfortable place Classics has had with and continues to have in the world” including “tackling the role of Classics in support of racist and imperialist structures and discourse.”  Such a request is reasonable and necessary.  It would be odd to study Classics without the considerations that the Action Plan asked for.

Young disapproved.  He said, wrongly, that “the desired outcome is an attempt to steer the Faculty’s staff and students to take a particular side in an ongoing debate.”  He looked for a problem that didn’t exist because he was so annoyed that the Faculty wanted students to acquire full rounded knowledge.  Another legal threat followed.  “We suggest the faculty strike out this section of the Action Plan entirely on the grounds that it constitutes an unlawful infringement of academic freedom.”

Note that I am not choosing the daftest sentences from Young to quote as an attempt to create a negative perspective of his intelligence.  I could have chosen any of his sentences randomly with similar impressions.

Young mentioned Human Rights Act and European Convention On Human Rights as tools that a member of staff could use against the University regarding the Action plan but he admitted that “it may well be that such legal action by staff is unlikely.”  Instead, he talked about the University’s “reputation.”  That is, Toby Young expressed concern about somebody else’s reputation.

After a further mention of the Higher Education (Freedom Of Speech) Bill he said “in the event the Faculty fails to amend the Action Plan, the Free Speech Union will consider all options open to it, including taking legal action in its own right.”

Why should administrators or senior academic staff take any notice of grifting preposterousness Toby Young, or of any of his FSU associates like Douglas Murray, Alison Pearson, Lionel Shriver, etc?  They shouldn’t waste their time responding to FSU’s misrepresentation of law or FSU’s invented corollaries and consequences of a university’s actions.

But, the legal threats, though entirely based on misinterpretation, ludicrous extrapolation and fantasy, are not ephemeral.  The threats can succeed, not because of any likelihood that legal action would prevail in FSU’s favour but because prohibitive cost of defending a legal action persuades the body being threatened by FSU to agree, at least partially, to its demands.  FSU is in a position where they can issue legal threats (with next to no possibility of winning any legal case) because its funding is substantial.  Universities, under tight budget control, cannot compete financially with cash-rich corporate entities, think-tanks and lobby groups that bankroll FSU via dark money networks.

SOMERVILLE, OXFORD: On 13th February 2021 Young wrote to Somerville College at University Of Oxford to complain about an unconscious bias training course students must take that concludes with a test. 

An e-mail to students from the college said “a vital step in addressing these injustices [racism, homophobia, transphobia and disability discrimination] is for each of us to become more aware of our unconscious biases as a necessary first step toward avoiding actions driven by unconscious prejudices.”  Such knowledge is inamiable to FSU’s philosophy.

Young focussed on the college’s requirement “you will be required to achieve a mark of 100% in the assessment at the end of the course” but he chose to assume students would not have more than one opportunity to achieve 100%.

He followed the FSU template.  He over-stated the importance of and misreported the details of the training course, quoted a single study of the effectiveness (or not) of unconscious bias training, and referenced acts of law (Human Rights Act and Equality Act), “contractual” obligations to students and the Somerville College’s ‘Freedom Of Speech Policy.’  He positioned his complaint as supportive of a “member of FSU” who is a student at Somerville.  It was a lot of fuss about very little but it was entirely within FSU’s reason for existing: Oppose anti-racism.

ST. ANDREWS: On a similar theme to the letter to Somerville, Young wrote to Vice-Chancellor of University Of St. Andrews on 21st October 2021 to complain about a training course that is a necessary part of matriculation for all students and includes a “diversity training” module wherein students must achieve a pass rate of fifteen correct answers to seventeen questions.

Just like his complaint to Somerville, Young chose to assume students would have only one opportunity to attain the required pass rate.

Young’s usual “we believe that this demand may be in breach of Human Rights Act, Equality Act and charity law” was followed by similar deceitful arguments used in the Somerville letter if “a student may disagree” with any expected answer to the diversity training’s questions.

He claimed an FSU member at St. Andrews “contacted” FSU (just like at Somerville), and he claimed CRT is unreliable because the Tories’ Commission On Race And Ethnic Disparities had said so.

On the issue of charity law Young’s complaint was driven by his political perspective that it is debatable that racism should be fought against.  “An educational charity may promote uncontroversial ethical truths but it may not promote propositions that are the subject of reasonable disagreement.”

OXFORD, STUDENTS’ UNION: On 25th June 2021 Young wrote to Oxford University Students’ Union (OUSU) to object to its creation of Student Consultancy Of Sensitivity Readers (SCSR) and the latter’s effect on Oxford Student, an OUSU newspaper. 

He said “any use it [Oxford Student] makes of the new service [SCSR] will be, ostensibly or actually, an act of obedience to its overly powerful owner – OUSU.”  Young’s wilful misunderstanding of how students’ unions operate encouraged him to complain about the effect on Oxford Student’s “editorial independence” and he noted “the safeguards on the Oxford Student’s independence are threadbare.”  He called OUSU the “proprietor” of Oxford Student and compared the relationship between the two to a national newspaper’s editorial relationship with an owner.  The newspaper is the OUSU newspaper but the OUSU is not the “owner” of the newspaper.  His argument was drivel. 

Young dug deeper in his hole by talking about his editorship of a newspaper at university.  “I would not have welcomed this kind of interference.  Nor would it have been helpful when it came to preparing me for a career as a journalist and editor.”  (Young has never had an independent idea in his life and has always done what his paymasters desired.)

His threats followed with another reference to the Higher Education (Free Speech) Bill.  “OUSU could face regulatory action by Office For Students,” (a deceptive quango invented by the Tories to interfere in education), “or even a claim for damages in the courts.  Should an Oxford journalist,” (that is, a student writing for the students’ union newspaper), “believe their speech rights have been breached by OUSU, we [FSU] would of course support them.”

ASTON: On 7th October 2021 Young wrote to Professor Alec Cameron, Vice-Chancellor of Aston University, Birmingham, regarding School Of Social Sciences And Humanities’ ‘Student Guide For Undergraduate Programmes In Sociology And Policy.’

The guide states which words and phrases students should seek to avoid in order not to offend.  It is a guide but Young presented it as a list of demands by the School.  He claimed “the document consists of clear and unambiguous demands.”  It doesn’t do so.  He added “students risk falling foul of this guidance by using a term whose meaning has changed since the guide was issued or which is retroactively deemed to be problematic.”  The students have no such risk.

Young’s overly dramatic account of how students might be affected by the guide was embellished by “we have been contacted by a first-year student at Aston” who “did not feel able to broach their concerns with the School or university directly, for fear of reprisals, and came to us to make representations on their behalf.”

Having created a fantasy of a scared student who just happened to have heard of FSU, Young revealed his real concern.  He objected to the School’s guide’s observation that “black refers to those who have a shared history of European colonialism, neo-colonialism, imperialism, ethnocentrism and racism” which he described as “not an impartial view.”

Young’s politics require absolute denial of the existence of systemic racism and of state racism.  He is opposed to factual descriptions of colonialism and imperialism, partly because he supports new colonialism and imperialism where perpetrators are international corporations and financial backers rather than nineteenth century state actors.

In response to the guide’s statement that “we strongly believe in Black Lives Matter” he chose to assume that meant “an expression of support for the BLM movement and its wider ideology.”  The guide did not mean what he chose to assume it meant, but, if it had, so what?

He mentioned the Higher Education (Freedom Of Speech) Bill.  “Given that the bill will soon become law, we find it extraordinary that Aston university should engage is such ideological thought policing.”  He prefers thought policing to be solely within the remit of libertarians.

DOWNING, CAMBRIDGE: The worst example of FSU’s opposition to anti-racism was its reaction to Downing College’s ‘Report Racism Guidance’ (DRR).  (Downing College is part of University of Cambridge.)  On 12th November 2021 Young wrote to Alan Bookbinder, Master at Downing College.

A tactic used by racists to try to smear anti-racists is to claim that anti-racism, particularly Black Lives Matter, is antisemitic.  The concocted reasoning of the racists includes opposition to the use of anything that promotes people of colour or that criticises “white supremacism” or similar because the racists claim it discriminates against Jewish people.  The fact that many Jewish people are black is a fact the racists sidestep.  

The tactic described above is one of the most nefarious political tricks in use.  Anyone who uses it displays their racism brightly and displays their antisemitism.  It is precisely the tactic used by Young in his letter to Bookbinder.

DDR noted that racism is “an ideology and a set of practices based on ideas of inherited white superiority that normalises control, domination and over people of colour, while legitimising privilege and oppression.”  That is a strong political description of racism.  It is also an accurate description of how racism is encountered and is an accurate analysis of the purpose of racism.

FSU is focussed on denying the intent of racism and on absolving the main perpetrators.  It supports fully the effects of racism, “legitimising privilege and oppression” as DDR said, because it supports fully the beneficiaries of such oppression, the wealthy elite.  Thus, FSU opposes forcefully any attempt to educate, impart knowledge or debate the true nature and meaning of racism.

Young said DDR’s definition of racism “is not the standard definition of racism.  It is a highly contentious definition rooted in Critical Race Theory (CRT).”  The definition is “highly contentious” among libertarian right-wing conservatives who fear any decline in white superiority.  He tried to back up his statement by stating that the Tories’ Commission On Race And Ethnic Disparities “recently criticised” CRT.

Young’s frequent use of Tory government’s opinions and policies as support for or proof of his assertions shows he and FSU have no interest in a philosophy of “free speech” but are driven entirely by a political stance they are confident is backed by the Tories.

He claimed DDR’s definition “violates the Equality Act” and that it “excludes anyone who has experienced racism by people of colour.”  FSU’s philosophy is to deny the reality of racism because the economic politics it supports requires racism as a tool of division and control.  In particular, it promotes relentlessly the denial of systemic racism.

Young said Downing’s “guidance” will exclude “Jewish, Irish and Polish staff and students.”  He chose to assume that there are no Jewish people of colour, or Irish or Polish; his own ingrained racism guided his point.

The process of FSU’s complaints often includes an individual complainant on whose behalf they claim they are acting.  For the complaint to Downing, Young said “one of our members is in a state of distress having stumbled upon” DDR “which they [the member] describe as essentially anti-Semitic in what is implied about anti-Jewish hatred not constituting racism.”  In scenarios where FSU acts on an individual’s behalf the person is always an FSU member first and a complainant second, chronologically.  The “stumbling upon” was, without doubt, an inaccurate description.

Of course, DDR does not imply what the FSU “member” said it did, and there is nothing antisemitic about the guidance from Downing.

Young said that some of Downing’s guidance “fuels discrimination and encourages suspicion against students and staff, particularly those who don’t identify as people of colour.”  He is so concerned about “white fragility.”

His main occupation in his professional life is to make extremism into mainstream policy.  This includes not only extremism being part of government policy but also replacing any other policy.  The slight, but significant, drift of Tory policy since 2016 toward shameless, reckless, anti-freedom, anti-society free-racketeering has been directed by well-connected nodes of libertarianism, and members thereof acquired positions as MPs and as members of the government.

Among the tools needed by Tories to achieve their aim are tools of division and of othering.  Young, and his colleagues at FSU (Murray, Shriver, Biggar, etc.), are very experienced in adept use of those tools, and they are very keen on extreme libertarian economic philosophy.  In isolation from the government, FSU could be dismissed with disdain, but the government is entirely in agreement.  Young’s repeated references to Higher Education (Freedom Of Speech) Bill in his letters to universities shows he is confident his intimidation can succeed.

Alongside Equality Act Young mentioned Human Rights Act and European Convention Of Human Rights in his threats to Downing.  A further threat noted Downing College’s charitable status.  “In presenting the highly controversial theory of CRT as indisputable fact your guidance does not present any type of balance and, therefore, does not adhere to the standard it is expected to hold according to charity law.  Indisputably, CRT presents an overt and social and political agenda.”

His contorted analysis of CRT quoted above was a very politically-biased analysis.  Tory government has taken several steps to prevent charities from telling the truth.  That policy sits beside hard-right libertarian think-tanks existing, fraudulently, as charities whose members are infested in government: Institute Of Economic Affairs, Tax-Payers’ Alliance, Centre For Policy Studies, Adam Smith Institute, Initiative For Free Trade, etc.

Having erroneously affirmed that his political agenda (fighting anti-racism) equates with law, Young warned “in order [for Downing[ to remain within the law, CRT should be presented as a theory for discussion only alongside material that offers alternative perspectives.”  His demand fell within the far-right perspective that wants racism to be a debatable topic.

Young concluded his nonsense with a threat preceded by sarcasm.

Sarcasm: “I can only assume these was some governance failure within Downing College that allowed this guidance to slip through.  I expect it will be remedied with urgency and in good faith.”
Threat: “Be aware that, if necessary, the FSU is prepared to take legal action, including the launching of judicial review proceedings, should this not be the case.”

OXFORD: On 6th March 2020 Young wrote to Proctor’s Office of Oxford University to complain about a decision to cancel an invitation to speak that was issued to the organiser of the racist attack against people who had emigrated to UK decades ago on the Windrush ship, namely former Home Secretary Amber Rudd.

As Young noted in his letter, the invitation was revoked by the same society – UNWomen Oxford UK Student Society (UNW) – that issued the invitation.  After quoting and mentioning some university “codes of practice” he made the arbitrary statement that “while the UNW is under no obligation to invite anyone to speak at its events, once it has extended an invitation to a particular speaker it is under an obligation not to rescind that invitation.”  That is, he made stuff up.

Responding to UNW’s apology to students for the initial invite to Rudd, Young spoke of power being given to “groups of activists and protesters” who “disapprove of her past behaviour.”  Rudd organised the scheme, designed by Theresa May, that denied the right-to-work, right to welfare, right to healthcare and the right to live in UK for thousands of people who moved to UK in 1950s, some of them as young children, causing loss of livelihoods, savings and, in many cases, lives, but Young called it “her past behaviour” opposed by “groups of activists and protesters.”  Rudd should be in a prison cell.

Just like an American Karen demanding to see the manager, Young exclaimed “I would like to lodge a formal complaint with the Proctor’s Office about the behaviour of the student officers who run UNW and ask that the decision to no-platform her be investigated as a possible breach of the university’s Code Of Discipline.  I do not believe the officers of the UNW are absolved because they extended the invitation to Rudd in the first place.”

Whether or not tax-dodging bankrupt Rudd is able to speak at a university is not important.  Young’s contorted argument was full of holes.  His reason for intervention is he saw students taking a stance against someone who had enacted a deliberate racist and illegal policy that destroyed many lives.

Other letters of complaint
Some of Young’s letters are sent to non-educational bodies.  The motivation for sending them, their structure and their intent are similar to the university letters.

OFCOM: On 30th April 2021 Young wrote to Ofcom to pre-empt any possible action it might take following complaints to it from viewers regarding race-related comments about Duchess Of Sussex by FSU Media Advisory Council member Julia Hartley-Brewer on This Morning show on ITV earlier in the month.  There was never any possibility that Ofcom would take any action against ITV and, so, Young’s letter was unnecessary, and it was also an insult to Ofcom because he assumed it would not have been able to decide how to respond to the viewers’ complaints without the assistance of the General Secretary of the Free Speech Union.

He quoted the Broadcasting Code and European Convention On Human Rights, selectively.

Most pertinently, Young included in his letter his own views that he presented as facts.  He declared that Hartley-Brewer was “was not making light of the issue of racism.”   However, a sentence earlier Young put the word “racism” in quotes: “We understand that some complaints to Ofcom have accused Ms. Hartley-Brewer of laughing at or joking about ‘racism’.”  He described Hartley-Brewer as a “journalist and broadcaster.”

It was a daft letter but its purpose was to support the right of The Gits to exclaim offensively whenever they want.  He claimed, wrongly, broadcasting rules and human rights prevented TV and radio from making decisions to exclude offensive comments.

IKEA: On 21st June 2021 Young wrote to IKEA regarding its decision to stop advertising on far-right, anti-vaccine, anti-lockdown, anti-knowledge, anti-fact, libertarian-owned, pseudo news channel GB News.  Several companies withdrew their advertising from GB News after a successful and informative campaign by anti-racist organisation Stop Funding Hate (SFH).  The campaign began ahead of the launch of GB News as the latter’s political position was clear due to the identity of its owners and staff and due to comments by its (now departed) chair Andrew Neil who emphasised proudly how “anti-woke” (i.e. racist) GB News would be.

Young’s description of GB News was expectedly biased.  He claimed “nothing GB News has broadcast has been remotely, racist, misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic or anything else” and described it as a “politically independent” TV channel.  He went further and, as a response to comparisons between GB News and Fox News, said “the Murdoch-owned television network (Fox) may be right-of-centre but there’s nothing racist about it.”

Most of his letter to IKEA was denigration of SFH. whom he called “a left-wing lobby group” that “targets mainstream publications and broadcasters whose political views it disagrees with” and “a left-wing anti-free speech lobby group that seeks to silence opponents by whipping up outrage mobs on social media.”  He accused SFH of using “underhand tactics,” of having a “hard-left ideology” and whose “campaigns involve just a handful of hashtag activists.”  Young’s emotive language was a ham-fisted attempt to plant the idea in the minds of anyone reading the letter of SFH being unreliable as complainants.

There was a very telling feature of his letter to IKEA.  He said SFH aimed to “panic low-level employees [of IKEA or other businesses] such as the people operating the social media account.  SFH banks on the fact that once these decisions [to agree to boycott] have been made public, even though they’ve usually been made without consulting the CEO, let alone the Board, companies will then stick to them to avoid embarrassment.”

Young’s insults toward “low-level employees” were embellished and countered by fawning ego-stroking of senior personnel.  “I assume that you [Jesper Brodin, Chair and CEO of Ingka Group, to whom the letter was addressed] were not consulted about this decision, and nor was Peter Jekelby, the CEO of IKEA UK, because you would, I’m sure, have advised against such a move that risks alienating large swathes of your customers.”

What young did was to describe an invented difference, of importance and of worth, between, on the one hand, “low-level employees,” a grassroots campaign group and members of the public, and, on the other (unduly elevated) hand, senior executive personnel and General Secretary of the Free Speech Union Toby Young.  He displayed obsequiousness toward executives while positioning himself on their level.

Do Young’s ridiculous and threatening letters succeed?
Responses to his letters varied.  Some recipients, particularly some of the universities, chose to follow his demands, partly because the issues he raised were not the most important part of students’ education and partly because legal action could be prohibitively expensive for the universities; others responded with polite acknowledgement but did not alter their plans because they were (rightly) confident that Young’s bluster was not grounded in reality; a few ignored him.

The correct response to a Young FSU letter of complaint is a three-step procedure.

  1. Wipe one’s backside on the letter;
  2. Flush it;
  3. Get on with your life.

If and when Higher Education (Freedom Of Speech) Bill becomes law, FSU will be demanding its use relentlessly.  It will be a battle between true educators who desire full rounded knowledge against extremists like FSU who are intent on censoring knowledge.

Like all far-right libertarians, FSU turns reality on its head.  Its claim to be in support of free speech is countered by its actions to supress knowledge.  It opposes efforts to fight racism while complaining about “anti-white racism.”  It opposes any attempts to help people of colour but whines about its members being “in a state of distress.”

FSU should not have any influence on anything.  However, combination of bottomless supply of dark money funding and full collaboration of like-minded Tory government means it can coerce places of education and others into restricting their attempts to report, teach and speak openly and fully.

As Nafeez Ahmed showed, FSU’s political philosophy is monstrous.

YoungGuiliani
Two peas in a pod: Toby Young (left) and Rudy Guiliani

Some words from a human perspective
On 5th December 2021 actor George Takei spoke about his experience in internment in USA during WWII and spoke about the need to learn all history.

“These days, a premium is being placed on whether white kids might feel bad about their own heritage after learning about things like American genocide, slavery or internment.  But no one asks what it’s like for minority kids to learn about these things.

When I was growing up inside internment camps, my parents tried to shield me from the horror of what was happening.  I even recited the Pledge of Allegiance daily from a classroom inside the barbed wire. ‘With liberty and justice for all,’ I said, not grasping the irony.

It wasn’t until I was older that I began to question what had happened.  It made me very angry, not only at the country that did this to us without cause, but against my own father.  ‘You led us like sheep to slaughter!’ I cried.  He was silent.  ‘Maybe we did,’ was all he said.

That tore at my family.  No one wanted to talk about how painful those years had been, not in our household, not in most Japanese American households.  To do so was to relive that very real pain. But the truth has a way of pulling you back into it.

I spent the latter half of my life telling our truth, however painful it was.  The truth matters because without it we cannot ever truly heal.  Without it, we cannot ever learn from our horrific mistakes.  To avoid the truth is to avoid our sacred obligation.

When the right tells white parents that their children are being made to feel bad about our history, remember first that this isn’t just about white children.  It is about all of us.  Japanese American children, Black, Native and Latino children.  We owe them the truth, too.

We need to reframe the current debate around truth, not around kids’ assumed fragility.  I lived through years of internment and still didn’t know the truth until I came to ask the right questions.  Our experience should be more than a thrown away paragraph in a history book.

Without a full accounting of our true history, we cannot ever break the cycle of denial and recurrence.  The same system that produced the horrors of the past cannot be reformed without painful examination under the lens of truth.  That is what we must demand and teach.”

Sulu

Be like George.

Don’t be like Toby.

Free Speech Union: Intimidation, anti-dialectics and invented legalese

The Spectator parliamentary awards 2021

Yesterday, 24th November 2021, extreme-right weekly magazine The Spectator held its annual parliamentary awards. 

It was an opportunity for Tory MPs to take a break from destroying the fabric of society, wrecking people’s lives and lying through their rectums, and spend a few hours in the company of some of the most rancid, bigoted and nasty “commentators” to ever be paid to spout bile.

Chaired by king of far-right grifting Andrew Neil and edited by Fraser Nelson The Spectator’s current regular contributors include Rod Liddle, Lionel Shriver, Douglas Murray and Kate Andrews.  It is a cacophony of extreme libertarian economics, racism and charlatanism.  It is the antithesis of morality and of humanity.

There was no surprise to see The Spectator laud disciples of Hayek like Liz Truss (politician to watch awardee) and Nadhim Zahawi (minister to watch) and it was equally unsurprising for the Tory party to promote such a hate-filled, dishonest rag.  Symbiotic support among people whose sole focus is ensuring that the torrent of money from poorest to wealthiest continues unabated and by whatever means necessary.

Not just Tory MPs were present and in receipt of awards.  New colonialist think-tank Henry Jackson’s Society’s Chris Bryant (speech of the year) accepted his award with a friendly joke toward decrepitly corrupt Jacob Rees-Mogg, a joke that erased entirely any sincerity in the speech that won the award wherein he attacked Tories on 3rd November for their attempt to shut down parliamentary scrutiny of MP’s behaviour.  His demeanour at The Spectator event revealed how that speech was performative, nothing more.

Equally, Angela Rayner (disruptor of the year) showed, by her presence at the event, that her (excellent) comments at the Labour party conference on “Etonian scum” were also just a performance.

SpectatorMay
Theresa May, backbencher of the year

NHS is being deliberately underfunded leading to loss of life as Tories continue step-by-step privatisation for the benefit of their offshore donors, deaths from Covid are rising again as a direct consequence of Tory policy, negative effects of Brexit are increasing in quantity and size, Tories are processing a variety of bills through parliament that remove freedoms, democracy and human rights, and, on the same day, twenty-seven people, including children, drowned in the English Channel because of the extremism of the Tory government, but MPs from both the government and the “opposition” had a night out kissing the arse cheeks of a magazine that can, without exaggeration, be compared to Mein Kampf.

The entire political system in the UK stinks.  British democracy is a sham.

Related blogs
Andrew Neil, the king of far-right grifting
Henry Jackson Society
Tory government: Absolute pile of Etonian piece of scum
Libertarian protagonists: Douglas Murray

The Spectator parliamentary awards 2021

Boris Johnson at CBI: Dead cat behaviour while NHS destroyed

A oft-used tactic by Boris Johnson’s advisers, as means of distraction from Tories’ destruction, is for him to play the Etonian fool.  Gurning, laughter, apparent confusion, dishevelment, looking a bit inebriated, coarse humour and general tomfoolery are behavioural dead cats he utilises to focus the attention of observers, particularly opponents, onto him rather than on vicious Tory attacks on the entire infrastructure of British society.

Today (22nd November 2021) in a speech to Confederation Of British Industry (CBI) Johnson chose to pretend to lose his way in his prepared speech accompanied by utterances of alleged confusion and random word salads.  His performance, that also included praise for a children’s animated TV show (Peppa Pig) as an example of British industry success, was an act where he played a comic character who had (allegedly) failed to prepare and who couldn’t improvise readily.

We have been subjected to this act many times before.  He plays the part well.  The simple objective is to encourage airtime, newspaper column inches and social media conversations to be filled with comments about his ineptitude, unprofessionalism and general unsuitability to be prime minister.  Such commentary might be accurate but Johnson’s unappealing persona should not be the focus.

On the same day (today) as Johnson’s CBI performance the Health And Care Bill is debated in the House Of Commons.  This Tory bill is designed to destroy the NHS.  It’s objective is to use people’s ill-health or injury as a source of unending income for racketeers in health service and in care.

Deliberate under-funding of NHS including deliberate refusal to maintain staff numbers is causing people to die while waiting for emergency treatment, either waiting for an ambulance to arrive or in an ambulance waiting at a hospital.  Engineered collapse of NHS services is a policy of the Tories to try to present a need for “reform” where “reform” means removal of NHS. 

That is happening today.  So, Johnson does his act, the media lap it up excitedly, and the focus is on the buffoon, not on the evil, murderous bastard.

Stop falling for it.

Boris Johnson at CBI: Dead cat behaviour while NHS destroyed

Nadine Dorries

Not all Tory MPs are Etonians.  Some Tory MPs emerge differently.  Often described erroneously as “working-class Tories” their differences to poshboys are minor.  They might have had to do a proper job for a while and their accumulated though unearned wealth might be bereft of much inheritance, but all else is the same.

However, those small early differences linger as useful tools both for the party – to depict itself as a broader political church than it is – and for any non-Etonian MP who can call up her or his background as spurious justification for certain philosophies and policies. 

Tory government uses the existence of such interlopers to add faux sincerity to fake proposals to bolster con-tricks and lies.  For example, in late 2021 the Tories’ “levelling up” and “social mobility” programmes, both of which are equine excrement, include regular supportive comments from MPs whose upbringing was less Etonian than others.

DorriesJohnson
Nadine Dorries, left

Nadine Dorries, Tories’ new Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), had an ordinary working-class upbringing and was a nurse for a few years.  Her life became less ordinary having married a property-, business- and investment-speculator.  She created a private child-care business and sold it to private healthcare company BUPA who also gave her a job.  After her political career had begun she wrote several novels published as e-books based on stories told to her when she was a nurse; the novels were panned by critics.  Toward the end of his life her husband had several disastrous financial episodes costing himself and many other people hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Dorries’ parliamentary career includes the usual Tory traits.  Among her financial wrongdoings were expenses claims for a second home that was actually her main residence, an expense claim for a media and public affairs business, publicly-funded salaries for her daughter and for her sister for alleged work at her constituency office – her daughter lived almost 100 miles from the office, and a £10.000 claim for work compiling a report that neither she nor anyone in her office compiled. 

In 2012 she appeared on a reality TV show while an MP thus removing her from her job for three weeks.  She informed neither the Tory parliamentary party nor her local party that she was about to leave parliament to appear on a TV show.  Tory party removed the whip.  It was returned after Dorries threatened to join UKIP.  She refused to state her salary for her TV work in the register of members’ interests, refused to answer a question on it from the parliamentary commissioner for standards, and claimed she didn’t need to reveal it because it was paid to her company not to her.  

As an MP she tried repeatedly to reduce the time limit for abortions, she published a parliamentary bill that sought inclusion of promotion of abstinence in school sex education, but only for girls not boys, she said benefit claimants who use social media frequently should be reported to the DWP, and she went on a jolly to oil-rich Equatorial Guinea, governed by a brutal dictator.

Dorries’ skillset as a communicator incudes the full Tory range from daft to abusive to dishonest to hateful. 

Daft
A fervent supporter of Brexit, she complained that Theresa May’s proposed deal with EU “gives us no MEPs.” 

On June 6th 2017 she produced some bizarre spelling and a very strange juxtaposition.  “Some Conservative posters have been daubed with swass stickers – hard to believe any decent person would vote for Corbyn’s Jew hating mob.”

On 10th January 2014 she claimed there would be a “tidal wave of immigrants from Yugoslavia.”  Yugoslavia ceased to exist in 2003.

Abusive
Personal abuse and bigoted abuse are common characteristics of Dorries’ published statements and are a daily occurrence.

On 27th October 2017 she used an ablest slur.  “Window lickin’ twitter trolls out in force today.”  As a response to criticism of her language she claimed she was unaware of the meaning of the phrase, a claim that is not believable since she used the phrase exactly to mean someone with mental health issues.

Dishonest
In March 2020 she stated “Italy has stopped intubating patients over sixty years old.  All ICU [Covid] patients on ventilators are below sixty and not one has been weaned back off to breathe independently.”  Her remark was a blatant lie.  Rightly, the Italian ambassador to UK described her assertion as “fake news.”

In May 2021 she said 180,000 jobs were created in Hartlepool due to Brexit.  The town’s population is estimated to be about 95,000.

On 6th March 2015 she said her mother was “an English protestant.”  On January 21st 2018 she said she had a “Jewish mother.”

No far-right extremist is too extreme to receive a supportive boost from Dorries or to be used as a source of information including Stephen Yaxley-Lennon and Guido Fawkes.  She promoted a clip produced by a far-right activist of a doctored video of Keir Starmer speaking when he was Director Of Public Prosecutions.

Hateful
Dorries reacts angrily when found out or when her disreputable behaviour is criticised.  In response to reporting on her daughter’s fake job funded by the public Dorries targetted journalist Ben Glaze by publishing a threatening and libellous statement on 22nd November 2013: “Ben Glaze of the Sunday Mirror has an interest in my three daughters which borders on decidedly creepy/ stalker esque.  Here is a message: Be seen within a mile of my daughters and I will nail your balls to the floor using your own front teeth.  Do you get that?”  Two days later she added “people who work for your paper are bottom-feeding scum.”

Racism is thrown around with confidence.  On 10th May 2012, after an appearance on lightweight satirical TV quiz show Have I Got News For You? (HIGNFY) alongside USA comedian Reginald D. Hunter Dorries said “I have now left the HIGNFY after party.  As I looked over my shoulder, Reginald D Hunter was talking to my daughter,” and added, in the style of a USA confederate, “where’s my shotgun, man?

On 9th April 2013 her enjoyment of racist behaviour was evident when she asked “apparently I’m racist because I think Chuck Umunna looks like Chris Eubank?”  By “Chuck” she meant “Chuka.”  Former politician Umunna and former boxer Eubank look nothing like each other.  She responded to criticism of her comment by claiming that a similarity between the two people was an “arrogant smirk.”

On 4th February 2019 she commented on a video clip of journalist Ash Sarkar appearing on BBC by calling her (Labour parliamentary candidate) Faiza Shaheen.  She said later that she had only heard the video and claimed she confused their voices.

The quoted comments above are a tiny example of her daily output of petulance, lies, name-calling and provocation. 

The normal Tory accompaniment to such behaviour are performative complaints when anyone retorts and Dorries is keen to accuse responders of abuse if the latter dare to disagree or criticise.

On 2nd December 2015, replying to a reasonable suggestion from someone that “shouldn’t you be doing more important things than spending your time on Twitter” with a reference to an important parliamentary vote on conflict in Syria, Dorries said “I am a woman with a brain and a phone in my hand whereas you, are just a woman with a phone.”  (Her brain does not have room for the spelling of “swastika” or for understanding that a country not in the EU will not have MEPs.)

Hypocrite
Dorries’ written communication strategy is not untypical for a Tory.  However, her style altered after she was appointed DCMS Secretary, particularly online.  The abrupt and distinct change in style, tone and topics, alongside a new reluctance to reply to messages, could almost indicate that she is no longer the author and her online communications are handled by a member of her DCMS team, or by a professional communications person.

For example, on 2nd November 2021 she said (correctly) “[cricketer] Azeem Rafiq’s treatment after the racism he faced was disgusting, and the investigation that followed only makes it even worse. The ECB [England And Wales Cricket Board] investigation must be swift and fully transparent.  Racism must be confronted, and NEVER written off as just ‘banter’.”  Her sensible words there are very different from themes in her earlier comments.

On 5th November 2021, promoting Tory’s Online Harms Bill (OHB), her statement of intent contradicted her earlier behaviour online.  “Social media companies: Take note now.  When harm is caused, we’re coming after it.  The world is watching to see how we legislate to deal with online abuse, harm and disinformation.  We will lead the way and we will not disappoint.”

Government control
The real purpose of OHB is to censor the public’s online communications under the guise of protecting the public from “harm” whilst simultaneously preventing social media platforms from removing far-right propaganda under the guise of protecting “free speech.”

OFCOM is supposed to be the regulator of social media but in section 33 of the OHB it states that “the Secretary of State [Dorries] may direct OFCOM to modify a code of practice [for social media platforms] submitted under section 32(1) where the Secretary of State believes that modifications are required to ensure that the code of practice reflects government policy.”

Alex Herne summed up the intent of OHB in a Guardian article on 12th May 2021.  “The message of the bill is simple: take down exactly the content the government wants taken down, and no more.  Guess wrong and you could face swingeing fines.  Keep guessing wrong and your senior managers could even go to jail.”

Government control of supposedly “independent” NGOs (non-government organisations) is a theme of DCMS methodology.  On the government website (gov.uk) on 12th September 2021 her immediate predecessor Oliver Dowden published a statement on recruitment of new Charity Commission chair wherein he said “some charities appear to have been hijacked by a vocal minority seeking to burnish their woke credentials.  In so doing they not only distract charities from their core missions but also waste large amounts of time and money.  I’m quite sure this is not what the millions of British people who donate to charities every year had intended their hard earned and thoughtfully donated cash to be spent on.”

Dowden’s comments were a clear political message to any candidates for the position of Charity Commission chair.  When challenged by Good Law Project on the process for appointing the chair, a process passed on to Dorries, she refused to cooperate.

On 7th October [2021], we asked Nadine Dorries to hand over the list of questions that were put to interviewees, and to explain what ministerial involvement there had been in the hiring process.  When she finally responded on 19th October she said, confusingly, that she had decided not to disclose the details we had asked for, in order to ‘retain the integrity’ of the interview process – a process which had already concluded.” Good Law Project 28th October 2021

Social media versus wealthy proprietors’ media
OHB includes protection of the ability of media outlets – newspapers, TV, radio and web-based news services – to publish whatever they want on social media platforms without threat of removal of content or closure of accounts. 

The motivation for this protection is partly financial – the continuous huge tax-dodged profits of Murdoch, Barclay, Rothermere, etc. – and partly political.  Most newspapers, TV and radio are conservative.  There are several well-funded far-right pseudo-news networks whose social media posts have been subject to censorship by social media networks; Dorries wants to make such censorship illegal.

In an article for Manchester Evening News on 1st November 2021 Dorries said “journalism matters” and “our democracy relies on it.  Good journalism exposes wrongdoing and injustice, it scrutinises people in power and it champions and celebrates good causes.”  There is little connection between her analysis and the state of British journalism in newspapers, on radio and on TV.

On local newspapers she said “at the heart of our news industry are local newspapers, powered by the reported, copy editors, photographers and publishers working 24-7 to bring us trusted news and information.  Their papers – like the Bedford Times And Citizen, in my own constituency – are the pillars of their communities.”  Dorries omitted that Bedford Times And Citizen is owned by JPIMedia, a business that owns 172 newspapers in UK, and that JPIMedia is owned by National World plc, which is run by media magnate and former News Of the World editor David Montgomery.

After more praise for “journalism” – “I want to pay tribute to the people who keep those papers in print. They work incredibly hard – not always in the easiest of circumstances – to keep us informed and entertained.” – the purpose of her comments was revealed by “their [newspapers’] work has become even more important in the internet age.  Every day we all go online and check our Facebook feeds, or scroll through Twitter or Instagram.  Each time we do so, we can be exposed to worrying misinformation.”

Just in case readers of her words were unable to deduce her intent, she stated it unambiguously.

We’ve introduced a trailblazing Online Safety Bill that will make us one of the first countries in the world to force tech companies to clean up their sites.  But, crucially for journalists, that Bill will also prevent social media firms from arbitrarily taking down content from respected news organisations.”

When Dorries says “journalists” she means their wealthy tax-dodging employers’ financial interests.

Via OHB, real independent journalists will be censored while wealthy proprietors’ news outlets will be allowed to publish whatever lies and misdirection they like wherever they like.  (Note that Julian Assange and Craig Murray are in jail but Alistair Heath, Oliver Letwin, Tom Newton-Dunn and Tom Harwood have careers feted by the Tories.)

An interesting aside to her support for “journalists” who “scrutinise people in power” is her reaction to comments made by broadcaster James O’Brien of LBC radio.  Three years ago, in response to criticism of her by O’Brien, Dorries endorsed the following comments.

I believe James O’Brien is a hate preacher, a UK hater and an apologist for Islamist atrocities.  I also believe he should be sacked [by LBC].”

Juxtaposition of death of an MP and online abuse
Tory MP David Amess was killed at a constituency meeting on 15th October 2021.  The only connection between his killing and online activity was that the meeting was advertised online.

On 25th October 2021 Dorries saidthe heinous events [the killing of Amess] have highlighted two awful facts. The online arena remains the home of disgusting, often anonymous abuse, and a place where people are radicalised.” She offered no proof of connection between online activity and the killer’s motivation for killing him, and she admitted that “our efforts to introduce legislation to make the UK the safest place in the world to be online might not have changed what happened last week.”

Dorries merely used his killing as an introduction to her precis of the intent of OHB.

Online hate has poisoned public life.  It’s often unbearable.  And it has to end.  We have the legislation to do it.  OHB is one of the most ambitious pieces of legislation in the internet age.”

Different background, same Tory philosophy
Dorries knows who pays the bills of the Tory party.  She knows who she works for, and that isn’t the British public.  She knows that the role of DCMS is to censor political opposition, dampen knowledge and promote libertarian perspectives.

Related blogOliver Dowden, culture war and selective history

Nadine Dorries

Net zero referendum?

Following victory in 2016 EU referendum the directors of political acts in favour of extreme exploitation and wealth concentration are keen to continue to persuade and inure governments and the public to make high-consequence decisions that suit wealthiest and most assiduous exploiters.

Net zero
Action by many governments to tackle effects of climate change and to restrict its causes includes stated aim of “net zero.”  According to Oxford Net Zero “‘net zero’ refers to a state in which greenhouse gases going into the [earth’s] atmosphere are balanced by removal out of the atmosphere.”  With considerably more rhetoric than progress governments have regular meetings about achieving net zero and proclaim assurances of some woolly route toward net-zero by an arbitrarily chosen year, usually 2030 but, as time passes, the choice of year recedes further into the future.

(The net zero target is a target for the entire planet; it doesn’t mean every country must be individually net zero.)

As net zero is a measurable figure it is impossible for governments, collectively or unilaterally, to declare it has been attained if it has not.  For every act that occurs, in favour of net zero or against it, there can be a measurement of the effect of that act on the balance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.  Results of any proposals for action can also be measured to a reasonable degree of accuracy. 

How to achieve net zero
The most effective methods of restoring atmospheric balance include

  1. Generating all electricity via solar power, dams, waves and wind
  2. Removal of all fossil fuel powered transportation
  3. Termination of oil and gas extraction
  4. Ceasing deforestation and planting billions of trees

All are achievable if will exists to do so.

But, all are direct threats to profit-gathering ideology of the most extreme exploiters in the world.

Opponents of net zero
Oil, gas, agribusiness and meat production are four of the largest industries in the world.  Each has international ownership.  All are focussed on wealth generation with complete disregard for consequences.

Owners of the four industries are also owners of media outlets, think-tanks, lobby groups, education establishments and charities. 

Owners of the four industries are regular large donors to political parties throughout the world.

For each of the four industries, and for each of their financial backers/creditors, there exists a revolving door between senior executive positions and elected politicians: Corporate executives are planted in parliaments, and ex-politicians are assured of lucrative roles, often in roles that work with the same government department where the politicians worked.  In the latter case a politician starts work for his future employer while an MP.

Stopping net zero
Despite clarity that net zero is a help to slowing down climate change, despite demonstrable effects of climate change on weather patterns, despite demonstrable effects of changing weather patterns on quality of life, particularly food sources, despite availability and continuing refinements of non-fossil fuel technologies, and despite additional benefits of cleaner air and cleaner seas, the aforementioned four industries do not see beyond their wealth gathering and they know actions taken to attain net zero harm their enormous profits.  It is impossible for them to perceive anything else.  For them, net zero must not be a target for governments.

If governments try to avoid net zero by lying about their intent then they will be spotted quickly due to the measurability of the effects on the atmosphere by their actions; thus, if governments claim they are aiming for net zero then they have to execute genuine and visible action.

Without the possibility of reliance on government dishonesty a new strategy to stop net zero is needed: Persuade the public to make the decision to cancel net zero as a desired target, preceded by promotion of the necessity of a plebiscite on net zero.

Net zero referendum
The EU referendum was planned for over a decade.  A weak Tory party led by hapless Etonian David Cameron felt compelled to call a referendum. 

The machine to promote departure from the EU was operated by people who had prepared well: They knew how to fund their campaign via dark money [1], how to bypass electoral rules on funding and how to use combination of data and social media networks regardless of legality.  Their strategy was relentless, repetitive lying, misdirection and conmanship.

Their reason for supporting Brexit was enablement of a bonfire of rights – workers’ rights, legal rights, human rights, food standards, etc. – alongside enhancement of opportunities for disaster capitalism [2].  Their ultimate aim is creation of charter cities [3], playgrounds for exploiters where all basic rights are removed, including democracy: Corporate fascism.

Cancellation of commitment to net zero has a smaller intent than Brexit.  The former aims for continued huge wealth generation for the four industries. 

In a net zero referendum funding (dark money) for the anti-net zero option and tactics used (data manipulation, relentless lies and bypassing electoral regulations) will be the same as they were for Brexit.

Libertarian nudging has begun on net zero referendum
On 26th October (2021) Telegraph newspaper published an alleged survey that claimed majority public support for a net zero referendum.  

In an article for Open Democracy, The Brexit dark money lobby has a new target – climate change action, Peter Geoghegan showed connections between promoters of net zero referendum and listed its backers.  He noted that the aforesaid survey was produced by Car26 (Climate Analysis reason), a campaign group

registered at Companies House only last month.  Its public face and director – Lois Perry – is a representative for Reclaim, the culture war party fronted by Laurence Fox, and bankrolled by Brexit donor Jeremy Hosking

and that Car26’s comms are handled by Blue Sky Strategy

a tiny communications company run by a small group of Brexit veterans, including Rebecca Ryan, who is director of the astroturf Defund the BBC campaign and who used to work alongside Vote Leave’s former chief technology officer, Thomas Borwick.”

Car26’s rhetoric uses the usual presentation of fraudulent far-right manipulation and misdirection including 

free speech and debate are being replaced by a woke humourless consensus controlled by a remote elite abetted by a cowed media and bought-off ‘experts’ and institutions.” – Lois Perry, October 2021

LoisPerry
Lois Perry (right) and friends

Libertarian broadcasters LBC and GB News gave platforms to Car26 and backed its referendum proposal.  Veteran far-right grifter Nigel Farage suggested on his GB News TV show he would be keen to be part of the anti net zero campaign.

Consequences of public vote against trying to achieve net zero
If a referendum took place and if the public voted against a net zero target then what ensues would depend entirely on the objectives of the government at the time. 

A libertarian government like the current Tory government would use such a referendum result as permission to continue to wreck the country and the environment to favour wealth concentration. 

However, an intelligent government could retain its plans but simply remove “net zero” as a stated aim.  That is, it could still proceed with replacement of fossil fuels, it could still proceed with a switch to electric vehicles, and it could still halt deforestation and plant more trees but present its actions in terms other than specifically aiming at net zero.

Similar to Brexit, a referendum result’s consequences are wholly dependent on what type of government is in power afterward.  If Labour won either of 2017 or 2019 general elections then Brexit would be very different to Tories’ calamity.

Resist the referendum
It is important to resist fraudulent demands for a referendum on net zero.  The resistance must not allow itself to be directed by niet zero [4] manipulators’ arguments.

It is much more important to seek a change of government in UK.  A good government would ensure that a referendum would be pointless.

Notes
[1] Dark money: Large anonymous funding of political campaigns
[2] Disaster capitalist: Capitalist who uses countries with collapsing economies as opportunities to steal public infrastructure
[3] Charter cities: Corporate administered states within states where democracy and rights are absent; modern feudalism
[4] Niet zero: Extremist libertarian ideology, to assist wealth generation in fossil fuel and agribusiness industries, that opposes governments’ attempts to attain net zero

 

Net zero referendum?

MPs’ second jobs are their real jobs

Complaints about MPs’ “second” jobs focus on

  1. Time taken out of the job of being an MP
  2. Political influence applied on behalf of the “second” employer

Both points are fair observations.  Being an MP is more than a full-time job; it is supposed to be a vocation.  The second point describes normal behaviour of MPs: The recent guilty verdict of Owen Paterson’s corruption was a drop in a fetid ocean, both for him and for parliament.

However, a point missed is that MPs (particularly Tory and DUP but not excluding others) become MPs, or are planted in parliament, in order to work for others.  Their entire remit is to channel public money into hands of wealth gatherers.  Their “second” jobs are their real jobs; their jobs as MPs exist to enable success of their real jobs.

The process that creates plants in parliament varies.  A sitting MP might be offered a lucrative non-job, often described as a “consultancy” role, post tenure and she or he starts working for a future employer while an MP; or, an employee, shareholder or co-owner of a large business might be parachuted into an available parliamentary safe seat and continue working for that business while allegedly an MP.

Billions upon billions of pounds are passed on each year to real employers of MPs.  Acquiring these funds is the sole purpose of such MPs.  Tory party’s key reason for existence is to facilitate transfer of public money into privateers’ offshore accounts. 

Necessarily, businesses that pretend to offer work for public services are the greatest beneficiaries.

geoffrey-cox
Geoffrey Cox MP

It is important to be aware that “corruption” of MPs via being paid to lobby government and paid to vote in the payer’s interest, such as Paterson’s recent activities or earlier behaviour of Neil Hamilton, is an inadequate description of how the UK system operates.  Most MPs, including all Tory MPs, act on behalf of fleecers who use the public purse as a million acre forest of free money trees, and that is the MPs’ only job.

Related blogProtecting corruption is tory party’s ideological priority/

MPs’ second jobs are their real jobs

Eton College timetable

A day of Eton College’s timetable for sixth-formers has been leaked.

8-30: Markets review: Pupils review yesterday’s stock exchange and discuss their investments.  The pupil who had the most lucrative day receives ten hectares of land stolen from an indigenous farmer in Africa, Asia or South America.

9-30: English literature: Uproarious laughter abounds as pupils recite their favourite passages from the novels of Charles Dickens.

10-10: Geography: Arable land in the Cayman Islands.

11-00: Psychology: As part of the Deception course guest speaker and alumnus David Cameron describes skills needed to evade, obfuscate and lie including a demonstration accompanied by alumnus Douglas Murray role-playing as a journalist.

12-15: Lunch, followed by a nap.

1-00: Business skills (tax): Practical lesson in which pupils, as owners of imaginary businesses in a mock scenario, use skills learnt earlier in the course to avoid as much tax as possible in a financial year.  Pupils who pay more than 1% tax have to wear the uniform of a public service employee for the remainder of the day, including the shoes.

2-45: History: From Benito Mussolini to Shanker Singham – Libertarianism’s greatest achievers.

3-45: Tea, followed by a nap.

4-15: Careers advice: Guidance on how to assume a lucrative role in politics, law, business or writing without the necessity of knowledge or hard work.

5-15: Laundry: Pupils assist the college’s finance team with book-keeping.

6-00: Nap.

Eton College timetable

Labour Future Candidates Programme

On Thursday 14th October 2021 successful applicants for Labour’s Future Candidates Programme (to be trained as potential Labour parliamentary candidates) were notified of their acceptance onto the programme.  They acknowledged their success with similarly worded and similarly structured social media messages that were sent at approximately the same time; each message included the same drawing (of a generic town hall frontage).  None of the messages included any political comments.

Successful candidates included serving councillors, a few longstanding Labour members and some who were not previously members of Labour.

According to Labour our aim is to have a trained cohort of individuals who reflect the full diversity of our society, who understand what it means to stand for the Labour Party and what is expected of a Labour Party Parliamentary candidate at the next General Election, and who understand the lives of those they are seeking to represent.” Why you can be a Future Candidate

Successful applicants included the following

David Taylor: On 29th September 2021, two weeks before his application to be part of Future Candidates programme was accepted, he said, referring to Keir Starmer,

what a difference it makes to have to have a leader of integrity in this country.” 

That comment was made a few days after Starmer abandoned all the pledges he made during the Labour leadership campaign in 2020. 

Taylor is a keen supporter of NATO military occupation of other countries.  On 15th August 2021, responding to Zarah Sultana’s accurate analysis that “permanent foreign military occupations can never be the basis for the development of democratic societies.  They are the negation of popular sovereignty, and by definition strangle democracy.  Anyone arguing otherwise is effectively defending colonial rule” he said

even if they [a government] were coming to power through elections, if that leads to massive persecution of minorities or entire genders, how can that be legitimate either?  This person [Sultana] should not be in the Labour Party let alone an MP.” 

That is, Taylor thinks anyone who opposes UK military occupation of another country should be barred from being a UK MP. 

He attacks Jeremy Corbyn relentlessly for the latter’s desire for peaceful solutions to conflicts; Taylor prefers the bomb and/or invade strategy, or “humanitarian intervention.”

His hatred of socialists encourages him to throw libellous accusations around, particularly at anyone who opposes British militarism.  On 13th December 2019 he called Labour’s front bench

this disgusting band of genocide deniers and anti-Semitism enablers.”

He supported Gerard Coyne in the Unite General Secretary election.  Responding to a comment on Cuba by outgoing General Secretary Len McCluskey Taylor said

the Cuban regime doesn’t allow free trade unions. Vote for Gerard Coyne.” 

He is aware that, as a communist country with state-run industries, Cuba has very strong trade unions but the “free” trade unions that Taylor said were absent would be “free” in the right-wing pro-capitalist sense. 

On August 9th 2015 he displayed his contempt for democracy.

I welcome growing calls to suspend Labour leadership contest.  Wrong to go ahead when Party has no idea who new voters are.” 

On 9th September 2020 he demanded that any Labour member who expresses support for Cuba or Venezuela should be expelled from the party. 

[New code of conduct for NEC members] should include expulsion for anyone tweeting in support of / appearing at events celebrating dictatorial regimes e.g. Iran, Cuba, Venezuela.

and on 18th March 2021 he claimed Venezuela is not a democracy.  He objected to the decision by the people of Bolivia to vote for the re-election of Evo Morales.

Phil Brickell: Brickell is a “convenor” for right-wing Labour To Win led by Luke Akehurst.  Akehurst is a keen supporter of Saudi carpet-bombing of Yemeni civilians and was an employee of BICOM. 

In The road to No 10 runs through Greater Manchester Brickell claimed

at Labour to Win, we will champion a welcoming, transparent party that supports our common goals,”

but Labour To Win said it “provides a space in which old members, new members, rejoiners and those let down by Jeremy Corbyn can find support and encouragement.”

In a reply on 17th November 2020 to Young Labour Chair Jess Barnard he complained that

your call for unity rings empty when your recently published Labour List article failed to once criticise the Tories but engaged in repeated attacks on the shadow front bench.  Take the fight to the government, not our own side.”

However, Brickell does not abide by his instruction himself and his public statements include a lot of criticism, denigration and haughty dismissal of Labour members and activists who do not share his political views.

When Labour MPs, councillors or activists express support for Jeremy Corbyn Brickell responds habitually by asking whether the person supports the ECHR report “in full.”

For example, 2nd November 2020 in reply to Labour MP Mary Kelly Foy,

do you accept the EHRC’s findings & recommendations in full?  If not, why?”

and 30th October 2020 in reply to former Labour MP Laura Pidcock,

why won’t Corbyn accept in full the findings & recommendations in the EHRC’s report?  And do you accept them?”

On 25th May 2021 he asked

when was it acceptable [for Jeremy Corbyn] to share a platform with Kerry-Anne Mendoza from the Canary?”

On 17th July 2021 he excused Labour’s failure to publish the Forde report and claimed legal reasons prevented its publication.

Forde inquiry is independent of the party & dependent on ongoing ICO investigations into the party from 2015-20.  Labour has no say over it.”

But, The Forde inquiry is not independent of Labour and ICO investigations began after the report could have been published.

He excused Labour’s decision to not vote against Tories’ Covert Human Intelligence Sources Bill.

The strategy on CHIS Bill was to abstain at 2nd reading, seek to amend at committee stage then vote against at 3rd reading.”

There is no logic to Brickell’s explanation.

On 18th November 2020 he dismissed Andrew Scattergood’s complaint that Labour party branches and CLPs are not being allowed to discuss motions about Corbyn’s suspension.

He [Scattergood] hasn’t digested the content in the EHRC report around the party’s liability for the actions of its agents ie. denying unlawful acts.”

On the same issue, on 24th of the same month, he said

unlawful acts, agents of the party, ongoing EHRC report response, pending litigation.  Young Labour’s Chair just doesn’t get it.  There’s no way an official party organ should be discussing & tweeting about Corbyn’s case.  Doing so could incur further legal liability for Labour.”

But, there are absolutely no legal implications for Labour if its members discuss Corbyn’s suspension.  The “party’s liability” is a political decision by Starmer and his colleagues.  No court judgement has occurred that imposed any “liability” on Labour in relation to the ECHR report.  There is no “pending litigation.”  Incoherent threats from complainants are not “pending litigation.”

On 20th June 2020, when discussing Labour Together’s report on Labour’s loss at 2019 general election, Brickell complained that the report did not mention

electoral concerns over foreign & defence policy positions associated with him [Corbyn].”

The report didn’t mention such concerns because there were none.  Most people are not bomb-loving imperialists like Labour To Win.  In the same statement he claimed voters yelled “IRA” and “Hamas” at him when he was campaigning for that election.  That invention was just a facet of Labour To Win’s keenness for war.

Despite being a “convenor” for Labour To Win he called himself a “grassroots member.”

He is opposed to Jewish Voice For Labour, that describes itself as “a network for Jewish members of the Labour Party.”  On 14th December 2020 he said

JVL – no thanks.”

Adam Thompson: Thompson has never stated whether or not he is a socialist.  In his blog he said

I am known locally for my ability to provide reason and measured debate; I am often able to facilitate consensus between people with differing opinions.”  

In On the general election and the Labour leadership he said

I’ve found myself backing the same candidate [Lisa Nandy] as friends with whom I never agree with on policy positions, representing all aspects of the Labour party.  I have staunch hardcore socialist friends backing Lisa, and I have proud centrist friends backing Lisa.” 

Nandy received 7% of the vote.

He said he voted for Jeremy Corbyn in the 2015 leadership election.

Abdi Duale: Duale displayed the narrowness of his preferred vision of Labour’s appeal on 30th September 2021 with an insult aimed at people who supported Jeremy Corbyn.

The irony of people who supported Jeremy Corbyn’s failed leadership for five years lecturing Keir on electability, will never cease to amaze me.  They clearly have the self awareness of a shellfish.”

His warped view of Corbyn’s leadership was a contrast to his delusional appreciation of Starmer.  The day before the above comment he said

this is an excellent speech by Keir Starmer, it oozes competence and confidence.  It’s also a clear change from five years of incompetence,”

he called people who heckled Starmer during his speech

absolutely rotten beings, the sooner we show them the door, the better,”

and he described Momentum as “a horrible bunch.”

Childlike remarks are all that Duale has and they are expressed with complete insincerity and accompanied by bland repetition of slogans.

He is very keen for socialists to be ejected from Labour.  On 17th July 2021 he was pleased that several groups in Labour, including Resist and Socialist Appeal, were to be proscribed by Starmer.

Great news, the first of many groups I hope.”

He added that he hoped socialist MPs would be ejected as well.

Kick out any Labour MPs who share a platform with them too.”

Socialist MP Zarah Sultana is a popular target for Labour’s right and Duale did not forget to include her among recipients of his witlessness.  On 12th October 2021 he demanded that she should no longer have the Labour whip because she offered support to socialist Irish novellist Sally Rooney.

Imagine supporting the boycott of the Hebrew language.  Completely bigoted and another reason the whip should be removed.”

There are several problems (lies) with Duale’s comment.  Rooney has not boycotted the Hebrew language and she is happy for her book to be translated into Hebrew.  He knows that.  He lied knowingly.  His description of Rooney as “bigoted” is libel.  He said Sultana’s support was “another reason” for action to be taken against her.  The other “reasons” could be any of her socialist comments or analyses.

On 14th August 2021 during the leadership election for Unite he said that right-wing candidate “Gerard [Coyne] has been nothing short of an inspiration.”

Vince Barry-Stanners: In December 2020 during the Labour leadership campaign he said

Starmerism is a return to a Labour Party which is proud to say it’s patriotic.  Britain is a ‘small c’ conservative country which favours gradual progress [rather] than system overhaul.” 

Reacting to Starmer’s 2021 conference speech Barry-Stanners said

I’m thoroughly impressed.  It’s clear that Labour is once again under patriotic, progressive leadership.” 

He didn’t explain why he thinks leadership needs to be “patriotic.”  

Speaking about the withdrawal of NATO troops from Afghanistan he said

at a time when the west is facing an expansionist Russia and an emboldened China, it is crucial that we defend our values.” 

He did not give examples of any “expansionism” or “emboldenment” or why he thinks such behaviour by Russia or China, if true, is anything to do with the UK.  The phrase “our values,” expressed in combat to Russian or Chinese “values,” was a straightforward xenophobic remark. 

In 2017 he admitted he had personal friends who vote Conservative.”

Josh Tapper: After failing to achieve sufficient ‘A’ level grades for a university place Tapper became a reality TV “star” and used his resultant unearned fame to get a civil service apprenticeship with the Tory government in 2017 and later a job as Theresa May’s assistant campaign manager. 

He said of his time working for the Tories that

you feel you’re doing something that has a purpose to it, something that matters.  You feel like what you’re doing is going to make a difference to people’s lives.” 

Two years later he moved to think-tank Demos as Communications Officer. 

In June 2021 he was “elected” as Communications Officer for Hendon Constituency Labour Party (CLP) after Labour had suspended sitting socialist members of the CLP.

Joanne Harding: Since Jeremy Corbyn’s election as Labour leader in 2015 Harding’s pastime is petulant, snide comments directed at him and at his supporters.  None of the comments have facts, substance or analysis. 

For example, (14th July 2016)

Corbyn’s uselessness has lost its charm

and (30th October 2020)

He loves the adoration, he’s no leader just a petty man desperate for the ‘Oh, Jeremy Corbyn’.” 

On 20th May 2021 she mocked Corbyn’s opposition to antisemitic manipulation of the cover of a book by acclaimed childrens’ author Michael Rosen, a Corbyn supporter. 

On NHS, she said on 4th August 2016

I did suggest to Jeremy Corbyn as a National Policy Forum representative that we can’t be that purist and rule out 3rd sector [privateers].” 

She was a member of Progress and wrote an article for it on 23rd February 2017 in which she said

I was disappointed, to say the least, when Labour’s knee-jerk reaction was to describe Tory ‘sustainability and transformation plans’ as ‘a dagger pointed at the heart of the NHS’ to be resisted and opposed.” 

Ella Rose: Rose worked at a country’s embassy in London as Public Affairs Officer between September 2015 and August 2016.  She admitted in an interview that during her time at the embassy and afterward she worked with Shai Masot, an employee of the embassy, who was later expelled from UK for spying. 

In the same interview she issued an extreme threat of violence against Labour party member Jackie Walker.

I saw Jackie Walker on Saturday and thought, you know what, I could take her, she’s like 5’2 and tiny.  That’s why I can take Jackie Walker.  Krav Maga training (military hand-to-hand combat technique).  I’m not bad at it.  If it came to it I would win, that’s all I really care about.” 

Jackie Walker is a socialist and a campaigner against racism.

Keir Mather: Mather’s definition of “morals” appears to be awry.  In a response on 18th July 2016 to Dianne Abbott’s criticism of John Woodcock’s enthusiasm for Trident nuclear missiles Mather claimed Woodcock’s stance was a question of morals and shouldn’t be for political point scoring.”

Mather didn’t know that Woodcock would resign from Labour party in 2018 to avoid an investigation into an accusation of inappropriate sexual behaviour, that Woodcock would continue as an “independent” MP rather than call a by-election, thus stealing a parliamentary seat from voters, that Woodcock would abstain in a vote of confidence in prime minister Theresa May in 2019, that Woodcock would accept a job as “special envoy” for the Tory government before the next general election, that in that election (2019) Woodcock would campaign for the Tories, that Woodcock would accept a peerage from Boris Johnson in 2020, and that Woodcock would be appointed “independent adviser on political violence and disruption” by the Tories in 2021 to lead an investigation into the activities of Extinction Rebellion and Black Lives Matter.

On 11th April 2018 Mather called novellist and socialist Ken Loach a “bigoted white old man” and claimed Loach “supported racists” because he attended an event with Jackie Walker.

Jackie Walker is a socialist and a campaigner against racism.

On 24th April 2018 Mather said

God. I. Am. Sick. Of. Jeremy. Corbyn.”

Matt Ward: Ward heartily disapproved of people choosing to join Labour to support Jeremy Corbyn. 

On 26th June 2016 he said 

I hope when we have this leadership contest [2016 contest between Corbyn and Owen Smith], the £3 vote isn’t a bloody option

and added

they brought a vote.  Where were these new members come election time [2015 general election]?”

He seemed to fail to understand that new members joined Labour because Corbyn was leader; he was not the leader at the previous election.

Contradicting himself, a week later on 5th July Ward opined that

the truth is we don’t know how many [new members] are joining to support Jeremy or how many are joining to get rid of him.”

Ward was an active supporter of ice-cream salesman Owen Smith during the campaign for the pointless leadership contest in 2016.  His support for Smith consisted of factless, contentless, snide comments, punctuated by blatant lies including

Jeremy Corbyn is the Tories greatest asset, with him as leader we will take a serious beating,”
Corbyn talks like he’s already won this contest.  Every phone bank I have done he’s behind,”
people that voted for Corbyn last year are now backing Owen.  Not individuals but families!  Working class folk backing a leader for government,”
and “we now have a challenge that I am confident we will win.  Corbyn cannot be leader when he can’t hold the govt to account.”

On 8th September 2016 he claimed

I’ve not had one member of the public say they want or trust Jeremy Corbyn as prime minister.”

Corbyn won the contest comfortably despite a plethora of underhand tactics by Iain McNicol designed to disenfranchise voters.

Wards’ reaction to the appointment of Dianne Abbott as shadow Home Secretary was a photo of a celebrity with his head in his hand.

As a contrast, on 8th August 2016 he described Mike Gapes as a “dedicated Labour MP” in a published statement that he later deleted.  Gapes left Labour in 2019 to be one of the co-founders of Change UK but he did not stand for re-election in a by-election and, thus, stole his parliamentary seat from the voters.

Graham Whitham: Sarcasm is Trafford councillor Whitham’s favourite mode of communication and he never supports his sarcastic remarks with ideas, policies or proposals of his own.

He chose to blame the result of the 2016 EU referendum on Jeremy Corbyn and, afterward, he offered only terse dismissals of anything the latter said or did.  A comment by Whitham on 12th July 2016, a few weeks after the referendum, set the tone of his debating skills.

it saddens me that I already know that Corbyn & team have no strategy for overcoming it [Brexit] & won’t attempt to.

On the following day he said

I’ve not heard much in the way of policy from Corbyn to be honest.  Just rhetoric.”

On 20th January 2017 he agreed with former Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron who accused Corbyn of “lamely giving up over Brexit.”

Jasmin Beckett: In 2016 in an election for Young Labour representative on Labour’s NEC Beckett asked her supporters to post social media messages that repeated false allegations against another candidate.  She asked that, in any such messages, logos or “twibbons,” that identified the poster as a Beckett supporter, should not be included.  She won the election by a single vote.  She made accusations of irregularities in the election as a ruse to distract from what she and her supporters had done. 

Up to 2019 general election she made more accusations of a variety of wrongdoings by Labour against her and her political colleagues, both to denigrate socialists in Labour and to acquire media coverage for herself. 

On Sky News on 17th June 2018 she said she and some colleagues from centrist lobby group Our Future, Our Choice were physically ejected from a Labour Live event after they unfurled a banner and chanted slogans to disrupt a speech by Jeremy Corbyn.  Photographic, video and eye-witness accounts showed that her claim was a lie.  Included in her lie was a claim that journalist Kevin Schofield witnessed what happened; Schofield was not at the event. 

As a response to Emily Thornberry’s reasonable criticism of military action against protesters wherein Thornberry described “vicious and utterly avoidable slaughter” Beckett said

farcical and uninformed response to the deaths at the border.  Such a statement plays into the hands of Hamas.”

Ryan Wain: Wain is Political Director of Tony Blair Institute.  That is all you need to know about him.

Future parliamentary candidates
All the above are expected to become parliamentary candidates in the future.  The dual policy of ejecting socialists and promoting right-wingers is a key part of Starmer’s strategy.

Labour Future Candidates Programme