Henry Bolton: Another UKIP toad peddling the same devisive dishonest tripe

UKIP managed to elect its latest leader this week.  Henry Bolton’s apotheosis was greeted outside of UKIP by indifference; many so-called professional political analysts needed to do some emergency research to find out who on earth he is.  

Henry Bolton

Bolton aided the research into his existence by having his own promotional website.  To Bolton’s credit, his website is not as imaginative as Paul Nuttall’s was.  

However, Bolton’s lack of imagination is suffocating.  On his (currently unavailable) website he regurgitated the sad tired old dishonest claptrap that UKIP has always used to con the electorate.  Below are a few examples.  (Quotes in italics are from Bolton’s website.)

Badly managed immigration and integration have polarised our society and have created mistrust, tension and insecurity.”
Correction: Right-wing politicians (like those in UKIP) and right-wing media have promoted division and have tried to encourage people to be anti-immigrant as a means of distracting people from the true causes of problems.

UKIP has a tradition of straight, honest talking; addressing problems that others are afraid to discuss.”
Correction: UKIP has a tradition of constantly lying and its elected MEPs have a culture of doing absolutely nothing other than raking in the expenses.

UKIP is traditionally a party that refuses to be labelled as left, centre or right.”
Correction: UKIP has always been a right-wing conservative party that fully supports exploitative capitalism, including being in favour of privatisation of the NHS.

We [the UK] do not yet have control of our borders; we do not have control over immigration.”
Correction: This statement by Bolton is just a LIE.

Bolton is the next cab off the rank of con artists at UKIP.  That is all.

Henry Bolton: Another UKIP toad peddling the same devisive dishonest tripe

Institute For Free Trade

(Update 18/12/17: Due to a legal technicality, the Institute for Free Trade cannot use the word ‘Institute.’ It is now called the Initiative for Free Trade.)

(Website: IFT)

“IFT makes the intellectual and moral case for free trade, and sees Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union as a unique opportunity to revitalise the world trading system.”

The IFT is part of the marketing department for extreme exploitative international capitalism.  It focuses on promoting capitalist free trade as an alternative to “protectionist” capitalism.

In Why free trade? the IFT pretends to present an argument for unrestricted cross-border trade and pretends to address concerns about such trade.  In an ideal (utopian) world there would be no arbitrary restrictions on movement of trade but the IFT are not positioning their arguments in the context of a world free from the necessity of capitalism to exhaustively exploit the majority.  The arguments that the IFT use to support free trade over restricted trade have been removed from a general context and placed in the world that the IFT wants, where full exploitative capitalism rules unfettered.  In the specific political world that the IFT prefers all the claimed advantages of “free trade” over “protectionism” are advantages for only the elite few; that is, the few who “own” the means of production.

Associated with wholly unrestricted international free trade is wholly unrestricted freedom of movement of people, surely.  That is entirely logical.  However, the IFT’s president is Tory MEP Daniel Hannan, who most observers assume is in UKIP given his vehement and offensive anti-immigration rhetoric, and former Australian prime minister Tony Abbott is on the IFT International Advisory Board; as prime minister Abbott was happy to use navy vessels to physically and recklessly prevent immigrants from reaching Australia and he greatly expanded the illegal practices of detention of immigrants in offshore prisons such as on Manus Island.  There is no doubt that these two despicable characters remain completely opposed to free movement of people.

Daniel Hannan and Tony Abbott

As noted above, the key point about the IFT’s stance is that it has taken abstract analyses, of “free trade” versus “protectionism,” and happily stuck these analyses onto its own preferred world of full-on exploitative capitalism.  That is a clear attempt to con.  It is verbal and written sleight of hand.  The clarity of this con trick exposes the dimness of the participants and their disdain for those to whom they are speaking.  The absurdity and contradictions of the stick-on analyses is quickly highlighted by the political history of the main protagonists at the IFL, a history that includes support for trade sanctions against non-capitalist states, support for off-the-grid tax havens for the wealthy and opposition to free movement of people across borders.

The IFT’s real objective is not “free trade.”  Its objective is to make it easer for international capitalists to exploit more widely.  The IFT yearns for the days of imperialist colonialist empires.

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


Institute For Free Trade

Extreme right recruiting ex-soldiers: ‘Veterans Against Terrorism’

Two British soldiers are awaiting trial charged with membership of a proscribed organisation, namely National Action.  A handful of soldiers joining extreme right groups is not unusual and not new.  Of greater concern is the strategy by (currently legal) extreme right-wing groups to recruit active and former soldiers in order to swell the number of participants in the groups’ events and to hide the true intent of the groups’ aims. 

Example: Veterans Against Terrorism

Our mission to end all terrorism in the UK” is the opening line on Veterans Against Terrorism blog page.  It is an oddly pompous statement because everyone would like terrorism to end (apart from the terrorists) and are Veterans Against Terrorism implying that the government, the armed forces and the police do not have a mission to end all terrorism?  


The group’s letter to the prime minister includes a demand for “high treason charges for returning or returned Jihadists.” As a charge, treason is grandstanding because all treasonous offences could have other serious charges applied instead.  (Incidently, the most recent prosecution for treason in Britain was in 1945.)  The letter claims that the security services have said there are 3000 “active Jihadists” in Britain – (the security services have not said that), and asks that certain actions that are already illegal, such as inciting violence, be made illegal.  There are statements in the letter that are entirely political; for example, “nonviolent Islamist groups pose a long-term threat to the political and social cohesion of the UK.”  This contradicts the assertion made in the main blog that “we do not identify with any political dogma or group.”  There is a sinister aside in the letter: “We are also deeply disturbed by the close relationship some MPs seem to have forged with Islamist groups and apologists for Jihad this gives credibility to the terror groups and is a threat to national security.”  None of these “some” MPs are named, none of the “Islamist groups” are named and there are no details of the nature of the “forged relationships.”

Anonymity is a feature of the Veterans Against Terrorism blog.  None of the contributors and none of the organisers of the events are named anywhere in the blog.  The only person named is the ubiquitous Mr. Astroturf himself Maajid Nawaz from the right-wing political think-tank Quilliam, which is also mentioned separately.

However, the associated facebook group page, Veterans Against Terrorism facebook, does include some named administrators.  One such administrator Andrew Tranter supportively shared a link on his own facebook page to a speech by racist extremist Geert Wilders.  Another administrator Antony Harrison supportively shared a link on his own facebook page to a speech by racist extremist Anne-Marie Walters that had originally been posted by racist extremist Tommy Robinson.


If it quacks like a duck, etc.

The main blog page of Veterans Against Terrorism is full of the same rhetoric that all of the above trio of racist extremists, or any of their ilk, normally espouse in speeches and articles.  That is, it is a stinking pot pourri of lies and misrepresentations (e.g. “the security service tells us there are 23,000 potential Jihadists in the UK with 3000 active players“), it demands the removal of basic freedoms and access to justice (e.g. “we call on the government to take all necessary means to deal with the threat including internment without trial“) and it is riddled with pathetic whingeing that racist extremists are being denied their right to express their racist extremism (e.g. “The sinister practice by some Islamist groups of demonising commentators and journalists who are critical of certain aspect of Islamic theology and practice must stop“).  The facebook page states “we are not political” but the blog is completely political.    

The administrators of the facebook page claim to be careful about who they allow to join: “Before been accepted into the group we search your friend lists, your timeline, the groups you have joined on FB and a Google search of any information held on you.  This is done to try to keep out those that do not stand with our beliefs.  So please understand if you are not accepted into the group it is because you have failed the above or we could not obtain enough information to safely let you join the group.”  But, the facebook group has over 16,000 members.  Did a handful of administrators check on all those thousands of people?  No, of course they didn’t.  Just another lie.

Veterans Against Terrorism ticks all the boxes for a typical far-right group:

  • It is all about Islam
  • Its key protagonists are fans of racist extremists
  • It repeatedly claims to be non-political while being entirely political
  • Linked to Quilliam
  • It claims that the right to express bigoted prejudiced views is a free speech issue
  • It invents a false connection between left-wing politics and terrorism
  • It lies to its members about its intent
  • It demands suspension of basic human rights and access to justice

The duck quacks.

Extreme right recruiting ex-soldiers: ‘Veterans Against Terrorism’

Dishonest Pantomime by Theresa May re. Florence speech

At tax-payers’ expense Theresa May and a large team of lickspittles and sycophants jetted off for a jolly in Florence this week.  There, she delivered a contentless, waffling speech on the latest pseudo-nuanced anti-plan that the Tories have concocted regarding Britain’s departure from the EU.

No-one important from the EU was present.  The audience consisted of paid Tory lackeys and British media.  The speech could have been given anywhere; indeed, it could have just been released as a transcript.  

The only reason that May delivered the speech publicly, and in an exotic location, was to try to con British voters, EU citizens and businesses from around the world into believing that May had spoken in front of all the major protagonists at the EU and interested parties from other EU countries.  It was a pantomime, a con trick.  May used a similar trick during the first of this year’s general elections: She claimed to be travelling the country campaigning when the reality was that she spoke a few prepared platitudes to paid party members in empty warehouses.  The media helped her to misrepresent what she was doing.

Theresa May is a professional con artist and confidence trickster; she combines those attributes with abject stupidity.


Dishonest Pantomime by Theresa May re. Florence speech

One person is dodging scrutiny at the Football Association. Why?

The English Football Association is neck-deep in a mire of its own making.  Two issues related to (recently sacked) England Women’s team manager Mark Sampson have shown that the FA has remained committed to head-in-sand and/or brush-under-the-carpet strategies when faced with off the field problems.  The eager media are now biting down on the stories with emphasis on the incompetence, negligence and duplicity of the behaviour of senior FA executives and administrators.  Current protagonists Greg Clarke, Martin Glenn and Dan Ashworth and previous mandarins Greg Dyke, Trevor Brooking and Alex Horne are all persons of interest to investigative sports journalists and, surprisingly, to a parliamentary select committee.  However, a person who has occupied a senior FA administrative post for over a decade appears to be covered in Teflon.

Teflon Man

(Unelected) president of the FA, Prince William (another unelected appointment), has been there since 2006, succeeding his uncle.  For reasons unknown, the hungry media are neglecting to demand he should be subject to the same interrogation as other current or recent senior administrators.  Are these back-slapping contortionists in the media just absent-minded or have they deliberately left out the longest-serving FA mandarin from their investigations?  It’s a mystery.  

If any hack is congratulating her- or himself for their tenacity in pursuing answers from the FA, it is best to check if the president of the FA is excluded from scrutiny; if he is exempt from investigation by a journalist, then said journalist cannot claim honestly that their investigation is thorough.

Update: 19th October

Yesterday, some administrators from the FA answered questions from the digital, culture, sport and media parliamentary select committee.  Chairman Greg Clark and chief executive Martin Glenn were among those present but the president of the FA was absent.  He had not been asked to the committee hearing and he had not offered to attend.  Instead, he was enjoying yet another PR photo opportunity with his family. He was at an event promoting West Ham United – FA president visits West Ham.

Given the seriousness of the errors made by the football association, it is bizarre that he did not offer to take part in the select committee hearing.  His decision to use the day as a family photo op. reveals his abject lack of interest in the accusations of racism at the FA and it shows how pointless his role as president is.

One person is dodging scrutiny at the Football Association. Why?

Out, out brief Cable!

A willing lap dog of David Cameron’s Tories from 2010 to 2015, Vince Cable was appointed leader of the hapless Liberal Democrats earlier this year in the absence of anyone in that party capable of or willing to be its leader.  

Cable and Cameron in happier times

Cable’s tenure as a minister in the “coalition” government was marked by his obedience and subservience to the Tory destruction machine.  His particular contribution was to destroy the postal service.  The 2015 general election should have been the party’s demise.  Labour’s switch to a genuine alternative has further enhanced the utter pointlessness of the Liberal Democrats.  

Liberal Democrat Conference 2017

Almost unnoticed, the Liberal Democrats had their annual party conference this week.  It was less of a gathering to mutually inspire and stride forward and much more of a flaccid therapy session.  

Earlier in the conference, deputy leader Jo Swinson had tried to depict her party as the only saviour for mankind to protect against Jung-Un, Trump, Erdogan, etc., but pointed to bankers’ robo-puppets Trudeau and Macron as fellow saviours – Swinson at Lib Dem conference.  

Cable’s conference speech focussed on Brexit, sort of.  The Lib Dems’ website published Cable “highlights, “ some of which are quoted and retorted to below.

Cable on EU
We have a taste of what is to come in the fall of the value of the pound.  Foreign exchange dealers are not point scoring politicians. Their cold, hard, unsentimental judgement has been, quite simply, that Brexit Britain will be poorer and weaker after Brexit than if we had decided to stay in Europe.”
Foreign exchange dealers are among the most despicable species of vermin in the pit of financial gangsters.  Even the most inhumane commodities brokers look down their criminal noses at the buyers and sellers of money.  But, Cable uses their thoughts as expert analysis.

This is not a call for a re-run – a second referendum – on Brexit.  It is a call for a first referendum on the facts: when we know what Brexit means.”
The second referendum demand that Cable repeats is problematic for several reasons:

  • It insults the Leave voters’ intelligence by questioning their knowledge and their analytical capacities that led to them voting to leave the EU
  • It assumes that there is a date in the near future when every consequence of leaving the EU will be known exhaustively without any ambiguity or doubt.
  • It re-creates the divisive conditions of the first referendum

Cable’s demand for a second referendum is grandstanding and is the mirror image of Farage.

If the definition of sabotage is fighting to protect British jobs, public services, the environment and civil liberties, then I am a proud saboteur.”
As a minister in the “coalition” government, Cable had no interest in protecting jobs or protecting public services.

They [political supporters of leaving the EU] now believe in the slogan of dictators everywhere: one person, one vote, once.”
No dictator has ever proclaimed that slogan.  (Aside: Vince Cable was not elected as leader of the Liberal Democrats.)

Cable on Labour
Many people got behind them [Labour] in June, expecting a better politics and a better future from him.  They are already being betrayed.”
These comments by Cable about Labour were made in relation to Brexit.  But, as Cable knows, Labour did not focus on Brexit during the 2017 general election campaign and Labour’s new voters were persuaded by the party’s shift leftward, not by a nuanced approach to Brexit.  Thus, Cable’s claim of Labour’s “betrayal” is simply a lie.

Cable further embarrassed himself with a remark straight from the Lynton Crosby guide to deception: “You don’t qualify for the Shadow Cabinet these days unless you have studied the Venezuelan guide on how to bankrupt a rich economy.”
That childish insult – both to Labour and to the Venezuelan government – is most interesting for the subtle sleight of meaning: Cable wrote “bankrupt a rich economy” when he means take back money stolen from the people by financial gangsters.  Cable is an obedient servant of such gangsters and he knows that Corbyn, and what follows Corbyn, will challenge the power and freedom of the wealth terrorists.

Cable on Lib Dems
There are sensible grown-ups in the Conservative party and the Labour Party and the Greens,” and “grown-up approach to the economy” are clumsy reveals of the superciliousness that is rampant in the Liberal Democrats.  Squeezed from both sides and exposed as pointless, they remain steadfastly haughty and wallow in their self-induced detachment.

Only the Liberal Democrats have the ideas, the experience and the commitment to transform the fortunes of our country.  A grown-up approach to the economy.  And bold ideas to strengthen our society through the 21st century.”
And these ideas are?  Well, nothing.  Maybe the website editor left the ideas out of the highlights of the speech.

In summary:


Out, out brief Cable!

Jo Swinson explains how the Lib Dems are utterly pointless

The annual Liberal Democrats party conference is this week.  To promote the event MP Jo Swinson was interviewed by the decaying Guardian. In Swinson in Guardian, she had little to say other than hollow platitudes like “[Lib Dems need] radical solutions that might upset the apple cart” and “my experience in government is there is a whole host of unintended consequences you have to think through.  I can’t un-know that, I find it harder now to offer simple solutions.”  

The interview was the opposite of a confident rallying cry for support for a political party.  One pair of sentences, intended as a declaration of the necessity for the Liberal Democrats to grab an opportunity, is an epitaph for the party’s demise and simultaneously a demonstration of the dishonesty that drives Lib Dem politics:

There is this big yawning gap in the middle of British politics, the Conservative and Labour parties have gone to the edges. In this divided, polarised world, the pragmatic centre ground is a bit unloved,” opined Swinson.

These two sentences require some corrections to their (deliberate) errors and some peremptory analysis.  

Correction 1: The Tories are a right-wing party of corporatism that will use bigotry, prejudice and division as tools to distract and con the public.  That is, they are exactly where the Tories have always been, including during 2010-2015 when they were enabled by the Lib Dems.  They have not moved to an “edge” or to anywhere else.  

Correction 2: Labour is not on the edge of the political spectrum.  Corbyn and his colleagues are attempting to shift Labour toward the left and make a genuine challenge to the wealth terrorists’ employees in the Tory party.  Like the Progress mob and the centrist journalists at Guardian and New Statesman, Swinson has described Labour as far-left because she fears a future Labour government that is not a puppet of exploitative capitalism.

Correction 3: The centre of British politics, like the respective political centres of France, Germany, Spain, USA, Australia, Canada, Japan, Ireland, Brazil, etc., is not pragmatic.  As anthropomorphosised by, for example, Clegg, Macron and Merkel, the centre in democratic capitalist countries is a pit of confidence trickery, lies and cowardice that is indistinguishable in effect from so-called conservative politics.  The only difference between centrism and conservatism is that the former offers crumbs to the sappy liberals in order to dissuade them from leaning leftward.  Liberal Democrat intent is not pragmatism; Liberal Democrat intent is perpetuation of the divisive status quo.

Correction 4: The “divided, polarised world” is the world we live in where international financial gangsters are fed free money and cheap labour by servants in governments, both democracies and dictatorships, while the vast majority are somewhere on a scale from getting by to surviving to dead.  The “divided, polarised world” is maintained by obedient PR teams; for example, Liberal Democrat leader Vince Cable is a willing gofer and PR guy for the financial gangsters.  Swinson has seen that there is a challenge to the “divided, polarised world” and she is keen to put a stop to that challenge.   

Conference Speech
Swinson’s speech at the conference expanded on the spurious claim that liberals are the alternative to “populism.”

A rambling introduction to the speech included embellished memories from childhood wherein Swinson said “the cloud [that is, the possibility of nuclear war] had hung threateningly over the world, at times perilously close to disaster on an unimaginable scale.”  The reality is that the cold war in the 70s and 80s was just posturing by various leaders; the real wars were in Vietnam, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Northern Ireland, Zimbabwe, etc.

We have enjoyed three decades with much reduced levels of nuclear threat, until now.”  Until now?  North Korea tested some missiles and some nuclear bombs and the US president uttered some dramatic comments.  It’s a pantomime.  Meanwhile thousands of people are dying in conflict in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Myanmar, Sudan and Ukraine without nuclear weapons being used.

Swinson extended her absurdist comparisons further by equating how (she chooses to imagine) Japanese people felt about a recent North Korean missile test that flew over Japan with how Londoners felt during German bombing in the second world war.  That sounds like a sketch from The Day Today but it is what Swinson said.  Two pertinent points about the missile test are:

  1. The test was designed so that the missile would fall harmlessly into the Pacific Ocean at the conclusion of the test; clearly, to reach the uninhabited ocean, the missile has to pass over Japan.
  2. The missile attained a height of over five hundred miles.  Thus, it “flew over” Japan in the sense that a satellite flies over a country.

The speech lists attacks on humanity that exist in the world today including both military actions and environmental devastation as a possible result of climate change – (Swinson craftily sneaks Venezuela onto her list of state wrongdoers) – and follows the list with “we need new, 21st century, liberal solutions to all of these problems and more.”  But, why “liberal” solutions and what would such solutions be?  Swinson’s only answer to that question is to point at Trudeau and Macron.  Trudeau and Macron are, respectively, not quite as bad as Harper and Le Pen; that is, the extent of Liberal Democrat ambition is pro-capitalist exploitation led by people with better manners than, say, Trump and who manage to keep most of their bigotry concealed.

The speech ended with a strange declaration:

Creating the bold vision we need is bigger than any single political party. Indeed it’s bigger than party politics itself. We need to reach out and collaborate across society, with thinkers, activists, the young and the old, faith groups, trade unions, entrepreneurs – and with all of you who want to change the world.  A considerate one. A fairer one. A loving one.”

At first glance that closing statement appears to be pseudo-religious claptrap that would elicit only ridicule.  However, the intent is to try (desperately) to invent a purpose for the increasingly irrelevant Liberal Democrats while simultaneously dismissing the expanding popularity of Corbyn’s tendency toward socialism.  Like all good Liberal democrats, Swinson fears socialism’s popularity much more than she fears her stated bogeymen such as Trump, Jong-Un, etc.

Swinson was (unintentionally) correct in one fragment of the comments quoted in the Guardian interview: “There is this big yawning gap in the middle of British politics.”  Yes, there certainly is.  A chasm has opened up and is swallowing all the useless, pointless, spurious, needless, vacuous nincompoops of the obstructive, duplicitous centre.  They’ve been found out.  The walking shadows and poor players strutted and fretted their hours upon the stage but, gradually, they are heard no more.  The idiot’s tale, full of snide and flimsy, signified nothing.  Out, out brief Cable.

Nick Clegg’s preference for old school tie allegiance in 2010 hastened the arrival of the expiration day of the Liberal Democrats.  Swinson’s creative Unwinesque philosophies are just clumsy attempts to fart back at the ineluctable force of the annihilating gale.


Jo Swinson explains how the Lib Dems are utterly pointless