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

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 easier for international capitalists to exploit more widely.  The IFT yearns for the days of imperialist colonialist empires.

IFT’s International Advisory Board includes Jorge Quiroga, Hugo Banzer’s vice-president in Bolivia.  Banzer’s violent USA-backed military coup in Bolivia in 1971 and ensuing dictatorship included assassination of elected president Juan José Torres and thousands of murders of political opponents.

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 (2017)

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 (2017) 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

Norman Tebbit: Father of modern British racism and prejudice

On the morning of October 12th 1984 the breakfast TV news bulletins were dominated by scenes and reports from the aftermath of an IRA bomb at the Grand Hotel in Brighton, the accommodation for many of the senior members of the Conservative government attending the annual party conference.  The clip of Norman Tebbit, then President of the Board of Trade, being stretchered out of the rubble, clad in pyjama bottoms and Bruce Willis vest and in obvious pain, is etched in many people’s memories.  Some people had sympathy for him and wished him a speedy recovery; others, at the sharp end of the consequences of his party’s actions in government, were disinclined to see the image as negative.  It is an indictment of how hated Thatcher’s Tories were that mirth or indifference were commonplace reactions to Tebbit’s predicament from people who were certainly not supporters of the IRA’s military acts.  

It is noteworthy that the bombing in Brighton would not have happened if the Tory government had made any effort to resolve the conflict in Northern Ireland; conversely, they were happy for it to continue.  (Who takes the blame for Brighton bomb?.)


As they ransacked and pillaged public services to feed the financial gangsters and destroyed trades’ unions’ power, the Tories needed to promote bigotry toward anyone they could think of as a tool to turn attention away from their destruction of the country and of society.  Tebbit was a key protagonist in the Tories’ creation and presentation of false enemies as a distraction.  He was always very willing to encourage racism, xenophobia, homophobia and extreme sexism and has continued to do so since his departure from the front bench and subsequently his arrival in the House of Lords.  His style and the relentlessness of his rhetoric were influences on all the rabble-rousers who followed him.

The only reason Tebbit didn’t join UKIP (or BNP, EDL, etc.) was to protect his career as a Tory.

Some of Tebbit’s children: Murray, Farage, Hopkins and Johnson

Now, Tebbit operates as a professional troll and screaming head in the House of Lords, in media interviews and in his column in the Telegraph with no difference of quality or style between him and detritus like Kate Hopkins or Sean Hannity. (Screaming Heads And Professional Trolls.)  Last week he emitted another pile of vomit in the Telegraph – Tebbit pukes – wherein he regurgitated an offensive and deliberately fraudulent con trick about the rise of fascism in the 1930s in Europe:  Tebbit claimed fascism developed from socialism not from conservatism.

Tebbit knows that fascism is an extreme form of coporatism and, thus, is a variant of conservatism.  Fascism murdered millions of people during the second world war but Tebbit used the genocide as a tool to attack the political outlook – socialism – that challenges the corporate gangsterism that he supports and enables.  The article is a gross expansion of the general dual purpose theme used by extreme corporatists that tries to deflect criticism of fascism while encouraging false attacks on socialism.  Tebbit does not care that he is abusing the memory of the millions murdered by fascism.


If you would like to support this blog please click DONATE.  Thank you.

Norman Tebbit: Father of modern British racism and prejudice

Royalty week: Bridges, Babies, Boobs, School, Suits and a dead princess

There has been so much royalty on TV news bulletins and in the pages of the newspapers this week (September 2017).  The queen “opened a bridge” across the Firth of Forth, her great-grandson started infant school, her grandson’s girlfriend did a photo shoot and toe-curling interview in Vogue magazine, his brother and sister-in-law (parents of aforesaid great-grandson) successfully sued a French gossip magazine, Closer, for long-range photos taken in France without their permission in 2012 – the photos included bare boobs, her’s not his – and the unwilling star of these photos announced her pregnancy.  Also, the week before, the two brothers used the twentieth anniversary of their mother’s death as an opportunity to get some promotional airtime in TV interviews.  It’s been like a posh Eastenders.  

Taking topless photos without consent and then publishing in a magazine without agreement is definitely invasive and not acceptable for anyone.  In court, the “Duke and Duchess of Cambridge” claimed, successfully, with the help of an expensive legal team paid for by British tax-payers, that the grainy photos of the duchess’ breasts were such an “invasion of privacy.”  

They will pocket almost £200,000 in “damages” from Closer magazine, its owner and its editor.  They had tried to grab £1.5m.   Do they deserve such damages?  Their fame is due entirely to their status as members of the royal family.  Any damage to reputation or profession would be damage to the concept of royalty not to them personally.  Thus, if any financial claim were made for damages it should be the British government suing the magazine on behalf of the British people and all proceeds should go immediately to the fiscal pot.  The claim for personal damages was just another source of income for people whose public existence, and, therefore, their selection as targets for a photographer, is solely down to their luck to be part of the royal family.

Royals’ hypocrisy
Coincidentally, on the same day that the judgement on the court case was made, a new edition of Vogue magazine went on sale with the Duke of Cambridge’s brother’s girlfriend, American actress Meghan Markle, as the cover star and as the main interview feature.  Markle is a popular actress in US drama ‘Suits’ but that alone would not have persuaded Vogue to consider her to be famous enough to be put on the front cover and to be the main interview in the magazine.  Her relationship with a royal is why Vogue chose her.  Further, the interview included many comments by her about her royal relationship.  She, as a likely future recipient of British tax payers’ free money, will have been paid well for that interview with the agreement that matters royal would have been discussed.  Perhaps, the problem the Cambridges had with the Closer photos was that they weren’t paid handsomely in advance?

The Cambridge’s son started a ridiculously expensive infant school this week, at tax payers expense, and they ensured that press photographers attended his arrival.  So, they felt comfortable using their four-year-old son to enhance their public image?  The timing of the announcement of the latest pregnancy fitted into the publicity timeline conveniently.

Royals as celebrities
The use of children, including potential children, and discussion of relationships are standard celebrity PR techniques; they are clear examples of a publicity machine seeking to control its client’s image.  The royals have an extensive PR team, funded by the tax payers.

The most pertinent difference between royal celebrity and show business celebrity is that there is no prior reason for the former’s fame other than a family connection.  There is even less worth to royal celebrity than fame attained via appearing on a reality TV show.  The two brothers mentioned above, sons of a smart and cunning royal celebrity princess, promote themselves and their partners or family as commodities for wealth gathering and for image flattery.  Like the American family the Kardashians or Paris Hilton, the younger Windsors’ lives are their product for sale with no skill or talent as supporting structure.  However, the most well-known Kardashian and Hilton did at least entertain the public with their respective comedy sex tapes.  

Alongside fame-as-fame these royals demand elevated respect and deference.  They want to be treated seriously.  No such respect is deserved.  They are figures of derision, but, unlike the hoards of other talentless, dim-witted worthless celebs, the young royals galavant around the world at our expense.  To add further insult, the royal brothers are as thick as mince and as dull as tripe.  

Boring and predictable
The key facet of the recent spate of royal news is its utter tedium.  Compared to the good/bad old days of the 1980s, when affairs, divorces and toe-sucking on yachts were popular royal pursuits, the current most visible generation of royals are excruciating bland.  That is how they like it, as long as the money keeps rolling in from the exchequer.

The Queen opened a bridge
Elsewhere, and possibly for the final time, the queen opened a major bridge.  She cut the ribbon, expertly, to open officially the new road bridge across the Firth of Forth.  Nicola Sturgeon lurked.

“She’s still there behind me isn’t she?”
Royalty week: Bridges, Babies, Boobs, School, Suits and a dead princess

Activate! De-activate!

Jeremy Corbyn and the non-Progress section of the Labour Party enthused a desire to vote for people under forty at the first of this year’s general elections; this included many first-time voters.  A variety of surveys and polls since the election have revealed a large majority of support for Labour for people aged twenty-five and under.  

Even when the Tories have had large majority support in the entire electorate Labour received more votes from first-time voters but the size of Labour’s majority support among younger people now is the largest it’s ever been.  There are several reasons for the gap between Labour’s and the Tories’ respective appeals to the younger voters including Labour’s shift leftward, Tories’ increasing incompetence, a reaction to Brexit – a minority of younger people voted to leave the EU, and the success of Momentum as a galvanising organisation.  Momentum is not specifically a youth movement but its strength is that people of all ages, who agree with its political stance, find it useful.  

The Tories are keen to imitate Momentum, while continuing the slanderous attacks on it.  They are trying to invent a youth movement with the intent of persuading younger people to support conservatism.  

There are obvious problems with an artificially created pseudo-grassroots Tory movement:

a) No new leader to focus a campaign.  Momentum was created to support the politics of Jeremy Corbyn immediately after he was first elected as Labour leader; an opportunity arose to try to adjust Labour’s position and to add votes from the normally non-voting socialists.  But, for the Tories, a new leader would be one of the current hapless discredited fools in the cabinet – Johnson, Davies, Rudd, Hammond, etc., or a robotic, sarcastic careerist like Hands, Cleverley or Mercer, or pantomime character and ultra-libertarian Rees-Mogg.  There is no potential leader to enthuse anyone.  It is a clown cupboard.

b) No alternative political vision.  Corbyn, and Momentum, offer a clear alternative to the mess of Progress Labour’s adherence to capitalist exploitation.  Clearly, a new Tory leader or Tory subgroup cannot offer an alternative to capitalist exploitation.   The only possibility for change is to go further right, but UKIP already exists.  There is nowhere to go on the political spectrum.

c) Tory activism is a job not a passion.  There are live police investigations into illegal practices by the Tories during both the 2015 general election and the first of this year’s general elections.  One of the accusations is the use of paid campaigners.  The decision to use employees rather than volunteer activists is one of necessity: Tory activists lack the intrinsic desire to work to promote their political ideology if there isn’t something in it for them individually.

d) Political activism is naturally a social occupation.  To be successful, political activists must often work as a group.  They must be aware that not every activist is a decision-maker, that small compromises are commonplace, that personal disagreements should be set aside and that there will be several disappointments and set-backs.  The key point is the necessity for mutually supportive work among the activists so that the focus is on achieving a political objective.  All that is obvious, of course, and it is also impossible for self-obsessed sociopathic Tory activists who view the party they support as a career stepping stone and enabler.

e) It’s difficult to sell blatant lies.  Momentum succeeds because it supports a change in Labour that is significantly different to the Tories (and to the Liberal Democrats).  Activists promoting SNP or Plaid Cymru have independence as a constant theme, supporters of DUP and Sinn Féin respectively can refer to the long history and ongoing diametrically opposed stance on the future of Northern Ireland as a tool of persuasion, Green Party presents itself as the party of protecting the planet and, currently, Liberal Democrat activists focus on the party’s anti Brexit position.  But the Tory activists have nowhere to go except repeating the intrinsic lies and confidence tricks that define their party.  The Tory manifesto for the first of this year’s general elections was full of lies and nothing else: Election 2017: A few lies from the Tory manifesto.  They have been found out.  


A new Tory youth movement was activated a few weeks ago called, er, Activate.  Yes, it does sound like a cure for constipation for sentient robots.  It was exposed swiftly as closely aligned to Tory MPs (and, thus, not “grassroots”) – Activate Astroturf, and peopled by nasty bigots who gleefully expressed their extremism on a message board – Activate Bigotry, including an obsession with homophobia – Activate homophobia.  

BBC Radio 4 obediently gave airtime to one of the protagonists of Activate, Sam Ancliff, to allow him to whine about naughty lefties making fun of him and his colleagues.  Ancliff claimed, without challenge from the interviewer, that Activate members were not involved in any abuse.  Almost immediately, Ancliff was shown to be lying: Here is an example of the views and attitude of Activate “Membership Director” Fizarn Adris responding to a Grenfell Tower Fire victim’s comment about financial assistance from the government:


Adris closed his Twitter account after his true views were exposed.

After a couple of days of existence Activate collapsed in on itself comically.  Some members thereof departed to form a rival group called Our Conviction, the respective Activate twitter and facebook accounts went to war on one another – each accusing the other of misrepresentation and not being the real Activate, one of the Activates gave full support to Jacob Rees-Mogg’s Tory leadership challenge before an abrupt about-turn following Rees-Mogg’s impersonation of Sarah Palin in a TV interview, and there was a false claim that the Activate twitter account had been hacked.  Fuller summary here: Activate disorder.  It’s been Gogol meets the Chuckle Brothers.

The Activate debacle highlighted the intrinsic difficulties faced by any nascent Tory youth movement and showed how quickly independent left-wing media (Canary, Skwawkbox, Evolve, Red Pepper, etc.) can step in, expose the facts and send the blighters into teary free fall.




Activate! De-activate!