Venezuela’s oil reserves are the largest in the world.
Oil companies and their corporate associates think they have an opportunity to get their grubby criminal hands on the wealth of Venezuela. The presidents in Palácio da Alvorada and in the White House are extremely unscrupulous and pliable servants of financial gangsterism whose every decision is designed to suit the small elite of wealth terrorists. Bolsonaro and Trump have said they would be willing to use all available options to remove the democratically elected government of Venezuela including the use of severe economic sanctions, theft of payments for Venezuelan oil and military force.
Everything said by Trump, Bolsonaro and their respective colleagues about Venezuela has the single objective of assisting the theft of wealth that can be generated by the country’s oil reserves.
Everybody else picks which side they are on. There are two opposing options.
Support oil theft by financial gangsters
Support the Venezuelan people
Those are the only two options. There is no compromise option, there is no middle option, there is no mealy-mouthed duplicitous liberal option.
Anyone who states that they support the self-appointed fake president Guaido and, simultaneously, states that they disapprove of Trump or Bolsonaro’s aggressive rhetoric is a con artist.
Pick a side. The two sides – the only two options – are in direct opposition.
Today, mafia boss Donald Trump decided to “recognise” Juan Guaido as “president” of Venezuela.
Nicolás Maduro is the democratically elected president of Venezuela. Trump’s decision is an attack on democracy, an attack on law and is support for a coup.
Venezuela is an oil-rich country. Thieves elsewhere want to steal the oil and rob the people of Venezuela. Trump was elected to help these thieves. Theft of the oil is the only reason that Trump has ignored law and democracy. He wants to use Guaido as a tool to assist the thieves. Guaido will do whatever the moneymen tell him to do if the price is right.
Socialist solidarity Socialists around the world do not have a choice about how to react to Trump’s criminal behaviour: Socialists must give full and unconditional support to the people of Venezuela and to the government that they have elected. No prevarications, no dithering and no uncertainty. Full, unconditional support!
Mealy-mouthed centrists and duplicitous liberals are offering limp criticism of Trump’s decision alongside criticism of Maduro. They are describing conflict in Venezuela in the language of civil war. It is not a civil war; all current conflict in Venezuela is an attempted coup and is encouraged from outside the country.
Conservatives in Britain will not criticise Trump’s criminality. Most Tory MPs are employees of the representatives of the thieves who are eyeing Venezuela’s oil. Socialists should not be distracted by disreputable Tories whingeing about the Venezuelan economy. Stick two fingers up to the Tory filth.
Unconditional, consistent and continuous support for the socialists in Venezuela is the only option for socialists everywhere.
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn called a No Confidence Vote in the Tory government immediately after the latter’s disastrous defeat of its EU withdrawal deal on Tuesday. He knew that the No Confidence Vote would fail due to parliamentary arithmetic and the DUP’s single point of principle: Money; the vote was called to flush out some of the confidence tricksters and charlatans who claimed to be opposed to the Tory Brexit or to the Tories in general.
The flushing out exposed Ivan Lewis and John Woodcock who abstained rather than vote against the Tories. Both chose to leave the Labour party last year but have refused to call by-elections and are stealing their parliamentary seats; they are acting against democracy and stealing MPs’ salaries.
Following her huge defeat on the Tory Brexit deal, Theresa May pretended to ask the leaders of other parties for their input for a revised deal.
She has no intention of making any significant changes to the rejected deal. If any proposed deal fails to win a vote in parliament then May and the Tories would not be unhappy with a cliff-fall no-deal exit. Disaster capitalists, hedge funds, currency gamblers and other dregs of the financial gangster world would love an abrupt departure of the UK from the EU because there is money to be made by criminals when catastrophe strikes. Many such lowlifes are donors to the Tory party; some Tory MPs – for example, Dominic Raab, Matt Hancock and Lee Rowley – are employees of the no-deal supporters’ think-tanks.
May’s dead-eyed speech at the lectern in Downing Street on Wednesday evening and the ensuing unenthusiastic invitation to other parties to suggest changes to the deal were just stunts. Deflection and shifting focus were May’s intent. As someone bereft of shame and integrity, her reaction to a huge loss in parliament – the largest loss in parliament by any prime minister in the history of British democracy – was to demand people look elsewhere for wrongdoers. Such a disgraceful manipulation of focus was possible because of the acquiescence of most of the newspapers and broadcasters.
Rightly, Corbyn’s stance was to reject her stunt and to place a pre-condition for any discussions between May and himself: He demanded that the no-deal option was declared void. He knew that such a pre-condition would not be accepted because May needs the votes of DUP and European Research Group. The motivation for the insistence of the pre-condition was to flush out those who pretend to oppose the Tories but whose real enemy is socialism.
Vince Cable, the current leader of the duplicitous Liberal Democrats stated that his party would not support any future No Confidence Vote in the Tories if Corbyn maintained his pre-condition on talks. Cable’s party claims to be in favour of Remain and to be vehemently opposed to leaving without any deal. But, ultimately, Cable’s real enemy is socialism.
A few Progress MPs, who are allegedly staunch remainers, scuttled off to meet Theresa May’s spokesperson to discuss possible negotiations on a new Brexit deal despite having received a letter from Corbyn asking them not to. They emerged from the meeting with the look of people who’d been conned and misled within.
Predictably, centrist media, who spend most of their time berating Corbyn for not being sufficiently (in their eyes) opposed to Brexit, were also very critical of his decision to place a pre-condition of removing no-deal before he would agree to discussions with May.
The people who are keen for Corbyn to listen to lies from May and indulge her stunt are the same people who criticise him for not yet asking for a so-called People’s Vote. There is no consistency in their criticisms of Corbyn’s strategy and their statements and acts are infested with contradictions.
The Tory government has been found in contempt of parliament, it has had the largest defeat ever in parliament by any British government, it has no plan for Brexit and a variety of vagabonds within it are pitching their leadership challenges. But, the Tories’ alleged opponents target Corbyn, regardless of what he and his colleagues do or don’t do.
The confidence tricksters were duly flushed out into the open by Corbyn’s tactics.
They fear socialism much more than they oppose Brexit.
People’s Vote (PV) and its umbrella group Progress know that the result of the vote on Theresa May’s Brexit deal today will be a huge loss for her and that, consequently, Jeremy Corbyn may seek a no confidence vote in the government to force a general election.
(Update: May lost the vote and Corbyn immediately called for a no confidence vote.)
The least favoured outcome of Brexit for PV and Progress is a Corbyn-led Labour (or coalition) government. Any scenario is preferred by them to Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister and John McDonnell as Chancellor. Their opposition to socialism trumps all other concerns.
In the days immediately prior to the pointless parliamentary vote on Theresa May’s dead-on-arrival Brexit deal the PV machine has been very busy promoting its demand for a second referendum on membership of the EU. Alongside Femi Oluwole’s skill at finding a TV camera on the streets and Chuka Umunna’s safe seat in the Newsnight studio, PV delivered hundreds of thousands of leaflets to residents and used social media’s advertising and promotion tools (including promoted tweets on twitter) to force its message. The source of funding for the PV’s promotion of a second referendum is as transparent as the funding for Progress.
Progress, PV and the centre of British politics are scared. They observe the Tories collapsing in on themselves and they know that whatever happens on March 29th, or not, a general election is an increasing possibility. A looming no confidence vote and, therefore, an earlier general election, has terrified the anti-socialists in the centre and galvanised them to ramp up their campaign for a second referendum.
The campaign for a second referendum is a false campaign. The promoters of it have no reason to assume that the result of a second referendum would differ from the first. Their arguments (below) that the result could have changed do not resist scrutiny.
PV claim: Unscrupulous and illegal funding of leave campaign
Nothing has been proven regarding possible wrongdoing. Even if true, it is an insult to leave voters to suggest their decision to support leave was not their own.
PV claim: Chaos of departure has highlighted intrinsic problems with Brexit
Yes, there are many intrinsic problems with Brexit but the current chaos is down to Tory incompetence. Also, leave voters expected some chaos and disruption.
PV claim: People didn’t vote for no deal
Remain and Leave voters voted in a referendum where they assumed the two options were to stay or to leave. The deal or not of departure was not under consideration in the first referendum.
PV claim: Brexit (deal or not) will hit poorest hardest
The statement is true but that is because there is currently a Tory government who will ensure that the poorest pay for insurance for the wealthiest against Brexit consequences. People are dying in the streets due to current Tory policy that has nothing to do with Brexit.
PV claim: The result of a second referendum will be different to the first
There is no reason to assume that the result would be different.
The foundation for believing that a second referendum would produce a different result is spurious. The legitimacy for a second referendum is nebulous. The focus of People’s Vote is to avoid a general election that elects Corbyn. A second referendum would disrupt the possibility of a general election and that is why PV exists. The current increase in (costly) campaigning by PV is driven by fear that one of the immediate consequences of May’s failure in the vote this evening could be a general election.
The People’s Vote campaign is invalid and insincere. This Progress subgroup exists to thwart socialism.
“The Industry and Parliamentary Trust is an independent, non-lobbying, non-partisan charity that provides a trusted platform of engagement between Parliament and UK business.”
The largest lobby group in parliament, the Industry and Parliamentary Trust (IPT) is a tool to enable representatives of the corporate world to gain access to politicians in order to direct the latter’s policy.
The IPT operates a two-pronged strategy:
Speeches, meetings and business visits whereat corporate representatives instruct parliamentarians on aims, objectives and changes to the law
Advice for IPT’s corporate clients on how to manipulate the cogs of parliament
Events and training IPT’s events and intent are presented spuriously as quasi-educational. It describes its role as creating “an environment that supports trusted, open and two-way dialogue between Parliament and UK business. IPT platforms engage, educate and inform, create lasting relationships and facilitate the exchange of ideas.”
However, the bullet points of its marketing hype (in About IPT) reveal its true intent and, simultaneously, its deceptive presentation.
“IPT equips parliamentarians from all parties with a greater understanding of commerce and industry through non-partisan platforms.”
How is the equipping “non-partisan” if it is presented only by representatives of the corporate world? The next IPT event, Strengthening UK Road & Rail Infrastructure, will feature a speaker from made-up public transport “operator” Abellio Group; there will be no representatives of rail unions or of passenger lobby groups and there will be no speaker supportive of unprivatisation of public transport. The premise of this event is steeped in political bias that is riven with imposed ignorance of alternatives to exploitation of tax-payers, passengers and workers.
Another upcoming event, Taking Off– Supporting a Competitive UK Airline Sector, will be presented by the CEO of an airline, Virgin Atlantic. The speech will “consider the pressures faced by airlines and how the UK Government can encourage competitive markets and explore how the [government’s] aviation strategy can boost [international] competitiveness.” That is, the speaker will tell the MPs what to do (tax breaks, removal of workers’ rights, etc.) to ensure that the airline can maximise its profits.
“IPT enables businesses of all sizes and from all sectors to develop knowledge of parliamentary and legislative processes.”
Of course it does. The corporate world is always keen to manipulate changes to the law and set the tone of parliamentary debate. A thorough knowledge of the processes of parliament is useful for a manipulator as are methods of dealing with parliamentary investigation. IPT provides Select Committee Training that pretends to be aimed at “public servants, academics and those from the voluntary and private sectors who are interested in this particular aspect of the parliamentary process” as a guide on how to be helpful at select committee hearings, but the training is really for business representatives to help them obfuscate, misdirect and evade investigation at the hearings.
“IPT enriches policy debates by deepening the dialogue between Parliament and industry.”
IPT’s method is to severely restrict debate not “deepen” it. IPT seeks to constrict the allowed premises and parameters of debate by forcing particular political perspectives on participants as uncontestable givens.
Fellowships The most insidious facet of IPT is its fellowship scheme. Corporate donors of IPT pay for politicians to be placed with businesses to more easily facilitate the instruction of the politicians on the right policy perspectives to take to help the corporate world.
IPT condemns itself with its description of the fellowships.
“Through our Fellowship programmes, host organisations have an opportunity to engage with parliamentarians in a constructive non-lobbying framework, and to learn about the political process from those who are at the heart of it.”
In other words, politicians get indoctrinated in whatever political stance suits the corporate world and the latter gains useful knowledge of tactics to use to direct the “political process.”
A couple of examples of fellowships. 1. MBDA, a missile manufacturer made up of Airbus, Leonardo and BAE Systems, hosted Tory MP Mike Wood in November 2018.
According to IPT, “Wood’s Fellowship focusses on learning about the challenges that manufacturing businesses face relating to skills, supply chains and exports within the aerospace and automotive sectors.” But, arms manufacturers’ income comes solely from tax payers and politicians are the enablers of that flow of income; Wood is Parliamentary Private Secretary for Liam Fox, the Secretary of State for International Trade & President of the Board of Trade.
“Learning how large businesses in the UK deal with their trade arrangements in the UK and overseas provided Mike with invaluable insight in his role as PPS to Liam Fox.” By “invaluable insight” IPT meant “clear instructions.” A conglomerate of arms manufacturers hosted a PPS to a minister in an act of sustained lobbying.
Wood’s fellowship is ongoing. “He looks forward to learning more at MBDA’s Bolton site in the new year.”
2. In March 2018 two MPs, Bill Esterson and Faisal Rashid, had a inculcated top-up to their support for nuclear power on a visit to Sellafield, formerly Windscale.
According to IPT, “the visit strengthened Esterson’s understanding of the role of the nuclear industry in both the Industrial Strategy and as a British export” and “Rashid learned about how the organisation incorporates its workforce into its long-term vision.” It was nice of IPT to put PR words into the mouths of the MPs.
Sellafield, formerly Windscale, has a history of technical issues regarding safety but IPT was keen to gloss over that: “The visit involved a tour of the Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant, that is due to complete its reprocessing operations in November this year, and one of the site’s major legacy facilities – the Pile Fuel Storage Pond – a site that is leading the way in hazard and risk reduction.”
Supporting organisations IPT’s list of supporting organisations – the businesses with whom IPT arranges contact with MPs – includes several made-up companies that rake in free tax-payers’ money while pretending to run a public service: Thames Water, Serco, Severn Trent Water, RWE Npower, First Utility, Capita, BT, Anglian Water, some key players in the arms industry: BAE Systems, Boeing, Leonardo, MBDA, Raytheon UK, fracking fools Cuadrilla, money launderers HSBC and international oil thieves ExxonMobil. It is not an impressive list of the best of British business.
Tail wagging the rat The fellowships with the supporting organisations are entirely for the benefit of the businesses. The visits and placements are not intended, and are not used, as opportunities for elected members of parliament to challenge the hosts about their treatment of employees, the quality of their products, their adherence to environmental law, their tax payments (or avoidance of) or their value for money if public services. The accounts are not scrutinised and difficult questions are not asked.
The MPs attend their fellowships with the intent of being impotent and are willing recipients of marketing and PR rhetoric. They behave exactly the opposite of how elected representatives should behave. Such behaviour is ingrained within the operating methodology of the majority of MPs; they perceive the corporate world as immutable and beyond interference. It is the psyche of weak government. The IPT encourages and benefits from this weakness.
“The IPT is embedded into Parliament and provides a safe space for parliamentarians to engage with industry in an organised, constructive and educational environment.”
Translation: The IPT is a an infestation of corporate lobbying in parliament and is a gross intrusion into democracy.
Links to brief descriptions of other right-wing think-tanks/lobby groups
“The Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) is an independent think tank engaged in cutting edge defence and security research. A unique institution, founded in 1831 by the Duke of Wellington, RUSI embodies nearly two centuries of forward thinking, free discussion and careful reflection on defence and security matters.”
RUSI was created by 19th century imperialist, Tory prime minister and enemy of the British people Arthur Wellesley in 1831 a year after his party had been kicked out of government because of its failure to reform the right to vote. In that year Wellesley was attacked whenever he appeared publicly and the windows of his home were smashed by opponents.
Alongside his opposition to the right to vote, Wellesley was an antisemite. In a speech on August 1st 1833 in the House of Lords he spoke against a bill to allow Jewish people the same rights as Christians in Britain: “We do not wish Jews to come and settle here.” Full speech:Wellesley on Jewish emancipation.
188 years after it was founded, RUSI promotes arms industry profits, imperialist financial subjugation of most of the world and post-service careers of ex-military personnel.
RUSI funding The world’s beneficiaries of war and destruction make regular large payments to RUSI; these payments are tax-deductible due to the fraudulent status of RUSI as a charity.
Tax-payers’ money is handed to RUSI via various government departments and quangos in many countries.
Banks and large international corporations – the biggest beneficiaries of international capitalist exploitation – make regular payments to RUSI.
Other think-tanks and lobby groups are used by unnamed donors to channel money to RUSI secretly.
RUSI people The members of RUSI’s list of its “distinguished fellows” have two constant features: RUSI Distinguished Fellows. Can you spot what the two features are? (Note: A woman does appear if you scroll down far enough and look to the end of the final row.)
The president, vice-presidents, chair and vice-chair positions are filled with royals, ex-senior army officers, ex-politicians and lords including former director of CIA David Petraeus (senior vice-president), former Tory leader William Hague (chairman) and the Grand Master of United Grand Lodge Of England, Duke of Kent (president).
One of the RUSI trustees is Charles Wellesley, great-great-great grandson of the RUSI founder. Not only did the current Wellesley inherit his ancestor’s association with RUSI he also inherited his Dukedom and, thus, parks his backside in the House of Lords.
For the RUSI, nothing has changed since 1831 regarding which people the RUSI thinks should be in charge.
RUSI literature The articles in its Commentary section, some written by RUSI research fellows and others written by invited contributors, share a common style wherein analysis is observational and not insightful and the tone is very dry. There are no attempts to offer opinions other than say-what-you-see remarks and no attempts to develop a didactic narrative. The shared blandness indicates that all contributors know what style to adopt and they adhere to it fully.
What is interesting about the commentary articles is what they don’t say.
In Delicate Footwork: Security and Diplomacy on the Korean Peninsula RUSI research fellow Cristina Varriale failed to describe the theatrical essence of the “diplomacy” between Trump and Kim; her observations were informed by a self-blinkered perspective that assumed the two megalomaniacal leaders had concern for the people of their respective countries and she chose not to put the leaders’ actions into the context of fooling their populations. These omissions were deliberate. RUSI is keen to posit the farce of “negotiations” as a real enterprise in order to give legitimacy to the intent of Donald Trump and his government.
In Ukraine: Five Years Of Enduring Changesformer British army officer Adam Coffey celebrated Ukraine’s celebration of its independence and cast the (partial) country as stuck between the respective financial and expansionist interests of the EU and Russia. He depicted the Ukrainian government as being let down by duplicitous interests of various EU governments. But, Coffey neglected to mention that the previous Ukraine government (pre break-up of the country and loss of Crimea) was overthrown violently by EU-backed extremists and he omitted to say that the current illegitimate Ukrainian government is a gang of extremist, racist, violent, corrupt thugs. He followed the RUSI lines of selective omission coupled with dryly expressed acceptance of legitimacy for something that doesn’t exist.
In Army recruitment crisis RUSI fellow Jack Watling bemoaned falling recruitment for the British armed forces. He noted some technical and organisational issues with recruitment and falling pay for professional soldiers but he did not discuss why fewer young people are willing to risk life and limb to protect the financial interests of oil companies and the arms industry’s profits. The intent of British military involvement in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen and elsewhere has been exposed. Why should young working-class people put their lives on the line for the profits of Lockheed or ExxonMobil? Watling expressed his joy that young people from Commonwealth countries can be coerced into joining the British armed forces.
In Is This the End of Nuclear Arms Control? Malcolm Chalmers and Dmitry Stefanovich appeared to express alarm at the USA’s decision to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. They predicted that the fall-out (no pun) from the withdrawal would include “especially severe implications for European security.” The scary rhetoric avoided the key point that informed the withdrawal: The USA government’s keenness for handing more money to the arms industry, and the authors’ portents of doom – “one last push towards saving the INF Treaty (or at least its legacy) could still be worthwhile. Otherwise, a further, and even more dangerous, twist in the spiral of mutual distrust between Russia and the West may be inevitable.” – was a typical scare-mongering marketing tactic of enablers of that industry’s profits.
Two reprobates from arch imperialist Henry Jackson Society were handed a platform by RUSI. In AUKMIN 2018: The Future of Global Britain? John Hemmings and Milia Hau wrote entirely from a ‘Western’ perspective (with emphasis on Britain and Australia) that viewed SE Asia and Pacific nations as opportunities for financial exploitation and locations for naval and air bases. “It has been an odd time for Western liberal democracies” declared the authors – there is nothing “liberal” about the Tory government or its counterpart in Canberra – ahead of salivating over the opportunities for money-making and military base-building in “the world’s most dynamic region by a wide margin.” In Henry Jackson Society philosophy, the world beyond the ‘West’ is viewed with the same exploitative eye as that of the 19th century imperialists.
The examples above demonstrate that RUSI contributors are unwaveringly selective with the information they impart and that they present their arguments from similar narrow political, geographical and cultural perspectives.
The dry, cold pseudo-academic tone of the writing is chosen to try to create the false impression of passionless, independent analysis; the tone is a con: Every article published by RUSI fits into the narrative of a ‘Western’ eye seeking what is best for capitalist exploiters.
RUSI death porn The dry tone of RUSI literature is discarded if the writer is indulging in a pornographic frenzy about the killing power of weaponry.
In What Does the Future of Land Fires Look Like?Adam Coffey struggled to contain his joy when describing the use of thermobaric weapons, cluster munitions and large numbers of simultaneous “precision fires.” He asked whether “humanitarian objections” to cluster munitions should be eschewed.
“The sheer number of sub-munitions that some systems have, causes significant post conflict issues when discarded and faulty munitions cause havoc for returning civilians. These risks have resulted in the humanitarian objections overriding a military need. Is it time to reconsider this approach – giving greater weight to military, rather than humanitarian needs?”
Coffey’s response to the question he posed was that if the Russian military are using such weaponry then so should the British, regardless of collateral consequences. As an obedient marketing man for the arms industry Coffey was keen to demand that British tax-payers are forced to spend as much money on explosions and death as the Russian tax-payers. Pesky “humanitarian objections” are getting in the way of endless profits.
RUSI has not changed its outlook on the world nor its intent since 1831. Created by an embittered and rejected elitist Tory, RUSI was and is a tool to promote military conflict, to support the control of the world by Western capitalists and to maintain power in the hands of an elite. It is intrinsically anti-democratic and xenophobic.
Links to brief descriptions of other right-wing think-tanks
Pantomime A Tory MP, a centrist activist and a far-right twerp walked down a street. The far-right twerp and his friends emitted barely coherent babble and shouted random insults, the centrist smiled nonchalantly and the Tory MP pleaded with police officers to rid her of the tiresome attention. It was an odd little pantomime.
The far-right twerps had decided to act out harassment of the Tory MP because she had claimed that she is not fully committed to Brexit. Their leader, a grifter called James Goddard, is a dim soundbite generator whose aim is to self-publicise in order to raise revenue for himself via donations from abject idiots. He is following the income raising technique of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon. The far-right twerps were inspired by Tory policy and Tory rhetoric.
The Tory MP, Anna Soubry, had chosen to invent herself as a Tory rebel re. parliamentary votes on Brexit except that she always relents and votes with the government. Her track record on other non-Brexit votes aligns her with all of the nasty, corrupt policies of the Tories. She is no rebel. Her complaints, to the police and later to a sympathetic media, about the behaviour of the far-right twerps failed to mention her support in parliament for policies that encouraged a far-right perspective.
The professional centrist acted out his role with ease. At an earlier encounter he had arrived with popcorn as a nod to the viewing public. He doesn’t need to raise funds because he is part of the Progress machine.
Review After the pantomime came the review of the performance. Apparently, what happened to a Tory MP is so significant that the whole of civilisation is threatened. That’s a Tory MP who has contributed to thousands of deaths via votes in favour of Tory Social Murder policies and who has more faces than Big Ben seen through a kaleidoscope.
Hordes of enraged and outraged right-wing dipsticks and centrist buffoons demanded action from the police and whinged on about the decline of polite political discourse. Tories, who are KILLING people, want polite civil discourse.
The far-right twerps are filth; they have been encouraged and emboldened by Tory filth like Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg and Norman Tebbit. Racist acts and words from Theresa May have given the far-right filth much confidence. But, the Tories displayed their lack of integrity by blaming John McDonnell for Soubry’s distress.
Ex-Sun Managing Editor Stig Abell blamed social media for the tone of the Westminster encounters. He didn’t blame the angry rabble-rousing racist rhetoric of newspapers like, for example, The Sun.
Meanwhile, Jeremy Corbyn will be subjected to a barrage of abuse and slander thrown at him by Tory Bratboys next time he speaks in parliament, including abuse and slander from James Cleverly; The Sun, Daily Mail, Times and Express will continue to rile people with false stories about immigrants; Theresa May will laugh her head off when opposition MPs talk about the effects of Tory Social Murder policy; the BBC will continue to give platforms to right-wing bigots, in the interests of balance.
But will Anna Soubry be able to walk a few yards down a street on live TV without interference? If she could she might not be on the TV and she does love being on TV.