Secretly funded right-wing political lobby group Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) invented another subset of itself called 1828.
1828 is another platform for anti-society anti-human pro-exploitation reckless philosophy of extreme free-marketeers. Another platform means another opportunity to grab airtime from complicit broadcasters who willingly pretend they are giving a voice to a different perspective when it’s the same gang of charlatans from the likes of IEA, Tax-Payers’ Alliance (TPA), Adam Smith Institute (ASI), etc.
The articles published by 1828 are typical and predictable. Misdirection, distraction, confidence tricks, illusion and delusion are their building blocks and snide and sneers are the glue.
In Liberating Policy Agenda “policy analyst” at TPA Ben Ramanauskas claimed the “housing crisis” was not the consequence of no social housing being built or property developers dodging the law on affordable housing or exploitative landlords taking advantage of insufficient laws to protect tenants.
“Our housing crisis is largely due to stamp duty, coupled with a very restrictive planning system. The next prime minister needs to abolish stamp duty and liberalise the planning system. This is the only way that we will end the housing crisis and make renting and home ownership affordable again.”
In the same article he said “corporation tax needs to be slashed and stamp duty on shares, capital gains tax, and dividends tax should be abolished entirely” followed by a restatement of the disreputable trickle-down theory.
“These activities are acts of violence. They should be resisted and punished like any other act of violence, no matter how virtuous those doing the violence claim their motives to be. As the police finally moved in to make arrests, individuals and news agencies published pictures of protesters being forcibly handcuffed and carried into police vans, and there were the usual complaints about police brutality and the state using violence against peaceful individuals. But that puts things completely backwards.”
He elucidated the con trick of capitalist democracies that people can object to something providing their objections have no effect. Referring to someone he claimed was a relative, a suffragette who took part in direct action to promote the right to vote for women, Butler defecated in the faces of all the great campaigners for universal suffrage.
“It wasn’t such actions that led to women getting the vote. Rather, it was the realisation, with so many men away in the first world war, that women had a legitimate voice in politics.”
Butler’s bizarre confidence trick of faux pomposity continued with a sermon from the pulpit.
“The whole history of democratic representative government has been the effort to reduce and remove coercive force from the debate on public policy. We rightly see violence, force, and coercion as evils. Instead, our ambition is to decide things by discussion, not by the obstructive force of unlawful protest.”
But, he concluded by supporting violence by the state.
“The only recourse is to meet violence with violence. In modern democracies, that means the power of the state, because, in the attempt to extinguish coercion in general, we give the state a monopoly of force.”
In Why zero-hours contracts are a force for good Oliver Stanley said “banning them is a restriction on economic liberty with no benefit.” His argument ignored the exploitative intent of their use by employers and he spouted the usual libertarian nonsense about spurious benefits of zero-hours contracts for employees.
Harry Eastley-Jones’ article on Venezuela included a deluge of abuse at the Venezuelan government and at Jeremy Corbyn and some of his Labour colleagues.
“Jeremy Corbyn and his cronies come from a Marxist tradition that despises the west and are only too happy to embrace any of our adversaries.”
Eastley-Jones noted problems in Venezuela but he failed to mention extreme economic sanctions imposed on Venezuela by USA and others and he failed to mention the theft of Venezuelan oil revenue by various governments around the world. He bemoaned the fact that Corbyn and others have not “apologised” for supporting Venezuela given the state of the economy in the country. He called analysis of the clear and deliberate external causes of Venezuela’s economic problems “bizarre conspiracy theories.”
Max Young’s argument againstWater unprivatisation was extremely deceptive. He noted some improvements to water supply over the last three decades but he implied that privatisation was the specific cause of the improvements and that unprivatised water supply would not have had such changes. He described general maintenance of the water supply as “investment” and he ignored huge profits siphoned off by racketeers.
Disgraced former Tory minister Priti Patel contributed a few articles to 1828.
Expect to see some of these faces popping up on BBC political panel shows without any reference to their connection to IEA or to who funds them:1828 people.
Links to brief descriptions of other lobby groups an think-tanks
On June 25th, as part of the tedious Tory leadership contest, BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg interviewed one of the final two candidates Jeremy Hunt. Her questions were structured to enable Hunt to spout his prepared soundbites full of lies and misdirection. Some of the questions appeared to be challenging but Hunt was allowed to respond with evasion, distraction and irrelevant tangents without any interruptions or queries of veracity. The questionscould have been sent by e-mail or text. It was a very weak performance from Kuenssberg.
Jeremy Hunt is Foreign Secretary but Kuenssberg’s only mention of his job was a reference to a comment he made about the EU. There were no questions about Afghanistan, Syria, Ukraine or Venezuela, and not a word about Hunt’s acquiescence with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s campaign for war against Iran.
There were a few questions on his previous role as Health Secretary but they offered mild criticism as a set up for Hunt’s mini-speeches wherein he lied about his intent, his actions, their consequences and about the causes of problems in the NHS and social care. Kuenssberg simply gave him cues.
Responding to one of Hunt’s deceptive monologues on his tenure as Health Secretary, Kuenssberg said
“No one would question your commitment to the health service while you were there.”
That obsequious response was a thorough indictment of both Kuenssberg’s and the BBC’s attitude to both the Tories and the NHS.
Hunt’s single objective as Health Secretary was to give away property and services – that is, continuous income – to racketeers masquerading as healthcare businesses. Privatisation of healthcare was and is his aim with the sole purpose of providing channels for money, both public money and the money of the sick and injured, to be fed to parasites. Healthcare is a huge source of income for the parasitical class. The consequences of privatised health service are huge bills for those who can afford it and death for everyone else. Hunt is an enemy of the health of the British people.
Kuenssberg offensive assessment of Hunt’s “commitment to the health service” could not be dismissed as privately-educated detached ignorance. Her membership of the posh group at the BBC would be an inadequate excuse. BBC’s deference to the government was also insufficient motivation for making such a stupid fact-averse comment. The ease with which Kuenssberg uttered such nonsense stemmed from the embedment of economic libertarian ideology at the BBC via its symbiotic existence with hard-right think-tanks such as Institute of Economic Affairs, Centre for Policy Studies and Tax-Payers’ Alliance.
Despite numerous warnings, BBC news and current affairs programmes on TV and radio continue to give airtime to charlatans from the above-named think tanks and others, and they are never introduced or described accurately on air before being allowed to spout their intrinsically dishonest garbage. As an example, earlier this week notorious professional troll Niall Ferguson appeared on Politics Live and was described by the presenter as an “historian” with no mention of the fact that he is on the board of Centre for Policy Studies.
Kuenssberg’s absurd and disturbing comment about Hunt as Health Secretary should be analysed within the context of BBC’s dionanstic involvement with these secretly funded anti-society think-tanks.
Ignorance, deference or collusion? It was a bit of each. Kuenssberg was doing her job as she was instructed to do it.
In post-match interviews yesterday (June 23rd) following England’s victory in the World Cup Phil Neville chose to attack the opponents, Cameroon, their manager Alain Djeuma and the referee. His comments went far beyond criticism of a couple of rough challenges. He passed judgement on the behaviour of the Cameroon team and its manager as if he had been given the task of being the moral arbiter on the events in the game.
Neville’s diatribes were full of extreme pomposity and pseudo-moralistic claptrap.
“I came to this World Cup to be successful but also to play a part in making women’s football globally more visible, to put on a show that highlights how women’s football is improving. But I sat through 90 minutes today and felt ashamed. I’m completely and utterly ashamed of the opposition and their behaviour. I’ve never seen circumstances like that on a football pitch and I think that kind of behaviour is pretty sad. Think of all those young girls and boys watching. I’ve got to tell the truth and say that I’ve never seen behaviour as bad as Cameroon’s on a football pitch before. It was like being a kid when you lost and you went home, crying, with the ball. I didn’t enjoy the 90 minutes, I just felt sad. I can’t gloss over it and fudge it, I have to tell the truth. England players would never behave like that but if they did, they would never, ever play for England again. I would say to Cameroon get your ship in order first before you start throwing stones. The referee was trying to protect football by not giving the penalty or the sending-off at the end when Steph’s ankle was stamped on – I admire the referee unbelievably. We’ve seen Cameroon people fighting in the VIP area. We’ve seen Cameroon people fighting in our hotel. I’d say to the Cameroon people ‘get your ship in order’. I don’t want to talk about what happened at the hotel. We’ve handled ourselves with pride; the players with the best humility, class and quality have won. I’m not here to criticise a national team but we want the image of women’s football to be good for little girls. Cameroon’s actions were so bad for the image of the game I’ve fallen in love with. I hope they will learn from this.”
“I am completely and utterly ashamed of the opposition. When I started in management, I think it was Arsene Wenger that told me: The team mirror the manager. If that was my team – and it will never be any of my players – they would never play for England again, with that kind of behaviour. At times, we probably didn’t know whether the game would continue. It didn’t feel like football. It was a good win but that wasn’t a World Cup last-16 tie in terms of behaviour that I want to see from footballers. This is going out worldwide. I didn’t enjoy it, the players didn’t enjoy it. My players kept their concentration fantastically, but those images are going out worldwide about how to act, the young girls playing all over the world that are seeing that behaviour. For me, it’s not right. My daughter wants to be a footballer and if she watches that she will think: ‘No, I want to play netball.’We have been spoken to about 350,000 times by referees for the last three weeks. We know the rules and the referee got every one right and in the end, the referee took pity on them. They should count their lucky stars that it wasn’t five or six. The behaviour was wrong, because it’s an image of women’s football that is going worldwide about a team that are refusing to play.”
Neville positioned himself above Djeuma and his team, looking down, passing judgement. It was not up to him to feel “ashamed for the opposition.” That comment was insulting and patronising and it displayed an abject lack of respect for a fellow manager and for the Cameroon players.
He exaggerated what happened and the possible consequences. It was a game with a few arguments, a few disputes and a few rough challenges. It was typical of how some football games are. The men’s World Cup has had many more dramatic and controversial incidents.
“Think of all those young girls and boys watching,” he exclaimed plaintively. “My daughter wants to be a footballer and if she watches that she will think: ‘No, I want to play netball.'” Most children watching the game probably thought the disputes and arguments were funny.
Neville’s problem is that he thinks women’s football should be different. He has a rose-tinted view of women’s football. He failed to realise that as women’s football got better, increased its appeal to fans and acquired more money it became more like the men’s game. Women’s football has been hampered by being perceived as a bit too middle-class; it is losing that restriction, thankfully, and people like Neville need to keep up with the changes.
He pleaded that “we want the image of women’s football to be good for little girls.” Women’s football at the highest level is for women. Does Neville think the men’s Premier League is the right “image” for little boys? It is the same sport and, increasingly so, the same business but Neville wants differentiation. His attitude was reminiscent of Harry Enfield’s Cholmley-Warner character who demanded that “women, know your limits.”
If he wants an imaginary form of football detached from reality then maybe it is time for him to move on.
Neville set the tone for the British media’s reaction and its members were, of course, very eager to follow him. In newspapers, broadcasters and comments from a variety of football talking heads, condemnation of Cameroon was uniformly aggressive, dishonest and suspect.
The themes of the media response were
Cast doubt on the professionalism of the referee
Claim the Cameroon players did not know the rules
Compare Cameroon players and manager to children
Feign indignation and despair
Refer to Cameroon as “the African side“
Express fear for the future of women’s football via the prism of middle-class nostalgia
The uniformity of the media analysis was an indictment of the low bar for football journalism in Britain.
Here are a few examples:
BBC’s Jacqui Oatley competed with Phil Neville for pomposity. “I messaged my husband earlier to check our 8-year-old daughter was watching. She was. Really wish she hadn’t been.” Privately-educated Oatley was obviously worried that women’s football was not going to remain an exclusive suburban pursuit.
The Sun’s Martin Lipton doubted that Cameroon knew the rules. “Cameroon simply did not know where to stand [for the indirect free-kick].” “Bonkers” was his chosen term of abuse: “The story was about the astonishing, remarkable and totally bonkers behaviour of Cameroon, which broke Chinese referee Qin Liang. At one point there was a danger the African side might even walk off the pitch.” He referred to the referee’s nationality more than once and called Cameroon “the African side” several times; he did not call England “the European side.”
In a tweetLiptondismissed the referee’s ability and professionalism. “There should have been at least two, maybe three, red cards. And a penalty. But ref wanted to get the game to final whistle.”
Jason Burt in Telegraph made a similar comment about the referee. “It felt by then that Chinese referee Qin Liang had had enough; that she was fearful that Cameroon may threaten to walk off for a third time; that she had had her fill of controversy and attention and even desired to placate them.” Again, an unnecessary mention of the referee’s nationality.
In the same paper Paul Hayward repeated the claim that the referee’s decisions were not straight. “Match officials apparently buckling under pressure.”
Another Telegraph hack Luke Edwards criticised FIFA General Secretary Fatma Samoura because she congratulated Cameroon. He accused her of inflaming the “situation.” He meant that he objected to her not falling into line with all the criticism aimed at Cameroon from English voices. Cameroon’s progress to the knockout stage of the World Cup was an extraordinary achievement given the lack of financial support; Samoura’s applause was entirely correct.
In a separate article Edwards erased all the poor behaviour at (men’s) world cups and he accused Cameroon of not knowing the laws of the game and of being amateur. “The Cameroon team’s behaviour has damaged the World Cup’s image. This was some of the worst, most petulant and possibly damaging behaviour seen at a World Cup. It does nothing to enhance the reputation of women’s football when players do not seem to understand the offside law and how VAR is used. As for threatening to quit the game because things are going against you, it makes a mockery of the idea this is a serious, professional tournament. Some of Cameroon’s behaviour was disgraceful.”
In an uncredited articleon Football365 the same insult to the referee’s judgement and commitment was made. “A penalty should have been awarded for a trip on Fran Kirby with a quarter of an hour remaining and a red card given to Alexandra Takounda for a dreadful foul on Houghton, but it was decided that poking the bear was inadvisable.” The article’s chosen term of abuse at Cameroon was “pathetic tantrum.” “Their refusal to restart play was a pathetic tantrum allowed to fester by the inept refereeing of Qin Liang.”
Guardian’s Louise Taylor expanded on insults to the referee’s professionalism. “In the second half the Lionesses should have had a penalty and Cameroon a couple of players sent off but the referee, diplomatically, refrained from making those decisions due to genuine fears the match would descend into total anarchy. By the end she genuinely seemed to fear for her physical safety.” The last sentence was not only very stupid but also very suspect.
BBC’s Tom Garry followed the trend of calling Cameroon “the African side” and not calling England “the European side.”
Guardian’s Suzanne Wrack said Cameroon “threw their toys out of the pram in style” and went “into complete meltdown.” She described the manager as an “impotent dog.” “Childish” and “playground” were also part of her vocabulary.
In an interview on BBC radio former footballer Hope Solo insulted the Cameroon players’ professionalism and their intelligence. “Perhaps they weren’t even told about the rules, the laws of the game and the evolution of the game.”
In The Times former footballer Tony Cascarino said “Cameroon embarrassed the sport.”
In the same paper former referee Peter Walton claimed the Cameroon players and manager did not know the rules. “The Cameroon players displayed a lack of understanding of the offside laws and, even worse, so did their coach.”
Mail’sIan Herbertmade petulant remarks about Cameroon players’ abilities. “The biggest embarrassment was that a team so palpably incapable of passing a ball from A to B should have been in the last-16 of a World Cup in the first place.” His personal abuse continued with a comment on Ajara Nchout’s tears which he said “belonged to scenes straight out of the playground,” he called Alain Djeuma “vainglorious” and accused him of “perpetuating victimhood,” he said Cameroon played with “unadultered aggression bordering on assault,” called Leuko “a player way out of her depth” and concluded with the ridiculous assertion that it was “one of the darkest days in the relatively short of history of the Women’s World Cup.”
In another article Herbert claimed, with no evidence, that “it seems only a matter of time until FIFA surely look into the drama-filled encounter.”
In the Mirror Neil Moxley said the game was “an awful advert for the women’s game” and he called Cameroon “the Africans” but didn’t call England “the Europeans.”
Sunday Times’ Rebecca Myers said it was “farcical that Cameroon ended up in last 16 at all.”
Asked to provide marks out of ten and brief analysis of each player’s performance, Telegraph’s Katie Whyatt ignored Cameroon.
BBC commentator Jonathan Pierce spent the entire game describing how “athletic” the Cameroon team members were.
Whatever he may achieve in what remains of his career in football Phil Neville will forever be remembered for tripping Viorel Moldovan in the penalty area in 2000 European championship; the resultant (winning) goal for Romania meant England were knocked out of the tournament. The trip, unnecessary and a consequence of an average footballer playing in the wrong position (left-back), epitomised Neville as a professional: A persistent worker whose words and repetitive actions fall short of compensating for his lack of skill and lack of intelligence.
Yesterday (June 20th) evening, at a Mansion House speech by chancellor Philip Hammond, Tory Minister of State for Asia and the Pacific Mark Field violently assaulted a woman, Janet Baker, who was protesting about lack of government action to address the climate crisis. Field’s crime was recorded by a TV broadcaster and the clip shown on news bulletins.
Field’s statement After a discussion with an expensive lawyer – whose fee will no doubt to be added to expenses – Field released an awful statement.
“A major security breach occurred at a dinner I attended last night when a large group of protestors suddenly and noisily stormed into Mansion House. In the confusion many guests understandably felt threatened and when one protestor rushed past me towards the top table I instinctively reacted. There was no security present and I was for a split-second genuinely worried she might have been armed. As a result I grasped the intruder firmly in order to remove her from the room as swiftly as possible. I deeply regret this episode and unreservedly apologise to the lady concerned for grabbing her but in the current climate I felt the need to act decisively to close down the threat to the safety of those present.”
His statement tried to paint a picture of a scenario that he claimed existed in his head as animalistic justification for his behaviour – “I instinctively reacted” – including evocative language to grossly exaggerate what he post-pretended to perceive as threatening: “Major security breach,” “suddenly and noisily stormed,” “in the confusion,” “rushed past me towards the top table,” and “genuinely worried.”
He co-opted what he chose to imagine other people in the room were thinking as a tool to enhance his decision to attack but the video clip showed the other attendees looking on bemused at Field’s behaviour. No-one seemed “threatened” or “worried.” Subsequent accounts of the incident by people who were there debunked his assertion that there was room-wide worry.
Field referenced the “the current climate.” Did he mean the “the current climate” of people getting milkshook?
In an attempt to justify “grasping firmly” and “removing swiftly” he said “she might have been armed.” That comment was typical of armed police whenever they have shot an unarmed person. Indeed, the entire statement could have been copied and pasted from thousands of police statements on “officer-involved shootings.”
He and his lawyer concocted a cause-and-effect storyboard to conclude that Field had no choice but to do as he did. He did not regret any specific actions he took. Field depicted his actions as reactive and instinctive. Not only was the statement a pre-defence but it was also a disgusting attempt to applaud him as quick thinking and heroic.
In April Field asked police to be more violent against Extinction Rebellion protesters in London: “I would be most grateful if, as a matter of urgency, you would take a much firmer grip on this problem.” He took his own advice two months later.
Field didn’t practice what he had preached Field’s behaviour yesterday conflicted with opinions he expressed earlier this year.
“Human rights defenders often operate in the most difficult environments, and by exposing issues that the powerful would prefer to keep hidden, their work puts them in constant danger. They or their families could face discrimination, violence or, at the very worst, death. That is what happened to Berta Cáceres, who bravely stood up for the rights of an indigenous group in Honduras against a proposed hydroelectric dam project. She paid for that with her life, and it has taken five years for those responsible to be held to account. Tragically, Berta’s murder is by no means unique, and many others have been killed for standing up to those in power. Many others face similar threats.”
He remembered to promote his contribution to the debate with a self-aggrandising tweet: “The UK [government] remains committed to helping women all over the world to feel safe and protected in the work they do, so they can speak freely and be part of the change we all want. [Read] my remarks at the Westminster Hall Debate on Women Human Rights Defenders.”
So, Field supported women who stood strong for what they believed in except if they were physically too close to him and he supported tackling climate security but objected to anyone protesting about it.
Field loves The City Of London Field is opposed to any restriction of the financial business of the City of London. In love bankers he presented an absurd misrepresentation of the role of banks and financial institutions, of their intent and of their usefulness to society. He described them as necessities – “our open commercial climate, so carefully nurtured over centuries, is an asset we can ill afford to lose” – rather than as their true role of parasites.
Via some creative figures he claimed that loss of the finance industry in the UK would be disastrous – “banker bashing and public hostility to wealth creation is doing lasting damage to the UK’s economy” – but neglected to mention that the reason so many members of that industry are based in Britain is because they can easily dodge tax. But, many “city professionals engage in philanthropy, to the enormous and lasting benefit of London’s galleries and museums and charities.”
In no regulation Field warned that any regulation, particularly if imposed by Financial Conduct Authority, would be unwelcome: “Most of our competitors [other countries] are desperate to break into the developing markets of the East, where the increased wealth of the middle classes will ensure the rapid expansion of their financial sectors for decades to come. This nation already has a competitive advantage in such areas, so should we be hobbling it?” He wanted complete freedom for the finance industry to gamble and play games with lives and livelihoods.
Field’s attitude toward the business of the City Of London and his dishonest appraisal of its role and intent revealed someone who is willing to provide any excuse for wrongdoing and criminality and who lies with casual impunity. It showed a personality bereft of social empathy, without any concept of community and purposefully restricted in intellect. That is who Field is. His behaviour yesterday would not have surprised anyone who knew him.
Faux 19th century Etonian explorer Rory Stewart traipsed across Afghanistan avoiding all laws including the need for a foreign visitor’s visa. For him, the trip was a safari, in the colonial sense of the word. He was a privileged visitor from a different world pretending to be interested in real people while benefitting from his investments in businesses that exploit them.
His PR campaign during the Tory leadership contest followed the same pattern. Stewart popped up at Kew Gardens, he walked down streets and he hung around town centres pretending to engage people in conversation. His encounters were filmed and used erroneously as proof that the Etonian enjoys listening to people; Stewart made little contribution to the conversations. Funding for his street campaign came from typical Tory sources including £10,000 from investment banker Lev Mikheev and £10,000 from Khaled Said, son of notorious arms dealer Wafic Said.
Stewart’s campaign was focussed on trying to separate him from the rest of the contenders which was a difficult taskbecause he voted in line with all vicious Tory policy throughout his time as an MP. Behind Etonian bluster the only point he made was to claim he was willing to criticise Boris Johnson but there was no substance to his criticism; he simply said “look at me, I am bold enough to not agree with Johnson.” However, that was enough for a torrent of centrist buffoons to exclaim gleefully that Stewart was the new saviour of British politics.
The desperation of the centrist gloop was unsurprising; they grasp despairingly at anything and anyone that they think could distract and con enough voters to stop Jeremy Corbyn being prime minister. Stewart’s pretence at reasonableness and his gift of the gab, qualities that dazzle impressionable liberals, were merely tactics of conmanship he learnt on special courses at Eton. The arts of persuasion, verbal sleight of hand and depiction of nothingness as something of substance are key components of an Etonian education.
Channelling Alan Partridge, two absurd ideas Stewart offered as part of his imaginary plan were reintroduction of National Service, an idea he borrowed from Chuka Umunna’s incoherent manifesto for centrism, and an alternative parliament in a church close to Westminster if Boris Johnson prorogued parliament.
Stewart and Johnson are the same. They attended the same machine masquerading as a school, they support the same destructive murderous Tory policies, they share the same imperialistic militaristic outlook on the world and they live in the same detached privileged bubble. Both are charlatans, liars and con artists. Both are extremely venal.
In hypothetical isolation, away from the pitiful choices on offer in the Tory leadership race and away from the anything-but-socialism determination of worthless centrists and liberals, an empty chancer like Rory Stewart would have been given peremptory treatment immediately and then forgotten. The fact that he has not been laughed off the streets is a symptom of the vacuous stupidity of British politics and British political journalism.
Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt leapt into action yesterday when US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo demanded obsequious support for a false flag attack on oil tankers near Iran.
In his previous role as Health Secretary Hunt had continued the destruction of the NHS and its handover to invented healthcare businesses who paid him handsomely. His goodboy work ethic was noticed by racketeers and their investors including disaster capitalists salivating at the prospect of making a quick buck or billion out of no deal Brexit. The racketeers’ head puppet, Trump, made clear that the NHS would be up for grabs after Brexit.
A Foreign Secretary doesn’t have a public service or property to give away. What is on offer is public money for the arms industry. Hunt’s focus as Foreign Secretary is to agree to any fallacious reason to facilitate flow of cash to that industry. He is unable to make any decisions himself due to abject lack of intelligence and knowledge; thus, he follows instructions. Most of his instructions come from the US government.
The brazen cockiness of Pompeo’s false flag attack on oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman was matched by its ineptitude. The captain of one of the oil tankers disputed the US government’s concocted account immediately; his assessment included noting that the source of the explosion was above the water but a torpedo – the US government’s story – would have hit the ship below the waterline. That oil tanker is Japanese-owned and the incident occurred while Japan’s Prime Minister met Iran’s President in Iran. Pompeo claimed that a Japanese oil tanker was targetted by Iran because the Iranian government was unhappy with the progress of talks between the two leaders. Japan buys a lot of Iranian oil.
Iran’s lucrative oil supply was a factor in the decision to launch the false flag attack. Hunt is known to the oil industry. He has a close one-sided association with Rupert Murdoch co-owner of Genie Energy that is stealing Syrian oil under the Golan Heights.
There was nothing surprising about Hunt’s rapid and unconditional display of complicity with the promotion of Pompeo’s creation. Hunt is a good worker for those who pay well. Nothing he does is in the interests of the British people and he acts directly against the British people.
The day after another electoral embarrassment for the Tories in the Peterborough by-election Theresa May scurried away from her job as party leader. Her grey ghost lingers as prime minister while the Tories try to find a new leader who isn’t hated by everybody.
Stupidity Brexit terminated May’s tenure by exposing brutally her stupidity and ignorance. Theresa May is a very stupid person. She lacks knowledge, vision and analytical acumen and she has no intellectual capacity for deductive reasoning. Throughout her political career she protected her dimness by avoidance of scrutiny and evasion of debate. Her cowardice when faced with questions from opposition MPs and from media was both a tactic and her only option.
The consequences of stupidity – lack of self-awareness, no shame and a sociopathic personality – make it an asset for a conservative (small ‘c’) politician; the task of enabling a political ideology and associated strategy that is intrinsically opposed to the benefit of the majority requires a detachment from natural reactive and deductive thought processes. But, eventually, when an issue arises that needs intelligence, the deficiencies of a stupid politician become problematic.
May combined stupidity with a basic brand of stubbornness. Kind or dishonest observers characterised her stubbornness as determination or fortitude but May was simply unwilling and unable to acknowledge her voluminous shortcomings as leader and as decision-maker.
Her departure was welcomed by those for whom the Tories work but May was a very useful tool for these enemies of society. During almost three years as prime minister May enhanced the destruction of society, particularly public services, begun by Cameron and his lapdog Clegg and she enacted policies that increased hugelythe wealth of the wealthiest at everyone else’s expense.
Austerity and Social Murder Ideological strategy of austerity and its accomplice Social Murder were expanded by May and her government with a variety of vicious cuts to welfare provision and to services. Destitution, debt, homelessness and death were the intended outcome of these policies. People with disabilities, mental health issues and chronic or terminal illnesses were hit hardest by May’s assault. Universal Credit was designed as a means of causing misery with the ultimate aim of a cull.
A United Nations report by Philip Alston, that had collected evidence of the effects of Tories’ policies against the poorest people in Britain, damned the Tory government but May and her colleagues responded to it with contempt. When any Tory minister was asked about austerity or Social Murder they denied seeing any or they laughed derisively. May, chancellor Philip Hammond and DWP ministers Esther McVey, Iain Duncan-Smith and Amber Rudd all denied any destructive effects of their policies and they complained petulantly if questioned about such effects.
Laughter was May’s favourite reaction to being presented with the awful facts of the consequences of her policies. In parliament, if Labour, SNP, Green or Plaid Cymru MPs spoke about the desperate situation of people as a direct result of Tory Social Murder policy May led her party in a chorus of laughter. The laughter’s intent was to mock the people whose lives had been destroyed by Tory policies.
Destruction of public services and NHS Necessary public services were wrecked by May: Cuts to police numbers and closure of police stations; closure of fire stations; collapse of probation service; rapid decline in quality of prison service; archaic, unreliable and expensive rail service; huge budget cuts in state schools; closure of libraries; rapid, catastrophic decline in care services; extortionate cost of utilities. For May, any public service, anything necessary, was merely a cash cow for swindlers who invented companies out of thin air and were handed public money to ‘operate’ the service but pocketed most of the money leaving a poor service and high costs for users.
The most necessary public service is the NHS and, thus, it has the greatest potential for free money for the swindlers. Tories claimed constantly that the NHS received sufficient funding but a large percentage of that money was siphoned off by privateers and disappeared into their offshore accounts. For May, the NHS was a magic money tree for racketeers. For patients, waiting times for operations increased, access to GPs disappeared and A&E became a death zone. One of May’s last acts was to stand obsequiously next to Donald Trump as he stated firmly that any post-Brexit deal between UK and US would include access for US parasites to the remnants of the NHS.
Housing? Building social housing ceased while May was prime minister and property developers were allowed to dodge legal commitments to building so-called affordable housing. Consequently, homelessness among people with full-time jobs increased. Meanwhile, apartments for the wealthiest sprung up all over major British cities, often replacing previous homes that were accessible to everyone, built by developers based in tax havens, sold by companies based in tax havens and bought by people or landlords based in tax havens. This theft of living space was deliberately enabled by May.
Grenfell Tower fire Two years ago Grenfell Tower in Kensington, London caught fire and was destroyed. Seventy-one people died and hundreds were made homeless. May’s immediate reaction was to adopt the cover-up mode and she maintained that stance over the following two years. Grenfell Tower was the responsibility of a Tory council; within the council’s borough live a lot of very wealthy people including donors to the Tory party; the loss of that council in an election to Labour would be difficult for the Tories.
An inquiry into the fire has dragged on aimlessly and has been a constant battle for the survivors, many of whom are still homeless. Obstacles, delays and lies have been the government’s response to the fire.
Windrush When Home Secretary, May concocted a plan to wreck the lives of people who had moved to Britain from Commonwealth countries from late 1940s to early 1970s. She ordered the destruction of documents that were proof of their arrival and their legal status in Britain and then she changed the law to demand they prove their right to live in Britain. As a direct and intended result, thousands of people, mostly elderly, were threatened with deportation, were banned from working and denied welfare benefits, lost free access to all NHS services and had their pensions stolen. Some people were deported, some of whom died destitute. Others lost their life savings and homes. For those with serious illnesses, death came earlier due to no available healthcare.
May’s plan was a tactic of her policy of displaying racist intent. It’s only purpose was to prove her racist credentials.
Arms industry profits and Yemen The arms industry is lucrative for freeloading investors. The relationship between disreputable governments and that industry is deep. May had a personal interest in feeding the arms industry given her husband’s considerable investments in it. She brokered deals between elements of the industry and Saudi Arabian government. One such deal was the sale of forty-eight Typhoon jets for carpet-bombing of Yemeni civilians and civilian infrastructure. As part of the deal, British military personnel were stationed in Saudi Arabia as trainers and consultants and Saudi pilots practiced in British airspace. Hundreds of thousands of Yemeni civilians were killed directly by Saudi airstrikes or indirectly by lack of healthcare – hospitals were deliberately destroyed – and by starvation and associated diseases because food and medical supplies were destroyed and blockaded.
Voter suppression May knew that poorest voters might not have a passport or driving licence so she created a voting requirement for photo ID; consequently, thousands of people were denied their right to vote.
For the European elections non-British EU citizens resident in UK who have the right to vote in Britain were deliberately misinformed about registration necessities and there were non-accidental delays in administration that caused hundreds of thousands to be unable to vote.
Tory MP Chloe Smith was handed the invented title of Minister for the Constitution by May and asked to develop reasons to justify removal of the right to vote and the right to stand in an election for people who had “intimidated politicians.”
Goodbye access to justice Denial of access to justice was May’s biggest contribution to the removal of democracy: Legal aid was almost abolished. Consequently, it is very difficult for people without wealth to defend themselves adequately in criminal or civil court and it is impossible for someone to take legal action against any large business, council or government agency. Justice now has a price. Justice is now dependent on wealth. The wealthy evade justice and the poorest suffer from it.
The necessities of life – human rights – were systematically eroded by May. Millions of people were left with insufficient money to survive, with reduced access to healthcare and with nowhere to live.
Normal aspects of civilised society were diminished by May. Education, policing and access to justice are no longer guaranteed.
Evasion and dishonesty were the driving forces of May’s mode of communication with a consequential collapse of trust in her government and in all agencies of governance and authority.
May normalised racial prejudice and anti-Islam rhetoric.
May normalised extreme selfishness and erosion of humanitarian philosophy.
May galvanised xenophobia and othering as tools of division.
May demanded hatred of people with disabilities, mental health issues and chronic illnesses.
May gave billions of pounds of public money to made-up businesses who pretended to run public services including a huge contribution to Capita, her husband’s employer.
May made tax avoidance easy for the wealthiest.
May cavorted with brutal authoritarian leaders of countries who are committing acts against human rights daily.
May offered Donald Trump her hand.
May is violently opposed to society and to humanity. She is an enemy of people. She is a willing puppet of thieves, swindlers and mass murderers. She should not be allowed to retire in peace.