Yesterday, 24th November 2021, extreme-right weekly magazine The Spectator held its annual parliamentary awards.
It was an opportunity for Tory MPs to take a break from destroying the fabric of society, wrecking people’s lives and lying through their rectums, and spend a few hours in the company of some of the most rancid, bigoted and nasty “commentators” to ever be paid to spout bile.
Chaired by king of far-right grifting Andrew Neil and edited by Fraser Nelson The Spectator’s current regular contributors include Rod Liddle, Lionel Shriver, Douglas Murray and Kate Andrews. It is a cacophony of extreme libertarian economics, racism and charlatanism. It is the antithesis of morality and of humanity.
There was no surprise to see The Spectator laud disciples of Hayek like Liz Truss (politician to watch awardee) and Nadhim Zahawi (minister to watch) and it was equally unsurprising for the Tory party to promote such a hate-filled, dishonest rag. Symbiotic support among people whose sole focus is ensuring that the torrent of money from poorest to wealthiest continues unabated and by whatever means necessary.
Not just Tory MPs were present and in receipt of awards. New colonialist think-tank Henry Jackson’s Society’s Chris Bryant (speech of the year) accepted his award with a friendly joke toward decrepitly corrupt Jacob Rees-Mogg, a joke that erased entirely any sincerity in the speech that won the award wherein he attacked Tories on 3rd November for their attempt to shut down parliamentary scrutiny of MP’s behaviour. His demeanour at The Spectator event revealed how that speech was performative, nothing more.
Equally, Angela Rayner (disruptor of the year) showed, by her presence at the event, that her (excellent) comments at the Labour party conference on “Etonian scum” were also just a performance.
NHS is being deliberately underfunded leading to loss of life as Tories continue step-by-step privatisation for the benefit of their offshore donors, deaths from Covid are rising again as a direct consequence of Tory policy, negative effects of Brexit are increasing in quantity and size, Tories are processing a variety of bills through parliament that remove freedoms, democracy and human rights, and, on the same day, twenty-seven people, including children, drowned in the English Channel because of the extremism of the Tory government, but MPs from both the government and the “opposition” had a night out kissing the arse cheeks of a magazine that can, without exaggeration, be compared to Mein Kampf.
The entire political system in the UK stinks. British democracy is a sham.
A oft-used tactic by Boris Johnson’s advisers, as means of distraction from Tories’ destruction, is for him to play the Etonian fool. Gurning, laughter, apparent confusion, dishevelment, looking a bit inebriated, coarse humour and general tomfoolery are behavioural dead cats he utilises to focus the attention of observers, particularly opponents, onto him rather than on vicious Tory attacks on the entire infrastructure of British society.
Today (22nd November 2021) in a speech to Confederation Of British Industry (CBI) Johnson chose to pretend to lose his way in his prepared speech accompanied by utterances of alleged confusion and random word salads. His performance, that also included praise for a children’s animated TV show (Peppa Pig) as an example of British industry success, was an act where he played a comic character who had (allegedly) failed to prepare and who couldn’t improvise readily.
We have been subjected to this act many times before. He plays the part well. The simple objective is to encourage airtime, newspaper column inches and social media conversations to be filled with comments about his ineptitude, unprofessionalism and general unsuitability to be prime minister. Such commentary might be accurate but Johnson’s unappealing persona should not be the focus.
On the same day (today) as Johnson’s CBI performance the Health And Care Bill is debated in the House Of Commons. This Tory bill is designed to destroy the NHS. It’s objective is to use people’s ill-health or injury as a source of unending income for racketeers in health service and in care.
Deliberate under-funding of NHS including deliberate refusal to maintain staff numbers is causing people to die while waiting for emergency treatment, either waiting for an ambulance to arrive or in an ambulance waiting at a hospital. Engineered collapse of NHS services is a policy of the Tories to try to present a need for “reform” where “reform” means removal of NHS.
That is happening today. So, Johnson does his act, the media lap it up excitedly, and the focus is on the buffoon, not on the evil, murderous bastard.
Not all Tory MPs are Etonians. Some Tory MPs emerge differently. Often described erroneously as “working-class Tories” their differences to poshboys are minor. They might have had to do a proper job for a while and their accumulated though unearned wealth might be bereft of much inheritance, but all else is the same.
However, those small early differences linger as useful tools both for the party – to depict itself as a broader political church than it is – and for any non-Etonian MP who can call up her or his background as spurious justification for certain philosophies and policies.
Tory government uses the existence of such interlopers to add faux sincerity to fake proposals to bolster con-tricks and lies. For example, in late 2021 the Tories’ “levelling up” and “social mobility” programmes, both of which are equine excrement, include regular supportive comments from MPs whose upbringing was less Etonian than others.
Nadine Dorries, Tories’ new Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), had an ordinary working-class upbringing and was a nurse for a few years. Her life became less ordinary having married a property-, business- and investment-speculator. She created a private child-care business and sold it to private healthcare company BUPA who also gave her a job. After her political career had begun she wrote several novels published as e-books based on stories told to her when she was a nurse; the novels were panned by critics. Toward the end of his life her husband had several disastrous financial episodes costing himself and many other people hundreds of thousands of pounds.
Dorries’ parliamentary career includes the usual Tory traits. Among her financial wrongdoings were expenses claims for a second home that was actually her main residence, an expense claim for a media and public affairs business, publicly-funded salaries for her daughter and for her sister for alleged work at her constituency office – her daughter lived almost 100 miles from the office, and a £10.000 claim for work compiling a report that neither she nor anyone in her office compiled.
In 2012 she appeared on a reality TV show while an MP thus removing her from her job for three weeks. She informed neither the Tory parliamentary party nor her local party that she was about to leave parliament to appear on a TV show. Tory party removed the whip. It was returned after Dorries threatened to join UKIP. She refused to state her salary for her TV work in the register of members’ interests, refused to answer a question on it from the parliamentary commissioner for standards, and claimed she didn’t need to reveal it because it was paid to her company not to her.
As an MP she tried repeatedly to reduce the time limit for abortions, she published a parliamentary bill that sought inclusion of promotion of abstinence in school sex education, but only for girls not boys, she said benefit claimants who use social media frequently should be reported to the DWP, and she went on a jolly to oil-rich Equatorial Guinea, governed by a brutal dictator.
Dorries’ skillset as a communicator incudes the full Tory range from daft to abusive to dishonest to hateful.
Daft A fervent supporter of Brexit, she complained that Theresa May’s proposed deal with EU “gives us no MEPs.”
On June 6th 2017 she produced some bizarre spelling and a very strange juxtaposition. “Some Conservative posters have been daubed with swass stickers – hard to believe any decent person would vote for Corbyn’s Jew hating mob.”
On 10th January 2014 she claimed there would be a “tidal wave of immigrants from Yugoslavia.” Yugoslavia ceased to exist in 2003.
Abusive Personal abuse and bigoted abuse are common characteristics of Dorries’ published statements and are a daily occurrence.
On 27th October 2017 she used an ablest slur. “Window lickin’ twitter trolls out in force today.” As a response to criticism of her language she claimed she was unaware of the meaning of the phrase, a claim that is not believable since she used the phrase exactly to mean someone with mental health issues.
Dishonest In March 2020 she stated “Italy has stopped intubating patients over sixty years old. All ICU [Covid] patients on ventilators are below sixty and not one has been weaned back off to breathe independently.” Her remark was a blatant lie. Rightly, the Italian ambassador to UK described her assertion as “fake news.”
In May 2021 she said 180,000 jobs were created in Hartlepool due to Brexit. The town’s population is estimated to be about 95,000.
On 6th March 2015 she said her mother was “an English protestant.” On January 21st 2018 she said she had a “Jewish mother.”
No far-right extremist is too extreme to receive a supportive boost from Dorries or to be used as a source of information including Stephen Yaxley-Lennon and Guido Fawkes. She promoted a clip produced by a far-right activist of a doctored video of Keir Starmer speaking when he was Director Of Public Prosecutions.
Hateful Dorries reacts angrily when found out or when her disreputable behaviour is criticised. In response to reporting on her daughter’s fake job funded by the public Dorries targetted journalist Ben Glaze by publishing a threatening and libellous statement on 22nd November 2013: “Ben Glaze of the Sunday Mirror has an interest in my three daughters which borders on decidedly creepy/ stalker esque. Here is a message: Be seen within a mile of my daughters and I will nail your balls to the floor using your own front teeth. Do you get that?” Two days later she added “people who work for your paper are bottom-feeding scum.”
Racism is thrown around with confidence. On 10th May 2012, after an appearance on lightweight satirical TV quiz show Have I Got News For You? (HIGNFY) alongside USA comedian Reginald D. Hunter Dorries said “I have now left the HIGNFY after party. As I looked over my shoulder, Reginald D Hunter was talking to my daughter,” and added, in the style of a USA confederate, “where’s my shotgun, man?“
On 9th April 2013 her enjoyment of racist behaviour was evident when she asked “apparently I’m racist because I think Chuck Umunna looks like Chris Eubank?” By “Chuck” she meant “Chuka.” Former politician Umunna and former boxer Eubank look nothing like each other. She responded to criticism of her comment by claiming that a similarity between the two people was an “arrogant smirk.”
On 4th February 2019 she commented on a video clip of journalist Ash Sarkar appearing on BBC by calling her (Labour parliamentary candidate) Faiza Shaheen. She said later that she had only heard the video and claimed she confused their voices.
The quoted comments above are a tiny example of her daily output of petulance, lies, name-calling and provocation.
The normal Tory accompaniment to such behaviour are performative complaints when anyone retorts and Dorries is keen to accuse responders of abuse if the latter dare to disagree or criticise.
On 2nd December 2015, replying to a reasonable suggestion from someone that “shouldn’t you be doing more important things than spending your time on Twitter” with a reference to an important parliamentary vote on conflict in Syria, Dorries said “I am a woman with a brain and a phone in my hand whereas you, are just a woman with a phone.” (Her brain does not have room for the spelling of “swastika” or for understanding that a country not in the EU will not have MEPs.)
Hypocrite Dorries’ written communication strategy is not untypical for a Tory. However, her style altered after she was appointed DCMS Secretary, particularly online. The abrupt and distinct change in style, tone and topics, alongside a new reluctance to reply to messages, could almost indicate that she is no longer the author and her online communications are handled by a member of her DCMS team, or by a professional communications person.
For example, on 2nd November 2021 she said (correctly) “[cricketer] Azeem Rafiq’s treatment after the racism he faced was disgusting, and the investigation that followed only makes it even worse. The ECB [England And Wales Cricket Board] investigation must be swift and fully transparent. Racism must be confronted, and NEVER written off as just ‘banter’.” Her sensible words there are very different from themes in her earlier comments.
On 5th November 2021, promoting Tory’s Online Harms Bill(OHB), her statement of intent contradicted her earlier behaviour online. “Social media companies: Take note now. When harm is caused, we’re coming after it. The world is watching to see how we legislate to deal with online abuse, harm and disinformation. We will lead the way and we will not disappoint.”
Government control The real purpose of OHB is to censor the public’s online communications under the guise of protecting the public from “harm” whilst simultaneously preventing social media platforms from removing far-right propaganda under the guise of protecting “free speech.”
OFCOM is supposed to be the regulator of social media but in section 33 of the OHB it states that “the Secretary of State [Dorries] may direct OFCOM to modify a code of practice [for social media platforms] submitted under section 32(1) where the Secretary of State believes that modifications are required to ensure that the code of practice reflects government policy.”
Alex Herne summed up the intent of OHB in a Guardian article on 12th May 2021. “The message of the bill is simple: take down exactly the content the government wants taken down, and no more. Guess wrong and you could face swingeing fines. Keep guessing wrong and your senior managers could even go to jail.”
Government control of supposedly “independent” NGOs (non-government organisations) is a theme of DCMS methodology. On the government website (gov.uk) on 12th September 2021 her immediate predecessor Oliver Dowden published a statement on recruitment of new Charity Commission chair wherein he said “some charities appear to have been hijacked by a vocal minority seeking to burnish their woke credentials. In so doing they not only distract charities from their core missions but also waste large amounts of time and money. I’m quite sure this is not what the millions of British people who donate to charities every year had intended their hard earned and thoughtfully donated cash to be spent on.”
Dowden’s comments were a clear political message to any candidates for the position of Charity Commission chair. When challenged by Good Law Project on the process for appointing the chair, a process passed on to Dorries, she refused to cooperate.
“On 7th October , we asked Nadine Dorries to hand over the list of questions that were put to interviewees, and to explain what ministerial involvement there had been in the hiring process. When she finally responded on 19th October she said, confusingly, that she had decided not to disclose the details we had asked for, in order to ‘retain the integrity’ of the interview process – a process which had already concluded.” Good Law Project 28th October 2021
Social media versus wealthy proprietors’ media OHB includes protection of the ability of media outlets – newspapers, TV, radio and web-based news services – to publish whatever they want on social media platforms without threat of removal of content or closure of accounts.
The motivation for this protection is partly financial – the continuous huge tax-dodged profits of Murdoch, Barclay, Rothermere, etc. – and partly political. Most newspapers, TV and radio are conservative. There are several well-funded far-right pseudo-news networks whose social media posts have been subject to censorship by social media networks; Dorries wants to make such censorship illegal.
In an article for Manchester Evening News on 1st November 2021 Dorries said “journalism matters” and “our democracy relies on it. Good journalism exposes wrongdoing and injustice, it scrutinises people in power and it champions and celebrates good causes.” There is little connection between her analysis and the state of British journalism in newspapers, on radio and on TV.
On local newspapers she said “at the heart of our news industry are local newspapers, powered by the reported, copy editors, photographers and publishers working 24-7 to bring us trusted news and information. Their papers – like the Bedford Times And Citizen, in my own constituency – are the pillars of their communities.” Dorries omitted that Bedford Times And Citizen is owned by JPIMedia, a business that owns 172 newspapers in UK, and that JPIMedia is owned by National World plc, which is run by media magnate and former News Of the World editor David Montgomery.
After more praise for “journalism” – “I want to pay tribute to the people who keep those papers in print. They work incredibly hard – not always in the easiest of circumstances – to keep us informed and entertained.” – the purpose of her comments was revealed by “their [newspapers’] work has become even more important in the internet age. Every day we all go online and check our Facebook feeds, or scroll through Twitter or Instagram. Each time we do so, we can be exposed to worrying misinformation.”
Just in case readers of her words were unable to deduce her intent, she stated it unambiguously.
“We’ve introduced a trailblazing Online Safety Bill that will make us one of the first countries in the world to force tech companies to clean up their sites. But, crucially for journalists, that Bill will also prevent social media firms from arbitrarily taking down content from respected news organisations.”
When Dorries says “journalists” she means their wealthy tax-dodging employers’ financial interests.
Via OHB, real independent journalists will be censored while wealthy proprietors’ news outlets will be allowed to publish whatever lies and misdirection they like wherever they like. (Note that Julian Assange and Craig Murray are in jail but Alistair Heath, Oliver Letwin, Tom Newton-Dunn and Tom Harwood have careers feted by the Tories.)
An interesting aside to her support for “journalists” who “scrutinise people in power” is her reaction to comments made by broadcaster James O’Brien of LBC radio. Three years ago, in response to criticism of her by O’Brien, Dorries endorsed the following comments.
“I believe James O’Brien is a hate preacher, a UK hater and an apologist for Islamist atrocities. I also believe he should be sacked [by LBC].”
Juxtaposition of death of an MP and online abuse Tory MP David Amess was killed at a constituency meeting on 15th October 2021. The only connection between his killing and online activity was that the meeting was advertised online.
On 25th October 2021 Dorries said “the heinous events [the killing of Amess] have highlighted two awful facts. The online arena remains the home of disgusting, often anonymous abuse, and a place where people are radicalised.” She offered no proof of connection between online activity and the killer’s motivation for killing him, and she admitted that “our efforts to introduce legislation to make the UK the safest place in the world to be online might not have changed what happened last week.”
Dorries merely used his killing as an introduction to her precis of the intent of OHB.
“Online hate has poisoned public life. It’s often unbearable. And it has to end. We have the legislation to do it. OHB is one of the most ambitious pieces of legislation in the internet age.”
Different background, same Tory philosophy Dorries knows who pays the bills of the Tory party. She knows who she works for, and that isn’t the British public. She knows that the role of DCMS is to censor political opposition, dampen knowledge and promote libertarian perspectives.
Following victory in 2016 EU referendum the directors of political acts in favour of extreme exploitation and wealth concentration are keen to continue to persuade and inure governments and the public to make high-consequence decisions that suit wealthiest and most assiduous exploiters.
Net zero Action by many governments to tackle effects of climate change and to restrict its causes includes stated aim of “net zero.” According toOxford Net Zero “‘net zero’ refers to a state in which greenhouse gases going into the [earth’s] atmosphere are balanced by removal out of the atmosphere.” With considerably more rhetoric than progress governments have regular meetings about achieving net zero and proclaim assurances of some woolly route toward net-zero by an arbitrarily chosen year, usually 2030 but, as time passes, the choice of year recedes further into the future.
(The net zero target is a target for the entire planet; it doesn’t mean every country must be individually net zero.)
As net zero is a measurable figure it is impossible for governments, collectively or unilaterally, to declare it has been attained if it has not. For every act that occurs, in favour of net zero or against it, there can be a measurement of the effect of that act on the balance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Results of any proposals for action can also be measured to a reasonable degree of accuracy.
How to achieve net zero The most effective methods of restoring atmospheric balance include
Generating all electricity via solar power, dams, waves and wind
Removal of all fossil fuel powered transportation
Termination of oil and gas extraction
Ceasing deforestation and planting billions of trees
All are achievable if will exists to do so.
But, all are direct threats to profit-gathering ideology of the most extreme exploiters in the world.
Opponents of net zero Oil, gas, agribusiness and meat production are four of the largest industries in the world. Each has international ownership. All are focussed on wealth generation with complete disregard for consequences.
Owners of the four industries are also owners of media outlets, think-tanks, lobby groups, education establishments and charities.
Owners of the four industries are regular large donors to political parties throughout the world.
For each of the four industries, and for each of their financial backers/creditors, there exists a revolving door between senior executive positions and elected politicians: Corporate executives are planted in parliaments, and ex-politicians are assured of lucrative roles, often in roles that work with the same government department where the politicians worked. In the latter case a politician starts work for his future employer while an MP.
Stopping net zero Despite clarity that net zero is a help to slowing down climate change, despite demonstrable effects of climate change on weather patterns, despite demonstrable effects of changing weather patterns on quality of life, particularly food sources, despite availability and continuing refinements of non-fossil fuel technologies, and despite additional benefits of cleaner air and cleaner seas, the aforementioned four industries do not see beyond their wealth gathering and they know actions taken to attain net zero harm their enormous profits. It is impossible for them to perceive anything else. For them, net zero must not be a target for governments.
If governments try to avoid net zero by lying about their intent then they will be spotted quickly due to the measurability of the effects on the atmosphere by their actions; thus, if governments claim they are aiming for net zero then they have to execute genuine and visible action.
Without the possibility of reliance on government dishonesty a new strategy to stop net zero is needed: Persuade the public to make the decision to cancel net zero as a desired target, preceded by promotion of the necessity of a plebiscite on net zero.
Net zero referendum The EU referendum was planned for over a decade. A weak Tory party led by hapless Etonian David Cameron felt compelled to call a referendum.
The machine to promote departure from the EU was operated by people who had prepared well: They knew how to fund their campaign via dark money , how to bypass electoral rules on funding and how to use combination of data and social media networks regardless of legality. Their strategy was relentless, repetitive lying, misdirection and conmanship.
Their reason for supporting Brexit was enablement of a bonfire of rights – workers’ rights, legal rights, human rights, food standards, etc. – alongside enhancement of opportunities for disaster capitalism . Their ultimate aim is creation of charter cities , playgrounds for exploiters where all basic rights are removed, including democracy: Corporate fascism.
Cancellation of commitment to net zero has a smaller intent than Brexit. The former aims for continued huge wealth generation for the four industries.
In a net zero referendum funding (dark money) for the anti-net zero option and tactics used (data manipulation, relentless lies and bypassing electoral regulations) will be the same as they were for Brexit.
Libertarian nudging has begun on net zero referendum On 26th October (2021) Telegraph newspaper published an alleged survey that claimed majority public support for a net zero referendum.
“registered at Companies House only last month. Its public face and director – Lois Perry – is a representative for Reclaim, the culture war party fronted by Laurence Fox, and bankrolled by Brexit donor Jeremy Hosking“
“a tiny communications company run by a small group of Brexit veterans, including Rebecca Ryan, who is director of the astroturf Defund the BBC campaign and who used to work alongside Vote Leave’s former chief technology officer, Thomas Borwick.”
Car26’s rhetoric uses the usual presentation of fraudulent far-right manipulation and misdirection including
“free speech and debate are being replaced by a woke humourless consensus controlled by a remote elite abetted by a cowed media and bought-off ‘experts’ and institutions.” – Lois Perry, October 2021
Libertarian broadcasters LBC and GB News gave platforms to Car26 and backed its referendum proposal. Veteran far-right grifter Nigel Farage suggested on his GB News TV show he would be keen to be part of the anti net zero campaign.
Consequences of public vote against trying to achieve net zero If a referendum took place and if the public voted against a net zero target then what ensues would depend entirely on the objectives of the government at the time.
A libertarian government like the current Tory government would use such a referendum result as permission to continue to wreck the country and the environment to favour wealth concentration.
However, an intelligent government could retain its plans but simply remove “net zero” as a stated aim. That is, it could still proceed with replacement of fossil fuels, it could still proceed with a switch to electric vehicles, and it could still halt deforestation and plant more trees but present its actions in terms other than specifically aiming at net zero.
Similar to Brexit, a referendum result’s consequences are wholly dependent on what type of government is in power afterward. If Labour won either of 2017 or 2019 general elections then Brexit would be very different to Tories’ calamity.
Resist the referendum It is important to resist fraudulent demands for a referendum on net zero. The resistance must not allow itself to be directed by Het zero  manipulators’ arguments.
It is much more important to seek a change of government in UK. A good government would ensure that a referendum would be pointless.
Notes  Dark money: Large anonymous funding of political campaigns  Disaster capitalist: Capitalist who uses countries with collapsing economies as opportunities to steal public infrastructure  Charter cities: Corporate administered states within states where democracy and rights are absent; modern feudalism  Het zero: Extremist libertarian ideology, to assist wealth generation in fossil fuel and agribusiness industries, that opposes governments’ attempts to attain net zero
Political influence applied on behalf of the “second” employer
Both points are fair observations. Being an MP is more than a full-time job; it is supposed to be a vocation. The second point describes normal behaviour of MPs: The recent guilty verdict of Owen Paterson’s corruption was a drop in a fetid ocean, both for him and for parliament.
However, a point missed is that MPs (particularly Tory and DUP but not excluding others) become MPs, or are planted in parliament, in order to work for others. Their entire remit is to channel public money into hands of wealth gatherers. Their “second” jobs are their real jobs; their jobs as MPs exist to enable success of their real jobs.
The process that creates plants in parliament varies. A sitting MP might be offered a lucrative non-job, often described as a “consultancy” role, post tenure and she or he starts working for a future employer while an MP; or, an employee, shareholder or co-owner of a large business might be parachuted into an available parliamentary safe seat and continue working for that business while allegedly an MP.
Billions upon billions of pounds are passed on each year to real employers of MPs. Acquiring these funds is the sole purpose of such MPs. Tory party’s key reason for existence is to facilitate transfer of public money into privateers’ offshore accounts.
Necessarily, businesses that pretend to offer work for public services are the greatest beneficiaries.
It is important to be aware that “corruption” of MPs via being paid to lobby government and paid to vote in the payer’s interest, such as Paterson’s recent activities or earlier behaviour of Neil Hamilton, is an inadequate description of how the UK system operates. Most MPs, including all Tory MPs, act on behalf of fleecers who use the public purse as a million acre forest of free money trees, and that is the MPs’ only job.