NatCism

National Conservatism, or NatCism for short, is a tool to promote extreme exploitative free-racketeering capitalism by using people’s connection to the country where they live to coerce them to not notice and/or not complain about their exploitation. 
–
N.B. When pronouncing NatCism or NatC (National Conservative) pause briefly after first syllable to avoid listeners inferring use of an acronym from a previous political epoch.
–
Conservative blogger Peter Franklin explained for Unherd why NatCism is a current mode of conservative deception: “National conservatism differs from social or religious conservatism because the institutions that it seeks to protect have yet to be dissolved by the forces of modernity.  The family has been redefined and the church pushed aside, but the nation remains a potent force.”
–
UK’s NatCism is a subset of USA’s.  The latter is part of The Edmund Burke Foundation.  The opening line in its introduction to its Statement Of Principles is “We are citizens of Western nations who have watched with alarm as the traditional beliefs, institutions, and liberties underpinning life in the countries we love have been progressively undermined and overthrown.”
–
That quote is in tune with philosophies of David Duke in USA and Paul Golding in UK.  It could be the opening line of a book called, for hypothetical example, ‘My Struggle.’ 
–
The key exposition of NatCism by its followers is to promote and acclaim it as an alleged preference to “globalism.”  It is an utterly fatuous argument but it isn’t a real proposition.  NatCism is a means to persuade people to accept whatever privations exploitative capitalism imposes upon them by pretending that everyone is part of a team (a nation) and that villains are elsewhere or are within the nation but acting against it. 
–
To assist with its faux team building project NatCism favours extreme restrictions on people’s personal lives.  Its Principles include

• God and Public Religion: “The Bible should be read as the first among the sources of a shared Western civilization in schools and universities, and as the rightful inheritance of believers and non-believers alike.  Where a Christian majority exists, public life should be rooted in Christianity and its moral vision, which should be honoured by the state and other institutions both public and private.”
• Family and Children: “The traditional family, built around a lifelong bond between a man and a woman is the foundation of all other achievements of our civilisation.  Among the causes [of the disintegration of the family] are an unconstrained individualism encouraging ever more radical forms of sexual license and experimentation as an alternative to the responsibilities of family and congregational life.”  

The above impositions are aspects of control and division.  NatCism’s key intent is expressed in other Principles:

• Free Enterprise: “We reject the socialist principle.”  
• National Government: “We believe in a limited state.”

NatC Christopher DeMuth, former president American Enterprise Institute, helped Ronald Reagan deregulate (destroy) USA society

–
UK conference
On 15th-17th May (2023) NatCism’s UK chapter has a conference at Emmanuel Centre, Marsham Street, Westminster, London, SW1P 3DW.
–

Emmanuel Centre (red ‘X‘)

–

Emmanuel Centre entrance on Marsham Street (east side)

–
Line-up of speakers and list of topics at the conference are predictable.  The schedule includes former UKIP London Assembly member and New Culture Forum director Peter Whittle talking about ‘God And Country,’ David Starkey, Nigel Biggar and Common Sense Society director Emma Webb on ‘History And Heritage,’ former head of MI6 (and defamer of Jeremy Corbyn: “Corbyn is a danger to this nation“) Richard Dearlove on ‘National Realism And Foreign Policy,’ David Goodhart on ‘National Identity And Culture,’ and Matthew Goodwin and Tim Stanley elucidating on ‘NatCism In Britain.’
–
Five ‘Keynote Addresses’ will be delivered by Tory ministers Michael Gove and Suella Braverman, former Tory minister Jacob Rees-Mogg, new colonialism grifter Douglas Murray and Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts.
–

NatCism Conference chair James Orr (left) and Heritage Foundation’s Kevin Roberts

–
The purpose of the conference is to ensure all attendees are facing the same rancid direction.  It is an opportunity for grifters to meet potential employees.  It provides a marketing event for NatC philosophy via media coverage and it creates a library of speeches, faux debates and friendly interviews for broadcast in the future and as reference points for later espousals of the philosophy.
–
For the Tory MPs present it is instructive. 
–
Laundry day every day
Via networks of money-laundering tax-avoiding think-tanks and lobby groups wealthy business people and wealthy property owners spend hugely on propaganda and marketing of illiberal political philosophies.  New think-tanks emerge frequently as do supposed variants of conservatism.
–
Relationship between politicians and think-tanks is beyond symbiotic; they are the same people.  Many Tory MPs, including ministers, were creators of or contributors to think-tanks before they were politicians (for example, Kwasi Kwarteng, Suella Braverman and Dominic Raab); equally, think-tank members become politicians via gifts: Matthew Elliott and Mark Littlewood are on Liz Truss’ resignation honours list to become peers in House Of Lords.  UK does not have a government at present.  It has gofers for thieves and fraudsters.
–
As UK collapses with excrement filling the rivers, extortionate prices for food and fuel, authoritarian attacks on right to protest, right to strike and right to vote, and democracy eroded via imposition of charter territories, exploiters’ employees seek new methods of distraction, subterfuge and conmanship, and they are willing to be as nasty and as inhumane as needed to achieve their aim. 
–
NatCism is deliberate regurgitation of an old trick.  Logically, it is nonsense; practically, it is unworkable because of the necessity of international co-operation particularly for food, fuel and for tackling climate change; morally, it is an abomination; intellectually, it is a vacuum. 
–
The conference description included “we see NatCism as the best path forward for a democratic world confronted by a rising China abroad and a powerful new Marxism at home.”  The Chinese government is building partnerships in Africa, Asia and South and Central America.  These partnerships are better for the people than being exploited by G7-based businesses.  China’s progress means fewer opportunities for the exploiters and that is why funders of Heritage Foundation and others are keen for promotion of fear of China.
–
Where is the “new Marxism at home” in UK?  NatCs mean any policy that helps people.  They mean publicly-owned public services, they mean workers’ rights, they mean tenants’ rights, they mean health & safety regulations, they mean affordable food and fuel, they mean affordable education, they mean NHS.  They mean anything that is part of a functioning society because they are diametrically opposed to that.
–
NatCism’s aim is extreme conservatism that robs everyone to feed the wealthiest but its rhetoric is promotion of hatred toward other countries and toward people within UK who do not live their lives in a specific NatC way.  Its tactics can be anything it needs to do to support that rhetoric.
–
The audience for the invented philosophy of NatCism is the public, partly as electioneering but mainly to dissuade people from objecting to advancement of further policies that concentrate wealth.  However, the conference audience includes potential spreaders of the philosophy.  Young, nefariously ambitious and sociopathic grifters know that being part of the conservative machine can be lucrative.  All they need to do is erase their humanity.  “Research fellow” at a think-tank can lead to a myriad of well-paid posts in government, broadcasting, newspapers and at various “institutes.”
–
InterNatCism
On Friday (28th April 2023) at a meeting at 10 Downing Street Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said to far-right Prime Minister of Italy Georgia Meloni “the values between our two countries are very aligned.”  On the same day Foreign Secretary James Cleverley and Business And Trade Secretary Kemi Badenoch met far-right governor of Florida Ron DeSantis at Lloyd’s Building in London.
–

Rishi Sunak (left) and Georgia Meloni outside 10 Downing Street; James Cleverly (left) and Ron DeSantis in Lloyd’s Building

–
Cleverly claimed his and Badenoch’s meetings with DeSantis were to discuss trade with Florida but UK government cannot sign (trade or otherwise) deals with USA states.  All such deals must be with the federal government.  The meetings were a show of political solidarity from the Tory government to an extremist who is engaged in political censorship of education and is attacking human rights viciously.
–
NatCism conference committee member Emma Webb praised Meloni on 28th September 2022: “Meloni is such a firecracker.“
–
Normalisation of NatCism
Use of NatCism as a propaganda tool in UK politics is not a new phenomena.  However, it has become prevalent in recent years in government and by supportive media outlets.  Its use is now the normal mode of presentation of policy by the government; it is no longer an outlier perspective from a far-right fringe.  Further, it is the key strategy of the Tory government politically, electorally and in communication with journalists and with opposition politicians.  

• Tory party is a NatC party
• Mail, Telegraph, Express, Spectator, Sun, Times are NatC newspapers
• TalkTV and GB News are NatC news channels

N.B. When pronouncing NatCism or NatC pause briefly after first syllable to avoid listeners inferring use of an acronym from a previous political epoch.

Bob Seely’s fear

Tory soldier boys focus on demands for continuous enhancement of arms industry profits.  Ben Wallace, Tom Tugendhat, Tobias Ellwood and Bob Seely depict UK on the brink of being attacked and in a dire state of unpreparedness.  

Kevin McCarthy

On 20th April (2023) Telegraph published Seely’s fears about impending Russian attacks on British infrastructure, namely sea-based wind farms and their underwater cables.  The utter absurdity of his argument was clear from his assertion that “we still don’t know who sabotaged the Nord Steam 2 pipeline” alongside suggestions that Russian soldiers could sabotage UK cables.  (Note: Nord Stream 2 was blown up by USA to force German people to pay for gas from more expensive suppliers.)

Seely’s style of written communication was non-factual, repetitive and cod-emotional, and reminiscent of a player’s internal monologue in a game of Risk.  The entire piece could be replaced by a single sentence: ‘I think Russia intends to sabotage UK’s energy supply and so we’d better be ready.’ 

His evidence for his assertion was “the Telegraph story that broke the news of the underwater [cable] mapping [by Russia].”  Even that statement by Seely was incorrect.  The Telegraph story merely reported what other journalists elsewhere had said and its authors admitted that “details of the Russian sabotage plot in the North Sea emerged from a joint investigation by the public broadcasters of Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland.”  Those “broadcasters” were fed information by their security services.

Ultimately, the source for Seely’s story was security services working for NATO governments (including UK) who, in turn, work for financial interests that, generally, compete with Russian financial interests or benefit from Russia, and other countries, being cast as about to start a war against NATO. 

Man with gun on Russian boat

In common with the other Tory soldier boys, and with Chief Of The General Staff General Sir Patrick Sanders (see Sanders speech), Seely brought China into his fear-laden plea for action. 

“The sobering truth is that our potential adversaries, Russia in the West and China in the East, are gearing up for wider conflict.  Our world is becoming markedly more dangerous.  And Britain is not ready.  We have failed to see the trend, in Russia but also in China, because for too long our leaders naively assumed the rulers of those countries shared our own outlook and assumptions. They do not.”

He did not offer any evidence for China “gearing up for wider conflict” except a link to another Telegraph article that pre-quoted a speech by the Prime Minister (Sunak) wherein the latter bemoaned the fact that China remained non-capitalist in its political philosophy.  

To whom is China is a “potential adversary?”  Chinese government is creating trade relationships with countries around the world, in Asia, Africa, South America, Central America and Carribean.  The arrangements differ from trade relationships with Europe and USA because the latter are designed to maximise profits of G7-based businesses at the expense of the people of the countries involved, whereas China creates partnerships for the benefit of people in the countries and in China.  China is “adversarial” toward profit-grabbing capability of exploitative international businesses.  That is why conservatives are compelled to oppose China.

Seely’s use of “our” above was not benign.  “Our world” and “our own outlook” meant a conservative pro-capitalist exploitation “outlook” but also, intentionally, evoked occidental perspectives. 

His world is losing.  

Sandra Husbands (right) (Minister in the Ministry of Foreign Trade) and Yan Xiusheng (China’s Ambassador to Barbados)  exchange documents for Agreement On Economic And Technical Cooperation

There was desperation in Seely’s demands.  His analysis of supposed Russian intent made no sense.  His depiction of cables and pipes being open to attack leading to disaster for UK didn’t sound convincing.  He assumed his readers, and journalists taking quotes from his article, must lack critical thought.

His closing statement did not coincide with reality:

“This century will witness a struggle between two versions of humanity: open societies like our own versus closed, authoritarian societies using all forms of state power to oppress their own people and threaten others.  It is a struggle that we have not wanted, but one that we cannot, and must not, lose.”

Tory government is “using all forms of state power to oppress” including voter suppression, criminalisation of all protests, long custodial sentences for protesters, remand imprisonment for protesters, denial of right to express chosen defence arguments in court, interference in education to ensure preference for certain political perspectives, removal of right to strike and other workers’ rights, and, via charter territories, removal of access to justice and access to democracy.  Seely voted in parliament in support of Tory government bills that enabled that oppression.

He is desperate because he and his conservative colleagues, inside and outside government, know their control is under threat, both internationally via growth of BRICS and in UK. 

Seely wants us to stand next to him in the fight.  He can sod off.

Related blog: Seely on Karl Marx

---

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

---

Fixated Threat Assessment Centre

Fixated Threat Assessment Centre (FTAC) helps the UK government suppress political activism by describing some political protests as expressions of protesters’ mental health issues.  This tactic of suppression has two objectives.

1. Erasure of political nature of activism
2. Bypass of legal process

On FTAC website one of its Frequently Asked Questions is “what sort of cases does FTAC deal with?” to which the reply given is a group of categories of targets for FTAC including “The Resentful” category.

“The Resentful: These are people who are righteously indignant at a supposed injustice and angrily obsessed with a particular, highly-personal cause or grievance, not infrequently delusional in nature. They pursue an idiosyncratic idea of justice and want, not simply redress, but retribution.”

There is a lot of directive language in the description of “The Resentful.” 

• “indignant” and “righteous” are presented as negative
• “injustice” is doubted automatically
• assiduousness and persistence are described as “obsessed“
• “particular” and “highly-personal” are inserted to erase social or political motivation
• “grievance” applies doubt to authenticity of a complaint
• “delusional” doubles-down on that doubt to suggest the source of a complaint doesn’t even exist
• “idiosyncratic” emphasises personal over social
• “retribution” is presented as negative

Intent to erase political nature of activism is clear.  Bypass of legal process is more insidious.  None of the people investigated by FTAC are suspected of having committed a crime nor of planning to commit a crime.  It stated that “FTAC does not have any special powers.  FTAC does not detain people under the Mental Health Act.  Rather, it refers cases to the responsible NHS catchment area services who are entirely independent and make their own decisions as to appropriate intervention,” and it said about one hundred and fifty people are “referred” as above each year but chose not to say how many were subsequently deemed to have mental health problems.

FTAC said it acts based on “referrals” to it “from individuals, from the parliamentary authorities or from police forces” of “inappropriate, harassing or threatening communications to prominent people” who it clarifies as “those who are in the public eye due to their public service role” including “main members of the British Royal Family, senior politicians and members of parliament.”  That is, any MP or peer can “refer” to FTAC any member of the public who demanded answers to questions or who criticised the MP or peer in person, in writing or via social media.  Many politicians make false accusations to police or via media or social media about behaviour of members of the public; the accused are, invariably, political activists.

In a pseudo-academic paper, Implementing A Joint Policing And Psychiatric Approach To Risk Assessment And Management In Public Figure Cases by Frank Farnham, Simon Wilson and David James, where FTAC’s “prominent people” were called “dignitaries,” it tried to justify investigations unrelated to criminal activity by claiming it used a “threat assessment” of “warning behaviours” such that “warning behaviours include posters, newspaper advertisements, attempted lawsuits against the government, chaotic deluded letters to politicians and the police, threatening letters, leafleting the public” – (page 6).  FTAC admitted that its “threat assessment has a behavioural policing focus.”  The concept of behavioural policing, elucidated stupidly throughout the paper, is a trash concept.  One of “the behaviours in question” is “querulant complaining.”

Co-author Simon Wilson

“Querulants” were dismissed as “exhibiting a pattern of behaviour involving the unusually persistent pursuit of a personal grievance in a manner seriously damaging to the individual concerned and potentially also to those that they blame for their situation or who get in the way of their idiosyncratic quest for ‘justice’, in which they conflate the public interest with their personal aims” – (page 22); (the underlines are mine but the single quotes around “justice” are by the authors).  “Querulants” were accused of “persistent complaint and litigation.” 

N.B. Complaints about or to “prominent people” or “dignatories” are necessary components of democracy.  Access to litigation against them is also a necessity for a democracy.

Confidentiality of medical history
Most people assume their medical history is known only to medical personnel and assume laws exist to protect that but FTAC side-steps law regarding such confidential information.  “FTAC health-care staff are funded by the Department of Health to provide a service to mentally disturbed individuals who present through inappropriate attention to public figures.  As such, they have a legitimate reason to have access to confidential information.  Of course, they cannot share that information with their police colleagues, unless there is a public interest in doing so.  In the sort of cases with which FTAC deals, the necessary criteria are often satisfied” – (page 11).

Public accountability
FTAC’s “strategy excludes television or radio interviews with its staff” but it presented its lack of public accountability as the opposite: “FTAC has found it necessary to adopt a public profile.”  What it meant was it hands press releases to newspapers and broadcasters and “the production of material for public consumption” – (page 21).  It does name any of its members on its website.

Coronation of King Charles
In May (2023) hundreds of millions of pounds of public money will be spent on a spectacle designed to remind everyone of their place.  A dim-witted seventy-four year old man, who had the fortune to be born in the royal family, will have St. Edwards Crown placed on his head in a tradition of demonstration of superiority, power and control.

Coronation accessories

Royal coronations are not frequent events.  The most recent was in 1953.  Charles’ coronation is an opportunity for protests that not only object to the cost of it but also place the protest in the context of kleptocratic governance.  The king is a keen beneficiary of exploitative financial activities (via “investments” and land “ownership“) and of tax avoidance.  A protest during the coronation helps to remind people of the relationship between monarchy’s existence and the extreme nature of corporate control and theft.

Some organised protests are planned for the coronation; for example, Republic will lead a protest in Trafalgar Square in London: “We will be loud, visible and unmissable, directly challenging the coronation and the monarchy,” said Republic’s CEO Graham Smith. 

Police and other control agencies will make political decisions regarding protests.  In its paper FTAC explained its role for spectacles like a coronation.

“FTAC takes part in the forward security planning for major national events, such as the royal weddings to arrange for those with relevant fixations to be monitored more carefully during the relevant period, and to educate agencies as to what they should be looking out for in terms of concerning ideas and behaviours.  FTAC also has staff in operational control rooms during such events, in order to advise on concerning individuals as they are spotted at events and to aid in liaison with health agencies to enable rapid intervention” – (page 21).

There were single-person protests against the monarchy this year.  A couple of people, separately, lobbed eggs and one person held up a blank sheet of paper.  All were arrested.  The “rapid intervention” is not motivated by concerns about security and safety.  It is a tool of erasure and suppression.

A later paper in 2021, Predictors of varying levels of risks posed by fixated individuals to British public figures, authored by Paul Gill, Emily Corner, Frank Farnham, Simon Wilson, Zoe Marchment, Alice Taylor, Richard Taylor and David James, discussed FTAC “cases” that involved members of the royal family.  The focus was on likely, attempted and successful breaches of security cordons around the royals.  Apparently, “acting in an inappropriate manner” will bring people “to the attention of FTAC.”

Co-author Paul Gill

The paper was a tortuous statistic-laded opus speckled with bad concocted mathematical equations.  Its purpose was to justify actions against people who had not committed and were not suspected of intent to commit a crime. 

Although presented as a psychiatric academic paper its research was funded by Centre For Research And Evidence On Security Threats (CREST) that is funded by “the Economic and Social Research Council, which is part of UK Research and Innovation. The funds for this grant come from the UK intelligence and security agencies and UK Home Office” according to CREST website.  CREST received £5,200,000 “from the UK Home Office and UK security and intelligence agencies” in 2020 for three years of research – (source: UK Research and Innovation).  Similar to FTAC, CREST does not name its members on its website.

Royalty and mental health issues
Throughout the 2021 paper a large elephant stamped its feet in the room, unseen and unheard by the authors.  Their words spoke of analyses of mental heath of people in the proximity of royalty but only of the people who were “querulous” or negative toward royalty.  The mental health of the flag-waving obedient cheering teary-eyed royal supporters received no inspection.

The existence of royalty is not just politically and morally reprehensible.  Being a fan of it is in opposition to intelligence and adulthood.  Anyone with critical thought knows it is an absurdity.  A supporter of royalty, whose life is lessened by the existence of it, is not someone in command of their mental health. 

Commentary on royals and their activities by politicians and media is mostly detached from sense.  Many observers (politicians and journalists), despite sound mental health, choose to partake in the pantomime.  The detachment is necessary because there is no sensible and logical discourse available to justify existence of royals. 

Will there be a well-researched paper by the same authors that examines thoroughly the mass psychosis of royal support?  In September last year (2022) the death of Queen Elizabeth II and her funeral were accompanied by behaviour that had nothing in common with sense, reason or sagacity: Many people queued for many hours (and miles) to view her coffin; journalists and politicians lost the entirety of their intellectual development when attempting to talk about her death – see Queen’s death, king’s accession: Disease infests politicians and media; professional sport games were postponed; BBC cancelled all of its TV and radio channels on the day of the funeral; broadcasters wore entire outfits of black for over a week.  It was like being in a bizarre unsettling re-make of The Truman Show.

FTAC had a role during the lying-in-state.  Director Of Security for UK Parliament Alison Giles spoke at Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) on 11th January (2023) where she said “during the lying-in-state, we had to manage fixated individuals that were trying to get access” and she admitted that FTAC helped to “block” people from attending.  Every person who queued for hours to view the coffin was “fixated” unhealthily but FTAC gave them a pass. 

(A video recording of Giles’ presentation is available to paid subscribers of RUSI only.)

Procession as part of coronation of George XI, 1937

Backsliding democracy
FTAC is a sprocket in the mechanisms of control of political activism.  Its key facet is its control of protests via practices outside of criminal prosecution, a tactic that makes an accused’s defence more difficult because the burden of proof focusses on the accused’s proof of (or demonstration of) innocence rather than accuser’s evidence-dependent proof of guilt.  FTAC is part of deliberate backsliding of democratic process.

A snippet of BBC complicity: Masonic fudge

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s curriculum vitae is a rancid trail of multi-billion pound theft via a variety of financial crimes some of which he did with and/or for his wife and his father-in-law. 
–
He has no interest in governance.  His single objective is to rapidly and hugely transfer more wealth to the already massively wealthy including himself and his family.
–
In a just society with laws and government in tune with democracy Sunak (and his wife) would be in gaol and all their assets would be confiscated. 
–
A key role of news media journalists in any country is to investigate, question and expose government wrongdoing and to pursue those aims with dogged persistence and to not be perturbed by intimidation.  In UK, media journalists avoid that role.
–

BBC’s political editor Chris Mason

–
BBC’s “political editor” Chris Mason’s broadcasting career is characterised by non-disruptive steady progress.  His constructed persona is presentation of “informal” analysis.  He chooses to not encourage BBC viewers to think critically.  “I haven’t the foggiest” was a prepared phrase he used in a TV report as a ruse to dissuade viewers from trying to dissect the machinations around Brexit and its negotiations.  He added that Noel Edmunds’ comedy sidekick Mr. Blobby “might as well report” on analysis of Brexit.  
–
On 18th April (2023) BBC website published his comment piece ‘How big a deal is inquiry into Rishi Sunak’s declarations?‘ that purported to address whether the Prime Minister answered questions accurately and fully when questioned at a parliamentary committee hearing on March 28th (2023) regarding his wife’s co-ownership of a child-minding agency that had received a government contract, whether his obfuscation was in breach of parliamentary standards, and what, if any, admonishments need to be applied to him.
–
Mason’s piece began by trying to infuse unseriousness into inspection of the Prime Minister’s activities – “sleaze.  It’s a big word, and it gets lobbed around at Westminster rather a lot” – and he was determined to downplay importance of any wrongdoing – “on the Richter scale of these things, it feels like a rather minor tremor.  Think a few loose roof tiles rather than anything much more.” 
–
It is true that details and chronology of Sunak’s admittance (or otherwise) of his wife’s benefit from a government contract are not interesting.  The key point is that public money was handed to the Prime Minister’s wife and not for the first time.  That is not “sleaze” as Mason calls it; it is rancid corruption and theft.  Inspection of that is obscured and evaded by light-hearted accounts that focus on inter-parliamentary squabbling over procedure.
–
Mason said there are “inevitable stories, borne of intrigue and fascination, relating to the Sunaks’ vast wealth, of which this is the latest.”  No!  There is knowledge of a Prime Minister who, before and during being an MP, a minister and Prime Minister, extracted “vast wealth” via means outside of honesty, outside of morality and, in a just society, would be instantly recognised and dealt with as criminal activities.
–
If pantomime characters in parliament, on both sides of the House Of Commons, exchange barbs about exact wording at a committee hearing and the timing of a declaration of interest then it is not the role of news journalists to just join in and subsequently state how unimportant it is.  Their role is to direct focus onto the real issue: The intrinsic corruption of this government and its persistent continuous theft of billions of pounds from the British people.
–
Mason’s piece concluded with “[if you say] your government will be defined by ‘integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level’, you bet people will hold you to it” but he is not “holding anyone to it.”  Boris Johnson’s loan broker Richard Sharp will be happy with him.

Dystopian Britain

Cyril Cusack (left) and Oskar Werner in 1966 film adaptation of ‘Fahrenheit 451’

Reality is often stranger than fiction.  Here’s a short summary of UK in April 2023.  

There was a hundred-plus queue of school holiday coaches at Dover harbour waiting for passengers to be processed for entry into European Union (EU) because Tory government chose a hard Brexit and further chose to not prepare for the consequences of their political decision.  Every Tory questioned about the delays blamed French customs and they were allowed by a complicit media to pretend their are no downsides to Brexit. 

The same obfuscation and blame-switching occurs when empty shelves in shops are mentioned.  The absence of foodstuffs, particularly fresh produce, is due to exporters from EU being deterred from selling to UK because of delays, extra costs and extra paperwork, all of which are direct consequences of Tories’ Brexit choices.  The government lies about the reason for the empty shelves and most of the media sits and nods conspiratorially.  Apparently, the cause was bad weather that, miraculously, didn’t affect existence of similar foods in European shops and markets.

Why not holiday in UK instead?  People could swim in faeces-infested rivers, or fish for dead fish, or stroll barefoot along turd-ridden beaches, but only if they could afford to take out a loan to buy a rail ticket and travel on a dilapidated train, or afford the petrol. 

Trains and petrol are very expensive, significantly more than most of Europe, as are food, gas and electric.  The latter three, all necessities, rose in price by over 50% in under a year and a half.  Tory government blames global fuel prices, Covid-19 pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, each of which is a blatant lie.  Brexit is a factor in rising prices but the main cause is straightforward price-gouging by fuel suppliers and food suppliers.  Massive recent profits for major fuel businesses and the food supply chain are due entirely to the prices of their products. 

People do not have a choice to not eat or not use domestic fuel.  The suppliers will charge as much as they can and, with Tory government as enabler, there is no limit to how high they will raise prices.  The role of Tories is to facilitate transfer of wealth from the public to the already wealthy.  A key task in that facilitation is shifting blame for high prices away from perpetrators and falsely onto factors that can be described as uncontrollable such as war, pandemic, price rises elsewhere in the international supply chain, or weather.   And, newspaper journalists and TV and radio broadcasters nod along.

Don’t swim among the effluence.  Any ensuing illness might not get treated.  There are other queues: Ambulances waiting outside Accident & Emergency departments of hospitals with patients on board in need of immediate medical intervention.  Queueing ambulances are not available to bring others to hospital.  Thousands of people died unnecessarily due to ambulance delays.  The direct and single reason for that is deliberate ruination of NHS by Tories.  Hospital beds were reduced in number and departed staff were not replaced, deliberately. 

Tories want full privatisation of healthcare but they don’t need to switch to a payer system or an insurance system.  All they need to do, and are doing, is destroy the service provided by NHS.  That forces people, who can afford it, to switch to private healthcare.  Decaying quality of service is used by government and their directors at various libertarian think-tanks as a reason to persuade the public that NHS isn’t working. 

Healthcare is a necessity.  It is an absolute necessity, more so than anything else.  Thus, for wealth grabbers, for bastards, it is a huge and endless supply of income.  They hand generous donations to MPs and peers and even larger bundles to think-tanks.  Tories will let the bodies pile high as part of their strategy to inculcate the idea that national health provision fails. 

To balance the privations of extortionate food and fuel costs and a declining health services, can we not enjoy the realities of Brexit?  Alongside empty shelves in shops, enjoy the greatly reduced opportunities to work throughout Europe and enjoy the fact the Europeans cannot travel to work in UK leaving many industries severely short staffed.  Enjoy the bonfire of EU laws and regulations.  Workers’ rights, food standards regulations, health & safety regulations, access to justice, and human rights legislation are binned.  They will be gone soon.  It’s called “sovereignty.”   It is “sovereignty” of power and control of exploiters over the public. 

In cahoots with Brexit is creation of charter territories that are called, erroneously, “investment zones” and “free ports.”  Every major port in UK and every adjacent (up to fifty miles or more) industrial area will be designated as a charter territory.  In charter territories all public land and public infrastructure is handed to corporate interests or landgrabbers, all rights are removed including workers’ rights (job security, minimum wage, right to strike), tenants’ rights, health & safety regulations, right to protest, access to justice and right to vote – governing administration will be by unelected “owners” of territories. 

The above is not how charter territories are described by their supporters and enablers.  They are hailed as wonderful opportunities for investment leading to many new jobs and reinvigoration of communities.  All of that is bull but it is not challenged.  News outlets never discuss political and societal consequences.  They never ask or investigate how handing over land and infrastructure to some of the most exploitative and immoral organisations on earth is going to help communities.  “Owners” of charter territories around the world are notorious exploiters. 

Not only does Labour not challenge the mendacious rhetoric about the territories it is also actively involved in their creation.  Labour councils and mayors are as keen as Tories to welcome the new controllers. 

Opposition to the destruction of society, the destruction of democracy and the destruction of livelihoods is not present in the Palace Of Westminster.  When there is the greatest need for a functional opposition and also when there is a huge opportunity for an effective opposition to take risks, what we have is the most cowardly, most useless, most indistinct political opposition ever in British democratic history.  Labour is as much indebted to corporate donors as Tory party is.  It does not want to change anything.  Extortionate cost of living, privatisation of healthcare, absurd consequences of hard Brexit and reduction in rights are as appealing to Labour as they are to Tories.  Labour is as dedicated to feeding the arms industry as Tory government.  Both parties are happy to see the body count in Ukraine rise daily if it maintains a continuous source of income for arms manufacturers. 

Labour is very conservative.  Since leadership change in early 2020 Labour’s focus was, and is, eradication of socialism from itself.  It is also as keen to lie as Tories are.

Dishonesty, mendacity, diversions, dead cats and evasion are exhaustive and exhausting tactics of Tory government communication.  Everything they say – every explanation of policy and intent, every response to a question, every statement to media or parliament – drowns everyone in lies.  It is a deluge.  It is suffocating.  Everything is a scam, a con, a confidence trick.  They have to be so relentless in their lying because any truthful statement would expose their intrinsic criminality. 

Criminals is what they are.  They are thieves, for themselves and for their donors.  The Covid-19 pandemic contracts scandal exposed how committed Tories are to handing public money to each other, to their associates and to people and businesses who paid a donation.  Billions of pounds were thrown away into offshore accounts.  That practice is the norm,  Every time Tory government says it is funding something it means it is handing money to privateer racketeers. 

We are robbed daily.  Typical process of theft is announcement of new “investment” in a public service or in infrastructure but it is just another channel for money to be passed to private sector for no worth to the public.  Tories’ descriptions of what they do are opposite to what they really do. 

They get away with it because there is no opposition, only encouragement and support.  Bystanding Labour, tax-dodger owned media outlets (newspapers, TV and radio) and Tory controlled BBC chaired by former Prime Minister’s loan broker are purposefully too impotent to criticise and always willing to join in with the con tricks. 

Tories have their distractions and targets to shift focus and to apportion blame.  Often, it is people who are least able to defend themselves.  Tory fingers point accusingly at disabled people claiming benefits, at underpaid overworked nurses striking, at people risking their lives crossing the English Channel in small boats.  They whip up anger toward people and then treat them as brutally as they can.

Murderous sanctions regime is a key component of Universal Credit.  It is Social Murder.  It is state-sanctioned murder.  It is gleeful enactment of extreme cruelty and leads directly to destitution, starvation, debt, homelessness and death.  Tories keep piling it on, getting worse each year, while blaming people for being poor.  Disabled people are worst hit.  What kind of government thinks it is a good idea to destroy the lives of disabled people?

Refugees and asylum seekers are another favoured target for Tories to attach blame.  Some people take huge physical risks to reach UK.  The government sees them as an opportunity to guide the public’s attention away from Tory destruction of society and away from systemic transfer of wealth to the wealthiest. 

Processing of asylum applications has ceased, deliberately.  It suits Tory propaganda that tens of thousands of refugees are housed in hotels, army barracks or barges.  Constant expectorations from government ministers and from MPs, backed by like-minded manipulators in media outlets, blame asylum seekers and refugees for all the country’s ills.  It is a constructed daily distraction but is also intended to infuse a perspective in the minds of the public that others, not the government, are responsible for any difficulties people face.

There is an acute and purposeful lack of humanity.  Two hundred people under eighteen disappeared from residences where asylum seekers lived and Tory government responded with a shrug.  Its treatment of children, some unaccompanied, is beyond every law related to safeguarding.  A scheme to traffic people to Rwanda makes no sense because that isn’t its intent.  It is part of the propaganda.  Visible cruelty and wilful law-breaking are part of the propaganda.

To achieve their aims against refugees Tories need to break the law.  Therefore, they want to remove UK from obligation to human rights law set by European Court Of Human Rights (ECHR).  UK was a founder of ECHR.  Leaving it is gross abdication of responsibility for government and is entirely at odds with democracy.  The decision to leave, if it happens, is not primarily to assist with trafficking people to Rwanda.  Without ECHR British people will be defenceless against authoritarian anti-liberty policies Tories think would help them to control.

The threat to leave ECHR is presented by Government, right-wing media and libertarian grifters at think-tanks as a positive display of nationalism.  Nationalism, patriotism, flag-shagging and statue-loving are all they have.  Performance patriotism has three aims: 1) It is a distraction; 2) it encourages people to follow uncritically the policies of Tory government no matter how harmful they are; 3) it positions people who object to Tory policy as unpatriotic with the intent of dismissing their criticisms.  It’s an old trick used for millennia.

Tories need constant distraction, they need people to support government policy no matter how harmful it is and they need to dismiss criticism rapidly and persistently because everything they do is harmful.  Their constant pleas to patriotism are absurd and are also censorious.  Direction of history teaching in schools and of historical information at heritage sites is increasing with the aim of suppressing knowledge and snuffing out the desire to investigate.

But, we can vote them out, can we?  In May a huge number of people will be denied a vote in council elections due to voter suppression policy that targets younger people and people with least income, two groups of people who are more likely to not vote Tory.  The first general election in UK with universal suffrage was 1929; the Tories hope 2019 will be the last.  To exacerbate the denial of a democratic right, two days after the council elections a new head of state will be crowned. 

Hundreds of millions of pounds will be spent on a single event that stinks of rotting privilege.  The king “owns” billions of pounds of wealth including properties, land and offshore investments.  His wealth is a direct consequence of historical theft by his ancestors alongside unearned income obtained via financial exploitation including rent-seeking and tax avoidance.  He exists outside of law.

Stolen wealth by the monarchy is one reason to destroy it.  A second is its role as an imposed comfort blanket to suppress thought.  As people cannot buy food and fuel they need, as people die waiting for medical care and as human rights are flushed away, the government, the king and the servant media thrust a grotesque spectacle in everyone’s faces as a display of ugly nationalism.  They demand uncritical acceptance of the existence of one of the most exploitative institutions in UK and they demand an addiction to it. 

April 1st is not Fool’s Day, it is Scammer’s Day.  It is the day when gas, electricity, water and council tax bills rise.  International cost of gas supply has gone down hugely recently but bills for UK users have risen, as have suppliers’ profits.  Water suppliers have stopped doing part of the job customers paid them to do – treatment of sewage – and are pumping it directly into streams, rivers and coastal waters leaving fish dead, beaches unwalkable and rivers and shores unswimmable.  Tory MPs voted in parliament for abandonment of sewage treatment. 

Tory party is a gang of criminals.  They fleece the public for themselves and for whoever pays them.  New New Labour is no better, nor are SNP and Liberal Democrats.  There is no tangible political opposition. 

So many of UK’s media outlets are owned by offshore exploiters and they work alongside government and think-tanks to promulgate perspectives that are intrinsically harmful because they suit wealth grabbers; lies, evasions, distractions and creation of targets for blame are their tactics.  BBC, with Tory appointees in senior roles, eschewed all its stated principles.

Do we live in a country with rights such as right to protest, right to free speech and right to justice?  All these rights are vanishing via a series of extreme authoritarian government bills passing through parliament and becoming law.  Police can stop any protest, including a single person just standing and not obstructing.  A member of the public was arrested for holding up a small blank sheet of paper close to where the king was present.  Wealth-aligned libel law constricts free speech.  Legal aid has gone and the use of juries is the next target for removal.  Judges are instructed to imprison political protesters on remand, possibly for several months, and to jail them for “contempt” if they exercise a human right to offer the defence they choose in court.

UK is where Tory government steered it.  Nothing that is happening is accidental.  Brexit was devised, developed and is being enacted as a heist.  Some tactics of destruction are facets or consequences of Brexit and some are straightforward theft as thieves snatch as much wealth as they are able because they know there is nothing to stop them.  Corruption is not a strong enough word to describe the government.

Dystopian fiction is primarily entertainment but, usually, contains writers’ fears and warnings.  Almost always, the fears are exaggerated.  Almost always.

Charlton Heston in ‘Soylent Green’

Proud Tories

There were many new Tory MPs elected at 2019 general election.  Some had migrated from membership of or support for far-right politics, an easy and small adjustment – Tories and far-right are committed to economic policy of supporting wealth concentration and both use othering, blame-switching and creation of false enemies. 
–
The slight difference between Proud Tories and other Tories is style of communication of dogma.
–
Proud Tories use deliberate offence, often at a personal level; they do not have any circumspection over use of language; they have no fear of using slanderous, libellous or threatening remarks; they eschew debate, explanations and proof; they display their dedication to never listening to anybody; they are allergic to facts; they wallow in dishonesty, misdirection and tangential retorts; a twisted nasty smirk is their natural visage.
–
Proud Tories are inspired by far-right philosophy.  Bigotry, prejudice and xenophobia are their tools and their aims, and they deliver them with gusto; if challenged they double-down.  There is never retraction or clarification; an apology would be poisonous to them.  If cornered they cry victim.
–
Proud Tories are indistinguishable from politicians and activists in UKIP, Reform UK, The Brexit Party, EDL and Britain First.  They express propaganda devised at the most extreme libertarian think-tanks such as Turning Point UK, Orthodox Conservatives, Common Sense Society and New Culture Forum.  They are UK equivalent of USA’s growing brand of far-right Republican Party politicians and activists that includes Majorie Taylor Green, Ron Desantis, Greg Abbott and Lauren Boebert. 
–
Proud Tories discussed below (Scott Benton, Tom Hunt, Mark Jenkinson, Miriam Cates, Lee Anderson and Jonathan Gullis) were first elected to parliament in 2019 general election.
–

Scott Benton

–
Scott Benton is, simultaneously, opposed to abortion and in favour of the return of the death penalty in UK.
–
On 24th June 2022 he supported a comment (retweeted it on twitter) by USA Republican Party that celebrated the USA Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade judgement.  The Supreme Court’s decision allowed several states in the country to outlaw abortion.
–
On 6th January 2023 he praised a speech by book-burning far-right racist governor of Florida Ron Desantis.  He said “Wow!  Have a listen to this brilliant and inspiring speech by the next President of the USA Ron Desantis.  What a powerful espousal of conservatism.”  In a video clip accompanying Benton’s comment Desantis said “we reject this woke ideology.  We will never surrender to the woke mob,” alongside a commitment to reduce public spending.

Benton’s assessment of Tory plans to traffic men, women and children (including unaccompanied children) to Rwanda was a concoction of lies, misdirection and contradictions.  On 14th April 2022 he wrote on his website “since 2015 Conservative Governments have offered a place to over 185,000 men, women, and children seeking refuge” but added that 100,000 of that number are from Hong Kong, most of whom have British passports, and 50,000 from Ukraine, who are not expected to remain indefinitely.  Just 13,000 people have moved to UK from Afghanistan, according to Benton.
–
He claimed “Nationality and Borders Bill will fix the broken asylum system by allowing the Government for the first time to distinguish between people coming here legally and illegally and for this distinction to affect their status in the UK.”  There is no such person as an “illegal” refugee and there is no such person as an “illegal” asylum seeker.  The bill’s intent is to stop all refugees and asylum seekers from all but a few selected territories, currently Hong Kong and Ukraine.
–
In a further example of offensively deceptive presentation Benton said “I welcome the UK’s new migration and economic development partnership with Rwanda” because it will “protect our capacity to expand generosity of this Conservative Government that has done more than any other UK Government to resettle vulnerable people, and properly support people to rebuild their lives.”  He could say sentences like that because his extreme libertarian philosophy is wholly at odds with honesty and integrity.  His tone was sinister.  “Those arriving illegally into the UK by dangerous methods [will be] relocated to Rwanda to have their claims for asylum considered and, if recognised as refugees, to build their lives there – helping break the people smugglers’ business model and prevent loss of life.”  That is not how asylum works under international law.  Nothing about the scheme “breaks the people smugglers’ business model” unless Benton is implying, without saying, that the objective is to put people off from trying to arrive in UK aboard a “small boat” but, if that did happen then there would be nobody to be trafficked to Rwanda.  Logic is not among his chosen communication skillset.
–
Benton’s analysis made no attempt to possess sense.  It was grotesque PR for an extreme illegal policy. 
–
He continued with his use of invented claims on 22nd December 2022 in House Of Commons when he asked the Home Secretary “this country has led the way in providing safe and legal routes for those in genuine need, most notably those fleeing Ukraine and Afghanistan.  However, does the Home Secretary agree that it would be completely impractical for asylum claims to be made directly to the UK from any country in the world, as our system would simply be crushed under the weight of tens of millions of claims from economic migrants from every corner of the world?”  So many untruths there.  Corrections: The number of refugees accepted by UK from Afghanistan is very small; there is no “system” for applying for asylum in UK; most “corners” of the world are in much better shape financially than UK.
–
On 7th March 2023 he said “it is vital that the UK is allowed to enforce its borders and is not beholden to the whims of undemocratic foreign courts with no understanding of the concerns of the average Brit.”  He meant European Court Of Human Rights (ECHR) which is an international court not a “foreign court,” and UK is not “beholden” to ECHR, it is a member (and founder) of it.  Benton is not ignorant of those facts; he is keen to observe only the laws he chooses to observe.
–
In further comments on a government bill he said on 13th March 2023 “if we continue to be soft, we will continue to be taken advantage of.  If [the bill] does pass and courts like the ECHR block it, the Government must put UK sovereignty first even if this means leaving international courts.”  Leaving ECHR is not the behaviour of a democratic government.  Benton’s rhetoric is not the behaviour of someone who believes in democracy, justice or human rights.
–
On 4th June 2021 he claimed he watched England men’s football team play a pre-tournament friendly prior to the European Championships and said “players taking the knee” were “booed by a large proportion of the crowd.”  His use of the adjective “large” was a lie.  He further claimed “boos were obvious to hear” at two games involving Blackpool FC that he attended.
–
Politicians and right-wing media outlets encouraged football fans to boo when players express solidarity with people who are victims of racism.  Benton wants footballers to stop taking the knee because he is opposed to Black Lives Matter as a political concept.  He said “Black Lives Matter is a political movement and it also promotes some disgusting and extreme policies, such as abolishing the nuclear family and defunding the police.  I believe football authorities were misguided and that they should have devised their own campaign at the time, rather than seemingly allying themselves with a political movement.”
–
His pleasure at the gesture being booed was obvious: “The first time fans were let back into the stadiums the gesture was booed,” and he asked for more: “The Football Association needs to ensure that it [taking the knee] doesn’t alienate the majority of decent football fans.”  The vast majority of football fans support the gesture of solidarity because the fans are decent people.  Benton, clearly, has a different definition of “decent.”
–
In the House Of Commons on 10th February 2023 he expressed his disappointment that there were not more children being harassed by Prevent for talking or writing about their Muslim faith.  He claimed “only 16% of referrals to Prevent were in relation to Islamic extremism, despite it being the most imminent threat with 80% of cases the police and security services investigate being Islamist based.”  Benton knows the difference between a referral to Prevent and an investigation of a crime but he chose to pretend he doesn’t.
–
Freeports, investments zones or, more accurately, charter territories, are planned throughout UK and will cover most ports and industrial areas.  Within the territories all workers’ rights are absent (including minimum wage, safe working conditions, job security, trades’ union membership, right to strike, etc.), as are tenants’ rights, access to justice, right to protest and human rights.  There are no elections for administration of the territories.  All public land, public property and public services is handed to corporate interests.  Benton is a big fan.  On 23rd September 2022 he “welcomed the news that the North-West could benefit from six new Investment Zones.”
–
He was excited, on behalf of exploiters, that each “Investment Zone will offer generous tax cuts for businesses and will also benefit from liberalised planning rules.”  He repeated the standard conservative fraud that “reducing the cost of doing business, we are creating jobs and opportunities across the North-West and laying the foundations for a strong, competitive economy.”  The reality of charter territories around the world, owned by the same people and businesses that are being handed the territories in UK, is extreme exploitation, no access to justice, no democracy, and all profits disappearing into offshore accounts.  They are the ultimate mode of capitalist exploitation.
–
As noted earlier if a Proud Tory is cornered they cry victim.  On 11th March 2022 on libertarian TV channel GB News Benton whinged pathetically about a member of the public exercising his right to express a political opinion in a public area. 
–
He described how “when we [Benton and Tory activists] were speaking to people on the doorstep, he [a member of the public] went up to members of the public to tell them: ‘Don’t trust this man.  Don’t trust these people.’” but extrapolated wildly to claim “it was extremely violent and aggressive.  We did feel threatened, he was extremely intimidating.”  There was a wide gap between Benton’s account of what happened and his account of how he claimed he perceived the encounter.   He made abusive comments about the member of the public’s mental state: “You couldn’t tell whether or not he had something going on in his life – but it clearly wasn’t a person who was at ease with himself, or indeed society.”  He called the police but neglected to say what complaint he made to the police and what charges he thought should be pressed. 
–
“Don’t trust this man” is an entirely accurate and necessary description of Benton.  On 5th April 2023 Benton lost the Tory whip as a consequence of comments he made to an undercover reporter who posed as a representative of an investment fund.  Benton told the reporter that he would speak directly to government ministers, ask parliamentary questions and go through government policy “line-by-line” if he was hired by the (fake) investment fund.  He added he would supply the fund with copies of a review of law changes ahead of its publication.
–

Tom Hunt

–
Educated at £35,958 p.a. Kings School Tom Hunt is a keen activist for promoting patriotism as a battle against democracy.
–
On 2nd April 2021 he demanded that “the flying of the Union flag should be compulsory for all schools.  If any pupils and teachers have concerns about this then surely they can be educated about what the flag actually represents.”  Democracy and compulsory flying of flags are opposites.
–
In a piece for Express on 13th February 2021 Hunt attacked Historic England because it chose to provide information to the public of historical connections of people and locations to the slave trade.  He called the provision of information a “campaign” and said “campaigns such as these simply add fodder to the fire for people who want to further vandalise our history.  It feels Maoist and dystopian.”
–
He was keen to absolve UK historically by claiming “Britain was the first nation in history to confront the horrors of the global slave trade.”  That assertion was a blatant lie.  He chose to fail to mention that slavers (and their descendants) were paid compensation for abolition of slave trade up to early 21st century.
–
In January 2022 four defendants who were accused of criminal damage to a statue of slave trader Edward Colston after it was thrown into the Avon were acquitted by a jury.  Juries are an intrinsic facet of justice and of democracy in a functioning society but Hunt declared “if the jury is a barrier to ensuring they are punished then that needs to be addressed.”
–
>A few weeks after being elected, in a piece for East Anglian Times on 10th January 2020, after offering an exposition of crime in Ipswich town centre where his tone suggested mayhem but the details were “loitering” and shoplifting, Hunt whistled enthusiastically for the hounds by stating “a disproportionate number of crimes are committed by individuals from certain communities.”
–
He was determined to conflate crime and immigrants.  “People who should know better are too slow to call out problems in certain communities.  In contrast to those who say we should be eternally tolerant of bad behaviour which may be rife in other countries but is not traditionally in ours, those who join our community [must] meet us halfway when it comes to integration.  Large groups of loiterers need to be dispersed.” 
–
His words – written down not shouted at a rally – were a rambling concoction that randomly placed his claim that residents fear serious crime next to complaints about loitering and shoplifting and next to his disapproval of “cultures” of “certain communities.”
–
On 26th January 2023 in a contribution for Conservative Home Hunt wrote the adjective “genuine” in front of the noun “refugee(s)” four times.  Earlier in January he did a photo op at a refugee camp in Bangladesh where people from Myanmar are resident and claimed “it had a profound effect on me” but the thrust of his article was to emphasise that “there is no contradiction in being passionate about supporting the Rohingya refugees and taking a robust approach to stamping out illegal immigration.”
–
His aim was to invent a spurious differentiation between “genuine refugees” and “economic migrants.” He said “I will never forget their [Rohingya refugees] torment and anguish” alongside “the time has come for us to banish the scandalous small boat crossings to history.”  Hunt blamed people who risk their lives crossing the English Channel on small boats for a consequence that “some of the most desperate and needy refugees in the world miss out [on being allowed into UK].”
–
He doubled down on his disgusting mendacious analysis: “Would we rather accommodate some of the world’s most vulnerable, or the tens of thousands of individuals who have illegally entered our country?  Those economic migrants who seek to rig the system are working directly against the interests of the most desperate and the most vulnerable.”
–
His argument was consumed by dishonesty and was marked by its omissions.  He did not suggest any method for people to apply for asylum.  None exists.
–
Interestingly, he praised Tory government for allowing people from Hong Kong to move to UK.  Are they not “economic migrants?”
–
On his website Hunt posted an “immigration survey” for local residents that asked questions including “do you agree that a landlord should be forced to check if a tenant is a legal resident in UK?” and “should the NHS charge for services for people who are not permanent UK residents?”  There were no questions that asked for opinions on anything that would help immigrants.
–

Mark Jenkinson

–
Mark Jenkinson was a founding member of UKIP’s West Cumbria branch and was the party’s candidate for a parliamentary seat (for 2015 general election) before he joined the Tories.
–
In October 2020 in support of Ben Bradley’s assertion that “free school meal vouchers went directly to a crack den or brothel” Jenkinson said “I know in my constituency food parcels are traded for drugs, and that’s parcels not vouchers which have greater numerical value.”  Jenkinson’s comment was an invention.
–
In June 2021 he was paid £1,400 by Betting And Gaming Council.  On 13th July Conservative Home website published an article by him that objected to government proposals for limits to be “placed on how much individuals should be allowed to bet.”   He said “millions who enjoy a flutter safely and responsibly” will be “forced into the hands of the unregulated and unsafe black market” – an absurd argument.
–
On 20th November 2021 he commented on a photograph that appeared on a social media account (twitter) of Essex Police on the same day that featured two police officers and a member of the public stood in front of a transgender flag on a flag pole inside the grounds of police property.  Jenkinson said “I hope you’ve got planning consent for that flag, it’s not legal to fly it without” and he provided a link to a page on the government’s website that advises on whether permission is needed to fly certain flags at certain locations.  The information on that page showed clearly that Essex Police would not need to seek “planning consent” to fly such a flag on its own property.  That is, Jenkinson’s claim that “it’s not legal to fly it without” was a lie.

In early 2023 Cumbria Police decided to spend £247 on livery for a single police car in the colours of the rainbow Pride flag.  Jenkinson responded by spending nearly as much on a long rambling letter to the chief constable wherein he “expressed his concerns” about a “regrettable decision.”  He described the Pride flag as a “political symbol.”  He asked where were car liveries for “for BAME people, for women, for men, for Christians, for Jews” and added “in focussing on the rights of a particular group, police are being exclusive not inclusive.  Some marginalised groups, it seems, are more equal than others.”  However, his apparent interest in police support for “marginalised groups” was undermined by him switching to “this woke gimmickry is alienating a huge section of the public” – it wasn’t clear if “huge” meant many people or the typical paunch size of a gammon –  and he accused Cumbria Police of “telegraphing its woke credentials.”  In the letter Jenkinson stated that he wasn’t keen on one “marginalised group,” travellers: “Travellers are allowed to pitch up wherever they please with impunity.”
–

Miriam Cates

–
Miriam Cates established New Social Covenant Unit whose objective is to present Tories’ destruction of society and of public services as completely the opposite.
–
On 14th June 2021 Unherd published an article by Cates that objected to Covid pandemic restrictions.  She said “as we contemplate sliding in to yet another extension of serious legal curtailments to our lives, our livelihoods and our freedom, it’s time to ask if we have travelled too far down this road” and “we’ve come to see death as something that should be prevented even in old age, no matter the cost to our way of life, and held the Government responsible when it isn’t.”  In case her reasoning wasn’t clear she clarified that “we’ve focused far too narrowly on the short term impact of Covid on the longevity of older people.  We have sacrificed our collective freedom to save individual lives.  Death, especially in old age, is a normal part of life.  We should not sacrifice those things that make life worth living for the sake of a short increase in longevity [for old people].”  Just for absolute clarity, Cates said let the old people die of Covid because they would have died soon anyway, and let’s get our nights out back.  She received a cash donation from a former director of J.P.Morgan Europe Limited who wanted to financially support MPs who were lockdown-skeptic during the pandemic.
–
Cates is co-chair of Stocksbridge Towns Fund.  Her husband, David, also sits on the board, as does a local businessman, Ian Sanderson, a business partner of David Cates.  The other co-chair is Mark Dransfield, a local property developer from whom Miriam Cates rents her constituency office.  He owns a retail park in Stocksbridge directly adjoining two of the proposed local regeneration schemes for use of Towns Fund.  Dransfield’s sister-in-law, who formerly worked for his company, sits on a subcommittee.  Stocksbridge was awarded £24,100,000 by Towns Fund.
–
Her business Redemption Media charged foodbanks £180 for use of an App that allows foodbanks to register which particular items of food they need, so people keen to donate can ensure they purchase things needed by their local facility.  Cates said the first foodbank to sign up was not charged a fee, but the first foodbank was a pilot of the scheme and it was at a location run by an organisation of which Cates was operations director.
–
On 22nd February 2023 Politics Home published an article by Cates where she described her pro-natalist philosophy. 
–
“A nation needs to produce enough children to at least maintain its population size.  And it must bring those children up to be healthy adults with the skills and the virtues to maintain – or advance – that nation’s prosperity, values and culture and in turn to produce the next generation.  I have a degree in genetics and I used to be a biology teacher, and in biology, one of the clearest indicators of a species’ success is its rate of reproduction.  How many offspring can be produced, protected from predators, and raised to reach reproductive maturity?
–
“Throughout history, the UK has been a successful nation but this success has only been possible because successive generations have reproduced themselves, ensuring the continuity and renewal of our economy, culture and national identity.”
–
In a crowded filed of wild Tory nonsense Cates’ demands for maintaining population size as a necessity is one of the weirdest.  Interestingly, she did not suggest relaxing laws on immigration to keep population numbers consistent.  The final pair of words in the above quote are probably the most indicative of Cates’ motivation for her theory.
–
In March 2023 she opposed provision of extra free childcare because she thinks mothers should spend more time with their children rather than have careers: “Most women have jobs and not careers.”
–

Lee Anderson

–
Deputy Chair of Tory Party Lee Anderson enjoys his role as random bigotry generator.  He has several targets. 
–
The two most frequent recipients of his attacks are immigrants and people with low income.  He encourages focus on and ire toward immigrants to distract the public from Tory destruction of society and to direct blame away from the government; he mocks people with low income in order to blame them for financial difficulties that are intentional consequences of Tory policy.
–
A recurring theme in his rhetoric is insistence that people need very little money to survive.  He accused people using foodbanks of being unable to budget and of being unable to cook, and accused people who receive Universal Credit of not wanting to work hard enough.  In a debate in House Of Commons on 1st March 2023 he said that “what we learned at the food bank was that people could not make a meal from scratch. They were struggling to cook a vegetable properly,” and he invented a story to denigrate foodbank users: “There is a culture in some deprived areas where people are so dependent on food banks that it is like a weekly shop for them.  One particular family who I was really trying to help were going to the food bank two or three times a week to get their groceries, but then I would see them in McDonald’s two or three times a week.  Food banks are abused by people who do not need them.  We should target the food banks.”
–
In the same debate Anderson stated he had no time for “excuses” for people not having enough money for food, and he claimed “this Government have provided billions of pounds of support over the past two years.”  What “this government” has done is cut back on financial support, imposed murderous Universal Credit sanctions on a massive scale, forced people with disabilities to endure assessments, allowed no control of rent costs, food costs and fuel costs, and weakened workers’ rights.  The cost of living crisis is an imposition by a government that works for exploiters.
–
Anderson’s role is to protect the Tory government from blame for Social Murder.  His focus is on dividing society.  He concluded his contribution to the debate with “I don’t do divisive politics,” but that is all he ever does. 
–
As stated above, his other favourite topic to deflect attention from Tory government’s behaviour is to talk about immigration.  On 11th May 2022 in House Of Commons he expectorated his oft-repeated conflation of asylum seekers and “economic migrants.”  In response to a correction from another MP that most people who arrive in UK via a boat across the English Channel are asylum seekers, Anderson showed contempt for basic legal processes and justice.  He said “when people get here, they know how to fill the forms out and they have these lefty lawyers who say, ‘Put this, this and this.’ So they fill the forms out and, hey presto, about 80% get asylum status.”  His comment was fictitious and was not inspired by a commitment to democracy.
–
In House Of Commons on 8th June 2021 he said “we have a big problem in Ashfield [Anderson’s constituency] with the travelling community.  Crime was going up, pets were going missing, antisocial behaviour was going through the roof and properties were getting broken into.”  His chosen source for his claims was a “survey” he conducted with “2000 constituents.”  Rather than engage in debate he repeated his claims: “We know that there is a direct correlation between travellers being in the area and crime going up.  The travellers I am talking about are more likely to be seen leaving your garden shed at 3 o’clock in the morning, probably with your lawnmower and half of your tools.  That happens every single time they come to Ashfield.”  He chose not to provide any police or court statistics to prove his claims.
–
On 11th February 2023 in an interview with The Spectator he declared support for capital punishment with a deliberately absurd argument.  “Nobody has ever committed a crime after being executed.  You know that, don’t you?  100 per cent success rate.”
–
<Every time Anderson speaks or writes he attacks people least able to defend themselves and who are struggling financially.  He is a rabble rouser who knows that his job is to promote the view that people with little money and asylum seekers should be targets of blame rather than a Tory government that is focussed on directing wealth to the wealthiest at everyone else's expense.
–

Jonathan Gullis

–
Educated at £14,736 p.a. Princethorpe College Jonathan Gullis despises his constituents in Stoke-on-Trent.  In a video published on social media on 19th February 2023, filmed in Stoke, he described local people as “savages,” “scrotes” and “scumbags.”
–
Ejaculation of abuse, in language and tone, and accompanied by performative anger, is his preferred mode of communication with the world.  Like Anderson, Gullis knows his role within the propaganda machine of Tory ideology.  His role differs from Anderson because he cannot claim to have had a working class background like Anderson but he uses similar tactics of aggression, childishness and petulance with absolute commitment to avoidance of facts; Gullis’ behaviour is more disgusting.  Phil Burton-Cartledge noted in ‘Coarseness‘ for All That Is Solid blog that “no one forces him [Gullis] to be a no-quality nasty bastard, but dirt like him wouldn’t be thriving were it not for the collective behaviour of the dominant factions of the Westminster parties.”
–
In House Of Commons on 25th January 2023, when Labour MP Tulip Siddiq asked the Prime Minister to comment on disappearance of two hundred children from a hotel where they were resident while their asylum claims were being processed, Gullis yelled “well they shouldn’t have come here illegally.”
–
As a Tory he is, of course, opposed to strikes.  On 10th January 2023 he expressed his disapproval of teachers’ strikes with personal attacks on union leaders: “Teachers are being cajoled by baron bosses in unions like the Not Education Union, led by Bolshevik Bousted and Commie Courtney.”
–
At 2021 Tory party conference Gullis enthused about disabled people working in minimum wage jobs.  “it costs the state £3m on average over the course of the lifetime of an individual with something like Down’s syndrome to support them, but if they’re in work and supported, it costs £1m.  So that instantly is saving money.”
–
At the same conference he demanded political interference in and political direction of education in schools including suppression of teaching of facts.  He said “the other way we can stop the cancel culture is by actually saying to the woke left lecturers and the woke left teachers – who seem to be becoming more and more apparent – is that ultimately, what’s going to happen if you are going to push your ideology in the classroom there are going to be consequences for you.  We need to start sacking people who are pushing their political ideology.”
–
Also at the conference he expressed his opposition to anti-racism by stating “the term white privilege is an extremist term, it should be reported to Prevent, because it is an extremist ideology.  I hope [using the term white privilege] will be reported, I hope that will be looked into, and any teacher who’s perpetuated it in the classroom ultimately should face a disciplinary hearing at the very least.” 
–
There is no nuance of difference between Gullis’ demands in education and those of fascist extremists.  Education is an enemy of ignorance.  Thus, it is an enemy of authoritarianism.  Educated knowledgeable critical thinkers are exactly the opposite of what libertarian Tories want young people in UK to be.  The attacks on education sit alongside the removal of the right to vote for young people via imposition of the requirement for Voter ID in elections where accepted Voter ID excludes many forms of photo ID held by younger people. 
–
(Two recent Education Secretaries interferred politically in education.  Both Gavin Williamson and Nadhim Zahawi issued “guidance” to schools.  Williamson’s instructions included “schools should not under any circumstances use resources produced by organisations that [have] a publicly stated desire to abolish or overthrow capitalism.”  Zahawi positioned his “guidance” as if he were encouraging critical thinking but his interference was motivated by libertarian descriptions of schools full of left-wing teachers.  “No school should be encouraging young people to pin their colours to a particular political mast,” he said.  Zahawi did not suggest any “guidance” on how to teach multi-million pound tax-dodging.)
–
Gullis is a former teacher.
–

New Tory MPs after 2019 general election and then Prime Minister Boris Johnson

–
>There were over one hundred newly-elected Tory MPs after 2019 general election.  Not all could be described as Proud Tories – one new MP, Christian Wakeford, defected to Labour – but many are.  Those discussed above are a selection.  There are many others who are working as councillors.  Also, several of the elected Police And Crime Commissioners are Proud Tories.
–
Their presence in governing administrations is not “infiltration” by far-right activists.  It is natural progression, or regression, of Tory party.