Is Tory government a Corruptocracy? It’s worse than that

Corrupt politicians are common characters in satire and story-telling and have been since the first governing administrations millennia ago.  Orators and writers take their inspiration from how politics operates.  Corruption is depicted as resultant from financial greed, limitless ego, and desire to impress.  Most compositions provide tendential back stories for their characters that explain the necessity of and describe the development of their venality by showing it grows from psychological preferences or is inculcated in upbringing and schooling.  Satiation of the venality is presented as inevitable.  

Apart from a misplaced popular indulgence of writers to rehabilitate and reform their nefarious characters, story-tellers’ accounts of corrupted politicians are true reflections of behaviour of governing administrations.

“You might very well think that.  I couldn’t possibly comment.”

Current governance in Westminster is criticised by opponents as having some politicians who are corrupted.  Such criticisms are very mild.  Behaviour of government and politicians in UK is far beyond corruption.

The sole purpose of conservative politicians is to use parliament, government or councils as tools to direct flow of money to politician’s paymasters who are previous, current or future.  Working for financial gain (for selves, family, friends, business associates and the wider exploitation community), paid in advance of, during and after political career and against interests of British public, is the whole unvarying modus operandi of every conservative politician.  Actions to assist a politician’s employers can be specific to one person or business, beneficent to an industry or in favour of wealthy people generally.  It is not a side-hustle or an occasional deviation.  It is why they are in parliament, mayor’s office or town hall.

UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and his wife Akshata Murty

The paragraph above describes conservative politicians in any epoch but the Tory government elected in 2019 enacts corruption as a profession.

Tory MPs arrive at parliament after elections as employees of beneficiaries of future Tory policy.  Selection of candidates for winnable parliamentary seats is from a pool of think-tankers, graduates of courses that teach how to focus on ensuring distribution of wealth to the wealthiest and how to present that as mendaciously as possible, holders of senior executive positions at huge international businesses, and some very wealthy people.

As the occupation of conservative politicians is to ensure wealth is transferred from the public to the politicians’ employers, criticisms of politicians’ “second jobs” misdirect focus.  Their “second jobsare their jobs.

Every conservative politician is paid to act against democracy.  Every corporate plant in a governing administration acts in the interests of its industry.  There is no separation of think-tanks and MPs: Think-tankers become MPs (or peers); MPs and peers found think-tanks, write papers and give speeches for them and sit on their advisory boards.

Potential future conservative politicians are identified, or identify themselves, by what they are willing and able to do to perpetuate flow of wealth from the people to the wealthiest.  The skillset of each contains

  • Utter disdain for democracy
  • Relentless commitment to falsehoods, deception, obfuscation and evasion
  • Direct connections with corporate world
  • Affiliations with right-wing think-tanks
  • Eagerness to use racism and other prejudices as tools
  • Erasure of awareness of humanity
  • Perception of staying within the law as an option not an obligation
New Tory MPs at 2019 general election: (l-r) Lee Anderson, Dehenna Davison, Johnathan Gullis and Scott Benton

Some conservative MPs are adept at recognising decisions and policies that assist wealth concentration (for example, Rishi Sunak, Steve Barclay) and others are adept at using distraction techniques to divert attention and to shift blame (Suella Braverman, Michael Gove) but all enjoy the capability to lie persistently, shamelessly and aggressively. 

All of them know what their shared objective is.  All know that direction of flow of money must always be from the people to the wealthiest.  All know that presentation of their actions must hide intent and hide mechanics of the work they are doing.  All know there must be constant distractions, truth-twisting, blame-shifting and creations of faux enemies. 

If politicians, activists, political organisations, trades’ unions, charities, lobby groups or individuals defend themselves and others from conservative criminality then conservatives describe them as enemies of the people.  

Michael Gove (left) and Rupert Murdoch

To describe the current Tory government’s MPs as “corrupted” is to suggest that at some point in time of their political career they were pre-corrupted.  That is not the case.  When they arrived in parliament for the first time they were employees of exploiters.  They were not corrupted after becoming MPs.  They were educated, trained and prepared prior to being an MP.

We don’t have a government.   

Recommended reading
Will Black for Medium: This Stench of Tory Corruption Must NEVER Be Forgotten

Is Tory government a Corruptocracy? It’s worse than that

Grant Shapps’s anti-strike law

Tory Business Secretary Grant Shapps’ claim to fame is his use of aliases as a ruse to con people to part with money to support his dodgy faux businesses.  That is, he a tōraidhe1 as a person and as a politician.

On 10th January 2023 he presented a bill to parliament, Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill (SMSL), that restricts the human right to strike for workers in certain jobs.  When the bill becomes law employers, public and private, will be able to set an arbitrary “minimum” workforce including workers for specific tasks.  Anyone deemed to be part of the minimum workforce will be denied the human right to strike and if they strike the law will allow the employer to sack them immediately.  Any action by a trades’ union to encourage people to strike will lead to the employer taking money from the union via court action.

SMSL has the following objectives

  1. Assist employer exploitation of workers by removing the vital pressure tool of strike action
  2. Steal money from unions to lessen their effectiveness
  3. Blame unions and strikers for poor services

Most of the named industries are (currently) public services including health, fire, transport and education.  Failure in quality in these services is entirely the result of deliberate Tory policy.  The government is following the libertarian template of destroying public services and replacing them with privateer racketeer systems.  People are dying as a consequence of Tory ideology to kill NHS.

Britain has an insipid political opposition – Starmer’s Labour – and complicit media.  However, strong focussed trades’ unions provided effective opposition to Tory destruction in the last year.  Strikes and threats of strikes enabled unions to acquire reasonable pay and/or working conditions for their members.  

Sharon Graham (centre), General Secretary of UNITE

The success of strong union action in one industry encouraged similar successes in others.  Union representatives elucidated well the motivations and aims of Tories, and they handled biased media questioning with aplomb.  At select committee hearings they responded expertly to Tory MPs’ dishonesty, misdirection and professional stupidity.  For example, watch General Secretary of the RMT Mick Lynch and General Secretary of ASLEF Mick Whelan counter nonsense from Tory Greg Smith and others on 11th January (2023): Select Committee Hearing

The ability of union representatives to communicate clearly, consistently and decisively is a simple consequence of the fact that they know what they are doing is right and honest.  They are knowledgeable of their industries, of the political relationship between employer and employee and of Tories’ true objectives and ideology.  They have no need to be evasive.  Combination of knowledge and surety of their roles means they can converse easily and successfully with any combatant, and also can speak directly to the public with facts and logic.

Union representatives’ skills in communication contrast starkly with those of Tories and their collaborators.  For Tories, every communication – in parliament, to media, in statements – is dishonest by necessity.  They cannot reveal their real intent and so everything they say is presented as an array of misrepresentations, misdirection, distractions and lies.  They are con artists.  To succeed, they must never diverge from the con.

The diametrically opposed communication capabilities of union representatives and Tories – the former honest and confident, the latter slimy and deceitful – stems from the former believing what they say whereas the latter know that everything they say is made up and often opposite to the truth.

Given recent successes of unions, the government and its collaborators are very fearful.  They fear not just the impact on financial exploitation by employers but also the inspiration the successes give people to challenge exploitation and government rhetoric and actions.  Most notably, they fear growth of public awareness due to union representatives’ dissemination of knowledge of how the system works/exploits.  

There is no limit to how far the government will go in its denial of human rights.  It intends to bin all EU laws that offer protection of rights and justice.  Its “investment zones” are charter territories wherein all rights, including democracy, are absent.  Removing the human right to strike was inevitable.

Ideology and methodology of Tory policy is forged in extremist libertarian think-tanks like Institute Of Economic Affairs, Legatum Institute, Centre For Policy Studies, Centre For Social Justice, Tax-Payers’ Alliance and, in USA, Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation.  Tory MPs and peers are members of and contributors to these think-tanks, some MPs and peers were planted in parliament by the think-tanks, some created the think-tanks, and some think-tank members are government advisers.  All the think-tanks are criminally secretive about their funding.  Compliant media yes-platforms think-tank members and presents them as “independent.”  These think-tanks are consistently anti-trades’ union.

A perusal through actions of conservative governments in capitalist countries over the last hundred years shows that banning the human right to strike is rare.  The most famous example is Germany in the mid-1930s.  The human right to strike existed in UK before universal right to vote.  It existed without it being illegal or legal to strike.  Subsequently, laws set restrictions on strikes with some protections of the human right to strike.  1980s Tory governments made several law changes to hamper the human right to strike but didn’t ban strikes.  Shapps’ anti-strike law is a further step by the Tories to corporate fascism.

Tories and their collaborators in media and at think-tanks cannot be honest about the objective of SMSL.  As the Daily Mail headline (below) on 11th January (2023) shows, the strike ban is being presented as protection of vital services, the same services that the government is destroying deliberately as a means of inflicting privatisation.


It must be understood that the Tory government is a gang of thieves, fraudsters and liars whose only aim is further enrichment of the already extremely wealthy and who are vehemently opposed to human rights and to democracy.

1Tōraidhe n. Irish word for robber

Recommended reading
Joshua Rozenberg: How The Work Bill Will Work

Grant Shapps’s anti-strike law

Social Defence

Social Murder n. Government economic policy designed to destroy lives
Social Defence n. Any action taken to protect against Social Murder

Social Murder

In ‘The Condition of the Working Class in England’ communist revolutionary Friedrich Engels reported that “society in England daily and hourly commits what the working-men’s organs, with perfect correctness, characterise as Social Murder; it has placed the workers under conditions in which they can neither retain health nor live long; it undermines the vital force of these workers gradually, little by little, and so hurries them to the grave before their time.  Society knows how injurious such conditions are to the health and the life of the workers, and yet does nothing to improve these conditions.  It knows the consequences of its deeds; its act is, therefore, not mere manslaughter, but murder.”

His research was published in 1845.  One hundred and seventy-eight years later (2023) Social Murder is a predominant strategy of the UK conservative government’s pursuit of its sole purpose: Concentration of wealth at the expense of everyone else.

Tories use Social Murder in Britain to

  1. Take money from the people and hand it to the wealthiest
  2. Denigrate and destroy public services to promote privateer extortion as a necessary change
  3. Instil fear to dissuade people from complaining, protesting or taking industrial action
  4. Inculcate an ideology of society as constant competition and survival of the fittest in order to eradicate government responsibility for welfare of the people
  5. Distraction: If people are focussed on daily survival then they do not investigate the causes of problems

Social Murder’s use increased rapidly since 2010 and the rate of increase multiplied since December 2019.  

Deliberate destruction of National Health Service

  • Understaffing due to failure to replace people who leave including thousands of medical staff from European Union countries who were forced to exit UK after Brexit
  • Wage reductions via opposition to pay rises that match inflation
  • Massive reduction of NHS beds in hospitals
  • Divergence of funds to racketeers as part of Covid pandemic government contracts scandal

Consequences of the attacks on NHS are fatalities. 

People are dying while waiting for emergency ambulances, particularly after heart-attacks and strokes, because of shortages of paramedic staff and because ambulances are queueing with patients on board outside hospitals for hours waiting for admittance and not able to attend other emergency calls.

People with treatable illnesses are dying because hospital appointments for assessment are delayed; the delays are sometimes measured in years.  There is a lack of access to GPs leading to health issues not being diagnosed early enough for effective treatment.

In collusion with the government’s destruction of NHS is pressure on people to chose private healthcare.  Recent Health Secretary Sajid Javid demonstrated typical Tory manipulation of language by describing the persuasion to go private as a “right to choose” for a patient.

I want to enshrine [the right to choose] so that every patient of the NHS, once they’ve been diagnosed and they need a certain treatment, they are given options, they have a choice.  It could be an independent provider in the independent sector.” – Sajid Javid, March 2022

He meant that immediately after people are told how serious an illness is they will be given the choice of “go private or die.”

The focus of many libertarian influencers – politicians, journalists, think-tankers, TV and radio screaming heads –  is depiction of the NHS as failed without any criticism of government.  All such activists have connections to privateer healthcare industry.

Universal Credit

Universal Credit (UC) was designed to cause debt, destitution, homelessness and death.  Inadequate payments particularly for rent costs and deliberate underpayments mean claimants, including people working, do not receive enough money to live on.  Vicious unjust sanctions – total removal of payment – are applied via trickery; their effects are devastating.

The existence and application tactics of UC make loss of unemployment extremely fear-inducing and so people in exploitative jobs are less likely to leave, to seek better pay and conditions or to complain.  Their employers are delighted about that.

Disability and chronic illness

For people with a disability or a chronic or life-ending illness their lives worsened hugely as a consequence of destruction of health provision and removal of financial assistance via DWP actions.  Ideological policy of DWP forces disabled people to “prove” disability via assessments, by unqualified people, that are designed to deny financial help.

Tory-supported extortion by fuel suppliers is a larger problem for some disabled people who might require more electricity for equipment to help them live and for heating.

Current Tory Secretary Of State For Work And Pensions Mel Stride, alumnus of £17,955 p.a. Portsmouth Grammar School

Erasure of statute defence

There are organised, traditional and approved methods of defence against Social Murder all of which had to be fought for with organised resistance: Voting in elections; forming political parties; collective bargaining and strikes via trades’ unions; legal redress; protests; free speech (in person, in literature and online).  All are being erased by the Tory government via a series of bills through parliament, with more to come in 2023, including  

  • Denial of right to vote via imposition of necessity of photo Voter ID.  In particular, many younger people (among whom there is a low percentage of Tory supporters) will not be able to vote
  • Refusal by Electoral Commission to allow some political parties to partake in elections including Black Lives Matter party and Northern Independence Party
  • Continuing attacks on the right to strike or to take any industrial action  
  • Removal of legal aid
  • Ban on protests accompanied by severe judicial decisions.  It is illegal to talk (even in private) about protesting.  Protestors (Just Stop Oil, Extinction Rebellion, etc.) received custodial sentences for minor “offences” and some were remanded in custody indefinitely before trial.  A journalist reporting on a Just Stop Oil protest was arrested.  A jury acquittal of defendants (protesters who dumped a statue of a slave trader in a river in Bristol) was overturned by Home Secretary Suella Braverman in a non-jury appeal
  • Corrupt libel jurisprudence that silences critics while enriching libel law industry

The examples above are a preamble to imposition of Retained EU Law Bill (REUL) in 2023 that dispenses with all EU laws from several decades.  Tories are able to do this as a consequence of their hard Brexit.  As UK was bound by EU law equivalent UK-only laws were not needed and, thus, do not exist.

REUL dispenses with protections for workers’ rights (hours of work, paid holidays), gender equality (maternity pay, equal pay) and anti-discrimination (protections for disabled people and denial of racial discrimination).

As a corollary to leaving EU Tories also want UK to leave European Court Of Human Rights.

Social Defence

If someone is trying to kill you, your friends and family or people in your community then you choose the methods of defence.

In the face of ever-increasing volume and viciousness of state Social Murder and in absence of statute means of protection Social Defence is an urgent necessity.

Tools, strategies, tactics and methodology of Social Defence are whatever is possible and whatever is needed.  They can be planned or spontaneous, individual or collective, brazen or secret, reactive or pre-emptive. 

Social Defence does not have to be honest.  It is moral in its aims and motivations but each act need not conform to liberal sensibilities of morality.  Planned defence is preferable but opportunism should be embraced.  Anger will be a catalyst for action; it should not be subdued or controlled.  Actioners are full-time, part-time, occasional or one-timers.  Supporters are active and/or silent.

Wat Tyler

The only argument declared by faux socialists and faux radicals against Social Defence is their preference for using existing tools to hamper exploitation and Social Murder.  Those tools – right to vote, right to strike, NHS, tenants’ rights, workers’ rights, access to justice, right to protest, free speech, welfare system, support for disabled people, affordable domestic fuel, affordable food – are gone or are about to disappear.  Their erasure is deliberate; it is vital to the success of disaster capitalism.

Disaster capitalists adore destruction because they can step in and take ownership of everything and then exploit everyone.  They create disaster.  They require collapse of what are considered normal aspects of a functioning society, such as healthcare, homes and affordable food and fuel, and they create that collapse if it has not happened.

Their ownership of everything includes physical entities – land, property, businesses and public services – and includes administrative entities – justice, democracy, workers’ rights, human rights.  They want complete control of the mechanics of the economy in order to continuously enrich themselves at everyone else’s expense and they need, as enabling tools, complete control of law and communication.

Brexit was created, designed and processed to assist disaster capitalism.  The “failures” of Brexit are what was intended to happen.

Tories’ “investment zones” are charter territories wherein administration is handed to corporate control and democracy is absent.  They are fascist states within states and are the ultimate operation of extremist libertarian capitalism.

Every crisis that is happening now in UK – cost of living crisis, fuel price crisis, NHS crisis – was engineered to happen and is a direct consequence of Tory decision-making including the decision to do nothing.  Abandonment of EU laws (via REUL) and creation of “investment zones” will worsen the crises.

Our livelihoods are under attack.  Our health is under attack.  Our lives are under attack.  Basic protections are gone.  The right and means to challenge and change the perpetrators and their actions are gone.

There is no help from pretenders for government.  Britain has an insipid parliamentary opposition that is heavily in hock to its donors from fuel, arms and financial industries.  Labour Party’s role is to soak up complaints and regurgitate them as ineffectively as possible.  It has purged itself of socialists and recruited careerist politicians whose choice of political party is arbitrary. 

King Charles and Rishi Sunak chortle over who is the richer

People need to reset their understanding of how UK works, what is happening, why it is happening and what is being sought by employers of the government.  Consequently, people need to realise that Social Defence is not just an option, it is a necessity.

Social Defence

Privatisation of healthcare via destruction of public healthcare

Privatization does not mean you take a public institution and give it to some nice person, it means you take a public institution and give it to an unaccountable tyranny.” – Noam Chomsky

Deliberate destruction of NHS by Tory government meant 2023 began with people dying waiting for ambulances, people dying in queueing ambulances outside hospitals and people dying in hospital corridors.  The cause of unnecessary deaths is Tory policy of making NHS fail.  This policy exists to try to create consensus for removal of NHS and replace it with a privateer racketeer system.

Underfunding, reduction in number of beds, using Brexit as a tool to remove thousands of (EU citizen) medical personnel, and diversion of money via fraudulent contracts for alleged services (particularly for Covid pandemic) combine to attack the capability of NHS to operate.

Parasites wait for their chance.  International private healthcare businesses and healthcare property owners, all of whom are generous donors to Tories (and to New New Labour), are confident that they will enjoy endless income streams in the near future.  They planted their employees in government and bought the others.

Any public service is a potential daily lottery win for an exploiter who is deemed to “own” it.  The necessity of a public service for its users means they have no choice but to use it.  This is true for health service more than any other.  Wealthy owners of the Tories know how much they can enhance their wealth if allowed to control the supply of healthcare.

Cheerleaders for privatisation of healthcare have no logical argument to persuade the public that privateer racketeering is preferable for patients than NHS.  Their single tactic, repeated endlessly, is to point at effects of Tory destruction of NHS and exclaim “look, NHS isn’t working, we need to privatise.”  That is all they have and they stick to that mendacity regardless of how many times their twist of logic is elucidated by anyone else.

Libertarian think-tanks focus on criticism of NHS while avoiding mentioning the culprits – Tories.  Institute Of Economic Affairs (IEA) has nearly five hundred articles on NHS, none of which is supportive.  Its ‘Head Of Political Economy’ Kristian Niemietz publishes the same piece every few months wherein he presents a deceptive explanation of how an “insurance-based system” is preferable to NHS.  Former IEA staff member Kate Andrews, now a “journalist” (Spectator), is dedicated to using Tory-created destruction of NHS as a reason to promote its end.  She benefits from frequent yes-platforming on TV and radio to promote her con.  Her most recent contribution in The Telegraph on 30th December (2022) concluded

a system has been devised to avoid any appearance of failing to deliver.  The public are piled onto a 7.2m waiting list instead, asked to wait, asked to postpone, asked in veiled ways to stay away when there’s any kind of disruption or crunch, as to not jeopardise or sully the reputation of ‘our NHS,’ the ‘envy of the world.’  Of course no one envies it.  It’s a failed healthcare model.  And it has been for some time; we’re just still not ready to admit it.” – Andrews Telegraph (30th December 2022)

Andrews did not hide her glee at results of Tories’ war on NHS.

Kate Andrews on Spectator TV

The privatisation cheerleaders are keen to declare that, despite warnings of healthcare privatisation for several years, it hasn’t happened.  This is an argument of specious semantics.  If a public service is destroyed then its former users have no choice but to switch to a privately-controlled service.  It is privatisation by default.  One of 2022’s many Tory Health Secretaries Sajid Javid demonstrated this con-trick by his intent to “offer” patients the “right to choose” to go private if vital care they needed is unavailable.  He proposed scenarios where patients, having just been told of the severity of an illness, were then advised that continuity of their life depended on paying for private healthcare.

Tory Health Secretary Steve Barclay

A few years ago the public were notified of Tories’ plan for NHS and how they would use Brexit to help execute the plan.  The messengers were ignored and dismissed by enough people to give Tories a large parliamentary majority in 2019 general election.  The rapid decline of NHS capability since then is unsurprising.

Tory government commentary on NHS, led by current Health Secretary Steve Barclay, is exhausted by lies, misrepresentation, blame-shifting and wilful ignorance.  The government stated that it does not acknowledge the existence of a major crisis.  The reality is described daily by experienced dedicated medical staff.

Political “opposition” is absent.  Starmer’s Labour has no interest in blocking the switch to privateer racketeering of healthcare.  News media coverage and analysis ranges from full support for Tories to meek calls for action.  The latter never accept that Tories caused the crisis deliberately.

Some people choose to be mystified by the government’s apparent blissful ignorance of a situation that needn’t be.  But, it isn’t ignorance.  The Tories are not a government, they are the opposite of democracy, they are in it for themselves and their donors/employers.  Their apparent lack of care is actually a keen interest in assault.

Never underestimate how far Tories are willing to go to achieve their aims. 

Related blogs
Tories: NHS will be free at point of delivery
NHS destruction is a key component of Tory Brexit

Privatisation of healthcare via destruction of public healthcare

Rishi Sunak: Vacuity and dishonesty embellished with condescension

Late great childrens’ TV presenter Brian Cant communicated superbly with young viewers to entertain and educate them but he never ever spoke down to them or elucidated superiority.  More than one generation of adults remain grateful to him for what they learnt and enjoyed when very young.

Current Tory Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is a very poor communicator.  At £45,936 p.a. Winchester School he was taught to perceive the public as beneath him, his peers and the wealthy.  It was inculcated in him that people exist to be exploited, that the wealthiest must continuously and rabidly acquire more wealth at everyone else’s expense.  He was taught that he should communicate with the public outside of truth and facts, full of invention and misdirection, and speak down to them.

On 3rd January (2023), in the midst of extreme crises at NHS hospitals, alongside Tory-supported grotesque price-gouging by food suppliers and fuel suppliers, Sunak sat on an armchair in a room at 10 Downing Street and spoke down (physically to camera) to the public to describe his arbitrary plan for all ‘A’-level students to study Mathematics.  The plan is nonsense – knowledge of mathematics is useful but forcing potential university students with interest in the arts, literature or humanities to understand post-GCSE maths is not helpful – but it isn’t real: It is, blatantly, a dead cat.  His intent was diversion.  Dutifully, media commentators and “opposition” politicians and activists stroked the dead cat and Sunak achieved his aim.

The tone of his piece to camera was condescending.  He spoke jollily.  There was a deliberate air of detachment from reality.  He displayed no cognizance of viewers’ likely reception of his performance.

“Are you thinking critically? Well, stop that now!”

On the following day (4th January 2023) he delivered a speech (at a lectern this time) to declare five pledges of action he said he would achieve as Prime Minister.

  1. Halve inflation this year (2023)
  2. Grow the economy
  3. Reduce national debt
  4. Reduce NHS waiting lists by March (2023)
  5. Remove people who arrive in UK in “small boats.”
Brian Cant and five numbers

1. Price inflation in UK is in double figures.  For food it is 20-30%; for domestic fuel supply it is above 50%.  It is price-gouging by suppliers who are allowed to do this because the Tory government’s role is to enhance their wealth.  Halving inflation will not prevent effects of Tories’ Social Murder policy.  Government proposals for salary increases for public employees are for percentage increases far below half of current inflation.

2. Sunak said he wants to “create better-paid jobs and opportunity right across the country” by “growing the economy” and the latter will be achieved by “innovation.”  Aside from a few woolly comments about new technology Sunak’s plan is to “seize the opportunities of Brexit to ensure our regulatory system is agile and pro-innovation.”  Libertarians are keen on “ensuring regulatory systems are agile” because it means changing rules, regulations and laws to suit exploiters.  Departure from EU allows Tories to erase all gains in workers’ rights, human rights, legal rights, etc. that were enshrined in law (EU not UK) during Britain’s membership.  (Charter territories organiser Shanker Singham, a regular “adviser” to recent Tory governments, explained what is desired by changes to regulatory frameworks for the benefit of exploiters.  See analysis of an interview he gave to a friendly news site: Singham interview)

According to Sunak “growing the economy” means “making sure entrepreneurial and fast-growing companies get the finance they need to expand.”  That is the usual conservative policy of giving public money to business owners and then pretending it benefits everyone.  A different option would be to create publicly-owned “entrepreneurial and fast-growing companies” but that would be the opposite of feeding the exploiters. He claimed the handouts would create “good, well-paid jobs” which is a blatant lie because the fastest-growing businesses in UK are generally minimum wage jobs with zero career path.  He knows that.

Like a well-trained Winchester alumnus he declared that “people will have to work hard” to take advantage of the promised “growth” while their employers get handouts.  He complained about “inactive” people on “welfare” despite a large percentage of people receiving Universal Credit being in jobs that are so low paid that extra funding is necessary.  Speaking like a patrón or overseer he talked about “pride” of working.  The day after (5th January 2023) the speech Sunak said new extremist laws will stop people from striking including giving exploitative employers the right to sack workers who refuse to cross picket lines.

3. The phrase “national debt” is an invention that has no meaning whatsoever.  It does not exist except as a tool to apply justification for government policy that favours the wealthiest.  Sunak gave himself an excuse for enabling the collapse of public services by stating “we will make sure our national debt is falling so that we can secure the future of public services.” 

4. He used the emotive objective of cutting “waiting lists” to justify “NHS using more independent capacity” meaning more money handed to privateers.  When Tories say “we will always protect the founding principle of an NHS free at the point of use,” as Sunak did in his speech, it does not mean that adequate healthcare will be available via NHS.  Recent Health Secretary Sajid Javid explained last year that it means patients, just after being made aware of the severity of their illness, will be “offered the right to choose” private healthcare, or die.

5. The fifth of Sunak’s pledges was a straightforward dogwhistle to try to keep the minds of some people focussed elsewhere.  It was ugly xenophobia.

The rest of his speech was filled with downright lies, vacuous statements of vague intent and bizarre attempts to position himself alongside the public rather than the reality of him working directly for wealthy people and institutions that are in opposition to the public.  Adopting the standard conservative tactic of using the word “family” randomly he said “I wouldn’t be where I am today without the love of my family, the kindness they gave me, the sacrifices they made for me, and the values they taught me.”  His family – his wife and father-in-law – are multi-million beneficiaries of policy he enacted when Chancellor Of The Exchequer.

Sunak is an inevitable step in the evolution of conservative administration.  He knows his occupation is to feed the wealthiest.  His schooling instilled in him the belief in the superiority of capital.  He has no concept of society or of humanity.  For him, communication means manipulation and propaganda.  His speech included claims of support for better education but an educated, aware and knowledgeable populace is the last thing he wants.

Rishi Sunak: Vacuity and dishonesty embellished with condescension

Farage at Eton College

In the second week of November (2022) grifting racist conman Nigel Farage spoke at a pseudo-educational venue that prides itself on producing filth: Eton College.

Girls from a local non-fee paying school attended Farage’s talk.  Some Eton pupils, roused by his nasty divisive rhetoric, subjected the girls to classist, racist and misogynist comments.  After his performance Farage described gleefully the atmosphere as “riotous.”


He is not an Eton alumnus but its ex-pupils include fellow ex-UKIPper Malcolm Pearson, who abused his status as a peer to invite Stephen Yaxley-Lennon on a tour of Palace Of Westminster, and Douglas Murray, the posh Yaxley-Lennon.  Among other expectorations of Eton are Cambridge Analytica’s CEO Alexander Nix, Tory politicians David Cameron, Kwasi Kwarteng, Jacob Rees-Mogg and Boris Johnson, and royal princes William and Harry.

Eton’s purpose is to prepare sons of the wealthiest for careers in positions of power and influence so they can perpetuate concentration of wealth.  It inculcates arts of deception, misdirection, obfuscation, mendacity and caucacity[1].  It erases characteristics of community, compassion and cognizance of humanity.  It teaches its customers’ children that life is competition and not only must success be attained at any cost to others but also the others must suffer.  It infuses skills of “winning” arguments and debates, or responding to questions and criticisms, via evasion, distraction and dead cats and delivered loudly, contemptuously and rudely with disdain for logical reasoning.  Old Etonians lie relentlessly and never acknowledge that anything they say is false.

It was entirely consistent with the school’s morality that a piece of rancid excrement like Farage received an invitation to speak, for a not insubstantial fee, to promote his favoured bigotry, othering and lies.  Diarrhea from him and his ilk is an important part of Eton education.  The vigorous repulsive behaviour of some its pupils in response to him was expected and was his intent.

Administrators at Eton offered meek and worthless words of apology for how their products behaved but the disgusting abuse thrown in the faces of the visiting schoolgirls was a consequence of the school’s motivation to invite him to speak and was a display of the school’s philosophy.

Farage and Eton exist in the same rancid fetid malodorous rotting anus of British society and British politics.  The sooner both are gone the better.

[1] caucacity n. Strong audacity by caucasion people intended to elevate themselves above people of colour.  Blend of ‘audacity’ and ‘caucasion.’ (c. The Kid Mero)

Farage at Eton College


qunt n. Extreme-right politician, activist, journalist or commentator who promotes deliberate inhumane political analysis and who revels in hardships caused by conservative policy


An alphabetical list of British and/or UK-based qunts.  Suggestions for additions are welcome.  A name is removed from the list if the qunt passes away.  

  • Lee Anderson – Tory MP
  • Kate Andrews – Spectator; ex-Institute Of Economic Affairs; ex-Adam Smith Institute
  • Kemi Badenoch – Tory MP
  • Arron Banks – Businessman; multi-million pound donor to Leave.UK; ex-Westmonster
  • David Bannerman – Former Tory MEP; Bruges Group; chair Freedom Association
  • James Batholomew – Co-founder and director Museum Of Communist Terror; Telegraph; Spectator
  • Katherine Birbalsingh – Headteacher; former Chair of Social Mobility Commission; Free Speech Union
  • Suella Braverman – Tory Home Secretary
  • Eamonn Butler – Co-founder and director Adam Smith Institute
  • Jeremy Clarkson – TV presenter; Mail
  • Harry Cole – Political editor The Sun; ex-Guido Fawkes
  • Martin Daubney – Former The Brexit Party MEP; Reclaim Party; ex-News Of The World
  • Matthew Elliott – Co-founder Tax-Payers’ Alliance; co-founder Brexit Central; co-founder Vote Leave; co-founder Big Brother Watch; Atlas Network; co-founder Conservative Friends Of Russia; co-founder Politics and Economics Research Trust; Free Market Forum; Bright Blue; ex-European Foundation; ex-New Culture Forum
  • Nigel Farage – Former UKIP leader; former The Brexit Party MEP; GB News; Bruges Group
  • Niall Ferguson – Hoover Institute; Centre For Policy Studies
  • Nick Ferrari – LBC
  • Murdo Fraser – Tory MSP
  • Charlotte Gill – GB News
  • David Goodhart – Policy Exchange; Free Speech Union
  • Darren Grimes – GB News; Reasoned; ex-Brexit Central; ex-Institute Of Economic Affairs; ex-BeLeave; ex-Turning Point UK
  • Jonathan Gullis -Tory MP
  • Dan Hannan – Tory peer; adviser to UK Board Of Trade; co-founder Institute For Free Trade; former Tory MEP; former speechwriter for Michael Howard when latter was Tory shadow Foreign Secretary; ex-director European Research Group; ex-Vote Leave; Students For Liberty; Bruges Group
  • Ben Harris-Quinney – Chair Bow Group
  • Julia Hartley-Brewer – TalkRadio; Free Speech Union
  • Tom Harwood – GB News; ex-Turning Point UK; ex-Guido Fawkes; former chair Students For Britain; ex-Students For Liberty
  • Julian Jessop – Institute Of Economic Affairs
  • Jeremy Kyle – Talk TV
  • Quentin Letts – Times
  • Oliver Letwin – Former Tory MP; Legatum Institute; ex-Centre For Policy Studies
  • Rod Liddle – Associate editor Spectator
  • Andrew Lilico – Telegraph
  • John Longworth – former Director General of British Chamber Of Commerce; former co-chair Leave Means Leave; former The Brexit Party MEP
  • Rupert Lowe – former The Brexit Party MEP; ex-chair Southampton FC: He sent the club into administration
  • Niall McCrae – Lecturer Kings College; Bruges Group
  • Kelvin McKenzie – Former editor The Sun; former co-owner Talksport
  • Alan Mendoza – Co-founder, executive director Henry Jackson Society
  • Patrick Minford – Academic (economics); Bruges Group; Freedom Association; Reform
  • Tim Montgomerie – Co-founder Centre For Social Justice; co-founder ConservativeHome; Legatum Institute; co-founder Unherd; former speechwriter for William Hague and Iain Duncan-Smith when each was Tory leader; former adviser to Boris Johnson when latter was Prime Minister
  • Charles Moore – Tory peer; former chair Policy Exchange; former editor Telegraph, Spectator; former trustee Global Warming Policy Foundation
  • Douglas Murray – Associate editor Spectator; former associate director Henry Jackson Society; Fox News; Unherd
  • Fraser Nelson – Editor Spectator; Centre For Policy Studies
  • Isabel Oakeshott – Talk TV; ex-GB News; ex-Sunday Times; author: ‘The Bad Boys Of Brexit’
  • Allison Pearson – Journalist; Free Speech Union
  • Jordan Peterson – Former academic
  • Melanie Phillips – Times; The Jewish Chronicle
  • Stephen Pollard – Senior Adviser The Jewish Chronicle
  • Jacob Rees-Mogg – Tory MP
  • Calvin Robinson – GB News; ex-Henry Jackson Society
  • Mark Rowley – Commissioner Metropolitan Police
  • Dominique Samuels – Ex-Turning Point UK; ex-Orthodox Conservatives
  • Lionel Shriver – Spectator; Free Speech Union
  • Shanker Singham – Lawyer; former adviser to Liz Truss when latter was International Trade Secretary; former adviser to Liam Fox when latter was International Trade Secretary; Institute Of Economic Affairs; ex-Legatum Institute; ex-Babson Global; ex-Global Vision
  • Samantha Smith – Spectator; New Culture Forum
  • Paul Staines – Founder Guido Fawkes; Free Speech Union
  • Tim Stanley – Telegraph
  • David Starkey – Historian; Free Speech Union
  • Alistair Stewart – GB News
  • Desmond Swayne – Tory MP
  • Norman Tebbit – Tory peer; former Tory Home Secretary
  • Richard Tice – Businessman; former The Brexit Party MEP; leader Reform UK; Talk TV; former co-chair Leave Means Leave
  • Camilla Tominey – Associate editor Telegraph; GB News
  • Olivia Utley – GB News, ex-The Sun, ex-Telegraph
  • Emma Webb – Director Common Sense Society; Free Speech Union; New Culture Forum; GB News; ex-Henry Jackson Society; ex-Civitas
  • Chloe Westley – former Special Adviser to Boris Johnson when latter was Prime Minister; ex-Tax-Payers’ Alliance; former director Museum Of Communist Terror; alumnus Mannkal Economic Education Foundation
  • James Whale – Talk TV
  • Peter Whittle – New Culture Forum; former UKIP London Assembly member
  • Dan Wootton – GB News
  • Toby Young – Director Free Speech Union


Tom Tugendhat, RAF pilots and China

British Royal Air Force (RAF) personnel train Saudi air force pilots to bomb Yemeni civilians and civilian infrastructure including homes, schools and hospitals.  Their advice is a big earner for the Ministry Of Defence. 

Recently retired RAF personnel work in consultancy roles in Saudi Arabia to the same end of targetting civilians in Yemen; they are paid very well for their assistance.  They use skills acquired in RAF; all their training and experience was funded by the British public.

Security Minister Tom Tugendhat is wholly and consistently supportive of publicly-funded British air force personnel (ex- or current) working for Saudi government to perpetuate genocide of Yemeni people.

Remains of a funeral home in Sanaa, Yemen, targetted by Saudi air force with RAF assistance

Last week (18th October 2022) he had an article published in Murdoch’s Sun newspaper wherein he claimed he was responding to unverified reports that ex-RAF personnel were offered a quarter of a million pounds each to work for the Chinese air force.  It is reasonable to be sceptical of the veracity of the story.  However, whether true or not, Tugenhat’s and his colleague James Heappey’s absurdly phrased responses were a con trick to justify another extremely authoritarian attack on freedom via Tories’ National Security Bill.

In Tugendhat in The Sun he called the Chinese government “rivals [to the UK],” an appellation he repeated several times.  He chose “rivals” rather than “enemies” because he knows the threat to the employers of the Tory government from China is financial not military.  “We [the UK government] need to make sure we’re not teaching anyone skills or providing information that weakens our friends or damages our interests.”  By “our interests” he meant profits for British businesses and those based in “our friends’” countries. 

If countries in Africa, South America and Central America have trade arrangements with China then they are less likely to be victims of international corporations exploiting people and resources, as Heappey explained: “China is a competitor that is threatening the UK interest in many places around the world.”

Tugendhat knew he couldn’t present his argument entirely in a financial setting and so he added an invented comment that China “threatens [UK’s] allies such as Japan.”

His other concern was he felt the Chinese government was hiring the pilots for a much cheaper price than if they had been trained to an equivalent level of piloting expertise in China.  His arithmetic might be correct but, as a keen supporter and participant in free-racketeering economics, surely he should approve of such opportunism.

Tom Tugendhat smiles as he breaks the law having entered China illegally

National Security Bill, passing through parliament at present (late 2022), is fascism in action.  Framed by Tugendhat as “we are introducing new laws to keep Britain safe,” it is hundreds of clauses placing restrictions on access (to land, businesses, etc.), on inspection (of business activities), on reporting (of defence or business activities), on political opinion (of defence and political persons) and on protests (against, for example, military actions).  All such actions will be criminalised with severe custodial sentences for anyone found guilty.

The snippet below shows how authoritarian the bill is.

A person commits an offence if the person’s conduct involves coercion of any kind, including damaging or threatening to damage another person’s reputation by making a misrepresentation.  A misrepresentation may be made by making a statement or by any other kind of conduct, and may be express or implied.  A misrepresentation may in particular include a misrepresentation as to the [second] person’s purpose.” – Taken from National Security Bill, part I, section 13

Tugendhat’s theatrical response to pilots exercising their free market rights was a piece of propaganda for the bill.  Criminalisation of the right to knowledge, of the right to protest and of the right to express an opinion is a difficult sell.  As a performance he tried to depict a few pilots teaching other pilots how to fly a plane – a Chinese air force plane, not an RAF plane – as a horrendous threat to the UK.  “Some people are trying to exploit them [the pilots] and undermine Britain.  We need to be clear that serving our rivals puts our country at risk.”

His simplistic logic flow, demonstrated below, epitomised the lack of justification of all government policies and the contempt the Tories have for the public’s intelligence.

Civilians with skills or information they learned as researchers or engineers – and even some politicians – are proving attractive to other states who are willing to pay a high price.  That’s making trouble for the future.  Our rivals are learning how to defeat us.  That has got to stop.  We need to think again about the duties we all have.  That is why the Government’s new National Security Bill is so important.”

The story about the pilots is dubious.  If true, it is unlikely the pilots will give useful information to the Chinese government. 

Tugendhat’s little act was partly a reaction to China’s success is replacing UK’s and USA’s financial control around the world and mostly a means of trying to justify the horrendous National Security Bill.

Tom Tugendhat, RAF pilots and China

Common Sense Society

Sometimes, the merest whiff provides all information required for an instant and thorough understanding of an object’s purpose, motivation and methodology.

In less time than it takes to read aloud the three words of Common Sense Society (CSS) its entire philosophy is known: Its aims, its history, its strategy, its tactics, its connections to like-minded groups, its personnel, and its terminology.  Presumably, CSS aimed for such rapid awareness by others of itself.

Last week, 20th October (2022), CSS “launched” its British arm.  The event was at the notoriously disgusting Reform Club.  Some extreme politicians attended.

Politicians Kemi Badenoch and Arlene Foster at the launch of CSS at Reform Club

Every far-right libertarian group has the same aim: Wealth concentration.  To achieve that aim each group promotes free-racketeering and each has a method for coercing debate toward that end via a variety of con tricks.  From pseudo-economic mendacious analyses of Institute Of Economic Affairs (IEA), to culture war distraction of New Culture Forum (NCF), to suppression of full British history by Free Speech Union (FSU), to blaming victims of Social Murder for their plight by Centre For Social Justice, to mis-use of Christian values by Orthodox Conservatives, each lobby group or think-tank has a constructed unreality to use against reason, logic and knowledge.

At CSS there are echoes of FSU and NCF – its UK Director Emma Webb works at both, there is exactly the same elevation of Europeanism above the rest of the world that is favoured by Eton’s version of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, namely Douglas Murray, and Shanker Singham’s obsession with “property rights,” that he uses to justify imposition of charter territories (a return to feudalism), is prominent in CSS literature and rhetoric.

It has fellowships that include on site courses, a strategy used in USA (e.g. Babson College) and by Ron Manners’ Mannkal Economic Education Foundation in Australia whereat Boris Johnson’s recent Special Adviser Chloe Westley learnt her tricks of misrepresentation and misdirection.  At its September “intensive seminar series” among its “distinguished faculty” was Katherine Birbalsingh who is infamous for several reasons including comments, made as head teacher of a school, “if child says teacher is being racist, back the teacher.  Whatever the child says, back the teacher” and “sexual assault doesn’t happen with us.  Our boys would never treat our girls like that.  It just wouldn’t happen.”

(Unless otherwise stated, all quotes below are from CSS website.)

As stated above, every libertarian group has an angle.  CCS pretends to present its philosophy in the form of a triplet: Liberty, prosperity and beauty.  It adds a caveat: “Our understanding of these principles is a result of close study of our inherited Western civilization.”  Its use of “our” throughout explanations of its objectives means “Western.”  It emphasised “our cultural inheritance” as something to be studied and appreciated.  In the twenty-first century separating the people of the world into European (including USA, Canada, etc.) and everywhere else is a very odd stance.  Similar to unpleasant constructed perspectives of Douglas Murray and of imperialist think-tank Henry Jackson Society (where Webb is a fellow), CSS harks back deliberately to nineteenth century divisions when European hordes controlled most of the world via force and robbed it blind.

It claims it believes in “prosperity” as a positive aim.  However, there is no elucidation of how everyone can enjoy prosperity.  Exactly as Shanker Singham manipulates language and logic in his fraudulent exposition of both the motivation of and the operation of charter territories CSS says “securing an even brighter future through market competition will require a renewed commitment to economic understanding, education, and the protection of private property.”  Just like conman Singham, it knows free-racketeering brings prosperity only to a small group of people and everyone else is shafted.  

CSS’s performative arrogance is simultaneously sinister and absurd: “CSS helps future leaders,” “CSS works to champion future entrepreneurs and policy makers,” “CSS–UK is dedicated to educating and equipping its members, alumni, and local citizens to take effective action to strengthen their communities,” and “we educate 21st-century generations and inform public discourse” are alternative phrases for ‘we inculcate grifters with the skills of manipulation and bullshittery.’  Its self-congratulation tends toward cultish mantras: “We are cultivating a future.”  Its introductory statement combines its self-risen vantage point with its belief in supremacy of European culture: “The group [founders of CSS] aimed to explore the ideas, cultures, and geography that have shaped our history in order to best contribute to a future that fosters human flourishing.”

CSS trains young people to become marketing activists for free market politics with emphasis on protection of property.  By property they mean land, landlordism, ownership of businesses and ownership of public services. 

Couched in traditional philosophical terminology, like nineteenth century conceited liberals, “liberty” is framed as liberty of the individual.  Academic crank Niall Ferguson is quoted saying liberty relies upon “the security of private property rights.”  For most people when considering what liberty means “private property rights” are not the first thought that comes to mind.

Its keenness for beauty, expressed as appreciation of the arts, might at first glance seem acceptable but it is merely a preamble to complaints about reasonable expositions of true and full history of both individuals and of governments.  As a regiment in conservatives’ phoney culture war CSS is worried that “woke elites want to tear down the United Kingdom’s rich heritage, rituals, and traditions in the name of partisan ideologies,” and so it “will serve as a hub to discuss, champion, and preserve these traditions through our public events, private reading groups, musical performances, guest lectures, and other programs.”

Alongside aforementioned Birbalsingh and Ferguson other actors in the rectum of the libertarian community connected to CSS are late bigot Roger Scruton after whom CSS named a prize it awards to best Git and inaugural recipient of the prize professional mansplainer and Stanley Unwin devotee Jordan Peterson.

It places the word “moral” onto its ideology, a tactic Lee Rowley used in his ‘Next Generation Capitalism’ paper for Free Market Forum (a.k.a. Freer), a subsidiary of IEA.  Therein Rowley said “there is a moral mission at the heart of our politics,” and “there is morality in spending restraint.”  CSS says it “became a celebration of the moral inheritance which has formed our common civilization.”  (Note the use of “our.”)  In a description of one of its fellowship courses it equates “moral principles of U.S. statecraft as understood by its Founders” with USA military imperialism today. 

The intersection between moral behaviour and free-racketeering or imperialism is an empty set.  Selfishness, greed, venality and theft are not compatible with a moral philosophy.

A second similarity between Rowley’s paper and CSS rhetoric is the depiction of armies of educated libertarians going out into the world to change it equipped with equal quantities of conmanship and self-delusion.  The subtle difference is Rowley wanted his disciples to persuade younger people via trickery to believe in free-racketeering as a solution whereas CSS wants its people to exist in a science fiction utopia of work being optional while bathing in nature and arts.

CSS wants “a future that is free, flourishing, thoughtful, and full of enduring meaning” because it has made “observations of what contributes to a meaningful life.”  It stinks of separation from realities of life.  People always strive to have the life they want but we don’t live in isolation.  In a world dominated by a few wealthy people controlling wealth, prosperity and, thus, liberty, there are multitudinous dampeners on ambition.  The exact political system that CSS exists to perpetuate is the greatest block on people achieving their life’s aims.  

As an apparent contrast to presentation of its alleged lofty aims it is useful to observe the social media contributions of its Director Emma Webb.

  • Webb supported religious extremists harassing pregnant women at health clinics
  • She enthusiastically promoted a message from someone who chose to use a murder as a tool to be extremely racist
  • She despaired at changes in London between 1930 and today: “What we’ve done to this city and this country…”  Her comments referred to a film of central London featuring mostly white people
  • She endorsed an essay that praised fascist Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni.  In another message Webb approvingly called Meloni a “firecracker
  • She opined that “our great constitutional monarchy is the original protection against authoritarianism

Every comment made by CSS Director is positive toward a far-right view or toward a far-right activist or politician, including blatant fascists.

Sometimes, the merest whiff provides all information required for an instant and thorough understanding of an object’s purpose, motivation and methodology.  Common Sense Society is another link in the far-right circle jerk.

Links to brief descriptions of other right-wing think-tanksUK think-tanks

Common Sense Society