This Tory Gang Is A Repressive Regime, Exploiting Britain For Its Own Gain

The British government's recent attacks on public sector workers' pleas for fair pay and the right to strike have shocked only those who have not followed the plans of Boris Johnson and a cabal of Conservative Party members, donors and cronies...

Since early 2016, when Johnson and Gove hatched their Brexit plans at a dinner with the wealthy son of a Russian KGB officer, Britain's Conservative Party has been transformed into a vehicle for bending Britain to the will and benefit of a far right cabal under a false banner of 'liberty' and other lies. At stake is power and the ability to allocate vast amounts of public money to their plans, starving everyone else of wealth and power in the process. This is the very opposite of 'liberty' and 'democracy' and has most in common with Orban's regime in Hungary and Putin's regime in Russia. There is hope for ordinary Britons, just as far right experiments have been defeated for now in the US, Australia and Brazil. Yet ultra conservative forces continue to lurk even in those countries. 

The first step was to persuade the masses to decouple Britain from the world's largest trade bloc, not only the UK's biggest external market for goods, services, labour and capital, but also a source of trade rules and standards - many designed by Britain itself - to protect consumers and workers and ensure a level playing field among members of the bloc: all standing in the way of this Tory cabal and their plans. The inevitable blow to Britain's economy (while their hedge fund donors made billions) was key to weakening potential sources of resistance to their plans.

As soon as this gang had a public mandate for destruction, they were able to root out from their ranks anyone who stood in their way. The 2019 election saw the removal of all centrist Tory Members of Parliament who were not prepared to kow-tow to the Enterprise Research Group and a web of conservative 'stink' tanks. 

Once country and party were fully in their hands, Johnson and his gang were free to unlawfully award vast fortunes in contracts to cronies, break international asylum and trade laws, behave as they wished even in the grip of a pandemic while requiring others to follow their rules, threaten any source of resistance in the media; and begin their assault on workers rights (proposing laws only seen in Russia and Hungary), food and other product standards, financial constraints and other checks on greed and corruption, recklessly introducing legislation to rip-out any laws adopted from the EU by the end of 2023 without adequate assessment of the impact. 

That process is still playing out before our very eyes under the false flag of 'liberty' and libertarian ideals that are actually authoritarian in nature and designed to bend Britain's economy and people to the Tories' self-serving whims.

Make no mistake. Sunak and his crew are of the same stamp as Johnson and Gove (mostly the same people). And as Sunak's failure to rein in Johnson's own lucrative speaking tour while still an MP has perfectly demonstrated, they are all in government purely and simply for themselves.

Yet none of the alleged benefits of leaving the EU has ever surfaced. Only the downsides for everyone but the Tories and their donors and cronies. 

It's the biggest electoral fraud in Britain's history, and the most repressive regime this country has seen in modern times.

Easy As 123: Politicising The BBC

The BBC's Brexit logo speaks volumes

Having provoked a minor breeze on Twitter about the BBC's support for Andrew Neil's shameful attacks on Carole Cadwalladr recently, I thought an explanatory post was in order.

The reason that the BBC finds itself 'politicised' in this way is not because the BBC is 'biased' - at least not in the sense of simply taking one side in any given debate.  It's down to how the BBC frames its coverage of major events in the first place.

The BBC seems to take its editorial course from what the UK government (in this case) has decided to do. It then seeks to maintain 'balance' by covering all sides in the debate about how the UK should do what the government has decided, leaving behind the question whether the UK should be doing the thing at all. 

Viewing the whole Brexit scenario through the BBC's lens, therefore, means that the numerous investigations into collusion between Leave campaigns, where their funding came from and how they abused people's personal data become irrelevant to the BBC's Brexit coverage. So, too, are marches to secure a 'People's Vote'. Because those things relate to whether the UK should leave the EU, not how the UK should go about leaving - even when stopping the process remains an option.

This is not to say the BBC completely ignores the Electoral Commission fines, Information Commissioner fines and the launch of investigations by the National Crime Agency, the Metropolitan Police and the Financial Conduct Authority into the affairs of Mr Banks and various other members of the Leave Campaign and Brexit community - not to mention all the lies, distortion and gaslighting that was involved. But the BBC treats these as historic issues related to the EU referendum, electoral reform, how personal data might be abused in elections more generally and, perhaps, the role of truth in politics. From the BBC's standpoint, they shouldn't form part of its Brexit coverage because they don't relate to how the UK leaves the EU. 

This is appalling for at least four reasons. 

Primarily, it becomes really easy for the UK government to "get the BBC on side" and use its vast resources as the government's own public address system when attempting something that is likely to prove hugely complex and controversial. The government simply has to decide to do it: invade Iraq, trigger Article 50 without a plan for how to leave the EU, ignore the Good Friday Agreement... 

Secondly, the BBC's editorial choice minimises dissent by removing the oxygen of publicity from those who are sceptical or critical of the government's decision; and diverting it to those who are broadly supportive of the outcome, even if they wish to quibble over how the government achieves that goal. This allows the likes of Andrew Neil to treat the diligent efforts of Carole Cadwalladr and other investigative journalists as irrelevant, at best.

Thirdly, by moving the focus away from how the government made its decision in the first place, the BBC's emphasis risks burying evidence of corruption and so on. The end has justified the means. This encourages the likes of Andrew Neil to declare that continuing to investigate evidence of corruption and other criminality in relation to those means is somehow 'mad'.

Finally, the BBC's approach means that its reputation (and licence-fee payers' investment in that reputation) is horribly exposed to the downside of major events - or the reversal of the government's decision. The bigger the downside, or the more significant the reversal, the greater the damage to the BBC's reputation. 

What should the BBC do?

Avoid setting its editorial policy to simply accord with what the UK government (in this example) wants to do - even if that is, or is presented as, "the will of the people". 

The BBC's role should simply be to educate "the people" about the options, their implications and consequences of decisions taken. This is not about being able to say "I told you so" - it's about the BBC re-establishing and maintaining its role as an apolitical, trusted source of news and information, so that the people aren't so easily hoodwinked.

Big Media: Inside The Propaganda Machine

You know something's hokey when the Financial Times, a leading paywall operator, devotes a whole page to the war on content sharing 'online piracy battle' just days after the big set back for SOPA/PIPA. Here's the lead article, snuggled between two stories from the 'front line' ("Parameters shift in online piracy battle" and "Upload websites bar file sharing"):

"Digital revenues set to offset CD fall"

It's then you realise you're inside the propaganda machine for the Big Media faithful:

"Keep sluggin' it out, people! 

Less content sharin' means more money for us!"

Think about that.

Because these are the same institutions who were leeching public money out of New Labour in 2009 for help with copyright enforcement, with tales of 'losing £1bn in music sales in the next 5 years'. Whereas only 3 years later, the FT reports they have this to say:

[Rob Wells, of Universal Music] "Some of those big global subscription players are only playing on a small playing field... As they mature, they are more likely to be bundled with internet service provider or operator subscriptions which is where we start to see real anti-trust investigations scale. The future is looking extremely bright."

"We are going from headwind to tailwind," said Edgar Berger, chief executive at Sony Music International. "There is no question the music industry is going to be in great shape shortly, it will become a growing business again. The internet is a blessing for the music industry."

Big Media is not in the business of solving consumer problems. It's a cabal of institutions out to solve their own problem of how to return to rampant profitability at the captive consumer's expense. And they won't give up trying to stop you sharing content 'til your MP3 player looks like this:

"Green Shoots" Shot

It will come as no surprise at all to anyone that the UK is still crunched. Yet the economic headlines in our miserable newspapers have been flip-flopping around like so many dying fish, claiming green shoots and "milder" forecasts one week, and doom the next. TV and radio reports are no better.

Readers of Flat Earth News won't be surprised by this either. The traditional media have been reduced to merely summarising speeches and economic reports without having the time or resources to check the facts, to put the "news" into any perspective, or to thoroughly state the context or bias for each report they're citing.

So it's about time the newspaper publishers really save some money, by cutting out the middlemen and delivering directly from the paper manufacturers to the fish'n'chip shops. That way they won't need to print a thing.

And if we simply ignore TV and radio news, it too will go away.

Waiting for Gordo

I'm no political activist, nor wedded to any political party. But I'm not apathetic. I prefer my politics 'unbundled' and simply want to ensure that I'm getting real value for my tax spend - that the root causes of social problems are solved efficiently.

Research tells me that I am not alone, but what tools exist to help us achieve this?

Needless to say, the government of the day is particularly untrustworthy when it comes to demonstrating value for all the money we give it. The opposition are generally at the opposite extreme. The various media are concerned only with what is “news”, which is to say what they believe to be immediate, significant and topical - usually the posturing of the main political parties. And only the PR-skilled, lucky or very persistent ever get their message into the news. Like politicians and those who hire lobbyists.

The rest of us have been pretty much left with the National Audit Office, which provides great ammunition for everybody to use. But the NAO quite rightly focuses on how the government is currently spending or promising to spend our money now, and can't ever be seen to be using its fact finding and reporting as a basis for 'campaigning' for change.

So, it's up to us as citizens to find other ways of keeping the pressure on. But how?

Charities and other 'pressure groups' often do a good job of including the humble citizen in their activities e.g. Scope, Cancer Research, Oxfam. Otherwise, it's self-help.

Of course, "self-help" could mean voting, and even swapping your vote at the next General Election. But while you're waiting for our beloved Prime Minister to call one, you could get an overview of the problems as the politicians see them (and comment on your MP's blog), share your views with others via social networks (Facebook, MySpace, Bebo etc), comments on blogs and email, participate with other vigilantes in our 'special relationship' with the US, sign up to a petition that proposes a solution to the root cause of your problem, write to the civil servants with your problem directly, or report an issue to your local council.

If there are other self-help measures, I'd love to hear of them.