The Really Nasty Party 53


As unemployment hits 2.5 million, the Tories are blaming the unemployed on benefit for our economic woes, rather than the bankers at Goldman Sachs who have an average salary of £520,000 per year. The Tories are going back to their nastiest base instincts to try to pull off an election win.

The sad thing, of course, is that you could replace Cameron in that photo with James Purnell, Hazell Blears or Tessa Jowell without having to change the slogan.

The benefit system already is onerous and humiliating to those who want to work and feel, wrongly, ashamed to be unemployed. Many entitled and unemployed, normally hard working, people drop out of benefits, and into terrible trouble, because of the routine degradation heaped on them by the New Labour “New Deal” system, which Cameron seeks to reinforce.

Strangely the brass-necked benefit cheats, who do exist, are the ones who are not discouraged by the endless appointments, interrogations and form filling and continue to thrive on the counter-productive system.

But if anyone doubts the real nastiness of the Tories, or that the Lib Dems are seen as a real threat to the established order by the corporate media and their paymasters, should look at the absolutely vicious anti-Clegg headlines on the front pages of every single Tory newspaper today. I have not seen anything like this concerted a Tory media campaign since the Falklands War. The only parallel at election time was the vilification of Kinnock, but even that did not have every other front page vying with the Sun in extremity.

The Mail’s Clegg Nazi front page headline wins first prize for tenedentiousness, The Telegraph “expenses scandal” is not about taxpayers’ money but private and declared donations (and has been saved up for nine months for this moment), the Financial Times warns the City won’t accept anything but a clear Tory win, the Sun is apoplectic at the idea that for once Murdoch may not be able to nominate his Prime Minister, and the Daily Express warns that Clegg will flood the country with black people.

The Tories are truly vicious when rattled. This has become a campaign about who democracy is for – the people or the press barons. Anybody who opposes corporate and City power and its ownership of democracy through the mass media, needs now to fall in line behind the Liberal Democrats to resist this.


I take my hat off to Iain Dale for his excellent article on the subject.

I attack Iain from time to time because it is part of the blogosphere game; but I have always had a high opinion of him. He seems to have wandered into the wrong political party by mistake – if you look at the typical Tory commenter on the political betting first link above, Iain has nothing in common with these vicious people.

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

53 thoughts on “The Really Nasty Party

1 2
  • lwtc247

    But Jon, it’s only a 3 horse race because /we accept it as such/. IT’s madness, and it must be stopped. It ain’t gonna stop by a flutter on either one of these ol nags.

  • lwtc247

    @ George Dutton

    Thanks for the links. Chilling. Kucinich(sp?) warned the other day it was extra-judicial. Heads should roll but Obamessiah is above the law, like jack-ass BuSh was. As for a UCL’s dreadful antics, disgraceful behaviour. To save costs why not just sew a green crescent on them instead? Beware Muslims!

    Wonder what Clegg will do about the ‘special relationship’.{Ans: Nothing} Will he sevver it?{And: No} Will he do anything to holding Obama, bLiar, Olmert Livni Barak, Azanr, little jonnie coward, da da da to account?{No, absolutely not}. Will he do anything about a proper investigation into 7/7?{No}. Will he allow prosecution of BAE?{No}.

    Sorry. Dead Leg Clegg’s may treat some of the symptoms, but can’t cure the disease. And Larry ‘forgot’ to point out that the two main articles on my blog front page cover the US led execution squads that murdered a number of Afghan school kids at Ghazi Kang 2009. I also blog about the “Collateral Damage” 2007 strafing and murder by US pilots on civilians, or as Larry said reptilians, anti-Christ mysticism

  • Craig


    Dan Ellsberg warned me in Washington six months ago that the US was going to start using assassination squads in Afghanistan.

  • George Dutton


    You have to understand that Craig is all over the place politically. I remember he was for Obama on his blog. I told him what Obama was (look back in the threads). I turned out to be right and Craig turned out to be wrong. Craig and the Lib Dems is just another wrong turn for him. How long I wonder before he is coming on here and saying he is going to leave the Lib Dems?…Only a matter of time.

  • lwtc247

    It is painful to see someone I (let me say ‘we’) regard so highly to wonder off down this path. I can understand perfectly his frustration with Norwich, but it really is a remarkable testament as to how entrenched this diseased political system has become, when guys who just might be able to do something about it end up merging with ‘the system’

    Part of me wants to say “Thank God he joined the LibDems and not NeoLabour or the Tories, but that would be falling into the abyss too. There is only one remedy for this vile beast and that’s to destroy it. Then, forge a new system from new. I recall the mighty Zinn quote I.F. Stone: “Governments Lie”

  • ScouseBilly

    Peter “YouGov” Kellner was saying that, when people are asked, “If you thought your party had a chance of winning who would you vote for?”, the reults are as follows:

    LibDem 49%

    Con 22%

    Lab 19%

    Also once the LibDem share exceeds 38% they start to gain a healthy working majority of seats.

    Interesting isn’t it?

  • ScouseBilly

    P.S. You know tonight’s debate is up against Atletico Madrid v Liverpool on Channel 5 – bloody hell.

    Think I might just record the debate seeing as it’s on Foreign Affairs.

  • writerman

    Craig is… is hopefully absolutely correct about the prospects for Britain if the Liberal Democrats manage, against the odds, to break the two-party stranglehold over UK politics.

    However, one should be aware that the system is designed to be a two party system, or nothing. So, the Liberal Democrats will have to replace either the Conservatives, or New Labour in order to break the mold. Now, how likely is this outcome? It’s a possibility of course, but given the structure of politics in the UK, I wouldn’t bet on it.

    The best hope for the Liberal Democrats, and for reform, is some form of two party government where the LD block is actually represented in the cabinet with full ministerial responsibility; but this will require the LD’s to choose whether to support New Labour or the Conservatives.

    This is the crucial question for the Liberal Democrats, if they continue their surge, who will they lever into power, Brown or Cameron, and which of those two paragons is most likely to raise Clegg, and Liberal policies, up with him?

    Personally, I won’t be voting, as I don’t reside in the UK anymore, at least not during the Winter!

    Election campaigns contain an awful lot of rhetoric, as do the parties manifesto promisses. Afterwards harsh reality returns and hopes are usually dashed, as real struggle over power takes place after the ritual of the election, when people like Murdoch, and the “Market” really show how much influence they have in society.

  • ScouseBilly

    writerman, I agree with a lot of what you say. It is just possible, see post above, that a LibDem momentum could continue to grow. This is certainly possible if there is a 49% latent LibDem vote as suggested by YouGov’s private polling.

  • MJ

    ScouseBilly: as an Everton supporter I’ll be cheering on Liverpool tonight. Very much hope they win the cup. After today’s Portsmouth verdict it”ll mean Everton will qualify for Europe from eighth.

    Up the redshite!

  • kingfelix

    The Conservatives will unveil their next poster tomorrow –

    “Let’s give more money to rich people.”

    Not sure what happened to ‘we’re all in it together’.

  • ScouseBilly

    Cheers, MJ.

    “I’ve seen supporters on Merseyside going to the ground together, one wearing red and white and the other blue and white, which is unusual elsewhere. You get families in Liverpool in which half support Liverpool and the other half Everton. They support rival teams but they have the same temperament and they know each other. They are unique in the sense that their rivalry is so great but there is no real aggro between them. This is quite amazing.

    I am not saying they love each other. Oh, no. Football is not a matter of life and death… it’s much more important than that. And it’s more important to them than that. But I’ve never seen a fight at a derby game. Shouting and bawling… yes. But they don’t fight each other. And that says a lot for them.” – Bill Shankly

  • Jon

    @lwtc247 – of course the three-horse race is wrong. I don’t support the LDs on a number of things, but then on a wide range of things they are not liberal at all (foreign policy and attitude to Israel just for a start).

    But a three-horse race is better than a two-horse race. In fact if the LDs get some toehold on power, perhaps in a hung parliament, we may stand a better chance of electoral reform. I dare say you would be in favour of that, as it would provide a slightly better chance for radical or indie candidates to gain seats.

  • Alfred

    “Let’s cut benefits for those who refuse work”

    The Tories are evidently betting (or have poll results indicating) that taxpayers want benefits recipients compelled to lose a few pounds.

    But I have a better idea. Eliminate benefits altogether and bring back the workhouse.

    Not your, great-grandpa’s workhouse, of course, but an institution reflecting present-day realities. The indigent would be offered work with wages and work conditions fully competitive with those of their Asian counterparts.

    This would mean a workplace exempt from health and safety regulations, a wage of around 34 pence an hour, work shifts of up to 15 hours and dormitories, with twelve bunks to a room, to eliminate the cost and waste of time involved in commuting.

    Participation, obviously, would be voluntary, and there would be no cost to the state, since both work and workplace would be provided by the private sector.

    If they like cutting benefits, taxpayers will surely love this idea.

  • Alfred

    Naturally, if one wanted a sane policy for dealing with the problem of eight million unemployed, marginally-employed or discouraged workers one would establish a new social contract that guaranteed a job to everyone.

    Government would fulfill this contract by providing a wage subsidy to employers of those at the margin of the workforce.

    A wage subsidy can be provided with minimal administrative overhead by means of an online auction of government wage subsidies in specified numbers, tied to specific places, for specific durations, according to need.

    The direct cost of subsidizing (50%) the wages of up to eight million people would be in the region of 30 billion pounds annually. In addition, there would be costs generated as employers sought to replace full-wage employees with subsidized employees. Such replacement would be limited, however, not only because it would involve additional training costs, but because, with the approach of full employment, the availability of low-wage replacement workers would be severely limited.

    Altogether, the cost of subsidizing employment to the extent nececessary to drive unemployment to less two or three percent, should not exceed 30 ?” 40 billion pounds annually, or 5% of total government revenue, a cost that would be offset, in part or in whole, by reductions in unemployment benefits, and the indirect costs of unemployment.

  • Owen Lee Hugh-Mann

    Unemployment has not reached the level expected given the massive slump in the economy, (even allowing for the massaging of the figures). This is entirely because, when faced with the stark prospect of unemployment, 80% of the workforce accepted a pay freeze or cuts last year, and 66% again this year, despite inflation increasing due to quantitative easing etc. Effectively, the overwhelming majority have taken a big cut in wages over the last 18 months. This makes the contrasting massive bonuses paid to the bankers, whose greed and fraud caused this disaster, even more sickening. Brown’s stubborn refusal to take action against them STILL is an insult to the electorate. Cameron has made it clear that he will continue to favour those same fat cats while castigating the unemployed victims of their actions. One-off easily avoidable bonus taxes aren’t enough. The bankers should be taxed until their bloody pips squeek, and then some more. The worst effects of their actions have not even been seen yet, but the misery they have caused will continue to affect us for at least a generation. People will die as a direct result of hospital cutbacks, yet these smug bastards are still allowed to reward themselves for their continuing delinquent behaviour.

1 2

Comments are closed.