The Red Rose

The Historic Tory Support of Fox Hunting

mayfoxhunting

In the last few days, it has come to light that Theresa May plans on holding a vote to repeal the ban of hunting with dogs. People, especially conservatives, are acting with genuine surprise. Why?

The Tories have had a vote to repeal the ban of hunting with dogs on their manifesto for the last four elections.

If you, like many others, “have always voted Tory but definitely won’t now” – you have already willingly voted for blood sport in the past. The Conservatives have proudly and openly supported a repeal since the ban was introduced by Labour.

In fact, as can be evidenced by a leaked e-mail from pro-hunt Tory peer Lord Mancroft, the only reason they haven’t held the vote yet is because they have a private agreement with the council of hunting associations to only hold a vote when they say so:

“First, we need a cast iron manifesto commitment from the Conservative Party, as we had in the last four election manifestos. Like everyone else, we will have to wait until the manifesto is published on 8th May to be certain,but Simon Hart MP and I have received assurances that such a commitment will be carried forward to the 2017 manifesto. I have made it clear that we will only provide support on that basis, and that if the manifesto does not contain an acceptable commitment, we will withdraw our support.

It is important that everyone understands why the idea that “the Government did not honour the manifesto commitments after the 2010 and 2015 elections” is incorrect. On both occasions David Cameron made it clear that he would authorise and fully endorse a vote in a manner, and at a time, of our choosing.

During the Coalition Government a vote could only take place if the Liberal Democrats agreed, which they did not. After 2015 the Scottish Nationalists reversed their earlier commitment to abstain from any votes that did not impact Scotland, and opposed the proposed Statutory Instrument, and consequently the Government Chief Whip did not think we could win a vote in the House of Commons.

All the advice we received was that we should not risk such a vote unless we had a reasonable expectation of winning. We therefore concluded it was not in hunting’s best interests to put the matter to a vote. I am sure that was the correct decision.”

Theresa May’s support of fox hunting has never been secret or hidden, she has proudly voted against the ban at every opportunity. The Conservative support of fox hunting has never been secret or hidden, it has been proudly placed on their manifesto each and every election since the ban was introduced.

I cannot understand why people are surprised by this, Tory policy has always been in favour of the blood sport. What I can understand, is people’s surprise at the timing.

We are in a considerably volatile political climate, with the country in a serious crisis in many areas. Among issues like child poverty, collapsing wages, the NHS falling apart, soaring crime rates and of course Brexit, the most politically challenging situation in generations, the Tory’s have decided now is the time to again rekindle the plot to allow their posh mates to practice blood sports.

There are many different polls that have been done on fox hunting and the numbers vary, but the public opposition of fox hunting has always remained in a firm majority. The public quite simply do not want this – and why would they?

Fox hunting is the barbaric recreational practice of chasing a terrified animal for miles with dozens of baying hounds, cornering them and then watching in glee as the fox is torn to shreds by dozens of hounds in a horrific, slow and tortuous death.

Every vote you give the Conservatives is an endorsement of this policy, it is an endorsement of blood sport – whether you like that fact or not., voting for a party is an endorsment of their policies.

Think about this guy at the ballot box:

The Tory Propoganda Machine: “Strong and Stable”

It would appear that Theresa May’s election strategy is to repeat “strong and stable leadership” like a parrot, so that the gullible public will begin to accept it as fact.

Image may contain: bird
Since the announcement of the snap election nearly everything she has said has involved the words “strong and stable”. It’s getting to a point now that I’m dumbfounded the entire country isn’t laughing along with me at the utter ridiculousness of it all.

Today provided us with some of the strongest evidence yet that no matter what the question is, the answer is always the same:

Image may contain: 1 person, text

and the audio recording which can be found here.

Theresa May isn’t the only Tory prime minister to take advantage of the “strong and stable” soundbite. Some people may find her rhetoric quite familiar:

Image may contain: 1 person, text

and we all know how that situation played out!

The worst part is how demonstrably false this “strong and stable” rhetoric actually is.

After 9 months of refusal to hold a general election, she suddenly decides to announce a snap election, just three weeks after triggering the most complex and risky diplomatic negotiation the United Kingdom has faced in years. How is that stable? Her constant political flip-flopping and terrible timing doesn’t promote stability or strength to me.

May’s stance on the EU is just as unstable. During the referendum, she supported Remain, but when it was clear which position would give her the most power – she switched from Remain straight to Hard Brexit. Where is the principle? Where is the stability in a leader that will switch to the opposite side of a debate when it best suits her?

She consistently attempted to seize power from parliament when it came to triggering Article 50, yet did a complete U-turn on her decision when it became clear her actions were likely to be deemed unlawful by courts.

These are just a small fraction of the U-turning and flip-flopping that May does consistently. Four huge U-turns have happened in just the past month (National Insurance, snap election, “now is not the time”, energy caps).

As well as unstable, I would argue that Theresa May is a weak coward.

What strong leader refuses to take part in debates before an election? Surely she should want to demonstrate this strength she has? Why is she so terrified at facing the likes of Sturgeon and Corbyn in a debate?

Why is she so terrified of media scrutiny – launching her campaign privately in front of hand-picked Tory loyalists and media members she refused to take questions from?

She is not a strong leader, she is a weak leader. A leader who cannot face opposition, and cannot defend her track record of flip-flops and failures. A leader who must rely on the constant repetition of a meaningless soundbite to win votes, because she cannot win them on policy and competence alone.

Somehow though, millions of people have been completely taken in by the ridiculous rhetoric. They have been brainwashed into believing the completely false “strong and stable” claim.

These people are gullible, there is no other way to describe it. To accept something as true just because it is being repeated consistently, no matter how much this is contradicted by obvious reality, is being incredibly gullible.

Come on Britain, we’re better than this! If Theresa May is so strong and stable then maybe she should demonstrate it instead of just talking about it.

Welfare Cuts to the Disabled, Bereaved & Disadvantaged – The Cameron Legacy

victimsofausterity

Last week Theresa May’s government carried on with the attack on the poor, disabled and disadvantaged began by Cameron and Osbourne’s ideological austerity. This attack, as with most others, is targeted toward the weaker and poorer of society.

This move was defended as a cost-cutting measure, using the poor as a means to save money, yet not only have the Tories decided to further impoverish many disadvantaged British citizens, they are simultaneously introducing income tax cuts that will mainly benefit those with wealth.

According to Resolution Foundation, 80% of these tax giveaways will go to the richer half of households, while the poorest third will shoulder 67% of the cuts to support.

The fact the Tories keep cutting from the lowest tiers of society to introduce new tax cuts to the highest tiers of society should be of no surprise to anyone now, since Cameron announced austerity in 2010 the government has repeatedly done exactly this.

What is at least somewhat surprising is the callous nature of these cuts and who they are targeted toward.

Such as mourning families. Previously, if a parent was to die families would receive financial support to help raise the child until they turned 18. This has been the case, in some form, since 1946.

Under the new cuts, instead of receiving financial support until the child turns 18, families will now receive support for no longer than 18 months after the parent has died. This is a loss of tens of thousands of pounds for some bereaved families.

Also, despite massive protests and reports from the UN that the UK is conducting a systematic violation of disabled rights, the Tories are continuing with their abhorrent attacks on disabled people.

Now, an estimated 500,000+ disabled people will have £29.05 less per week if they’re deemed fit for ‘WRAG’ (work-related activity). Obviously this assessment is not completed by a doctor or medical professional, but an automated system conducted by an office worker.

As well as targeting the disabled and bereaved, the Tories have also decided the best way to save money is to potentially force thousands of young people onto the streets. Jobseekers aged 18-21 will be blocked from gaining Housing Benefit, which is always paid directly to the landlord. Many young adults are now faced with the inability to pay their rent, and potentially homelessness.

I like to think the conservatives can’t truly understand the effects these cuts will have on people’s lives because they live in such a small bubble of privilege; but considering how many advisors they have, how many protests have occurred and how the media have (generally) responded I think that may be wishful thinking.

It’s far more likely they know exactly the suffering and hardship these cuts will bring, and they simply think the pitiful money saved (to be handed to the wealthy in tax cuts) is more important.

Deaths, homelessness, suffering and poverty. This is Cameron’s legacy, and May is more than happy to carry on.

Theresa May: Principled Woman or Opportunist?

maySupportsEU

Many people consider Theresa May the champion of Brexit. She is crashing into a hard-brexit approach and regularly hands out the kind of platitudes and rhetoric that Brexiteers simply love. She carries the Brexit flag with pride, and is certainly reaping the powerful rewards for doing so – such as the most powerful office in the United Kingdom, without an election.

So I’m sure she wishes this picture didn’t exist:

mayIn

nor that this audio recording from Goldman Sachs exists:

When May initially took office so shortly after the EU referendum, I thought the Brexit crowd would be unlikely to forget May’s endorsement and support of the remain campaign.

I severely overestimated the mental capacity of the Brexit crowd …

If all of her powerful speeches about how great Brexit will be for Britain are true, then surely she must explain why she campaigned against it? Why, just a year ago, did she think the EU was the better choice for Britain?

If all her platitudes and rhetoric are truthful, then it is truly shocking that she would campaign against Brexit. If, as she says, it will make the United Kingdom ‘a sovereign and independent nation’ once again, then why did she previously publically endorse Britain’s captivity?

It’s blindingly clear why May is coming out with so much “red, white and blue” rhetoric that goes against her own principles, it’s gaining her a lot of power. With every platitude, she is elevated in the eyes of the rabid Brexiteers. Through her abandonment of the principles she fought for, she has seized the highest office in the United Kingdom.

I do not argue that she should go against the referendum, but I do say she has a lot of questions to answer about why the hardest of Brexits is her goal, and why she chose to campaign against it, if it is going to be so great for the country.