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:

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.

 

“Why Haven’t You Killed Yourself Yet?”, Disgusting Questions Asked During Disgusting PIP Assessments

torySuicideScandal

It is absolutely shocking how badly Britain treats disabled people. The targeted abuse committed by the Tories in the name of ideological austerity goes deeper than most Britons would like to admit about our ‘great land’.

As most will know – in order to receive disability welfare, the seriously ill and disabled must attend a 15-minute long ‘tickbox’ interview conducted by a private company (paid by the taxpayer). It doesn’t matter how much evidence is provided by doctors and medical experts, if you fail this assessment, you have your welfare stripped and are pushed into looking for work.

It is a testament to the Tory ideology that they prefer a quick, automated system that ignores medical evidence, knowing it causes significant unnecessary stress for the disabled and ill. A UN inquiry into this system found that the UK government’s ideological austerity measures amount to “systematic violations” of the rights of disabled people. Unsurprisingly this report was largely ignored by the British people, who seem quite content to remain apathetic to our government’s human right violations, as long as it isn’t affecting them.

It is a particular assessment question that has brought this brutal piece of Tory austerity back into the limelight – “Why haven’t you killed yourself yet?”

Yes, you read that correctly; private, highly profitable companies are paid by the taxpayer to ask mentally and physically disabled people why they haven’t committed suicide yet … this is so blatantly sick, I am appalled at how much this issue has been ignored by the media and the general public.

Asking people with severe mental health issues why they haven’t yet killed themselves is dangerous, insensitive and quite simply sick. People shouldn’t have to justify their decision not to take their life, in order to prove they deserve support.

This question suggests that if you’re really that bad, why haven’t you done it yet? How can we take you seriously and give you welfare if we haven’t found you hanging from a rope in your bedroom?

There is something significantly disgusting about treating the ill and disabled as a burden and as a cut to be made, but actually asking them why they haven’t killed themselves yet in order to test ‘how disabled they are’ is a new level of sick and disturbed …

And do the public care? Due to the mainstream media not giving this scandal any coverage, and the British public’s habit of sticking their head in the sand if it isn’t happening to them, no they don’t.