Is The Tory Party A Haven For Sociopaths?

A sociopath is defined as someone who is utterly selfish, has no empathy with anyone else and will ruthlessly exploit other's weaknesses for their own benefit. There is no lie they will not tell, no despicable action they won't take to get what they want and, when caught out, will move heaven and earth to distance themselves from the consequences of what they've done. I'm tempted to say at this point "I rest my case", but more needs to be said for the benefit of those foolish enough to vote for this vile political party. The telling of lies by politicians is common to all parties if they have any hope whatsoever of being elected into office within a democracy. That is the greatest weakness of democracy - the electorate don't like bad news or unpalatable truths. Telling the truth for a politician is all too often nothing less than career suicide and can be so damaging that, even if proved right, they will never regain the confidence of the electorate. What it comes down to then is the motive behind a politicians lies. The politician who genuinely wants to do something for his country will lie in order to get into office where he can do some good. The politician who thinks only in terms of his or her own career will tell lies that will get him into office so he can line his or her own pockets irrespective of the damage it does to the country and the electorate he or she are supposed to represent. The difference between the two is entirely dependent not on the lies they tell but how they behave when in office. Putting aside the lies that the Labour party were responsible for the banking crash of 2008, that poor people are all feckless and deserve no favours, taxing the rich produces less revenue, tax loopholes are impossible to close and privatisation is the answer to everything, what have the Tories actually done? First and foremost, of course, is that they have made themselves and their rich backers even richer than they were in 2008. Second, they have made the poor much poorer than they were in 2008. They have deliberately undermined the NHS, starving it of funds and destroying the morale of its staff while remaining completely unmoved by the total chaos they have created or the danger to those in need of health care provision. They have vilified the sick, the disabled and the unemployed, lumping them all together under the heading of "feckless scroungers." They have kicked into the long grass any meaningful investigation of organised child abuse by an elite group of politicians and establishment figures, probably because it's true. They have done everything they can to demonstrate quite clearly that they are utterly selfish, have no empathy with anyone but themselves and have been eager to exploit the weakness of others for their own benefit. So is the Tory party a haven for sociopaths? Of course it is. Unfortunately it also seems to be a haven for those a little further along the spectrum of anti-social behaviour (and don't forget that the Tories believe that society doesn't actually exist at all) - the psychopath. Psychopaths are those who are evidently sociopathic but are also quite willing to murder those who get in their way because they have no fear of being caught or punished. Given the number of deaths that can be directly attributed to such lovely Tory policies as the bedroom tax, denying vulnerable people benefit payments on flimsy grounds and the destruction of the NHS, now I rest my case.

Tories Unveil Plan To Solve NHS Problems.

Circle Holdings, the company that was the first to run an NHS hospital as a private concern, wants to withdraw from its contract because it is "no longer viable under current terms". In other words they cannot make a profit out of other people's misery unless they can get their sticky fingers on yet more tax payers money. The problem, Circle told the press, is that there are too many sick people wasting resources at Hinchingbrooke hospital. If only they could get rid of all the sick people, sack all the doctors and nurses and flog off all the medical equipment then tax payers money could go where it belongs - into the offshore bank accounts of Circle executives. The hospital itself has been put into special measures after it was revealed that the A&E department was being run so badly that patients were being put in danger while staffing levels were completely inadequate. Shocked by their revelations about the complete failure of a private company to run an NHS hospital David Cameron immediately swung into action and declared that, if he wins the next general election, then he will make it more difficult for public sector workers to go on strike. "The last thing this country needs," he told our reporter, "is doctors and nurses going on strike in protest at my complete mishandling of the NHS. Publicising the fact that private companies are not fit to run hospitals and are efficient only in diverting tax payers money into their own pockets is not in the national interest. People simply don't need to know this. It only makes them fearful and distrustful and I intend to come down heavily on anyone who spreads such despondency. What I want to see are patients cheerfully laying down their lives in dirty, underfunded and under-staffed A&E departments and declaring that is their patriotic duty to die for the greater good of the Tory party, the rich, the greedy and the over-privileged. Meanwhile doctors and nurses should get on with their job - providing profits for me and my rich mates to skim off the top. What else are doctors and nurses for?" Meanwhile the British public have remained completely apathetic since most of them don't work in the public sector and are content to work for starvation wages just as long as the unions are kept in check. "We don't want a return to the Winter of Discontent," one member of the public told our reporter. "I remember it only too well. There was garbage in the streets, pot holes appeared all over the roads and you couldn't get to see a doctor or a nurse. Ahhh - hang on a minute......"

The NHS: The Beginning Of The End?

A & E departments across the country are so hard pushed that they have little choice but to declare a major incident and introduce emergency measures in order to cope. Doctors and nurses are at breaking point, patients are waiting up to five hours outside hospitals in ambulances and the government is failing to reach even its own pathetic targets. The crisis facing the NHS this winter is unprecedented and is the culmination of five years of Tory ideology which has inflicted untold damage on the service and brought it to the brink of extinction. So what have the Tories got to say about all this? Nothing intelligible. Cameron has accused anyone asking questions about this mess of "using the NHS as a political football" - as if he hasn't. He has also accused sick people of clogging up the system by having the sheer nerve to be sick and old people having the sheer nerve to be old. Not one word about the disastrous top-down re-organisation that he, Andrew Lansley and Jeremy Hunt have pursued for the last five years. Not one word about the cuts to spending on the NHS over the last five years. Not one word about the destruction of morale amongst NHS employees over the last five years. Not one word about the destruction of those ancillary services that support the health care system and have now left the NHS exposed. Just more of the favoured Tory trick of blaming the victims. Nothing could demonstrate more clearly the commitment of the Tory party to their core principle of killing people for money. The cuts inflicted on the NHS are designed to provide tax cuts for the Tories and their rich mates. The so-called re-organisation is designed to allow the Tories and their rich mates to get their hands on billions in assets that are actually the property of you and me - the tax payer. This is what Tory ideology means on the ground - more money for them and more misery for the rest of us.

How The Poor And Disadvantaged Wage Class War.

The man pictured above is Alun Jones president of the Girls’ Schools Association (GSA) and, according to him, limiting tax breaks for private schools that cater for the rich and over-privileged is "class war." Essentially what he is saying is that when the rich and greedy grab whatever they get their hands on, that is "charity". When the poor and disadvantaged protest about this, that is "the politics of envy." Of course the underhand tactics of "class war" as practiced by the poor are, according to people like Alun Jones and those millionaires who don't want to pay tax, totally unacceptable even though they seem to work only rarely - if at all. Despite many decades of the poor waging an unremitting "class war" and despite their dishonorable tactics, the poor only get poorer while the rich get ever richer. So, is Mr.Jones right when he talks about "class war"? I'm tempted to say that you can "bet your bottom dollar" that he's absolutely correct, but you already have and, what is more, if you can't afford to send your children to private school, then you've already lost. The truth is that a class war has indeed been raging all around us forever but has certainly intensified over the last five years since the Tories sneaked in through the back door of No.10 Downing Street in 2010 with the hot and eager help of the turncoat Lib Dem party. They have conducted a campaign of terror against all those in society that they hate - the poor, the under-privileged, the sick, the disabled and anyone else who isn't of the "better sort". Those that the Tories accuse of waging "class war" are the actual losers in this struggle, the target of the Tories age-old tactic of blaming the victims. The Tories tell us that the only way to get the British economy back on its feet is to punish those who had absolutely nothing to do with wrecking it in the first place. The people who actually wrecked the economy, criminal bankers, immoral venture capitalists and corrupt politicians, must be protected at all costs from the consequences of their own actions because otherwise "chaos" will ensue. What would you call the banking crisis of 2008 then? Protesting against unfairness and inequality is not "class war" nor is it "the politics of envy" - it is simple self-defence against an over-priviliged and greedy elite whose only game is "heads I win, tails you lose."

Tories Wish Us All A Poor And Miserable Christmas

David Cameron, the only political leader in Britain with the sheer brass neck to describe himself as a "Christian", gave his Christmas message to the country yesterday and spoke the usual garbage about "Christian values" and "giving, sharing and taking care of others". George Osborne seems to have taken his leader at his word when he recently gave one of his closest friends, Rupert Harrison and described as Osborne's "Chief of Staff", a 19% pay rise increasing his salary to a staggering £95,000 per year. Worth every penny I'm sure you'll agree when NHS staff are not worth a miserable 1%. To underline their message the Tories applauded when police in London seized blankets, sleeping bags and food donations belonging to people sleeping rough in the streets. "This is all part of our solution to the problem of poverty in Britain," a leading Tory told our reporter. "We are now hoping for a particularly nasty cold spell so that many of them will simply die. A good cover of snow would be a bonus since it will hide the bodies under a romantic covering of nice fluffy stuff. Don't forget our favourite saying in the Tory party - out of sight, out of mind. None of us should forget, during this season of goodwill, peace on earth and other meaningless cliches, that poverty is a lifestyle choice and that poor people are essentially evil. Rich people should not be subjected to unpleasant sights such as poor homeless people cluttering up the streets and making them look untidy. We see this as a fair solution to what is a growing problem, though we have absolutely no idea why so many people are deliberately making themselves poor and homeless. It all very mysterious."

Iain Duncan Smith And "Behavioural Change" For The Poor.

The UK's nastiest and most self-righteous politician, not to mention the most successful Tory scrounger of all time, Iain Duncan Smith, has outlined his plans for the poor on Andrew Neil's "Sunday Politics" if the Tories win the next general election. Cutting child benefit, he suggested, would "save money and prompt behavioural change”. This "behavioural change" seems to mean that the undeserving poor will be "encouraged" to have less children so that the deserving rich can reward themselves with yet more nice fat juicy tax cuts. The suggestion is, of course, that only rich people can possibly have intelligent, talented, children while the poor can only produce dimwits who act as a drag on the forward march of mankind. So what proof is there that IDS is right? There would, if IDS is to be believed, have been no Leonardo Da Vinci, whose peasant mother was a single parent. No Benjamin Franklin, whose father was a poor candle maker. No Abraham Lincoln, whose parents were poor dirt farmers. No Andrew Carnegie, whose father was a hand-loom weaver. No Walt Disney, whose father was constantly out of work. No Charles Dickens, who spent much of his early life living with his father in debtor's prison. No Charlie Chaplin, whose mother had three illegitimate children. No Harry Houdini, who begged for money in the streets when he was young. One thing is for sure - there are many like IDS, especially in the Tory party, who are nothing more than second-raters and owe their prominence not to any innate intelligence or ability but simply to being born into a privileged background. Its not fewer poor people we need, though that could easily be remedied with better wages, better education and better prospects, but fewer people like IDS whose dedication to greed and selfishness knows no bounds. The only difference between IDS and the poor he despises so much is that he is a superior and more successful scrounger than any of them. When it comes to getting something for nothing IDS leaves the vast majority of people in this country in his dust.

Tories Prepare To Buy The Election.

With no real economic strategy except for compelling the poor to pay for the mistakes of the rich, with no friends apart from the greedy and selfish, with no policies except a return to the golden days of the 1850's and with a leader who can't negotiate, the Tories have decided that their only recourse is to buy the next general election. In possession of a £78 million war chest, courtesy of greedy big business hoping that they won't have to pay any tax at all after May 2015, they have announced that parties can now spend 23% more than the previous £26.5 million limit. Of course no other party is backed to such an extent by the smug and self-satisfied and cannot hope to spend such an obscene amount on propaganda. The Tories received a staggering £21,072,508 from hedge fund donors alone who were then rewarded by George Osborne in the 2013 budget with a £145 million tax break courtesy of the poor, disabled and under-privileged. This is all in stark contrast to David Cameron's pledge before the 2010 election to end the ‘big donor culture’ and ‘cut what is spent on a general election’. Nor have the Tories been entirely honest in the methods used to get this increase, changing the law through a statutory instrument the terms of which are not debated in Parliament and are more usually used to make changes to laws that have already been agreed by the major parties. We should, of course, expect no better from an utterly cynical political party that leaves a slimy trail of greed, corruption and selfishness behind it wherever it goes. But don't forget that the propaganda the Tories intend to flood the marginal constituencies with will be paid for with your money - money stolen from you by corporate sharks in the form of tax breaks provided by a corrupt Tory political machine intent on dismantling the state and throwing you to the wolves.

The Perils Of An Incomplete Classical Education.

Andrew Mitchell born in Hampstead the son of another Tory MP, Sir David Mitchell, was educated at Rugby school, studied history at Jesus College Cambridge and was an officer in the Royal Tank Regiment. A typical Tory then, born into a privileged world, the beneficiary of an expensive education, arrogant, rude and prone to approaching every problem with an open mouth. A pity then that he doesn't seem to have learned very much during his stellar career. It's never a good idea to badmouth a copper, as any working class kid could have told him, but its even a worse idea to take a newspaper into court on a flimsy charge of libel. He should have known better. That he didn't probably explains his use of the term "pleb" as an insult. His classical education should surely have informed him that in ancient Rome such an insult would have made no sense. During the early phase of its history Roman society was indeed divided between a privileged and wealthy patrician class and an underprivileged and much poorer plebeian class. However, over time many in the patrician class lost much of their wealth and their privileged position while many in the plebeian class gained both wealth and positions of great influence. During the Republic the Tribune of the Plebs, who by law had to be a member of the plebeian class, was the only politician who could enact legislation and could veto any law proposed by a Senate that could only only suggest new laws and not enact them. Marcus Antonius (Mark Anthony) was a plebeian as was Gaius Marius, Marcus Tullius Cicero, Marcus Licinius Crassus and Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (Pompey the Great). In fact the policemen that Andrew Mitchell called "f*****g plebs" are in very good company - except, perhaps, when dealing with an ill-educated lout like Andrew Mitchell.

Is George Osborne Out Of His Mind.

There is a very interesting video doing the rounds at the moment and its well worth a look. The video was taken during Prime Minister's Question Time as David Cameron was in full flow. But its is not David Cameron that commands our attention but George Osborne seated next to him. To say that Osborne looks disorientated is putting mildly. In truth he looks as if he's off his face on drugs. Two questions arise from this. First, why is this man in charge of Britain's economy? Second, why isn't this video being played on BBC news?

Even More Private Sector Efficiency

The new owners of Royal Mail have stepped up their propaganda today with fresh warnings that they won't be able to deliver your letters after all. Once again they have blamed competition from other mail carriers who, they suggest, have an unfair advantage over them. Apart from the fact that competition is what capitalism is supposed to be all about, why is is that industries taken out of the public sector are such a disaster? We have an energy industry that is so expensive that many OAP's die in Britain from hyperthermia every winter. We have a property rental sector that is so expensive homelessness is now endemic. We have a water industry that is always short of water in a rain-soaked Britain. We have a segmented railway system that is both expensive and unpleasant to travel on. The threadbare arguments that the privatised sector is somehow more efficient and delivers better value for money is patently and obviously untrue. So what has gone wrong? Capitalism as an economic theory has some very compelling arguments and its antithesis - communism - has been left in its dust since 1990. There can be little doubt that capitalism won the central economic argument during the Cold War hands down. After 1990, however, its been pretty much all down hill. The reason for this is not so difficult to find and it lies not with capitalism as such but with the boneheads who run it. Whereas capitalism was once characterised by competition, risk-taking, innovation and a desire to excel, all this has been replaced with a single characteristic - greed. Greed is not usually associated with great intelligence and tends not towards risk-taking but to outright criminality. The capitalist system was once led by great captains of industry, ruthless and often greedy but also men of vision. Now it is being led by the whinging executive who risks none of his own money and bemoans competition while demanding a new form of socialism that protects him from his own stupidity. He demands ludicrously high pay not because he's so good at what he does but because otherwise he'll run away from home. Capitalism has lost its fire and its vigour because it is now being run by a bunch of bean-counters without any real vision and very little real talent. None of this has been helped by a new breed of politician, as greedy as his business counterpart and with as little vision or talent, eager only to trouser the bribes on offer from so-called lobbyists. The system is corrupt and badly needs an overhaul but there are few involved in running it that have enough working brain cells to realise this.