Post from 𝖀𝕶 𝕻𝖔𝖑𝖎𝖙𝖎𝖈𝖘 - Why Have the Tories Given Up on Climate Change?

 

Read it here: https://tr.ee/Wdmy_NnigJ

Post from 𝖀𝕶 𝕻𝖔𝖑𝖎𝖙𝖎𝖈𝖘 - 34 Years On, Thatcher's Legacy Haunts Britain: The Cruel Policies Still Shaping Our Nation's Problems

 

Read it here: https://tr.ee/UCPDnOPhiG

Post from 𝖀𝕶 𝕻𝖔𝖑𝖎𝖙𝖎𝖈𝖘 - The British Ruling Class: Sliding Into Extremism

 

Read it here: https://tr.ee/yj25zV8Dpl

Post from 𝖀𝕶 𝕻𝖔𝖑𝖎𝖙𝖎𝖈𝖘 - DEFRA Braces for Uprising: Fanatic Farmers Stirred by Farage and Clarkson Threaten Rural Chaos

 

Read it here: https://tr.ee/InQ_7pD2gV

Badenoch vs. Thatcher: Two Tory Leaders and Their Troubling Legacies

When Kemi Badenoch rose to prominence in the Conservative Party, comparisons to Margaret Thatcher were inevitable. Both are women who have left divisive legacies, championed controversial policies, and become polarizing figures within the Tory Party and British society. However, the parallels between them also highlight stark contrasts in their political ideologies, leadership styles, and the damage they inflicted on the Conservative Party.

Character and Public Perception

Margaret Thatcher, the "Iron Lady," was admired for her decisiveness but also widely criticized for her unyielding nature and lack of empathy. Thatcher’s leadership style alienated many, both inside and outside her party. Her single-minded pursuit of free-market policies and privatization led to devastating consequences for working-class communities, particularly in the North of England. This cold, calculating persona earned her respect among admirers but outright hatred among those who bore the brunt of her policies.

Kemi Badenoch, by contrast, has cultivated a persona of bluntness bordering on arrogance. While Thatcher’s decisiveness was seen as strength, Badenoch’s combative approach often comes across as unnecessarily antagonistic. Her frequent dismissals of progressive causes, such as climate change and equality, and her tendency to frame critics as part of a liberal elite echo Thatcher's adversarial approach. However, where Thatcher had a clear ideological mission, Badenoch often appears more interested in culture wars than coherent governance.

Public perception of Badenoch reflects this: to her critics, she is a divisive figure whose rhetoric frequently alienates young and progressive voters. Like Thatcher, Badenoch inspires intense dislike from those who view her policies as regressive and her leadership style as confrontational.

Their Ideologies

Thatcher’s ideology was rooted in neoliberalism, championing free-market capitalism, reducing the role of the state, and emphasizing individual responsibility. These ideas defined the Conservative Party for decades, even as they widened inequality and dismantled Britain’s industrial base.

Badenoch’s ideology is less coherent but similarly controversial. While she claims to stand for "common sense" conservatism, her policies and rhetoric are more about opposing progressive causes than offering a cohesive vision. She frequently rails against net-zero initiatives, equality measures, and migration policies, framing them as distractions from "real issues."

Where Thatcher’s ideology, though destructivehad a long-term influence, Badenoch’s focus on short-term culture war victories risks alienating large sections of the electorate without providing a compelling vision for the future.

Their Leadership Eras

Thatcher's era was marked by a sense of purpose, albeit a divisive one. Her tenure began with a clear mandate to overhaul Britain’s economy, which she pursued with unwavering determination. She crushed the unions, privatized state assets, and transformed the Conservative Party into a party of the free market.

Badenoch’s political era, however, feels directionless. When she competed for the Conservative Party leadership, her campaign lacked substance. While she rallied the Tory right with her anti-woke rhetoric, her lack of a coherent policy platform was glaring. Her leadership, if anything, symbolizes the Conservative Party’s current existential crisis, torn between its traditional voter base and a rising, more diverse electorate.

Speech Weaknesses

Thatcher was infamous for her rigid delivery and patronizing tone. While her speeches often communicated a clear vision, they also alienated opponents with their moral superiority.

Badenoch’s speeches share this weakness but add a layer of dismissiveness. Her approach is often seen as condescending and overly defensive, particularly when addressing progressive issues. Her dismissive tone toward Labour Party proposals and environmental concerns has made her speeches less about leadership and more about scoring political points.

The Damage They Did to the Tory Party

Thatcher, for all her influence, left the Tory Party deeply divided. Her ousting in 1990 by her own MPs was a reflection of how toxic she had become within her party. While she reshaped the Conservatives, she also alienated working-class voters, particularly in the North, setting the stage for Labour’s landslide victory in 1997.

Badenoch, while not yet Prime Minister, has similarly divisive effects on the party. Her focus on culture wars risks further eroding the Tories’ appeal among younger and urban voters. By doubling down on divisive rhetoric, Badenoch may galvanize the Tory grassroots but at the cost of alienating moderates and independents.

Why They Are Hated

Thatcher is hated for the tangible damage she inflicted on communities through her economic policies. To this day, she is a symbol of austerity and inequality for many in Britain.

Badenoch, on the other hand, is disliked for her rhetoric and perceived lack of empathy. While she has not yet implemented policies as impactful as Thatcher’s, her dismissive attitude toward climate change, equality, and other critical issues has made her a lightning rod for criticism.

While Thatcher and Badenoch share some superficial similarities, they are ultimately products of very different eras. Thatcher, for all her flaws, reshaped Britain in her image though at great cost. Badenoch, by contrast, represents a Conservative Party in decline, more interested in culture wars than serious governance.

If the Tories are to recover from their current state, they will need to move beyond the divisive legacies of leaders like Thatcher and Badenoch, embracing a more inclusive and forward-thinking vision for Britain. Whether they are capable of doing so remains to be seen.

Why does Keir Starmer’s Net Zero plan have the Tories and Nigel Farage foaming at the mouth?

Keir Starmer’s Net Zero plan has the Tories and Nigel Farage foaming at the mouth. They claim it’s out of touch or too expensive. But the real reason they hate it has nothing to do with ordinary people and everything to do with protecting their wallets, and the pockets of the billionaires bankrolling them.

The Tories have always been the party of big money, and their opposition to Net Zero is no different. Their donors aren’t regular working people; they’re tycoons from industries that rely on pollution. Oil companies, coal barons, and gas giants are pouring millions into Tory coffers because they know green energy threatens their profits. These companies make billions from keeping Britain hooked on fossil fuels, and the last thing they want is a shift to clean, renewable energy.

Take Michael Hintze, for example. This billionaire hedge fund manager has made a fortune off oil and gas investments. He’s also one of the biggest donors to the Conservative Party. Do you think he wants Britain switching to wind and solar, cutting into his bottom line? Of course not. Then there’s Alexander Temerko, a former Russian oil executive who’s donated hundreds of thousands to the Tories. His ties to the fossil fuel industry are no secret, yet he has direct influence on Conservative policies.

It’s not just individuals either. Industry lobby groups like Oil and Gas UK are constantly pressuring the government to water down green policies. These groups claim to represent workers, but in reality, they’re protecting CEOs and shareholders.

Then there’s Nigel Farage, who loves to act like he’s the voice of the common man. The truth is, he’s bankrolled by the same wealthy elites funding the Tories. Farage has a long history of cozying up to climate deniers and big polluters. His campaigns are often supported by anonymous donors, but the few names we do know have links to fossil fuels. He’s not fighting for your energy bills, he’s fighting for their profits.

Even the media is part of the problem. Right-wing lügenpresse like The Sun and The Daily Mail constantly attack Net Zero policies, running scare stories about the costs of going green. But guess who owns these papers? Billionaires with stakes in polluting industries. Rupert Murdoch, for instance, has long been a climate sceptic. His media empire spreads misinformation about renewable energy while conveniently ignoring the billions he makes from industries that thrive on fossil fuels.

Meanwhile, the public pays the price. Energy bills are sky-high because we’re stuck relying on expensive gas imports. Pollution is killing tens of thousands of people every year. And Britain is falling behind other countries in green technology, missing out on jobs and investment.

The Tories and Farage want you to believe that Net Zero is the problem, but the real issue is their corruption. They’re bought and paid for by the people who profit from keeping things exactly as they are. Every time they block green policies or spread lies about renewable energy, they’re doing it for their donors, not for you.

This isn’t just speculation; the numbers back it up. Since 2019, the Conservative Party has taken millions in donations from people with direct ties to polluting industries. These are the same people lobbying against cleaner air, lower energy bills, and energy independence.

Ask yourself: why would any politician fight against policies that would make energy cheaper, create jobs, and clean up the environment? The answer is simple, they’re not fighting for you. They’re fighting for the billionaires who pay for their campaigns, their fancy dinners, and their private jets.

Farage and the Tories don’t want Britain to move forward because progress threatens their backers. They’ll tell you green energy is expensive, but they won’t tell you how much money their donors make from keeping us hooked on fossil fuels. They’ll claim they’re standing up for the working class, but it’s the working class who suffer most from their inaction, whether it’s through higher bills, fewer jobs, or worse health.

This isn’t just politics, it’s corruption, plain and simple. The Tories and Farage aren’t interested in what’s best for Britain. They’re interested in what’s best for their bank accounts and the billionaire donors pulling their strings.

Britain deserves better than this rotten system. It’s time to call out the lies, expose the corruption, and demand a government that works for the people, not the polluters.

The Decline of the Tory Party: From Pragmatic Conservatism to Reactionary Chaos

The Conservative Party, once the bastion of pragmatic politics and the self-styled party of "sensible governance," has descended into a chaotic shell of its former self, veering dangerously close to the realm of ideological extremism. This analysis explores how the Tories have abandoned their reputation for practicality, embraced reactionary and often exclusionary rhetoric, and alienated large swathes of the British electorate.

A Shift to Reactionary Politics

The Tories' decline can be traced to their increasing alignment with cultural conservatism and populism. Rather than addressing economic challenges with nuanced policies, they now prioritize "wedge issues" to rally their base. This trajectory has seen them demonizing progressive movements, particularly on matters of diversity, inclusion, and climate change. The grassroots disdain for anything remotely resembling "progressive ideals" is palpable, manifesting as hostility toward perceived "liberal elites" and a rejection of climate science, migration policies, and LGBTQ+ rights.

These reactionary tendencies are a far cry from the days when Conservatives like David Cameron championed a "big society" agenda and progressive environmental policies. Instead, we now have a party obsessed with culture wars, often led by figures who seem more interested in controversy than competent governance.

The Grassroots Rebellion

A significant driver of this ideological shift is the Tory grassroots movement. Embittered by years of perceived "betrayals" from their own leadership, they have pushed the party further to the right. Their disdain for inclusivity and progressivism reflects a deeper fear of societal change, particularly as Britain grows more diverse and modern values take hold.

This grassroots influence has also fueled hostility toward environmental initiatives and international cooperation. Despite the Conservative Party's historical commitment to issues like net-zero emissions, figures like Kemi Badenoch now dismiss such measures as frivolous or out of touch with "real" British values.

Incompetence in Governance

Underpinning this ideological decline is a stark failure to govern effectively. From the mishandling of Brexit to the ongoing crises in health, housing, and education, the Tories have shown themselves incapable of addressing Britain’s most pressing issues. Their constant infighting and inability to articulate coherent policies have led to a loss of public trust.

Even within their ranks, senior Conservatives privately express dismay at the party's trajectory. Some see the leadership of figures like Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, and Rishi Sunak as emblematic of this decline, leaders more interested in self-preservation and pandering to extremists than in governing responsibly.

Fascist Overtones

Perhaps the most alarming aspect of the Tories’ transformation is their flirtation with authoritarian rhetoric and policies. From attacks on judicial independence and the right to protest to divisive immigration policies, the party’s direction increasingly resembles far-right populist movements in other countries.

The use of inflammatory language, such as labeling refugees as "invaders", and policies that deliberately target marginalized groups reflect a disturbing willingness to stoke division. This approach is eerily reminiscent of the tactics used by authoritarian regimes to consolidate power through fear and scapegoating.

Why Labour Represents Hope

In contrast to the Tory descent into ideological madness, the Labour Party under Keir Starmer has positioned itself as a serious and competent alternative. Labour's focus on rebuilding trust, addressing economic inequality, and tackling the climate crisis resonates with voters tired of Tory chaos.

Labour also offers a vision of inclusivity and progress that directly counters the Tories' divisive rhetoric. Policies like abolishing non-dom tax loopholes and investing in green energy demonstrate a commitment to fairness and future-oriented governance.

The Conservative Party’s decline into a reactionary, fragmented force is a tragedy for British politics. What was once a party of ideas and pragmatism has become a vehicle for culture wars and ideological posturing, unfit to govern a modern nation.

The Tories' disdain for progressive values, combined with their incompetence and flirtation with authoritarianism, makes them a dangerous presence in British politics. For the good of the country, it’s crucial that this chapter of Tory governance ends, and that Britain moves toward a future defined by fairness, competence, and inclusivity.

Labour’s rise offers hope, but the damage done by the Tories will take years to repair. The question now is whether the British public will reject this decline and choose a path toward renewal.