Within Boris Johnson’s Conservatives, the ‘society’ of Margaret Thatcher appears stronger than ever. It may also be historically unpopular.

In a 1987 interview in Women’s Own magazine, British Prime Minister and Conservative heavyweight Margaret Thatcher famously insisted that there was ‘no such thing’ as society, and that people should first and foremost help themselves and their neighbours, instead of relying on ‘society’ (the state) to help them instead. Problems that affected the population were not problems with ‘society’, you see, but instead deficiencies in the correct neighbourly attitude which should see your neighbour taking care of you as you would of them.

They are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. …

Opponents to transgender-rights legislation often cite “science” to support their claims — but modern science stands in support of the transgender identity.

For social conservatives, transgender sceptics and “gender-critical feminists”, claiming that science supports anti-trans rhetoric acts as a smokescreen. Put simply, it prevents such activists from having to admit their fondness for discrimination. Such a strategy is regrettably effective: in large part as a result of the tireless prejudice of anti-trans groups, open transphobia is prevalent in both right-wing and left-wing media (looking at you, The Guardian) and can be heard from all sides of the political spectrum. Organisations such as Britain’s “Women’s Place” have mobilised thousands of people willing to completely ignore modern understandings of sex and gender, preferring the XX/XY dichotomy for sexual characteristics and backing the absolute binary of high school textbooks. …

The UK already owns very little of its own infrastructure. Allowing Huawei into 5G communications would be another irresponsible choice.

There are many arguments for why the Chinese state — and, arguably by extension, Huawei — should not be permitted unrivalled access to infrastructure projects throughout the United Kingdom. I’d contend that two arguments, with the former focusing on domestic security and the latter on human rights abuses, are the most convincing. Primarily, the United Kingdom should not allow any foreign power — China included — to have any sort of access or control over Britain’s domestic infrastructure. Critics of such a laissez-faire approach are, admittedly, rare — the idea that Britain should own its own vital services is not exactly controversial. Those who disagree, however, are often vocal, alleging that such an attitude is protectionist, a distortion of the precious free market or just economically nonsensical (Huawei’s prices, as an example, are often lower than that of competitors). Secondly, and arguably more convincingly for most, is that the United Kingdom should not choose to funnel money towards a state that continues to commit genocidal atrocities against Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang and is currently in the process of forcefully suppressing civil liberties in Hong Kong. …

The Conservatives have long been seen as the “party that hate the poor”. Rishi Sunak’s coronavirus aid gives more credence to that perception.

I am not an expert in the history of the Conservative Party, but my theory is as follows: Margaret Thatcher was the Conservative leader that first gave rise to the idea that the Tories hate the poor — or, at least, our modern understanding of that idea. Thatcher’s “mismanagement” (to put it lightly) of the mining-reliant economy of the North led to waves of generational deprivation and poverty that last to the present day, soured further by the Conservative Party’s continued deification and worship of their most polarising Prime Minister. …

Image for post
Image for post

Your moral integrity depends on it.

Election season is upon us! The Iowa caucuses are now just hours away — and with voting just around the corner, (often turbulent) polling data begins flooding in. The current Iowa leaders, Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden, appear neck-and-neck: FiveThirtyEight’s polling averages are currently giving the candidates vote totals of 22% and 21.5% respectively (at time of writing). The dense and divided field means that other candidates are also not too far behind: Pete Buttigieg at 15.5%, Elizabeth Warren at 14.4% and Amy Klobuchar with her late surge taking her to 10.2%.

Given Joe Biden’s history of questionable comments and invasions of personal space along with his generally dodgy history, I really do want Bernie Sanders to prevail in Iowa, New Hampshire and every other Democratic primary election — I’d much prefer Sanders over Biden as the 2020 nominee. I also hope that Elizabeth Warren does have the integrity to believe in the policy that she’s standing for — and so, as a result, I will for the rest of this article be assuming that she does believe in what she claims to. …

Image for post
Image for post

The anticipated Mueller’s report has found “no collusion” (as many expected). For 2019’s Democrats, a blow to their narrative against the president. But for 2020’s Democrats, could it be a blessing in disguise?

The long awaited and highly publicised Mueller investigation has finally come to an end, with the conclusion plastered across the front pages and headlines of the international press: “NO TRUMP-RUSSIA CONSPIRACY” from the New York Times’ live updates page — and “MAINSTREAM MEDIA STUNNED: OUR BEST PRESIDENT PROVED RIGHT” from the obviously reputable, unbiased and trustworthy Fox News. To be concise: the US Attorney General William Barr released on Sunday the summary of Robert Mueller’s 2-year-long investigation into allegations of collusion between the 2016 Trump presidential campaign and the Russian government with the objective of putting Trump into the White House. …

Image for post
Image for post

His newly announced 2020 campaign includes him among the ranks of high-profile liberals vying for the Democratic nomination — but Bernie’s road to the White House (or even the nomination) already looks like a progressive pipe dream.

“Secretary Clinton has won the Democratic nomination and I congratulate her for that.” Bernie Sanders’ first endorsement of Hillary Clinton felt notably cold, almost resentful, as the lack of chemistry or co-operation between the 2016 Democratic candidates was paraded in front of the crowds in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. The state had decisively voted for Sanders in the Democratic primary just 154 days earlier, surprising analysts and Clinton’s campaign staff who had assumed the nomination was simply hers for the taking — as was the case, Clinton taking a majority of the vote during the primary season. Sanders’ failed “revolution” was impactful even so, laying the groundwork for a public shift of Democratic leadership to the left. Two years later, talk of Green New Deals and serious progressive legislation is mainstream — which Sanders obviously sees as his opportunity. …

Image for post
Image for post

Democrats are showing themselves more willing than ever to bicker and squabble among themselves. It is a less than ideal PR strategy going into the 2020 elections — but the heavily contested primaries look set to make it worse.

January tends to be a frosty time for the District of Columbia, and yet the first days of 2019 felt warmer than usual. Republicans were certainly feeling the heat, scrambling to reorganise and hiding away mention of their serious defeats in the November midterms. Democrats didn’t seem to be faring much better — having put on a united, strong front for the 2018 campaign, their victory in the House had caused a return to the inter-party squabbling that was so common during the 2016 primaries and first two years of Trump’s administration.

The group of “Bernie-or-bust” voters that strongly rallied against Hillary Clinton after she had secured the Democratic nomination acted as the foreshocks for the current earthquake shaking up the Democratic party, causing a pointless war within the party as they tried desperately to group together and take down Donald Trump — but to no avail. The shocks continued as Democrats went into their next nationwide elections, as voters in strongly liberal and progressive cities overturned establishment figures, electing instead to have young, vibrantly left-wing representatives take their place — the most notable of these being New York congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The first of two major moments of unity for Democrats came in the months after, as the party drew up and showed off a much more united front with the (successful) goal of taking back the House of Representatives. …

The National Enquirer and parent company AMI stand accused of the attempted blackmail and extortion of billionaire Jeff Bezos. Their verdict should be nothing less than the death sentence.

Journalism is currently trying to pull through some rocky, turbulent times. Attacks on free speech and freedom of the press have increased in recent years, especially from those at the top. President Trump has made headlines calling the press the “enemy of the people” while seeming to imply that press freedom should be completely abolished. European countries are experiencing a similar decline: new laws in the UK do not provide adequate protection for journalists or whistleblowers, and Turkey’s Erdoğan has overseen one of the biggest declines in press freedom seen in modern history.

At the centre of all of this lies a growing distrust in today’s news organisations, with the proponents of this growing doubt in modern journalism lying high — Trump himself, as the top man in the supposed ‘land of liberty’, has made no attempt to hide his disdain for the “mainstream media” and their “MSM narrative” (which, according to his supporters, is distinctly and unexplainably anti-Trump). It certainly isn’t helped, however, by organisations like the National Enquirer, an unashamedly sketchy tabloid newspaper that makes no secret of its willingness to use disapproved journalistic practices for cheap controversy and website clicks. Their disregarding for any morals that journalists (or human beings) should have has now very publicly reared its ugly head, with the organisation being quite rightly exposed in trying to blackmail Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon — and, coincidentally, owner of the Washington Post newspaper, a (reputable) news organisation that has adamantly gone after Trump’s misconducts. What a coincidence would it be, then, if the National Enquirer had any links to Trump? …

Billionaires Descend On Davos To Disparage The Communist Method Of “Taxation” And Announce Their New Plan: Pretending To Be Moral

A few days ago at the World Economic Forum billionaire Michael S. Dell, founder of Dell Technologies and alleged creator of British singer-extraordinaire A Dell, railed against the revolutionary plan from New York congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to introduce “marginal tax rates”, in which people that have a lot of money (like himself) give some of it to programmes that either help save the environment or human lives. …


Michael Hargreaves

I am occasionally someone who writes things, more often at www.michaelrh04.co.uk. Leftist.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store