The moral bankruptcy of the Israel Anti-Boycott Act

israel protest

Recently in America, a bipartisan group of senators and congressman signed a bill called the Israel Anti-Boycott Act, which, if signed into law, would make it a crime to support a boycott against Israel. More shockingly, the proposed punishment for violating this law includes a minimum fine of $250,000 and a maximum fine of $1 million, and you could be thrown in jail for a maximum of 20 years. The AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) acts as if it’s a necessary part of what they see as a fight against the “delegitimisation of Israel”, and indeed, this was a top priority for the lobbying organisation this year.

My own views on Israel notwithstanding, this is simply an extremely abhorrent piece of legislation that I’m shocked anyone supports. The people who support it seem to have no idea of the ramifications this bill might have, namely regarding free speech. They seem to have forgotten that the First Amendment of the United States Constitution clearly forbids any laws abridging freedom of speech. Of course their politicians, so I almost except them to skirt the constitution, but not so brazenly as they will do if this law passes.

Note that this bill was supported by both Democrats and Republicans. You have prominent conservative senators like Ted Cruz, Ben Sasse and Marco Rubio supporting it (thereby throwing Ted Cruz’s commitment to the constitution in question), along with left-wing senators such as Kirsten Gillibrand, Adam Schiff and Maria Cantwell. That should basically tell you that they’re all career politicians who want money wherever they can get it, and apparently the Israel Lobby is an indispensable source of income to them, so they have to appease them however they can.

Before you misconstrue me for some anti-Israel leftist, consider this. I actually oppose Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, because it’s an obvious attempt to delegitimise the state of Israel through hard-left moralising, and is one-sidedly in favour of the Palestinian side of the Arab-Israeli conflict. I’m about as supportive of Israel as I can get, but as a matter of principle, I am diametrically opposed to any law that threatens freedom of speech in any country, especially the West. We are facing enough threats to freedom of speech from potential totalitarians in our own governments (and in opposition). The last thing we want is more.

What’s really sad is that this can go on because there is no real opposition. Bipartisanship notwithstanding, this is the kind of bill I would have expected from a die-hard Republican back in the late 2000’s. In fact, I bet it’s mainly the chickenhawk neo-cons who want this, but the so-called liberals aren’t doing anything, and that’s because the left has lost its mind. Instead of focusing on serious issues like this, they’re focusing on non-issues like the wage gap, Islamophobia and the so-called “Trump-Russia collusion”, none of which are even real things, let alone things that Americans care about. The “liberal left” has spent so much of its energies on fantasy issues that it lost track of the real ones, and now its left to the functionally retarded ACLU to try and stop this. Yes, the very same ACLU that came out in defence of Islamist SJW Linda Sarsour.

In my opinion, this is the true moral bankruptcy of the bill. It’s an opportunistic piece of authoritarian legislation being trotted out by a bunch of unscrupulous political sellouts who know that they can slip it past the radar while the mainstream left is busy drumming up that phoney Russian collusion scandal. It’s exactly like how the British Parliament managed to pass the Investigatory Powers Bill while the opposition was in chaos and the left was too busy trying to undo Brexit.

My thoughts on Jacob Rees-Mogg

jacob rees-mogg

I’ve noticed that there’s a rising star shining within the Conservative Party, and to my surprise it’s Jacob Rees-Mogg, the whimsically anachronistic MP from North East Somerset. Recently he’s been gaining in popularity thanks to a grassroots online campaign called #Moggmentum, which seems to be an emerging right-wing equivalent of the kind of grassroots support that swept Jeremy Corbyn into power as leader of the opposition.

Where is his support coming from? Primarily from the Internet of course. He’s been a viral sensation among the right for about five years, attaining viral status through his use of the word “floccinaucinihilipilification”. Since then he’s won himself a loyal following through his gentlemanly attitude and his dry English wit. He also made his name as a supporter of the Leave campaign in last year’s referendum, and now you will find plenty of Rees-Mogg moments on YouTube, which individual views for each video typically reaching the tens of thousands. If that’s not enough, in the wake of Theresa May’s weakness, there’s an unofficial campaign to get Jacob Rees-Mogg to become leader of the Conservative Party, and thus become Prime Minister.

The momentum appears to be having results. It used to be that Boris Johnson or David Davis would be the most likely person to succeed Theresa May if she were to resign, or if a leadership contest were held soon. Recently, however, he is becoming the new favourite to potentially succeed Theresa May. The betting odds for him becoming leader have also gotten better. On PaddyPower he currently has a 10/1 chance of becoming leader (putting him in 4th place, behind Boris Johnson and Phillip Hammond), and according to Oddschecker, the outlook is similar across the board.

So, what do I think of him? I kind of like him. He composes himself very well in debates, he always speaks politely, and he has mostly sensible positions on the important issues, coming from a conservative background of course. He’s a breath of fresh air compared to most politicians in this country. A sane alternative to Chairman May, the Corbynistas (along with their meaner and uglier politics), and the establishment Tories (indeed, Rees-Mogg seems to have more in common with UKIP than the Tories). Compared to Theresa May, I think he would be a superior leader. He the “strong and stable” conservative that May acted like she was throughout her whole campaign, but unlike May, he can hold his own in a debate, and he’s willing to debate on national TV.

As for his political views, he seems to be a bit more conservative than the establishment conservatives. I firmly agree with him on Brexit, and I agree with his support of the DUP deal (which was ultimately based on pragmatism). He has also said that, on the issue of climate change, he would prefer solutions that don’t hinder technological progress, and the way see it, that could mean he’s open to letting the free market solve it. The main thing I disagree with him on is his opposition to the legalisation of gay marriage. He voted against the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act of 2013, and his main reasoning is simply because he was a Catholic, and he felt it was a matter of “what is sacrament”. It’s a stupid argument against gay marriage, but I’m willing to let his stance of gay marriage slide for two reasons. Firstly, gay marriage is an irrelevant topic because the argument is over. Gay marriage is legal in Britain and nobody has any real argument against it. Secondly, the way I see it, if Rees-Mogg does become leader of the Tories, he may eventually have to moderate his own public position on the matter.

I’m also concerned with the idea of another old-fashioned Etonian running the Tory party, which has been dogged by a nasty reputation as a party of Etonians for a long time, and David Cameron’s tenure only exacerbated this. However, I think Rees-Mogg will get by the same way he became a viral sensation, through the way he composes himself in debates and on public appearances. It also helps that he’s actually attracting potential voters. He may very well be the kryptonite to Jeremy Corbyn’s chances of victory in the next election, possibly because he talks to people instead of talking down to them. An actually right-wing leader of the party, which Rees-Mogg would be, would present an actual alternative to Corbynite socialism, one that the voters could believe in.

Of course, this is all presumption. In politics things have a nasty habit of changing when you least expect it. But I think it’s possible, and at any rate I would be in favour of Jacob Rees-Mogg leading the Tory party, not least because his growing popularity is spooking the left. Sites like The Canary and The New Statesman are apparently struggling to comprehend Rees-Mogg’s popularity, and are quick to demonise #Moggmentum as a “cult of personality”. And I suppose Jeremy Corbyn doesn’t have a cult of personality. Corbyn has the biggest cult of personality in British politics. Nobody on the left dares question the messianic cult of personality surrounding Corbyn, but if somebody on the right has that kind of support, somehow that disturbs them. That tells me that Rees-Mogg is the perfect candidate to lead the Tory party. Not only does he actually believe in Brexit, but he also has far more personality than the Maybot could ever offer, and his popularity upsets the right amount of people. I don’t think it’s likely he’ll lead the party, but I hope this #Moggmentum lasts longer than just a few months.

Around the horseshoe in 80 days

posobiec

Guest starring Jack Posobiec

Well, well, well, if it isn’t Jack Posobiec again. As if I already despised him for playing the race card in the wake of last month’s #FireOliver fiasco, it looks like the Rebel Media’s Washington D.C. correspondent had to ratchet up his obnoxiousness on Friday by interrupting a rendition of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, which he and fellow activist Laura Loomer attempted to shut down the play due to it having a scene in which a character resembling Donald Trump is murdered, which they believe to be “an act of political violence against the right”. After Loomer was escorted out, Posobiec himself likened the audience the Nazi’s, and yelled “Goebbels would be proud” until he himself was escorted out.

Does this sound familiar? Remember when social justice warriors would try to shut down speeches held by Milo Yiannopoulos? Remember how often far-leftists were labelling all of us who opposed them as “Nazis”, cast Breitbart’s owner Steven Bannon as the new Joseph Goebbels, and accused conservatives of normalising hate? Well now you have right-wing idiots acting exactly like the left. Good job Jack, you’re really helping us out by acting like the people we despise. If we ever needed more proof of the existence of horseshoe theory, we finally have it. Posobiec is so bad that most conservatives have distanced itself from him, and even the far-right Richard Spencer can’t stand him or Laura Loomer.

While we’re at it, there have always been some very shady characters in our ranks. In the eighties and the nineties you had the Moral Majority, a bunch of one-nation Christian moralists disguised as Reaganite conservatives. In the 2000’s you had people like Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck, neo-con pundits who exploited the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to artificially generate loyalty to the fake conservatism of the Bush administration, and draw ratings and make money of off easily suckered partisan Republicans. Today you have InfoWars, Jack Posobiec, and other tabloid online personalities who use our real outrage to make a fast buck. Don’t believe me? Soon after the incident the Rebel Media promoted a campaign called “Free Laura”, a crowdfunding campaign to help fund Laura Loomer’s legal defence team. The problem is that the domain for the campaign website was apparently set up a few hours before Loomer and Posobiec interrupted the play. The domain also appears to have been registered by Ezra Levant, the founder of The Rebel Media.

If this screen shot is proof of anything, it’s that Posobiec, Loomer and Levant colluded in order to create a scene of fake outrage as a prelude to a campaign in which Loomer can make money off of partisan conservatives. What I’m saying is that Laura Loomer got herself arrested on purpose in order to justify scamming people. Doesn’t this sound anything like the time Anita Sarkeesian lied about harassment threats from Gamergaters in order to make money off fellow social justice warriors and pimp her own name on the mass media? And before people on the right complain, this is exactly the same principle. It’s the same kind of con job that we saw from the left.

Unlike in the left, however, Rebel Media’s followers don’t seem to tolerate this kind of crap. In any of their videos that has anything to do with the incident involving Laura Loomer, you will find many in the comments section telling them that this is immoral, that they are acting just like the left. It’s great that so many people are calling out people like Jack Posobiec and Laura Loomer because it means we are not as unprincipled as the hard left. We despise people like them because they are scumbags, and their actions undermine the very cause they profess to be a part of.

It’s not as though they’re the only right-wingers acting like leftists. Paul Joseph Watson, a man who trades in sensationalism, blamed the Weis Market Massacre on social justice ideology, when there was flimsy evidence at best to suggest that he was motivated by ideology. Lauren Southern isn’t completely innocent either, and on that note, what the hell is she doing shacking up with Génération Identitaire? She may not be a con artist, but she certainly abandoned her journalistic integrity by effectively becoming an activist. Is this why she left the Rebel Media? If so, she didn’t really need to. After all, the Rebel Media is currently stuffed with activists posing as journalists, especially now that Tommy Robinson has been inducted into the family.

For moderate conservatives, even those who like these guys, I must ask one simple question. Is this really the future you want for the right? Do you want the right to become just another variation of the left? If you want conservatism to win the battle of ideas, you will not do it by acting like the left, and if you’re going start quoting Rules for Radicals to try and disprove me, the very fact that you have to quote Saul Alinsky to justify yourself proves that you’re operating from the left’s playbook. If you want people to think that you are a good alternative to the left, you must distance yourself from the loony con artists within your ranks, as thankfully many have. If not, then the culture war will merely manifest in another pendulum swing from the crazy left to the crazy right, and we will have accomplished nothing because nothing will change. We’d simply be repeating the 2000’s when the neo-cons were in charge.

Leftists’ trust in government sounds exactly like blind faith in God

big govt

Cartoon by Bob Gorrell

One thing I’ve noticed about people on the left, whether it be the moderate left or the far-left, is that one of their defining attributes is their faith in the state to look after everyone, particularly the poor and the downtrodden. How terribly naive. Big government has been responsible for keeping the poor where they are, giving generous welfare handouts to keep them satisfied and discouraging social mobility in the process. It leeches from ordinary hard-working citizens with high taxes, but hey, the government takes care of us, right?

I find it bizarre and sometimes disturbing that the left, which once championed individual freedom, is the side of the political spectrum that favours a society in which people are dependant on the state. I would have thought that a truly progressive society would see people less dependant on the state, but apparently not. More to the point, it’s disturbingly odd how leftists can maintain their faith in big government despite its repeated failures. Recent history offers many examples of the failures of big government, from the “War on Poverty” to the Great Recession, and yet whenever big government fails, the left blames capitalism and calls for more government controls. Instead of punishing the failures of big government, somehow the left wants to reward this failure.

The problem is that big government has become the left’s new god. Even when leftists disagree on minor details, one of the few doctrines they are united on is that it’s the government’s job to look after people. Leftists have adopted the same kind of blind faith in big government as fundamentalist Christians do in God, and both expect the same level of obeisance from others. For example, leftists seem to believe that government is responsible for deciding what it is morally right or wrong. That sounds a lot like the classic fundie Christian claim that God is responsible for morality. To believe such a thing requires you to have no faith in individuals to decide for themselves what is right and wrong.

In this regard, I think it comes from a generally negative view of human nature. Dennis Prager once said that leftists believe that human nature is fundamentally good, so they believe society is the problem. I think he was wrong on this one, because what I’ve seen from leftists hints that they have a generally poor view of human nature. They seem to have come to the conclusion that mankind is incapable of making “morally correct” choice, and need the state to force them into the right direction. The best opportunity to get a glimpse into their worldview happens during an election or referendum whenever the result doesn’t go their way. They quickly turn their rage towards the “ignorant masses” who voted the right into power, and often denouncing democracy altogether.

Leftists also have such great faith in government that they think it ought to be in charge of everything, from education to banks, from parenting to agriculture, from businesses to healthcare, from cradle to grave. They see the government as the great provider, master of the weather, the divine all-father and all such nonsense. The problem is that the government cannot be trusted to look after us, or to serve our interests, especially when it gets too big. Ever notice that whenever you have to deal with a state-owned service, such as the NHS or the DVLA, you’re usually forced to wait an ungodly amount of time before you’re dealt with, and you have to put up with generally shoddy service. This is because a state-owned corporation doesn’t have to satisfy its customers in order to turn a profit, because such entities get their revenue from your taxes. No matter how badly they perform, you always have to foot the bill for their mere existence. In contrast, private firms, who don’t rely on the taxpayer, have to satisfy their customers, or else they’ll go out of business.

Because leftists want the government to have control over your lives, they despise anything that helps you to be less reliant on the state. Take the traditional, two-parent family model for instance. With two competent and loving parents, children have a better chance at doing well during their education, and growing up into well-adjusted adults who are gainfully employed and go on to get married themselves, and are less likely to live on benefits. Leftists despise this notion of a stable family. They want more people on welfare so they can say that they are the champions of the poor, even though they are the ones whose policies trap them in a vicious circle.

It has been proven by countless academic reports and studies that children who grow up in broken families are more likely to do poorly in education, and less likely to be employed and more likely to live on welfare as a result. They also end up being more likely to become criminals, go to jail, and if they get married, more likely to repeat the cycle of bad parenting as a result. This is a widely known fact, and yet the left denies this, claiming that such facts are offensive to single mothers.

Leftists also despise school choice, because they believe that public schools are the best way to educate your children. This is a system in which children are forced by law to attend an institution in which attempts to program their education according to national curriculum, and in a manner which ignores the individual needs of children, and expects that all children who pass through it come out the same. Public schools aren’t so much schools as they are factories designed to produce human livestock with, ideally, enough qualifications to merit employment in low-level jobs. It is a system that is designed to crush your children’s hopes and dreams, and yet leftists always rush to its defence whenever anyone dares to suggest reform or alternatives. Take grammar schools for example. The only reason leftists are so dismissive of grammar schools is that they don’t like competition.

But why do they turn to the defence of state-owned institutions in spite of their record of failure? It’s because of their cult-like faith in government, which traps them in rose-tinted lens. For their policies to make any sense requires the view that humans are predisposed to altruism, and that the government is beyond corruption. Real life doesn’t pan out that way. Humans are inherently motivated by self-interest, and power is always a corrupting influence. This is why you cannot trust government to look after you, and the people who do trust in government come across as a new kind of priestly caste, with government as the one true God.

Because we cannot trust government to look after us, we must keep it small enough that it performs its basic functions, and not allow it to grow so big that it has control of our very lives. The smaller the government, the more freedom we have in society, and the less corrupt it can get, and the more money you save under it. The bigger the government, the more money you lose under it, the more freedom is stripped away, and the more corrupt it becomes. The believers in big government can ignore reality all they want, but it’s only a matter of time before their beloved state becomes so big and authoritarian that it eventually turns on them, and they will find that their faith has been misplaced.

James Hodgkinson and the zeitgeist of faux heroism

So earlier today, a man from Illinois marched his way to the Eugene Simpson Stadium Park in Alexandria, Virginia, where several Republican congressman were something called the Congressional Baseball Game. He opened fire and shot five Republicans, including the house majority whip Steve Scalise, who was shot in the hip, but thankfully is still alive. Eventually the gunman was identified as one James T. Hodgkinson, who was revealed to be a hardcore progressive who supported Bernie Sanders’ campaign, vindicating anyone who guessed that he had a political motive for trying to kill them. As a matter of fact, he was a member of a number of left-wing Facebook groups, including the far-left “Terminate the Republican Party”, a partisan Democrat group whose members will undoubtedly deny condoning violence against conservatives.

Of course, some of us on the right have learned to expect this sort of thing to happen at some point or another. The media has spent nearly two years casting Donald Trump as the cream of evil, the next Lord Voldemort if you will, and his Republican cabinet as a shadowy cabal of assorted villains. No doubt many leftists young and old have swallowed this narrative wholesale, and now see themselves as #TheResistance. The new Dumbledore’s Army, the last hope in the mythical battle of love versus hate. Such delusions inevitably give these leftists power fantasies of rising up against the government and hopefully killing Donald Trump, or at least as many Republican politicians as possible. So it’s no wonder why you have a number of Democrat supporters going violent, or at least calling for it, and yet it’s the Republicans who are supposed to be hateful.

Consider for instance Kathy Griffin’s recent stunt, in which she posted an edgy photo of herself holding the bloodied, decapitated head of an effigy of Donald Trump. People were naturally outraged, and when people found out that Trump’s youngest son Barron thought it was really him, not even CNN wanted anything to do with her, and she was promptly barred from appearing in their annual New Year’s Eve program. Some have said that Mr. Hodgkinson may have been inspired or at leased incensed by Kathy Griffin’s stunt, but because he’s now dead, there’s no way we can ever know for certain, and so it’s basically a coincidence. I only brought it up because she has become a prime example of the hatefulness of the left today. They are so fixated on Donald Trump, and how they’d like to kill him. It reminds me eerily of how the British left during the 1980’s treated Margaret Thatcher, and then someone tried to kill her in 1984.

We live in a time where many of us grew up with a black and white view of the world, as reinforced by pop cultural artefacts such as the Harry Potter films, along with the tribalism of contemporary politics as interpreted by the mainstream left-wing media. In such a culture, the leftie college student may consider himself a hero simply by joining the campus branch of Antifa. After all, through their pop culture-addled leftist lens, Donald Trump is the ultimate bad guy now, and anyone who opposes him is a friend in the “fight against evil” (evidently they’ve never known true evil). It used to be that said tribalism was confined to heated arguments and the odd filibuster. Now you have Democrats calling for bloodshed out in the open, and people honestly wonder where people like James Hodgkinson came from? They came from the anti-Trump frenzy that the neoliberal establishment has created.

When the US media spends nearly two years painting Donald Trump as the next Lord Voldemort, it’s only a matter of time before the lunatic left casts themselves as Dumbledore’s army, and forget that this isn’t Hogwarts. This fake sense of “heroism” is merely a guise for the left’s rampant narcissism, and 2017 has so far has been the year in which such narcissism is leading to terrible consequences. I know Hodgkinson was a man in his 60’s, but he clearly inculcated himself into the worldview of a child. Usually people abandon the notion that the people you disagree with politically are automatically the villains when they get older, but this is what far-left ideology does to people. It turns you into an adult toddler, at least in the mental sense.

So it should be no surprise that America now has progressive assassins potentially waiting in the wings. They’re delusional worldview has been validated by the establishment media and Hollywood celebrities who are telling them it’s okay to wish for the death of conservatives. After all, we’re the new Little Eichmanns aren’t we? Those willing accomplices in the transformation of the republic into a fascist dictatorship by the hands of a Cheetoh man in collusion with the Russians. That’s how they want people to see us, and in their minds, that justifies people wanting to kill Republican politicians.

I take two things away from this. Firstly that we need to a better job at raising the next generation, so that they don’t succumb to the fatal narcissism that the left prescribes as it loses its way. Secondly, assuming progressive ideology was Mr. Hodgkinson’s prime motive for the attempted attack, we must now come to the conclusion that progressivism has become a thing of pure malevolence – an ideology that requires its adherents to kill in order to preserve its existence. At least we know for sure that the progressive apple doesn’t fall very far from the Marxist tree.

My call for civility, and why we had the best possible result

civility

Cartoon by Dave Granlund

On the night of the election, I took to Facebook to express my desire for civility. At that time, I thought the Tories were destined for an increased majority, and worried that we would yet again see the British left acting like a cornered animal, and proclaim that the voters have ruined the country by re-electing the Tories. Believing my Facebook feed would be flooded with anti-Tory diatribes from people who militantly can’t accept the outcome of the election, I wrote a long post wherein I called for people to accept the outcome the election, and to not alienate their friends because of their political differences.

Predictably, I didn’t alienate anyone, because I didn’t reveal my voting intentions. However, I wound up drawing the ire of an acquaintance who turned out to be some kind of far-left, pessimistic Labour supporter who believes that we should be angry at people who vote the “wrong” way, but honestly believes that the Tories will take democracy away. Oh, but a Marxist Labour leader won’t? She doesn’t even cite any evidence for this to be the case, which quickly descended into the false equivalency between Trump and Hitler, which has been debunked countless times already. The whole case basically amounted to someone who has such little faith in humanity that her solution to the proposed problem is to take away that right to choose to vote left or right.

The fact that her position was untenable was not the problem. The problem is that she un-added me from Facebook immediately after posting, not even waiting for me to counter that argument, and there you have the crux of what I was talking about in that post – people dismissing others for not having the same political opinions as you. I wasn’t even endorsing anyone, and even though I ended up voting UKIP, I didn’t suggest that people should have voted for them. It seems to me that we live in such polarised times that even posting something neutral gets you some flack.

Even though I aimed my post at Labour voters (who I thought would be the ones crying all over Facebook), I calling for people of all sides to accept the outcome of the election no matter what, and be completely civil about their disagreements. Evidently that virtue is long dead in today’s world, where people can choose to sequester themselves into ideological ghettos. It’s this sort of problem that makes it hard for people to have any sort of political discussion. Nobody really had a problem with my statement. In fact, the only people who might have had a problem with the sentiment I expressed were the far-left. They can’t handle civility, because they can’t really push their agenda in a society where everyone gets along. They depend on people being fragmented into political tribes so they can put their agenda forward, and it saddens me to see how many people (particularly the young) eat it up every single time.

Moving on from that, people aren’t so much hostile about the Tories winning the election so much as the idea that the Tories will form a pact with the DUP. They’re convinced that the DUP are a bunch of far-right Christian fundamentalists who want to turn back the clock on gay rights and abortion, but when I ask what they plan to do in government that’s anti-gay, nobody can answer me, at least not by heart. In Northern Ireland they block gay marriage using something called “the petition of concern”, but I have no reason to believe they’ll attempt this in mainland Britain. The DUP are no threat to civil liberties. For one, they only have ten seats in Parliament, all of them in Northern Ireland. Second, they’ve made crystal clear that they’ll only bolster the Tories on key issues, such as the economy and security.

Third, this is the only workable option the Tories have. What coalition would you prefer? A Tory-SNP coalition? The only thing it’ll do is weaken the government’s stance on Brexit. Would you prefer another Con-Dem coalition? Well you can forget about that because Tim Farron himself ruled out. Or maybe you prefer a rainbow coalition with Labour and any willing left-wing parties. Mathematically that would be impossible. For it to work requires either Labour having won 20 more seats, or the SNP keeping at least 50. Neither outcome happened, and if they tried it now, they wouldn’t be able to make up a majority. It would still be a minority government, and an illegitimate one considering that Labour were the losers in the election. So when Theresa May says that her pact with DUP is the only workable option, she’s correct. I don’t like it, but I have to take it. It’s called having a stiff upper lip. I thought we Brits were good at that.

Besides, in retrospect this is the best result we could hope for. Having the lost the majority, Theresa May has lost the ability to carry out the worst policies in her manifesto, which, to me at least, means that her plans to censor the internet, which were already unworkable to begin with, may yet be blocked in Parliament, all because the young people voted for Labour in droves because the Tories were coming after their porn. As for Labour, we may now have a strong left-wing opposition to the Tories, and that means the dreaded age of austerity may finally come to an end as Labour will undoubtedly oppose any new austerity measures the Tories try to put through. It also means that fox hunting is as good as dead, and the old people won’t have to suffer Theresa’s unbelievably vampiric social care plans.

Beyond that, the result proves that, even though we’ve come back to two-party politics, people are getting tired of the old establishment politics. The Tories will have to do much better than they have in order to defeat Jeremy Corbyn the next time (even though I think at this point a Labour government in 2022 might be inevitable). It also proves that Brexit isn’t the only thing on people’s mind, that the electorate aren’t a bunch of single-issue voters who the left and the right can simply appease with worthless platitudinal slogans. In a way, it also proves that democracy is alive and well, with the Tories now in a position where they actually have to face opposition.

This will be the last election-related post I make, being as I’m getting exhausted from election politics, and I’d like to write about some topics that I’ve not been able to for a while.

Why Theresa May is done for

For better or worse, Theresa May managed to survive the calamitous failure of her 2017 election campaign, which led to her leading a minority government propped up by the DUP. I have to give her credit for at least managing to keep Jeremy Corbyn out of power, but she should enjoy her marginal success while it lasts. After this failure of an election campaign, her career may as well be over. After this campaign, she has weakened her hand significantly, and in a minority government, she has lost all authority and credibility that she barely had before then.

How is she doomed? Well for starters, she basically killed her own campaign. She set out to commit blue murder on the opposition, but she ended up shooting herself in the foot instead. All the more damning was that she practically convinced her fellow Tories that she had it in the bag. They were hoping that she would lead them back into a large majority, giving them the mandate they need to do whatever they wanted. Now that she failed, I imagine that there are now a number of Tory MP’s looking for her head on a silver platter.

There’s already talk of a possible leadership contest in the near future. It’s mainly speculation, but it’s not entirely groundless. Now that Theresa May appears to have been weakened, it’s likely that other Tory MPs may try to undermine her, and if the time is right, they might launch a leadership coup against her, just like Labour’s MP’s tried to with Jeremy Corbyn just last year. It’s not an incredibly likely scenario, but it’s not impossible.

The way I see it, even if Theresa May survives the rest of the year in Downing Street, she’ll basically spend what I assume will be her final term lurching from one crisis to another until she is eventually either taken down, or loses the election to Labour, which I believe they will because from here on out the people will see the Tories as emperors with no clothes. The legitimacy of the Tories has been undermined so badly that the stench of failure will haunt the next government.

And then there’s the European question. In this election, the Tories have drawn blood, and like the sharks that they are, the EU leaders will likely smell that weakness, and attempt to exploit that. If Theresa May were somehow able to hardball the EU despite her weakened position, it could perhaps restore people’s faith in her, and that might translate into better electoral performance. However, there will be Tory MP’s who don’t like her approach to Brexit, some of them may have been re-elected.

Of course, even with her successes, she will be remembered for this year’s seismic election, and by extension, her failure to campaign, which has exposed her failure as a campaigner, but also her arrogance. She honestly believed that the election was her’s to win, and that the people would accept that either vote for her and give her a strong majority or we’d have a coalition of chaos. Well as the old saying goes, pride goes before destruction, and in the end, the arrogance of a politician or a party will inevitably be punished by the electorate. In fact, the Tories did so badly that it makes Diane Abbott look more competent by comparison (incidentally, she was re-elected by her constituents in a landslide).

For me, there is really no other way of looking at Theresa May’s career other than through such a pessimistic lens, because that’s the truth. She’s over. She’s overplayed her hand, she’s weakened her own party, and she may well have crippled Brexit, while handing power to her opposition. At this rate, she’s doomed. If she manages to stay in power for the rest of the 2010’s, that in itself will be an accomplishment, but she will perhaps be remembered as one of the worst Prime Ministers in history, single-handedly alienating everyone that she could. As for Brexit, this is perhaps the best result that the slimy pro-European Tories could hope for, and they will have the opportunity to do to her what they did to Margaret Thatcher in 1990.