Three Proofs That UK Elections Even Weirder Than Here

By William K. Black
Quito: May 6, 2015

UK elections are ultra-quick, so tomorrow is Election Day. As the electorate prepares to go to the polls three acts of insanity have struck. The first answers the question: what do British bankers do when their ethical standards fall so low that they are unfit to serve as bankers even in the corrupt culture of banking that dominates the City? They run for Parliament as candidates for the racist UKIP. UKIP, of course, objects to the characterization, so let’s have Robert Blay explain the concept in his own words (but with the obscenities slightly masked). Blay was a Tory (Conservative Party) before joining UKIP. The context is that he is running for a seat against a Tory hotshot named Ranil Jayawardena. The Mirror describes Blay’s rage at Jayawardena, his former Tory colleague.

Former bank accountant Blay, 55, who used to be a member of the Conservative Party, told our reporter that Jayawardena had been tipped to potentially be the country’s first British Asian Prime Minister.

And in a vile and shocking outburst, he raged: “If he is I will personally put a bullet between his eyes.

“If this lad turns up to be our Prime Minister I will personally put a bullet in him. That’s how strong I feel about it.

“I won’t have this f***** as our Prime Minister. I absolutely loathe him.”

The shocking remarks were made to a Daily Mirror investigator at a public meeting on Saturday attended by party leader Nigel Farage.

A UKIP spokesman said tonight: “”Mr Blay has been suspended with immediate effect”.

Lest the reader rush to judgment against Blay and UKIP, consider first Blay’s explanation of why he is moved to assassinate the hypothetical Prime Minister.

Blay added: “His (Jayawardena’s) family have only been here since the Seventies. You are not British enough to be in our parliament.

“I’ve got 400 years of ancestry where I live. He hasn’t got that.

See, it has nothing to do with his opponent being of Tamil descent, it’s the fact that his great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather wasn’t born in the UK. Or, as Blay went on to explain:

Blay went on: “His name’s Jayawardena and I’m told that name is a Tamil name. Well the Tamils were Indians which went to Sri Lanka to take it over and they got their asses kicked. So he comes here, ponces off us and then his son’s in our political system.”

In another shocking rant, Blay suggested Jayawardena, whose parents are from Sri Lanka, had deliberately made his wife pregnant in order to win votes.

He added: “He’s [Jayawardena] 29 years old. He’s got his missus to drop a kid just before the Election.

“He’s planned the birth of the child, there’s no doubt about that. He’s a slippery b******. I’ve worked with him in the Tories.”

So, now we know that Blay’s relatives first came to the UK 400 years ago – from somewhere in Outer Space. There is also the small fact that the Tamils in Sri Lanka were known for their incredible military tenacity and skills against huge odds, so the whole butt kicking meme is contrary to the facts, but putting the words “facts” and “Blay” in the same sentence can only produce internal discord.

It is good to know that Blay is an expert on the intersection of menstrual and Tory political cycles and the foresight necessary to “drop a kid just before the Election.” The phrase “ponces off us” is a UKIP insult of the kind Mitt Romney used to denounce the “47%” of the American population he was writing off as parasites. One can only feel the deepest empathy for Blay’s rage about the horrible burdens he had to personally bear as a result of Jayawardena’s father’s emigration to the UK to become an accountant (like Blay). What a burden the father’s substantial tax payments to the UK must have placed on Blay – whose ancestors came to the UK centuries earlier than the dread Tamils.

Critics may consider Blay lacking in self-awareness as to the concept of “abuse.”

During his chat with our reporter, Blay also described how he called the police following a heated row with an East European voter after he stuck a UKIP election leaflet through his door.

“He’s in my country,” Blay fumed: “He’s a f****** immigrant and I’m not putting up with that s***, because that was abuse.”

Blay’s lack of self-awareness brings me to the second way in which the UK elite make even the fringe GOP candidates for the presidential nomination look like statesmen and women. The leadership of the three largest (until the election) UK parties (the Tories, Labour, and Lib-Dems) are denouncing the voters in Scotland for favoring candidates from the Scottish National Party (SNP). If the polls are accurate, the SNP will emerge as the third largest party after the Lib-Dems’ act of political suicide in serving as the powerless, junior coalition partners that put the Tories in power.

Conservative newspapers in the UK are having a field day picturing the Scots in cartoons they once reserved for the Irish – the monstrous, lazy, and greedy “other” coming to take over England. Readers may recall that a few scant months ago the same troika of UK parties was expressing its love and respect for Scots and their desire to create a political union in which Scots would be treated as first-class citizens of the “Union.” Labour is urging Tories and Lib-Dem supporters in Scotland to vote for Labour candidates to defeat the SNP.

And that brings us to the third way in which the UK elections bring out the UK crazy. John Major, former Tory PM, decided to blast out a broadside attacking the vile Scots and the perfidious Labour Party for being willing to make them a coalition partner should the election lead to no party having a majority. Major warned that if Labour went into coalition with the now dominant Scottish party (SNP) it would destroy the UK. In the midst of this attack on the Scots and Labour, however, Major brought down a broadside of criticism of the failures of the Tories. In particular, Major wants even more severe austerity – while warning that it is causing extreme inequality. Meanwhile, Labour, rather than attack the Tories for inflicting a gratuitous second recession on the UK through austerity – is promising (and etching, albeit in vague terms on a huge granite slab, with all the accompanying jokes about Moses) to inflict permanent austerity on the UK.

The UK, you will recall, fortunately rejected the idiocy of Tony Blair’s effort to get them to adopt the incompetently designed euro. The UK still has a sovereign currency (the pound). The UK, therefore, has no excuse for following such an economically illiterate policy of austerity while the economy is far below its productive capacity. Labour, however, is proud that it is embracing the economically illiterate practice of austerity. The Lib-Dems and the Tories are also proud of their support of austerity. The only major party that is economically literate is the dread SNP. The two big things that Labour, the Tories, and the Lib-Dems publicly agree on are (1) the need to inflict austerity on the UK and (2) the evil of the Scots. Of course, they still despise the Irish and the Welsh, but at the moment the Scots have taken the lead in the race to be the “most feared Celts.”

The three major parties are then stunned that the Scots favor the SNP. Damn ingrates!

The least charming aspect of the Brits over the centuries is that they not only want to rule much of the world – they think it is terribly bad form that the w*** don’t get up every morning and praise G-d that the Brits’ rule their land. Americans, of course, chose independence. If the Scots eventually choose independence it will be because they observe the scorn and spite that the three major English parties and their media enforcers turn on the Scots whenever they begin to stand up like adults to the bullies.

6 responses to “Three Proofs That UK Elections Even Weirder Than Here

  1. Thomas Bergbusch

    Bill Black’s characterisation of the three main parties is at par with Blay’s comments in terms of racism — you won’t find Labour declaiming about the supposed “evil of the Scots”, nor criticising the Welsh (that is Prof. Black’s invention — he sounds as biased as the upper-class Ecuadorean critics of Correa that he constantly criticises). The SNP is quite as racist as UKIP, and perhaps less democratic, as the SNPers recent treatment of Jim Murphy and Eddy Izzard recently demonstrated. SNP quickly expelled several offending party members, just as UKIP expelled Blay, and yet Prof. Black contents himself with criticizing UKIP, whose economics alone among the parties in the running are stock-flow consistent. Xenophobia is always wrong, but knee-jerk anti-Britishism is just as predjudiced as philo-celtic separatism. It is enough to lament the lack of democractic spirit and honesty on economic matters of all the parties in the running, SNP included. SNP, after all, has been telling Scots that they would have control over monetary policy and be able to keep the pound if Scotland separates. Again, a double standard from Prof. Black, who criticizes EURO elites and Greek oligarchs for maintaining the Greeks in monetary servitude, but fails to criticize the SNP when it promotes identical policies to those of the Troika. I love Prof. Black’s work, on the whole, but this piece fails even minimum standards for balance and impartiality in reporting.

  2. Peter Mountford-Smith

    Bill, I’m a little surprised that you say the SNP is the only economically literate party.

    In the referendum last year, they actively dumbed-down the level of discussion with their line about “it’s Scotland’s pound too”, in response to being told that the rest of the UK would not enter into a formal currency union. By saying they would use the pound anyway, they made out there was no difference between a currency union and shadowing another currency, and many of their supporters therefore assumed this must be so. Critical questioning of this was largely dismissed as either bias or bullying. They also discounted having a Scottish currency, but proposed in effect borrowing in another country’s currency to fund their projected spending plans. This doesn’t seem to me to be an approach a proponent of MMT would recommend.

    In this election, they are presenting themselves as adamantly opposed to the mad austerity policies of the other main parties, but as the IFS points out in the link below (pdf),

    Their projected figures are pretty similar to those of the Labour Party, but with a little less austerity in years 1-4 and a lot more in year 5. You’d never think it, to hear them talk.

    Under their plans for full fiscal autonomy, when it was pointed out that there is a pretty large gap in their projected national income and expenditure (based on the Scottish Government’s figures), the response was that they would deal with this by achieving a rate of growth about four times that of the rest of the UK, by cutting taxes on businesses and other measures. Oh, right.

    For many of their supporters, independence is primarily an emotional rather than logical issue. Fair enough. But that doesn’t mean the rest of us should take their rhetoric at face value.

  3. Peter Mountford-Smith

    nb quote has gone wrong, the sentence starting “Their projected figures…” is me, the actual quote is the other 2 paras in italics. Sorry.

  4. Peter Mountford-Smith

    Sorry, the whole quote has gone wrong, the italics are my words, and the actual IFS quote is:

    “The SNP’s fiscal numbers imply the same reduction in borrowing over the
    next parliament as for Labour, although the reduction in borrowing under
    their plans would be slower. They would cut less to start with but the
    implication of the plans they have spelt out in their manifesto is that the
    period of austerity would be longer than under the other three parties we
    consider. Their tax takeaways appear to be offset by their tax giveaways,
    while they would increase the generosity of the social security system. As a
    result, while the SNP would increase total spending in real terms each year,
    departmental spending would be broadly frozen between 2014— 15 and
    2019— 20, and departmental spending outside of the NHS and aid could be
    facing a cut of 4.3%. The SNP’s stated plans do not necessarily match their
    anti-austerity rhetoric.”

  5. I wouldn’t agree. The SNP are supposedly anti austerity but when you look at their plans it is not much different and the support of the ‘currency board’ shows a lot of them are economically illiterate.
    Sectoral balance data shows UK private sector net dissaved in Q4 2014. All parties are mad and want to reduce the “deficit” which should be called “net government cash injection (well, net financial assets.)”

  6. Pingback: Prime Minister Cameron's "Southern Strategy" Wins (and Loses) - New Economic PerspectivesNew Economic Perspectives