Archive for the ‘Tories’ category

Share the Facts about Ed Miliband’s silly face

With the 2015 General Election less distant than it’s ever been, it’s time for facts. And don’t worry, the Conservatives have lots of facts on their social media campaign, Share the Facts.

Because you can’t pay people money to vote, the Conservatives are instead offering slightly pathetic rewards (including limited edition mugs, window stickers and badges!!!) to plebs, in exchange for sharing Tory promotional materials online. It has a leaderboard and everything. Unfortunately, to see that, you have to sign in with your Facebook account, and, frankly, fuck that shit: our journalistic integrity runs out at handing the keys to our social media over to the 33rd Duke of Beafberger and a spotty kid with a Foundation Degree in Social Media Marketing.

Nonetheless, we would like to share with you some of the facts from Share the Facts.


It’s important to emphasise that everything on this poster is facts. It’s facts that Ed Miliband’s goofy, distorted face is your worst nightmare, and that him having reconstructive surgery to correct his stretched face would make an already harrowing nocturnal hallucination worse. It’s also facts that the SNP would definitely prop up Ed Miliband—perhaps holding him steady whilst the surgeons perform the delicate facial restoration—and that an Ed Miliband with a normal face would mean chaos for Britain. Chaos. We must not let him acquire a normal face. Facts.


Here, Share the Facts asks you to share a fact that a Labour Lord has said. But only this one fact. Don’t share the fact that he also said:


Actually, do share that. Share them both, and demonstrate that, even if you don’t get a drinks coaster out of the deal, you understand that famous people often say words.


Fact: Ed Miliband has a huge hand growing at an awkward angle out of his chest.

Fact: his freak-hand can be used to emphasise points in his notes by writing them in a flawless facsimile of default Adobe font Myriad Pro.


In this fact, we are asked to imagine something. This is the first instance in which the Conservatives make it explicit that their fact isn’t, in fact, a fact. This is a thought experiment of a terrifying alternate reality, in which pressing a ‘pledge’ button to promise to vote will stop a specific man from becoming prime minister.

Is this the future of electronic democratic engagement? In 20 years’ time, will we see an unflattering picture of our political leaders imploring IMAGINE IF PRESSING PLEDGE MEANT ANYTHING, PLEDGE TO PLEDGE TODAY?


Do you remember the facts about 2002, when rampaging benefits tore down a shopping street in East London, leaving nothing but flaming piles of taxpayers’ money in their wake? Benefits were out of control, benefitting everyone whether they needed benefits or not. Platonic relationships everywhere broke down due to all friends suddenly having benefits.

It’s also facts that the Tories hope subtle wording changes carry significant weight: you’d be ‘under’ (the oppressive yet goofy yoke of?) Labour, but ‘with’ the Conservatives. Fact.


This fact contains two facts. Fact 1: bar graphs are really hard to make in the Tories’ favourite graphic design package. Fact 2: under the Conservatives, electioneering would not be capped; anyone can claim that benefits claimants claim more than is even vaguely plausible.

I mean, is that scale linear, logarithmic, or just plain bullshit?

Here’s the most critical fact: the Conservative Party are cack-handedly pursuing a populist and reductive campaigning strategy that will fail and be forgotten. Perhaps they should have called it the Big Societal Media.

Do we get 25 points for that?

Written by Statto and Tom

February 16, 2015 at 10:39

Posted in Ed Miliband, Labour, Tories

Dave on IS: Iraq my brain about this Syria’s problem

The war on terror is more than made-up threat levels and political posturing in one place in particular: Iraq. The UK committed forces to a war on the Islamic State (IS) after an astounding 524–43 Commons vote. (It’s hard to get a consensus about what to call IS/ISIL/ISIS, but apparently it’s easier to get MPs to agree that ISREALLYBAD. Boom boom.)

IS is clearly devastating the lives of local populations, as well as brutally executing westerners. But equally, war has unforeseeable consequences, sometimes creating legacies of dependency, destabilisation and/or hate. It’s complicated. Which is why it’s a relief to hear Home Secretary Theresa May saying:

Dealing with those threats requires a deep understanding of what is going on in the world and a studied, careful response.


A pick-up truck, similar to the bombed one, in that it has four wheels

That’s presumably why our opening salvo last week was to send two Tornado GR4 ground assault aircraft armed with Brimstone missiles to destroy a pick-up truck.

It is also presumably why, in the debate in Parliament that secured the staggering 481-strong majority, David Cameron laid out the studied, careful case for our response:

Isil is a terrorist organisation unlike those we have dealt with before. The brutality is staggering—beheadings, crucifixions, gouging out of eyes, use of rape as a weapon. This is about psychopathic terrorists who are trying to kill us. Like it or not they have already declared war on us.

Psychopathic terrorists!!! They’re trying to kill us! Do you like your eyes all non-gouged, in a head that is still attached to your body? Then it’s time to vote for an expensive foreign intervention with unclear objectives and indefinite length!

It’s disappointing: this man is the Prime Minister of an advanced economy which he’s just led into war with incredible haste, and yet his rhetoric is more over-blown than a light goods vehicle annihilated by a £175,000 missile.

Written by Statto and Tom

October 10, 2014 at 10:01

Terror review reviewed after terror levels levelled up


The threat from terrorism is so serious that MI5 didn’t even have time to make a proper graphic to illustrate how serious it is (© Crown Copyright 2014, MI5)

The BBC today reported:

Home Secretary Theresa May has abandoned plans to review the structure of counter-terrorism policing, because of the increased security threat level.

Weirdly, this sentence seems to imply that the security threat level is a measurable, objective variable—like unemployment in Q4 2013, or the weather in Stoke last Tuesday—as opposed to a made-up quantity controlled by Home Secretary Theresa May herself.

Another way to word this story is: at exactly the time when counter-terrorism has been arbitrarily deemed by the Home Secretary to be at its most important, we are going to emphatically not even check whether it could be done better.

So, when will we perform this review instead?

The plans have been shelved until after the general election.

Thank God that, whilst the terrorists might not respect our freedoms or our way of life, they do at least have the common decency to respect election cycles.

This delay couldn’t possibly be explained by governmental fear that, if the structure of counter-terrorism were changed and a terrorism then happened, that they would be blamed. Or by the cynical observation that, if they don’t change anything, no-one will be blamed, even if a terrorism happens, because it won’t be (quite possibly incorrectly) attributable to something having been changed.

Could simplistic media narratives scare the government more than terrorism?

Written by Tom and Statto

October 9, 2014 at 23:43

Posted in terrorism, Tories

Theresa may be an extremist

Theresa May

It is unfortunate that some members of a group will always extrapolate stereotyped, or even erroneous, beliefs of that group to undesirable and destructive ends. Some rise through the ranks and are able to use their charisma to win impressionable people over to their odious ideologies. Indeed, as the government said in its document Tackling extremism in the UK,

Extremists take advantage of institutions to share their poisonous narrative with others, particularly with individuals vulnerable to their messages.

And yet Theresa May, the Home Secretary, was still allowed to take the lectern at the Conservative Party conference to say

Where [British people who have gone to Iraq or Syria] have dual nationality, I have the power to deprive them of their British citizenship and keep them out of our country. Thanks to our recent Immigration Act, in certain circumstances I can do the same to naturalised British citizens and keep them out of the country too.

Mrs May has taken the generally laudable principle that we shouldn’t let people blow us up, and ended up granting herself permission to make British citizens stateless, in spite of the fact that it says that nowhere in the Bible, Qu’ran or Dave’s Bumper Book of British Values.

(Tories do seem to love denationalising things without evidence, but normally it’s trains, schools and prisons, rather than citizens.)

It is now actually a law that the Home Secretary can take away the nationality of naturalised Brits without needing to disclose any evidence of their extremism, which has essentially created two tiers of UK citizenship. We’re pretty sure that’s not a British value.

(The only caveat is that the Home Secretary has to have a ‘reasonable expectation’ that another country will take on the prospectively stateless person. So presumably, as long as the King of Swaziland continues his quest for new wives, any female ‘extremist’ will be denationalisable, as will any male ‘extremist’ for whom MI6 can find a plausible wig and dress.)

Tackling this kind of Conservatist extremism is one of the defining battles of our age, and we hope that moderate Conservatives will speak out against it.

A video of Mrs May’s speech was posted to online video site YouTube. ‘At this point we have no reason to doubt the authenticity of this video, or the seriousness of the threat,’ a security analyst from GCHQ told Headline Superheroes.

Written by Statto and Tom

October 6, 2014 at 16:13

Posted in terrorism, Tories

Cameron: Onwards Christians, soldiers

All Prime Minister David Cameron wants for Christmas is to be loved by his core constituents, so he’s decided to big up his previously ambivalent Christian faith, and mix it in with cheerleading for Our Boys, and damn the theological consequences! In his Christmas message, Cameron told Tory voters:

The Gospel of John tells us that [Jesus] was life, and that his life was the light of all mankind, and that he came with grace, truth and love. Indeed, God’s word reminds us that Jesus was the Prince of Peace. With that in mind, I would like to pay particular tribute to our brave servicemen and women who are overseas helping bring safety and security to all of us at home.

‘With that in mind’..? Sorry, what? Which exact argument has ‘Jesus’ as a premise, and ‘war in Aghanistan’ as its conclusion?

Clearly Dave was channeling one of Jesus’s most famous sayings: ‘when you are slapped on the cheek, you will realise that you’re an arse.’

A belated Merry Christmas, dear Headline Superheroes readers.

Written by Statto and Tom

December 29, 2012 at 20:45