Cameron, despicable arsehole that he is, has suggested that he might cut the benefits of activists (FT, but behind the paywall).
This is strongly suggestive of megalomania on an epic scale – he truly believes his critics must be punished!
But what constitutes an activist in his mind?
I’ve been highly critical of him and his bunch of chancers since very shortly after the election, does that make me an activist in his eyes? (It does in mine – I’m housebound, words are all I have, and I’m doing what I do best…).
Or does he mean those who take to the streets? In which case how can he possibly know who they are (especially as many simply aren’t on benefits anyway)? Though I felt very strongly, at the time, that those disabled people who were, admirably, putting themselves on the front line were seriously putting their benefits at risk, not least since many were named, or named themselves, on Twitter, FB, and elsewhere.
And bloggers are a very easy target, too.
And if he gets away with it, who’s next? Journalists? Many have, after all, been critical of both Cameron and his policies (though, some might say, not critical enough, and I’d agree). What plans does he have to silence them?
Or the unions?
Or the very many people who are clearly not activists but are moved to write in protest to the newspapers, or post comments on blogs. What of them?
The bottom line, though – despite the fact that numbnuts Daily Mail readers will be wetting themselves with excitement at the idea – is that punishing someone for being critical of Cameron and his incompetent government, and/or doing so on a march, is not legal, not by any stretch of even his febrile imagination, and of all the rights we have in this country, the right to criticise our politicians, and hold them to account, is one which must be protected at all costs.
If Cameron feels he has a case against his critics, well, that’s what the courts are for, not the blatant abuse of the benefits system for his personal gratification.