Welcome to Terra Firm issue 11.

Most of the essays, articles and reviews in this issue have been written over the last three or four months. They would probably have been left to collect dust somewhere but we wanted to acknowledge diana's goodness, her fight against the brutish establishment, and her compassion towards Animals. Some of these articles touch on issues she would have understood - for example, the royal family's response to the dunblane massacre in which they so spectacularly dishonoured themselves, and the close connection between those who opposed the banning of handguns and the landowning political elite encouraging people to eat diseased beef. The most obvious unifying thread of this work is that it covers the dramatic trouncing of the conservative party and their nasty dogma of greed and xenophobia, and the equally dramatic trouncing of the monarchy and their nasty cult of barbarism.

PART ONE: ESSAYS

"Prince william has developed a craving for shooting Animals which has shocked his uncle prince andrew. The duke of york was walking his Dog in windsor great park when he noticed there was little sign of Wildlife. When he raised the subject with a park warden he was told, "That's because your nephew has been down here, sir. He's killed everything in sight. The warden told him william had shot dozens of Squirrels, Rabbits and Birds on several visits. One servant said, "Hunting is his passion." Wills has been using the private grounds of the park near the royal lodge, the queen mother's home. William recently killed his first Stag during a visit to balmoral."

Diana's Compassion for Oomans and Animals.

Having appeared in public life for the first time in september 1980 as a sweet, innocent, young teenager she left it almost exactly 17 years later as the world's biggest media personality dwarfing pop stars, hollywood celebrities and, to their great chagrin, leading members of the royal family. Haven't the media been right all along to realize the depth of the public's feelings for her? [1]

How things have changed.

The events during the week after diana's death were some of the most dramatic in recent brutish political history. In the late 1980s the monarchy was one of brutland's most stable and deeply rooted institutions. It seemed almost as unshakeable as the russian empire and the berlin wall. But within a matter of years, as a result of two divorces and a number of scandals, its relevance was being questioned to varying degrees by large sections of society. Over the last few years it seemed as if the decline in the monarchy's popularity had bottomed out but after diana's death it almost sank like the titanic, "The monarchy was on the brink of disaster as it listened to old but unwise heads and tried to swim against the tide." [2] Public support for the monarchy drained away almost by the minute and only diehard royalists would have been left if the windsors had carried out their plan to return to london on saturday morning for the funeral procession. The queen's refusal to respond to diana's death was one of the most revealing insights into the nature of the windsor family.

An Unforgettable Week.

In order to stop the colossal haemorrhage of support for the monarchy the windsors dramatically changed tact to win back their flagging support. First the royal walkabouts; then the queen's speech. Various commentators have been jumping to the windsors' defence, "At the beginning of last week, when the queen refused to fly flags over balmoral and buckingham palace at half mast and she refused to speak publicly on the subject of diana's death, i believed she might never recover. Her extraordinary last minute bow to public pressure by agreeing to talk to the nation came, i believe, just in time." [3] Some commentators have even come to the aid of the most unpopular royal, "We should show more compassion .. with prince charles." [4] .. "it seemed time to feel some sympathy for our much maligned future king." [5] This was followed by the extraordinary spectacle of the windsors thrusting diana's boys into the political limelight whilst claiming to be protecting them from exactly this phenomena. Through its vast network of state funded cronies and devoted royalists, the windsors began to capitalize upon the widespread sympathy for diana's two boys as their best hope of placating public hostility and thus ensuring the survival of the monarchy. One commentator argued, "With a few sensitive words and gestures, anti-royal sentiment was neutralized. And when the boys took that long, slow walk to westminster abbey, all talk of this country ditching the royal family at any time over the next century was made redundant." [6] If there's a tendency at one extreme to canonize diana there is, at the other, the hope that her death will generate so much sympathy for the two boys that the windsors will no longer have to face up to the problems beseiging them prior to her death - as if all their problems derived from her and her alone. It is important therefore to remember the truth about the entire windsor family no matter how unpleasant.

Charles married diana for the sake of having heirs to the throne - even though there was already a long dole queue of heirs biding their time. [7] Diana fell in love with charles only to discover he was having affairs with other women. Once she had borne him the children he needed he dumped her. The rest of the windsor's helped him to do this. They had become increasingly jealous of her popularity, they disapproved of her humanitarian zeal, and they disliked the way she was bringing up "their" children. Diana refused to adhere to the monarchy's suffocating, stuffy, stultifying, decrepit and outdated conventions. She also tried to protect her children from the corrupting impact of this dreadful family. At one point the fight got so desperate she felt she would have to smash the monarchy before it smashed her. The more good works she did, the more the windsor's loathed and detested her. Through their vast gossip machine, the windsor's fed the media with stories about diana which caused her considerable distress - in effect, they put her on the rack for years on end. [8]

If her humanitarianism infuriated the royal establishment, in the last year of her life it also created enemies amongst the political establishment. She infuriated many tory politicians by taking up the land mines issue. Tory ministers took it upon themselves to slag her off for being sickened at the sight of people being crippled by these redundant devices. But worst of all, what really outraged the country's savage, nasty, pampered, political elite was that she started dating the son of the man who, unjustly denied brutish citizenship for years, had been exposing the corruption within the brutish political establishment. Mohamed al-fayed had ruined the political careers of many tory mps from tim smith to, most spectacularly of all, neil hamilton. [9] More and more sections of the political establishment began to fear her links with the fayeds. [10] The queen must also have been in a state of apoplexy at the thought that one day dodi fayed, an egyptian and moslem, might be the step father of the next king of england. [11] Diana was starting to walk through a political minefield and sooner or later she would have generated so many enemies within the brutish establishment the media would have torn her to shreds. She was no rebel but her good and loving heart was antagonizing the corruption of the settled order.

The royal family treated diana as abominably in death as they had done in life. They refused to acknowledge her death. On the morning of the fatal accident they asked the vicar not to mention 'the incident' at their sunday service. They drove to church as if they were on their way to a day out at the races. They stayed on holiday in balmoral whilst her body lay alone in london. The public mood of anger at this display of callousness increased with the passing of every minute. There were deep grumblings amongst the monarch's serfs that if that bloody family didn't come back from balmoral there might be a public, as opposed to the usual anarcho-swp, riot in london. On thursday morning an itv phone-in poll about the windsor's behaviour resulted in 64,000 callers and richard madeley described the public mood as "venomous". It is quite possible the growing outrage may have triggered crowds into storming the bastille of buckingham palace and burning down the mausoleum. The windsors hid behind diana's boys and insisted they stayed in balmoral to protect their sprogs but how could these kids grieve without seeing their mother at rest?

The Conflict between Civility and Barbarism.

Diana's private battle against the royal family over her sons' upbringing erupted into the public arena after her death. For a substantial number of people this issue led on all too easily to broader questions about the nature of the monarchy and to questions about national identity. Diana had a warm, loving, and caring nature. The windsors prided themselves on a strict adherence to protocols, duty, and tradition - which, despite their denials, seemed to be primarily a means of perpetuating their obscene privileges and of covering up serious bouts of outright callousness. What is entailed here, on the level of individual behaviour, is the perennial conflict between spontaneity and duty and, on the political level, the quandry as to whether the monarchy should be accessible or regal. [12]

For a significant number of people in this country, however, diana's death raised the even broader issue as to our identity as ooman beings, in particular our relationship with Animals. [13] The windsor's are the country's leading exponent of blood sports. This is no past-time or hobby. Hunting is a royal tradition, suffused with rituals, which originated, way back in antiquity, with creation of the monarchy itself. [14] Throughout the centuries the monarchy has regarded hunting an essential part of life because it helped to train the royals for war. It not merely enabled them to acquire warrior skills but helped to hone up their nastiness and contempt for those they called their subjects. If the monarchy was going to rule it had to be tough enough to repress dissent. Unless it was tough enough to slaughter Animals it would never be willing to slaughter oomans and would never survive. To the royals hunting is a quasi religious experience. It helps to attain royal nirvana - indifference to the suffering of people and Animals except where it does not indicate weakness. And charles windsor has brought up his sons to be very religious, "Prince william has developed a craving for shooting Animals which has shocked his uncle prince andrew. The duke of york was walking his Dog in windsor great park when he noticed there was little sign of Wildlife. When he raised the subject with a park warden he was told, "That's because your nephew has been down here, sir. He's killed everything in sight. The warden told him william had shot dozens of Squirrels, Rabbits and Birds on several visits. One servant said, "Hunting is his passion." Wills has been using the private grounds of the park near the royal lodge, the queen mother's home. William recently killed his first Stag during a visit to balmoral." [15] Royal tradition is often talked about as if it is a means of ensuring the continuity of civilized behaviour but in reality is means blood sports and is little more than the barbarism at the heart of the royal family.

Never a Goddess of Hunting.

Despite the fact that diana came from an old established aristocratic family it was against her compassionate nature to support Fox hunting, Grouse shooting, Deer stalking and other blood sports. One commentator has tried to suggest that diana was as bloodthirsty and murderous as the rest of the windsors, "I know from diana's own lips that there was much she approved of in the way the windsors rear their children and have done over the centuries. She didn't mind the boys shooting, riding, deer-stalking .. ." [16] The fact is, however, that she never wore furs and she never accompanied charles bloodlust on his many shooting expeditions. It is inconceivable she would have gone out in the morning maiming, mutilating and murdering Animals before popping off in the afternoon to offer comfort to a suffering child in a local hospital. She did not criticize the royals openly about their bloodlust because this would have created too many conflicts for her children to resolve and she must have known how useless it was to oppose these activities when killing Animals is so dear to their hearts and so essential to their spiritual growth. In his funeral tribute, charles spencer described diana as, "The most hunted person of the modern age." After experiencing what it was like being hunted by the royal family and the media she would have been even less likely to inflict such appalling barbarities on Animals. Given that court politics has always been infested with coded language then spencer's reference to diana as the goddess of hunting could also have been meant to point out that hunting was a serious point of contention between diana and the royals.

Whilst many people recognize diana's supreme gift of compassion towards oomans they fail to recognize her similar compassion towards Animals. As far as is known she wasn't a vegetarian or a vegan nor, unfortunately, was she was a member of the Animal Liberation Front. She wasn't even a fundraiser for Animal charities - perhaps fearing to tread on charles's patch. But she deplored blood sports, she never went out hunting and shooting even to be with her own children, and she never wore fur like the rest of the pussy mad windsors. In 1996 madonna's film 'evita' triggered off a mini fur revival but given diana's role as a fashion icon if she'd worn fur this would have triggered off an avalanche of fur on the streets thereby reversing two decades of work by hundreds of thousands of Animal activists. She believed the royals were poisoning her own sons by encouraging them to engage in such bloody sports. Diana deserves credit for her compassion to Animals and this should be made a part of her legacy.

In january 1997, 'independent' (sic) television held a massive voter research programme on the question of the monarchy. Prior to the broadcast it had been signalled by charles's entourage that he wanted to improve his image and thus overcome the objections to his accession to the throne. He doesn't seem to understand that what many people hate about him is that he enjoys murdering defenceless Animals. There is no way that a significant fraction of the people in this country could accept him as king because of his tradition-bound attachment to murdering Animals. People don't want the nasty murdering thug on the throne nor for that matter his spoilt brats unless they renounce their childhood crimes. After diana's death charles tried to distance himself from the nastiness which the elder windsor's displayed towards diana. [17] He even let it be known that there had been a reconciliation between himself and diana in the last few months of her life. [18] There is no intention here of trying to determine whether charles's motives were genuine or machiavellian. Such speculations are irrelevant if at the end of the day he not only continues blasting the shit out of defenceless Animals but poisoning the hearts of his children on the killing fields of the royal estates. There is the prospect that if charles does become king and continues murdering Animals this will encourage millions of other mindless morons to take up the 'sport'.

An Unforgettable Saturday.

After diana's death and the windsor's change of tact to cover up their animosity toward diana, it is possible that her sons would have been completely immersed into the windsor's cold, barbaric tutelage and the public would no longer have been allowed a voice in the upbringing of their future rulers. The windsor's had long since bloodied the boys who'd already developed plummy accents, lived a sheltered and pampered life, and showed their stoniness as they drove to church a matter of hours after their mother's death. It was charles spencer who ensured the issue of their upbringing would continue to be a matter of public concern and promised the corruption of their humanity would not continue without a battle.

They say that cometh the hour, cometh the person. That he was more than a measure for such a task was hinted at by his pungent statement about the role of the media in diana's death. It was further hinted at by his family's choice of the song 'candle in the wind' at diana's funeral service - which implicitly condemned the royal family for unleashing a hurricane of abuse at her. But who could have suspected he had the guts to overcome massive, steaming piles of convention, tradition, respectability, and deference, to launch such a condemnation of the royals?

In his funeral oration charles spencer blamed the media for causing diana so much misery. There were horrible intrusions into her life by freelance photographers wanting to earn lottery type money. But his real target was the monarchy. Media barons couldn't have victimized diana if the windsor's hadn't fed them with stories, gossip and innuendoes designed to break her spirit, "I don't think she ever understood why her genuinely good intentions were sneered at by the media. Why there appeared to be a permanent quest on their behalf to bring her down. It's baffling. My own and only explanation is that genuine goodness is a threat to those on the other side of the moral spectrum."

This was one of the most devastating political speeches of recent times. An act of outright defiance against the brutish royal family, and the brutish political establishment, whilst they were assembled before him. It was received with rapturous applause outside the abbey. Nobody in the abbey clapped after 'candle in the wind' but they did so after his speech as the applause from outside rippled through the abbey doors, was eagerly picked up by the representatives of the charities diana had supported, and was eventually taken up by dignatories further inside the abbey.

Diana's funeral could easily have been a traditional royal service - militaristic, dull, mind numbingly frigid, pompous, full of awkward tensions, and tedious enough to squeeze out every last ounce of sorrow. Instead it was a beautiful, heart breaking service not merely because of 'candle in the wind' but john tavener's exquisite requiem - what a drone, what delightful discordance! [19] But it was spencer's speech which made the difference. His tribute gave meaning to diana's life. It ensured she could be driven home with a smile on her face rejoicing in her heart that at long last people knew what she stood for and what she had endured. She would have been even more pleased about the way so many people sprang to her defence. In doing this spencer achieved the extraordinary - the transformation of sorrow into a quiet elation. Her journey home was turned into a triumph as people applauded her and rained flowers in her path. It isn't often that mortals triumph over death.

The mundi club has spent years burdened by a deep shame about brutish life and oomans in general. But this was a day to uplift the heart. What an unforgettable day that was.

The Mundi Club's Policy as Regards Publishing Photographs of the Royal Family Killing Animals.

The media seems to have heeded charles spencer's demand not to invade the privacy of diana's boys. The mundi club opposes this blanket policy and encourages as many photographers as possible to photograph these two yobs killing Animals if, ignoring their mother's compassion, they go out hunting again. What is wrong with hunting royals committing such outrages?

The Song at the Grave Creates the Weeping.

Throughout the seventeen years of her public life i did not understand the meaning of what diana was doing and thus took little interest in her. I would have had difficulty in remembering the names of her sons and i certainly didn't know which was which. Listening to people's testimony about her life, seeing the grief of those she had helped, watching the carpets of flowers being laid down near places with which she was associated, was a revelation. [20] It was easy to suspect that if somebody had dropped a bouquet of flowers anywhere in the country, within a short space of time it would have been joined by many others. Diana was a bringer of joy. She was a remarkable woman.

Diana's Compassion for Animals:

• Anti Fox hunting

• Anti blood sports

• Anti fur

• A part of Diana's legacy is a ban on blood sports and a fur-free brutland.

The 1997 General Election, Bse and the European Issue.

This article was published originally in may 1997 as a celebration of the tories' devastating defeat at the general election. Such a thumping victory was a fitting end to 18 years of penny-pinching, petty mindedness, and large scale nastiness peppered with corruption and decadence. There are those who praise thatcher as a conviction politician but she was no such thing - she turned ideology into dogma for use as a class weapon. She was far too gutless to apply this ideology to her own supporters. This article is a slightly less unpolished version of the orginal.

The Causes of the Tories' Crushing Defeat.

The tories' crushing general election defeat was due to many factors - sleaze; serial lying; an abrasive, confrontational, vilifying demeanour wrapped up in softly spoken sound bites; the refusal to take responsibility for any mal-administration or wrong-doing; party divisions; john major's weak leadership; [1] tactical voting; [2] the loss of support from key sections of the media; people's desire for a change, etc. Another factor not often mentioned is that many people had become sick to death of particular tory mps whom they regarded as obnoxious, belligerent, lying, cheating, yobs. [3] The tories' defeat was ignominous because the tory party is now just an english party with no seats in scotland or wales. [4] Virtually the only area it represents now is south east england. The critical issue that brought about this humiliation was europe.

The Growing Influence of the Eurosceptics.

Brutland's membership of the european exchange rate mechanism produced such a severe recession in the late 1980s and early 1990s that the tory government was lucky to be re-elected in the 1992 general election. In september 1992 the government was ignominiously forced to leave the european exchange rate mechanism (erm) and then had to increase income tax which made the government deeply unpopular. A small number of tory mps concluded that the government's social and economic policies were so unpopular the party could avoid a defeat at the next general election only by whipping up zenophobic anti-european feelings. Thereafter the eurosceptic wing of the tory party grew bigger and more influential until, by the time of the 1997 general election, it had become the dominant group within the parliamentary party.

The small band of eurosceptic loonies were the subject of intense media interest during the government's ratification of the maastricht treaty, but they were not numerous enough to block the treaty. When the number of eurosceptics tory mps got into double figures they refused to support the government over europe and declined to accept the tory whip. They managed to kick up a huge amount of fuss over europe and won prodigous amounts of publicity which seemed to push the country in an anti-european direction. This enabled the eurosceptics to increase their support amongst tory mps and eventually enabled them to launch a credible challenge to john major's leadership. However, john redwood's defeat showed that most tory mps were still pro-europe. The prime minister adamantly dismissed a referendum on a single european currency and the cabinet maintained its views on europe.

Europe's banning of brutish beef exports in march 1996 caused a dramatic increase in the number of eurosceptic tory mps and ignited the tory party's divisions over europe. Some tory mps even demanded that brutland withdraw from europe. The eurosceptics forced the prime minister to support a referendum on a single european currency. As the 1997 general election got closer, more and more tory mps who had previously supported europe, began to adopt the eurosceptic strategy as the only means of saving their seats. They continually forced changes in the party's policies on europe. By the time the election took place, most tory mps had ignored the government's 'wait and see' policy on a single european currency and stated that they were opposed to it in principle. Within the space of a five years the a tiny irrelevant splinter group of anti-euro loonies grew into the dominant force in the tory party. Many eurosceptics believed that if the government had gone even further and had come out against a single european currency, and reduced income tax, then the party would not have lost the 1997 general election.

After the 1997 general election defeat the eurosceptics argued the government never recovered from the mistakes it made in 1992 as could be seen from the fact that the government's unpopularity remained at the same level for the next four years. It can be countered, however, that most governments go through unpopular periods at the start, or in the middle, of their term in office and gradually win back support as the next general election draws near. There are three reasons this did not happen in the run up to the 1997 general election - despite the increasing signs of a booming economy.

The Reasons for the Government's Failure to Regain its Popularity.

The first reason was the government's failure to reduce income tax. Secondly, was the public's dislike of party divisions. The tory's inability to present themselves as a united party put off many people.

The third, and probably most substantial, reason for the government's failure to win back electoral support was that people did not like the tories' increasing euroscepticism. The eurosceptics overestimated people's attitudes towards the european union. The assumption behind the eurosceptics' strategy was that the public was solidly anti-european and all that the tory party needed to do to win the 1997 general election was to tap into this vast reservoir of animosity to europe. The reason for this assumption was that the tory party's grassroots supporters were so hostile to europe. Tory mps regarded the views of their activists as being an accurate reflection of public opinion. But this was a serious mistake. Tory party membership had declined so badly during the decade up to 1997 that the bulk of those left were middle class, old aged (average age 60), people whose second world war experiences led them to be anti-european. Whilst anti-europeanism is a popular issue amongst this small sector of society, it is much less popular amongst most other sectors of society.

If a substantial proportion of society was vehmently opposed to europe then many of them would have welcomed the tory's divisions over europe, rather than being revolted by them, because they could see the party moving toward the adoption of their point of view. But this was not the case. Many people disliked the tories not so much because of the party's divisions over europe, as so many commentators believed, but because of the party's anti-europeanism.

One of the main reasons the tories were annihilated in scotland and wales was because they spent most of their time vilifying europe when people in these countries looked to the european union as a source of funds to build up their economies - they wanted europe to do for them what it had done so successfully for ireland. To people in scotland and wales, tory europhobias were completely alienating.

There are different reasons for english people's support for europe. Millions of people in england regularly go on holiday to europe; a couple of million own property in europe and live there for a few months of the year; but, most importantly of all, 60% of brutish exports go to europe so a huge number of jobs are dependent on the european union. Many workers don't want to risk their livelihoods by not-co-operating with, or withdrawing from, europe. Many people in this country have a positive image of europe and regard tory attitudes to europe as a threat to their interests. When they heard the international monetary fund and leaders of huge car companies in brutland saying that the country should join a single currency, they took notice of these views. The more the tories frightened people by talking about the need to compete with cheap asian labour on the world market, the more they began to see europe as a defense against a collapse in their standard of living.

There is some supporting evidence for this view that europe was the critical issue in the 1997 general election, as opposed to the bread and butter issues which the labour party claimed enabled them to win the election. There was the defeat of michael portillo, one of the party's leading eurosceptics, and many of those who declared their opposition to a single european currency such as tony marlow and nicholas bonsor. Angela rumbold, who came out so spectacularly against the single currency during the campaign, was also defeated. The monumental tory defeat was a considerable defeat for euroscepticism.

The Tories and Bse.

If the main reason the tory government lost the general election was the european issue, the bse-cjd crisis made the biggest contribution to this defeat. Before the bse-cjd crisis, the eurosceptics were still a minority in the party - despite all the publicity their antics attracted. When europe banned the export of brutish beef the large number of tory mps with interests in the Cattle exploitation industry joined the eurosceptics swelling their numbers and boosting their influence in the tory government. It was only after the beef ban that euroscepticism exploded into life and became the dominant faction in the party.

Secondly, if the government had been able to reverse the increases in income tax it had introduced in 1992 it might have won back many supporters. The government failed to do so because of the bse-cjd crisis. The subsidies which the government were giving to tory pharmers to help them recover from the culling of bse-infected Cattle were equivalent to 2p off income tax .. "the bse subsidy, so far running at £3.3 billion, the equivalent of 2p on income tax." [5] If the bse-cjd crisis had not occurred the government would have had a considerable sum of money to splash out on tax cuts before the general election. It is amazing that the tory government was willing to sacrifice itself to compensate tory pharmers.

Thirdly, the european union's ban on brutish beef exports triggered off considerable resentments in scotland over the handling of the bse crisis. Many scottish pharmers wanted a regional lifting of the ban because bse was not as prevalent in scotland as it was in england. They became increasingly resentful that english mps opposed such a solution. They also became antagonistic towards tory mps in england who were unwilling to carry out the general and special culls that had been agreed with europe which would have allowed scottish pharmers to start exporting once again. These resentments undermined the bedrock of tory support in rural scotland and contributed to the tory party's wipeout in scotland.

Scottish public's animosity towards the tory government intensified over the e-coli food poisoning outbreak in lanarckshire which led to the deaths of 20 people. In the run up to the general election it was discovered that as a result of the panic over bse the government had suppressed a report about the state of english abattoirs. If this report had been acted upon it could have prevented the e-coli deaths, "A shock report which uncovered filthy conditions in abattoirs was suppressed by ministers .. Editor bill swann said, "If the recommendations had been implemented, the risk from e-coli 157 would have been considerably diminished."" [6] What compounded scottish anger was that douglas hogg also refused to pass on this report to the pennington committee investigating the e-coli outbreak even though it was relevant to the committee's work. This was bound to inflame scottish people's suspicions about the government's indifference to their interests. Forsyth's efforts to try and salvage some political credibility for himself by making known his anger with the hapless hogg for not passing on the report were in vain because a month later he lost his seat in the general election alongside all the other tories in scotland.

Conclusions.

The tories' tried to distract people's attention from their gross unpopularity by trying to exploit patriotism and playing on anti-european feelings in the country. Eurosceptic tory mps saw it as their only opportunity to win back electoral support but, in the end, europe brought about their downfall. In particular, bse turned out to be a disease which drove them from anger and opportunism into complete madness ending up in electoral suicide. The tories were mad to believe their continual abuse of europe could win support in scotland and wales, both of which are enthusiastic about the prospects of winning european financial aid to revitalize their national economies. The tories were mistaken to believe that abusing europe would be popular in england where the livelihoods of huge numbers of people are dependent on the continent. The tories' fabricated an image of europe as a frightening and dangerous place but in the end the brutish public found it was tories who were frightening and dangerous.

The bse crisis made a substantial contribution to the tories' humiliation.[7] If the bse-cjd crisis had not happened the tories' divisions over europe would not have become so prominent, the government would almost certainly have been able to reduce income tax, and it would have maintained some of its support in scotland . The government had treated the bse-cjd epidemic with utter contempt but the crisis had its revenge in helping to bring down one of the most corrupt government's since the second world war.