A far-right party has offered the nation a convenient alternative to blaming rich cunts, after early polling suggested voters were becoming dangerously close to identifying who had all the money.
The intervention follows a prolonged period of economic pressure in which millions of people have been forced to choose between rent, food, heating, childcare, dentistry, transport, debt, and the little fantasy where things might one day get easier if they work hard enough and die politely.
Party strategists said the situation had become “extremely serious” after focus groups revealed that some members of the public had started connecting high rents with landlords, low wages with employers, collapsing services with political choices, and rising inequality with the small number of people enjoying most of the inequality.
“That is precisely the kind of thinking that can become very divisive,” said one senior adviser, speaking from a property networking breakfast sponsored by a private healthcare firm.
“What ordinary people need right now is not a complicated discussion about wealth extraction, tax policy, asset ownership, underinvestment, wage suppression, public service collapse, housing financialisation, or why every failing system seems to contain someone doing extremely well out of the failure.
“They need a man in a boat.”
The party’s new economic platform, titled Someone Else Did This, promises to tackle the cost of living crisis by ensuring voters have a clearer, nearer, more photographable target for their rage.
Under the plan, soaring rents will be explained through immigration, despite landlords continuing to exist in visible numbers. NHS waiting lists will be attributed to foreign-born patients, except during shifts when foreign-born staff are urgently required to stop the building becoming a badly lit Victorian painting. Low wages will be blamed on migrant workers, rather than the people paying the low wages, because one of those groups owns several newspapers and the other owns a backpack.
The proposals have been welcomed by wealthy donors, who said they were pleased ordinary people were finally being listened to in a way that did not require anyone wealthy to listen.
“This is what real democracy looks like,” said one businessman, who owns fourteen rental properties, two advisory firms, and a sincere concern about pressure on local services. “For too long, working people have been ignored by elites. That is why we must give them the confidence to blame someone who definitely cannot raise corporation tax.”
He added that public anger should always be treated with respect, particularly when it is moving away from him.
Economic analysts say the plan is unlikely to improve living standards, but may prevent the public from asking a series of dangerous follow-up questions, including who owns the homes, who sets the prices, who cut the services, who weakens the workers, who funds the parties, who profits from scarcity, and why every proposed solution seems to end with rich cunts having slightly more money.
“The key is speed,” explained Dr Martin Fell, director of the Institute for Market Feelings. “When a voter notices they are being squeezed from above, you have only a small window before that observation matures into politics. The far right acts quickly by converting material grievance into cultural panic.”
Fell described the process as “blame substitution”.
“Class anger is unstable,” he said. “It has a nasty habit of looking upward. Border anger is much safer. It can be made loud, emotional and visually exciting, while leaving the ownership structure completely untouched.”
The system has already proved effective in several test areas. In one town where rents rose 38% in five years, residents were shown a series of videos about asylum hotels until the landlord disappeared from public consciousness entirely.
“It was amazing,” said one campaign volunteer. “At first people were angry about the cost of housing. Within three weeks they were furious at a family who also couldn’t get housing. That’s when we knew we had a movement.”
Asked whether blaming migrants for a housing crisis risked ignoring the role of property investors, planning failure, underbuilt social housing, buy-to-let incentives, stagnant wages and decades of treating homes as assets rather than shelter, the volunteer said those were “elite talking points” and asked why nobody was brave enough to discuss the real issue, which he had recently seen on TikTok with aggressive music under it.
The party denied accusations that its policies would make life harder for many of the same working people it claimed to defend, insisting that ordinary voters were mainly interested in emotional value.
“People are tired of experts telling them that their problems are structural,” said a spokesperson. “They want common sense. And common sense tells you that if your town has a closed library, a leaking school roof, no dentist, three buses a day and a high street consisting entirely of vape shops, the main thing to investigate is a woman wearing a headscarf near the bus stop.”
The spokesperson later clarified that the party was not anti-Muslim, anti-migrant or anti-refugee, but merely opposed to “anything that makes rich cunts less comfortable being rich cunts.”
Several newspapers praised the proposals as a bold attempt to address legitimate concerns, with one columnist writing that while racism was bad, it was important to understand why people felt compelled to express it in ways that sounded exactly like racism.
“People are angry,” the column read. “And if we do not listen to that anger, there is a real risk they may direct it towards pension funds, landlords, employers, donors, privatised utilities, media owners, tax avoidance, political corruption, or the broader upward extraction of wealth. That would be a tragedy for social cohesion.”
The columnist then called for a national conversation, by which he meant six television appearances and a book deal about being silenced.
Meanwhile, senior figures in the party have reassured donors that any future government would combine tough rhetoric on migration with a robust programme of tax cuts, deregulation, weakened public provision, reduced worker protections, and the continued management of national decline by people with excellent kitchens.
“We are the party of ordinary working people,” said one candidate, standing beside a donor whose watch could have funded a youth centre. “That is why we will protect them from the real threat: other ordinary working people, but newer.”
Asked whether the party’s economic programme would reduce inequality, improve wages, build homes, restore services, or shift power away from the wealthy, the candidate said it would do something “far more important.”
“It will make people feel that someone has been punished.”
For many supporters, that may be enough. In a political culture where actual solutions are expensive, slow, complicated and hostile to donor interests, the far right has perfected the cheaper alternative: a politics of emotional compensation, where nothing gets fixed but someone vulnerable gets named.
The appeal is not mysterious. People are exhausted. Their lives are harder than they were promised. Their bills are higher. Their work is less secure. Their public realm is visibly decaying. Their children’s futures feel smaller. Something has gone badly wrong, and every official explanation arrives wrapped in managerial sludge from people who never seem to suffer the consequences of what they recommend.
The far right does not create that pain. It finds it. It studies the wound, avoids the cause, and offers the nearest body.
By the end of the week, party officials said the campaign had exceeded expectations. Public anger remained high, but had been successfully moved several metres away from capital. Wealth inequality was still rising, services were still collapsing, housing was still unaffordable, and wages were still struggling to keep up with the cost of being alive.
But there was good news.
For now, nobody had blamed the rich cunts.