Another monopoly octopus from “drafts” folders with no information or notes. I think I may have poached it from Getty Images… Circa 1920s.

“Old policies! Old values! No future!” - 2002 via State Library of Victoria

Howard Government refers to Australian Federal Government. They were re-elected.

They introduced several policies such as removing student union fees (that supported a whole raft of services such as counsellors, advocacy for students etc as well as social events) while massively increasing university fees, and making universities more reliant on business for funding.

(Source: maybestreet)

“Erkenne die Gefahr! Wähle Österreichische Volkspartei, Wien 1949” (Recognize the danger! Choose Austrian People’s Party, Vienna 1949)

The Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) and the dangers of Communism (1949) With a view to the parliamentary elections due to be held on 9 October 1949 in Austria, the Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) warns the country’s voters against the threat posed by the ‘Communist octopus’.

Source: “The Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) and the dangers of Communism”, European NAvigator (Accessed: 3rd Oct 2010)

“John Bull in Egypt”, no information for this one. However, can be compared to 1888 Punch cartoon, and is probably of a similar age.

Image source: BradlyHardin.com

The Marconi Octopus Liberal Party - “Another tentacle or two and I’m done for!” published in Punch, or the London Charivari, on June 18th 1913.

The name ‘Marconi Octopus’ was derived from the Marconi Company who received a large  contract from the UK government to build six radio stations to ‘linking Britain to the Empire’ (1). The scandal involved three ministers — Sir Rufus Isaacs, Lloyd George and Lord Murray — who were accused of insider trading.

The cartoon above was published at the time of a charge of criminal libel against Cecil Chesterton, a publisher, (2) by Godfrey Isaacs, the Marconi Comapny’s director, went to court (3).

The court ruled against Cecil Chesterton and fined him a token £100 plus costs, which was paid by his supporters. Some supporters claimed the decision would have gone differently had Cecil’s lawyer aggressively gone after the accused ministers who were at the heart of the scandal. In the next issue of the New Witness, Cecil Chesterton repeated his allegations against the ministers, who still did not sue. (4)

For more information see: “The Marconi Scandal - 1912” by Parris & MacGuire and “The Marconi Scandal” on Wikipedia.

Footnotes & References:

Image Source: Altered from - Parris & MacGuire, “The Marconi Scandal” (see below) p.82 (Accessed: 3 Oct 2010)

(1) Parris, M. and K. MacGuire (2005). The Marconi Scandal - 1912: From Whitewash to Won’t Wash: the Marconi Octopus. Great Parliamentary Scandals: Five Centuries of Calumny, Smear and Innuendo. London, Robson Books.

(2) Cecil Chesterton published several articles accusing Rufus Isaacs and Herbert Samuel of insider trading (Wikipedia: The Marconi Scandal)

(3) ibid

(4) ibid

The Washington times. (Washington [D.C.]) January 06, 1918, FINAL EDITION

Don’t Allow This Octopus To Get a Strangle Hold Upon the Public Domain. Kill the “Relief” Provisions of Senate Bill No. 2812

“A Bill To Encourage and Promote the Mining of Coal and
Phosphate, Oil, Gas, Potassium and Sodium on the Public Domain.”

The “Relief” Provisions of this bill, in so far as they affect the
oil situation, would block any chance for real competition and confirm in the Standard Oil Company and its subsidiaries from ten to twenty thousand acres of producing lands, and in the Standard and other persons, whose rights are questionable, unlimited unproven acreage. It prevents any one but those granted “relief” from acquiring directly or indirectly, not only in the State of Wyoming, but in the entire United States, and from the Canadian Line to the Mexican Border, any larger area of the many millions of acres of public lands than 2,560 acres. No chance is given for an oil operator to grow to sufficient size to be considered a competitor. In short, monopoly is intrenched, fortified and insured against competition and when you sweep away the chance of competition, the public’s purse is at the mercy of monopoly. It is unnecessary to point out here the result from the consumer’s standpoint the public’s standpoint and it is because of the public’s knowledge as to the effect of such a bill, if enacted into law, that we depend upon the bill being defeated by an overwhelming vote unless suitable amendments are made that will eliminate “relief” and permit competition.