Tory Britain

[Brendan]

Politician throwing. Now there?s a sport I could get into.

[citizenED]

The ones at the top might seem the same on the surface, but the ones behind them, the ones on the backbenches and in the constiuences - that's where to look. Behind GB are hordes of fair-minded individuals who want to bring in policies about equality. Lined up behind DC are hordes of people who want to stop "them" getting any more of the pie.

[blinder999]

citizenED Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The ones at the top might seem the same on the

> surface, but the ones behind them, the ones on the

> backbenches and in the constiuences - that's where

> to look. Behind GB are hordes of fair-minded

> individuals who want to bring in policies about

> equality. Lined up behind DC are hordes of people

> who want to stop "them" getting any more of the

> pie.

that's my suspicion too. As Cameron has convinced people he's a good guy, the hordes behind are happy to keep their mouths shut and go along with him. Then when they're in power, it won't be long before they slash spending on the NHS and education, and everything else. After fifteen years of that, it'll be Labour's turn again.

[lozzyloz]

I think I can see a pattern . . .

[????]

I agree with Mockney absolutely (except they did fool me so I'm even more vitriolic about it)...i'll be as depressed if Labour win the next election as I was when John Major got back in in 93.

[Keef]

Living up here in Sydenham, we come under Lewisham an Greenwich. In both the local and mayoral votes, Labour came in first folowed by Tory, Lib Dems and Greens (my "wasted" vote). What I find most worring is that the bloody NF were 5th in the local vote, and BNP in the mayoral!!!

[Marmora Man]

This thread is more like a football fan's correspondence page. My team lost / my team won. Boo / Hurray.

What, precisely, are the Labour policies that are so good and what, precisely, are the Tory policies that are so bad? Please don't tell me that "they" (the Tories) will return to Thatcherism - she left office 17 years ago, I suspect a good 50% of posters on this thread were barely teenagers or not even in the country then.

Modern conservative policy is about practical management, reducing the cost of the state, more efficient public services, improved schools.

This country is, like it or not, effectively a two party state - if you demonise one of the parties and the other fails to satisfy - people will turn to small, divided fringe parties that cannot gain real power but make a lot of devilish noise - and Keef's concerns about BNP and NF are fulfilled.

[SeanMacGabhann]

some truth in that MM, and thanks to Blair/Brown's performance in the 21st century it's almost nigh on impossible to talk about the "difference" a Labour party makes/would make.

About the country being a 2 party state - would that that were even true. What the Labour party SHOULD stand for is an effective broker between raw capitalism and a fair and just society. Even THIS lot managed to introduce, despite the best efforts of almost everyone with a vested interest, a minimum wage. Paltry it may have been but it made a huge difference to a lot of people. No Tory government would ever have the balls to do it. I can't see them ditching it because of the fallout, but by God they would make sure it was never introduced on their watch

( sorry - a bit rambling and not the most eloquent post but yesterday was a long day and it's early today!)

Well that has always been pretty much conservative policy. What it equates to in the real world, whether it's Thatcher, Major or Blair (ooops, see how easy it is?) is a respect for the moneyed and the status quo. For "normal" value. So whereas conservative governments introduce legislation such as Section 28, Labour governments remove it from the books (despite howls from the conservative voice-of-the-people Mail et al).

Re-introducing free entry to museums and galleries - it costs money but it's a Good Thing. A civilised thing. Yes it costs money but if it's the right thing then yes things cost money. And if the bills lands to heavily on "our" shoulders (Mr and Mrs Joe Soap) then rather than squeal at the government, start taking the largest welfare-scroungers to task - the corporations and their tax-avoidance schemes. They benefit from British society's infrastructure and then as soon as they can, instead of shouldering their responsibility, as the rest of us do, they feck of to a tax haven. Scrounging toe-rags as far as I'm concerned

Just as corporations have a legal obligation to extract maximum profit and value for shareholders, a conservative government holds much the same principles - never mind the pain caused. "If it isn't hurting it isn't working" isn't a slogan that a newly elected conservative government would publicly use - not after the fuss it cause last time they used it - but it is, in effect the ethos. Corporations could seek to pay their fair share of tax and represent it as value to shareholders by taking the long term view and investing in the country it comes from - but short-termism wins the day

The Labour party ethos is not much in evidence so I won't mourn their departure - I may even re-enact '97 and share a drink as we kick the incumbents out of office - but when it is re-examining itself in the wilderness years it will (I hope) re-alight on the values that give it it's raison-d'etre. When it was busy in the late 90s doing things like introducing a minimum wage, the new deal etc - that's when it was most popular.

[Marmora Man]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> some truth in that MM, and thanks to Blair/Brown's

> performance in the 21st century it's almost nigh

> on impossible to talk about the "difference" a

> Labour party makes/would make.

>

Sean, Thank you for a rational response. When I have time I'll develop my views of the Tory position a little more fully. Three immediate points:

1. I never did, and never could, support Section 28. It was a late administration aberration, chasing "core (right wing) vote and a total mistake. We may see aberrations from New Labour chasing it's core vote over next 24 months (makes the time to a real election seem less, measuring it in months)

2. Free entry to museums - notionally a good idea but .......... it was meant, I believe, to extend access. Yet if you wander around the Victoria & Albert Museum, Natural History, Imperial War Museum etc you will, probably, see two things. Firstly, the visiting clientele have not changed that much from the era when admission was charged and secondly there is a proliferation of populist exhibitions, for which there is a charge to raise funds for the museum's core work. EG: Bond at the War Museum - it doesn't lift my spirit to see a fictional pot boiler character being feted in the surroundings of a museum dedicated to real suffering and sacrifice.

3. Minimum wage - probably a good thing. The Tories certainly won't repeal it but I'm not convinced it has lifetd anyone "out of poverty".

[SeanMacGabhann]

In the spirit of keeping the debate open.. to take your points in order MM

I wouldn't doubt for a second you were against section 28 - but that new mayor (name escapes me) seems to have a problem with gay people and has supported section 28

Retaining Section 28

Boris Johnson in his own words

The wannabe mayor on race, sex and politics

On homosexuality

"Gay marriage can only ever be a ludicrous parody of the real thing."

? Daily Telegraph, 2005

"If gay marriage was OK - and I was uncertain on the issue - then I saw no reason in principle why a union should not be consecrated between three men, as well as two men; or indeed three men and a dog."

? From his book, Friends, Voters, Countrymen, 2001

"We don't want our children being taught some rubbish about homosexual marriage being the same as normal marriage, and that is why I am more than happy to support Section 28."

? Daily Telegraph, 2000

"The clerics gave us [journalists] a wigging for being so mean to the Church of England ... Why did we draw attention to tricky subjects like homosexuality, aka the Pulpit Poofs issue?"

? The Spectator, 2000

Museums: Populist exhibitions have proliferated but that in itself isn't entirely a bad thing. As for the clientele not changing - I'm presuming you mean demographically rather than numbers? Numbers are way up but if the demographic hasn't changed then who's fault is that? If we live in a time where swathes of the population bemoan the cost of everything but wouldn't even consider doing something good and free?? At least the government made the effort and did the right thing. People not visiting free museums reminds me of the same peolpe who refuse to watch a programme on BBC2 but when the same programme transfers to BBC1 it quadruples it's viewing figures.. bizaare!

3 - Well... when people were being paid less than a quid an hour before the minimum wage and around a fiver an hour thereafter - it might not lift them out of poverty but it sure made a big help (real life example being the woman who slept under my office desk every night so she could keep 3 cleaning jobs going) And if it doesn't lift them out of poverty, does the will exist for something, anything to lift them out of poverty? I would find it hard to scold someone who is working 20 hours a day to work harder to lift themselves out of poverty

[Marmora Man]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> In the spirit of keeping the debate open..

Sean, not worth playing political ping pong - the Boris Watch thread should suffice in future as we see what Boris Johnson does in fact, rather than what he has said, or others have said about him in the past.

Just to expand my point on museums - the government scored an own goal, to my mind, by:

a. Providing a massive subsidy to the demographic that was prepared to pay for entry (bit like abandoning 10p tax rate for a 20p basic rate really). I remember applauding the decision as it reduced the cost of entertaining my children on wet weekends, but I had been content to pay in the past.

b. Not achieving the aim of expanding the demographic

c. Depriving museums of funding (he gov't subsidy never equalled the original income and is probably now far less in real terms); the loss of funding made necessary the populist exhibitions - which I don't object to in themselves but see as a diversion from a museum's prime function.

[DaveR]

One of the major issues is whether there is an alternative to direct government subsidy for the arts - in the US there is massive private funding, from both corporations and individuals, encouraged both by tax policies and a prevalent culture of philanthropy.

Here, the left (even the New Labour centre-left) are instinctively disapproving of profitable companies and wealthy individuals - see, on another thread here, a description of international corporations as "vicious thugs". There seems to be a belief that private funding lets government 'off the hook'.

Tax less and give people the choice to spend money on socially beneficial things - you may be surprised at the outcome!

[*Bob*]

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Tax less and give people the choice to spend money

> on socially beneficial things - you may be

> surprised at the outcome!

This certainly worked-out well under the last Tory government. I'm thinking in particular of the health service, the transport network, education etc etc. Looking forward to the next one.. won't be long now.

[david_carnell]

The touble with private funding of the arts is that it tends to focus on the very populist choices (and therefore the most profitable).

Whilst the more fringe arts may not be evryones cup of tea they undoubtably benefit from central funding.

[DaveR]

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Tax less and give people the choice to spend money

> on socially beneficial things - you may be

> surprised at the outcome!

This certainly worked-out well under the last Tory government. I'm thinking in particular of the health service, the transport network, education etc etc. Looking forward to the next one.. won't be long now."

It happens already in education, because schools know that they are better off trying to raise funds from parents than get it from the LEA. Parents are willing but object because they are paying twice i.e. directly and indirectly via taxation. The classic Labour response to this is more public funding i.e. higher taxes, but it's a lot less efficient. Blair liked to talk about choice for consumers of public services but was unwilling to address the big issue i.e. the way we provide education and healthcare in particular in the UK is inherently inefficient.

[James]

I am amazed that some people have such short memories! Look at Tate Modern, the envy of the world. Look at our once-crumbling bus system - now revived. Look at the money that's gone into schools and hospitals. Yes, Labour has been a disappointment. They have made mistakes. But it's nothing compared with the sheer self-interest and sleaze of the 'nasty party' of the 80s. The fact is Cameron's ilk haven't changed their spots, just their image. How can people be so naive!?

I think the fact that Boris concentrated on outer suburbia (places like Bromley) says it all. These people aren't real Londoners anyway. All they want is the lowest possible taxation. More money in their pocket to spend in the Glades and to hell with everything else.

[david_carnell]

James is that really you? Have you had a Damascene conversion? Only, I entirely agree with everything you just said and I don't think that's happened before! ;-)

Spot on, comrade!

[DaveR]

I'm amazed that people have such a one-eyed view of the last 30 odd years of British history, but there you go.

The Tories tried to persuade the British public in '97 that a vote for T Blair would be sending the country back to the 70s, winter of discontent etc. They were wrong, and were rightly disbelieved by voters. I predict a similar result for Labour predicting that a vote for Cameron will bring back Thatcher.

PS - I wouldn't want to live in Bromley, but they have a vote - its called democracy

[James]

Oh my God, David is agreeing with me... will have to try to think of something reactionary to say!

Would you also agree with me about how outrageously partisan the press are? The Evening Standard and similar gutter publications have been ripping Ken to shreds for years. How are we supposed to have a fair election when people are being brainwashed into voting for someone because he has been totally misrepresented in the media? That's aside from the fact that many people faled to see the distinction between Ken and the Labour party (there is obviously a HUGE diference) - voting against him to punish Gordon Brown for being dour and Scottish and failing to prevent the US having a recession. The whole thing is a farce.

[James]

PS on the subject of Bromley, I grew up there so I know a bit about the mentality. More people voted NF than green there, which tells you something. The average Bromley person (I am going to sound really snobby and David will tell me off now) is totally uncultured and has no interest in London's wonderful museums, theatres and cultural diversity. Instead they want to live a kind of santised Truman-show existence, wandering around the Glades shopping centre drooling over consumer goods. Bromley council famously complained about having to subsidise London's transport network in the 70s and tussled repeatedly with the GLA; more recently it tried to resist attempts to allow civil partnerships to be conducted in the borough. It doesn't really see itself as part of London at all. I say good riddance to places like Bromley. We don't want you anyway. Declare yourself part of Kent, have Boris the homophobic, racist buffoon as your mayor and let us keep Ken!

[david_carnell]

On the topic of right-wing bias in the press I would also agree with you (miracles will never cease, huh?). The Standard was particularly vitriolic in its coverage of the Mayoral election. Considering that its parent company (Assoc. Newspapers) also own one of the freebies it's beyond a joke. Not to mention the Mail & Express. Then there is the anti-Ken Murdoch group owning the Sun, Times, NOTW, Sky TV etc etc plus the Torygraph. How anyone claims the liberal bias of the media is often beyond me.

Indeed, Ken is/was very different to the Labour Government (rather than your mention of the "party" which is again different). It often pains me to repeat how I can be a Labour Party member (no laughing at the back) and disgree with the government. It takes some people a while to grasp.

Personality seems too have played a large part in Ken's downfall (and Boris winning) with many people I spoke to, and on here, disliking him, his nasal tones just as much as his policies. It's now a distinct part of the political game. If you are telegenic and charismatic you can get much further in politics than ever before - despite glaring shortcomings. Exhibit A would be a few members of the current cabinet!

Edit - I'll let the Bromley slur slide quite happily as I have relatives in Kent who are very close to those you describe. I tend to dismiss the whole county as a touch insular and backward - including Bromley! Could we yet be friends, James? ;-)

[James]

Oooh, controversial.. (us agreeing again I mean!)

Yes, totally agree with what you're saying about electability. Funnily enough now that Blair's spin machine has been unplugged we now see how badly poor Gordon needs one!

The thing I find most depressing is the lack of true conviction in politics. Labour has got themselves in knots inventing academies and PPP and trying to appear tough on crime while Cameron has been babbling on about the environment and anything remotely touchy-feely. Will they really do/say ANYTHING the focus groups tell them to? Is there no integrity left whatsoever? Whatever anyone says about Ken, he was a man of principles. If he believed in something he stuck it.

[????]

So to summarise - if the elections don't go the way you want it's because people are idiots, brainwashed by the media and frankly shouldn't really have the vote the oikish plebs.

[James]

Yes, yes and yes!

[SeanMacGabhann]

I don't think there is a lack of conviction politic(ian)s - but I do think we the electorate (whoever we vote for) are fickle beyond words so that by the time anyone gets close to power, safety becomes the watchword

the electorate SAYS it is bothered by x, y and z but as soon as policies bubble up to tackle the issues the electorate has a hissy fit - "well I didn't KNOW that meant I had to change the way I behave". Problems are always cause by other people and need to be sorted bu other people - witness the hissy fits on this forum by anyone littering or speeding. Both are widespread and in their own ways significant crimes - but look what happens to those who try and tackle them - indignation and abuse

so to answer quids question, I do believe "the people" to be idiots - but that is regardless of the result of any election, not just because the results were contrary to my own belief. Now obviously that is a gross generalisation - but you only have to read almost ANY political message board or listen to phone in radios to lose the will to live. It's bad enough that people bumble around with a pocket full of nasty prejudices but to not have any clue WHY they hold them beggars belief.