What the Tories say they will do ..

[ymu]

I really didn't see that speech as ultra-Thatcherite. And I don't think the threat that Cameron presents to the left is one of a return to Thatcherism. It seems to me that what he's doing is reviving One Nation Toryism for a post-Thatcher party.

I agree.

 

[agricola]

I really didn't see that speech as ultra-Thatcherite. And I don't think the threat that Cameron presents to the left is one of a return to Thatcherism. It seems to me that what he's doing is reviving One Nation Toryism for a post-Thatcher party.

Indeed, and that is not necessarily a bad thing if he behaves in a similar way.

 

[Kaka Tim]

I really didn't see that speech as ultra-Thatcherite. And I don't think the threat that Cameron presents to the left is one of a return to Thatcherism. It seems to me that what he's doing is reviving One Nation Toryism for a post-Thatcher party.

A Thatcherite argument would see the NHS and state education as being inherently second-best, nothing more than a safety-net for those who can't afford to look after themselves. Cameron, not being stupid, has explicitly turned his back on that position.

Well Thatcher didn;t come out and say - I'm going to throw millions on the dole, privatise everyhting that moves, slash public spending and then use north sea oil money to give the rich massive tax breaks did she?

Hes making all the right noises so 'middle england' and the media can pretend they're are not the 'nasty party' anymore. So its all caring conservatisvism, lets be nice to the black people and even the poofs.. er .. gays. But the whole recession and language of economic/social 'crisis' will give them covering fire for the thatcher era 'strong medicine' of savage public spending cuts and wholsesale assualt on the welfare state that will hurt the poorest and most vunerable hardest and throw many thousands onto the dole. They cant fucking wait to get stuck in.

 

[Haller]

Well Thatcher didn;t come out and say - I'm going to throw millions on the dole, privatise everyhting that moves, slash public spending and then use north sea oil money to give the rich massive tax breaks did she?

Hes making all the right noises so 'middle england' and the media can pretend they're are not the 'nasty party' anymore. So its all caring conservatisvism, lets be nice to the black people and even the poofs.. er .. gays. But the whole recession and language of economic/social 'crisis' will give them covering fire for the thatcher era 'strong medicine' of savage public spending cuts and wholsesale assualt on the welfare state that will hurt the poorest and most vunerable hardest and throw many thousands onto the dole. They cant fucking wait to get stuck in.

Well, partially, yes, Thatcher did say those things. She did advocate public spending cutbacks, privatization and tax cuts.

But the key difference that Cameron is making - in terms of shedding the 'nasty party' image - is overt support for public services. Thatcher was upfront and proud about her use of private health insurance; Cameron endorses the NHS and cites personal experience in support of his position.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Well, partially, yes, Thatcher did say those things. She did advocate public spending cutbacks, privatization and tax cuts.

But the key difference that Cameron is making - in terms of shedding the 'nasty party' image - is overt support for public services. Thatcher was upfront and proud about her use of private health insurance; Cameron endorses the NHS and cites personal experience in support of his position.

But surely it's more important to look beneath Cameron's shallow personality politics and "caring conservative" window dressing and unpick the substantive political content of his speech to determine it's ideological orientation?

In one sense Cameron's speech spelt out a course of action that could be much grimmer than anything Thatcher ever did. Despite her personal amonisity to government services she never actually cut public investment (although in some years her government did spend less in real terms once inflation was factored in). Cameron, by contrast, is advocating harsh cut backs - cutting public spending, cutting benefits and freezing the pay of millions. This has got nothing to do with his “small state” rhetoric. If he really wanted a “small state” he wouldn’t have advocated a serge in Afghanistan and the building of more prisons. In the true Thatcherite tradition Cameron’s claw back of “big government” means nothing more than cutting services for the poor while expanding the oppressive arms of the state.

The purpose of his anti “big government” Thatcherite rhetoric is of course to deflect attention from the fact that we’re in this fucking mess because of the unrestrained capitalism that ccunts like him and his mates support and practice.

 

[butchersapron]

Well, partially, yes, Thatcher did say those things. She did advocate public spending cutbacks, privatization and tax cuts.

But the key difference that Cameron is making - in terms of shedding the 'nasty party' image - is overt support for public services. Thatcher was upfront and proud about her use of private health insurance; Cameron endorses the NHS and cites personal experience in support of his position.

Which makes him more weaselly than her. That's all that means.

 

[trevhagl]

The tory policy on kicking people off IB is exactly the same as the labour policy isn't it? It amounts to deciding in advance that 500,000 claimants (or something) are taking the piss then hiring private companies to assess them, at inordinate cost and presumably with specific targets for the number of people whose claims are to be found wanting, and kick them all onto the dole instead.

The only real difference is that it was the tories who first had the idea of shovelling as many unemployed people as possible onto the sick in order to fudge the figures

Still, it's nice to know that this country's woes are entirely the fault of the poor, the sick and the old. For a minute there I thought the ruling elite might have fucked us all over, but evidently they're on our side after all.

this is why Yvette Cooper had a hard time on Question Time, you can't argue a point when YOUR lot are cunts too.

 

[trevhagl]

The tub-thumping ultra-Thatcherite rhetoric in Cameron's speech really filled me with dread. The fucking nerve of laying into "big government" (and particularly the evil welfare state) as the source of all the country's woes after the world financial Hiroshima brought upon us by unregulated capitalism. If that sentiment is converted into electoral gain then the working class are gonna get gangbanged fucking hard by these Bullington club vermin.

And using the death of his own son in such a calculated, cynical way - how fucking low can a guy stoop?

that was really really fucking cringeworthy - i half expected a picture of a small coffin to appear on the screen

 

[Carousel]

The purpose of his anti “big government” Thatcherite rhetoric is of course to deflect attention from the fact that we’re in this fucking mess because of the unrestrained capitalism that ccunts like him and his mates support and practice.

If it wasn’t for “unrestrained capitalism” or whatever you want to call it, there wouldn’t have been any houses or jobs to lose in the first place. You think it’s the government’s job to help you defer your gratification, like they were your daddy? Sounds like it.

 

[Azrael]

People who big up "unrestrained capitalism" should join forces with the Orange Book brigade and Shanghai the Lib Dems. Go give the Oxymorons a purpose. Laissez faire market-worship is anti-conservative. It's revolutionary, which is probably why so many "ex" Marxists have fallen for its dubious charms.

 

[ymu]

If it wasn’t for “unrestrained capitalism” or whatever you want to call it, there wouldn’t have been any houses or jobs to lose in the first place.

Wut?

 

[Carousel]

People who big up "unrestrained capitalism" should join forces with the Orange Book brigade and Shanghai the Lib Dems. Go give the Oxymorons a purpose. Laissez faire market-worship is anti-conservative. It's revolutionary, which is probably why so many "ex" Marxists have fallen for its dubious charms.

I'm not bigging it up. It's shit. In so far as "It" can be said to exist at all.

 

[Carousel]

Wut?

Well. The banks lent recklessly so unprofitable businesses could take people on and folks on low wages could buy houses. The fuel price crisis in the states suddenly made marginally serviceable mortgages and other credit instruments unaffordable. The pilot light of the U.S. economy went out, and now it's a struggle to get it relit. The U.K. banks had bought a fair chunk of these debts which (whilst they turned a profit) cushioned us from the effect of the dwindling of our North Sea oil exports. For what it's worth, the "crisis of capitalism" is class conflict. Blaming the bourgeoisie for the crisis is reactionary and mystifying and barely constitutes action. In fact, the working class are the crisis.

 

[Vider]

some interesting analysis of the tory speeches today in the guardian. can't be bothered summing them up, but well worth a read imo.

 

[ymu]

But we haven't had unfettered capitalism, anywhere, ever (although you could argue that Burma comes extremely close, IMO).

It was pretty unfettered in the 1920s, until the stockmarkets crashed and the Great Depression forced concessions to workers in the form of the New Deal and similar initiatives across the capitalist world. Those concessions were gradually unravelled for the next 40 years, until Reagan and Thatcher formed their unholy ideological alliance and the unravelling became very rapid indeed.

And guess what happened next?

Near-unfettered capitalism has destroyed our economies twice in living memory.

 

[Vider]

it's not tory excellence that is putting them out-front, it's labour fucking uselessness. if labour got their diddling arses into gear, then we could stop this country entering very dark times indeed.

 

[Carousel]

But we haven't had unfettered capitalism, anywhere, ever

Indeed. That's why I called its existence as such into question.

Near-unfettered capitalism has destroyed our economies twice in living memory.

The economies are not "ours". They are capitalism. Besides, to say capitalism destroys this-or-that is an anthropomorphism. To all intents and purposes a mystical notion.

 

[ymu]

Indeed. That's why I called its existence as such into question.

Really. I thought you said it was responsible for all the houses and jobs it destroyed?

The economies are not "ours". They are capitalism.

So all economies are capitalist then, are they? We never had a feudal economy? The USSR never had a command economy? There's no such thing as a mixed economy?

The economy belongs to us. The fact that we are allowing capitalists to squat it without paying their rent is neither here nor there. It belongs to us.

Besides, to say capitalism destroys this-or-that is an anthropomorphism. To all intents and purposes a mystical notion.

Are you saying that our economy was not destroyed, or that it was but it was nothing to do with the capitalists? Or are you just making a trite semantic point to no apparent purpose?

 

[Carousel]

Really. I thought you said it was responsible for all the houses and jobs it destroyed?

Yeah well. I have communication difficulties. The idea that an imaginary institution like "capitalism" can exhibit responsibility is not one I can entertain. We, the working class, wanted homes and incomes in essentially de-industrialised economies. To placate us, social policy designers sanctioned "reckless" lending. The creation of credit money with no assets to back it up. So when the price of imported oil went through the roof, game over. We are responsible, in that sense. The working class is responsible for the situation it finds itself in. We are after all the historic social creative force. We put ourselves here by our constant passing the buck to the bourgeoisie. In the prevailing order, the only desire social institutions really respond to is our desire to hide from blame.

So all economies are capitalist then, are they?

I do not subscribe to the idea that capitalism has a particular technical meaning. I do not believe in the Marxian notion of the historic process of transition between different economic orders.

The economy belongs to us.

I suppose you're free to say this-or-that belongs to us. Does the statement follow as a matter of natural justice? I suppose in the sense the world "belongs" to us, you could say that the institutions belong to us by right. I guess.

Are you saying that our economy was not destroyed, or that it was but it was nothing to do with the capitalists? Or are you just making a trite semantic point to no apparent purpose?

I think I might be making a trite semantic point actually. In so far as most political discussion is really a word game. I mean, I talk to some revolutionaries who believe that destroying the economy is sort of their job. Know what I mean? As for purpose. Well. I've no reverence for purpose.

 

[ymu]

Yeah well. I have communication difficulties. The idea that an imaginary institution like "capitalism" can exhibit responsibility is not one I can entertain. We, the working class, wanted homes and incomes in essentially de-industrialised economies. To placate us, social policy designers sanctioned "reckless" lending. The creation of credit money with no assets to back it up. So when the price of imported oil went through the roof, game over. We are responsible, in that sense. The working class is responsible for the situation it finds itself in. We are after all the historic social creative force. We put ourselves here by our constant passing the buck to the bourgeoisie. In the prevailing order, the only desire social institutions really respond to is our desire to hide from blame.

Right. So the credit crunch was caused by greedy working class people and bankers going all soft and deciding to give in to their demands?

OK.

 

[tbaldwin]

The Tories say they will cut the public sector. New Labour created an extra million public sector jobs.
Last time the Tories were in they used north sea oil and selling off nationalised industries on the cheap to pay for mass unemployment.
Next time round not sure how they are going to do it?

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Poor little rich boy Dave. Born at the age of 32 into sickening privilege but with no discernible mouth parts, he fell under the auspices of a maverick Swiss surgeon who took pity on him and grafted an unusually tight gecko’s arse where any normal human being would have the good sense to grow a gob, thus handing our hero a new lease of lies and finally gifting him the chance to talk forever without actually saying anything. Sadly, the arse was barely fit for purpose, and as David’s face grew fatter, the arse grew more taught, till one day its puckered aperture all but sealed up completely, allowing only a strangulated upper-crust drone to squirt from his ridiculous plumped cushion of a head.

Which is why today, after centuries honing his skills in the netherworld, this ageless voivode of the undead, this fleshly exegesis of purest fucking evil has finally emerged horns-first from the dirt, a master in the art of mind control, and now works his minions like a hook-handed puppet master, standing dead-eyed in front of a giant backdrop with the word "CHANGE" emblazoned across it "because it worked a treat for that black yank", while Osborne and various other identikit fartclouds hiss their way through whatever scripted dishwater that sick son-of-a-succubus telepathically dictates to them.

Running is futile, Britain. It’s already too late.

http://misanthrobs.blogspot.com/2009/10/previously-unseen-substance-oozes-from.html

 

[Carousel]

Right. So the credit crunch was caused by greedy working class people and bankers going all soft and deciding to give in to their demands?

That's class conflict for you. I wouldn't say it was demanded as such, more a matter of forward strategy in job creation and mortgage provision. As for "greedy", well, it harks back to a notion of Abrahamic sin. Putting these emotive and value laden metaphors aside, close enough. The working class are the crisis.

 

[Carousel]

The Tories say they will cut the public sector. New Labour created an extra million public sector jobs.
Last time the Tories were in they used north sea oil and selling off nationalised industries on the cheap to pay for mass unemployment.
Next time round not sure how they are going to do it?

Acquire foreign capital through war. Or maybe take a whacking big loan off the ECB or the IMF. Indeed, the ECB angle likely accounts for some component of their European policy taboo. One thing's for sure, like Labour, they won't reindustrialise. Too dangerous. Got to keep us dependent on imports. Got to keep us like slaves to the international exchange value of Sterling.

 

[tbaldwin]

Acquire foreign capital through war. Or maybe take a whacking big loan off the ECB or the IMF. Indeed, the ECB angle likely accounts for some component of their European policy taboo. One thing's for sure, like Labour, they won't reindustrialise. Too dangerous. Got to keep us dependent on imports. Got to keep us like slaves to the international exchange value of Sterling.

My bet is massive cuts in public services...Labour massivelly increased spending on Health and Education and Re-generation......A huge number of jobs were created and an even larger number will disappear over 5 years.

 

[dylanredefined]

I used to vote tory when I was young .So why does this lot of tories make me want to stab them with a fork.

 

[Carousel]

<Double Post>

 

[Carousel]

Labour massivelly increased spending on Health and Education and Re-generation......A huge number of jobs were created and an even larger number will disappear over 5 years.

Yeah well. That's what you get when you create jobs from thin air that just soak up resources in order to keep people off the streets. They may as well write “The Devil makes work for idle hands” into the manifesto. I mean this idea that redundancies cost more than keeping people in made up jobs based on nothing more than some Fabianist fantasy about “needs” and “rights” is, well, a Fabianist fantasy. As if “social cost” is measured by some objective physical law of the cosmos rather than the, actually quite valid, fickle emotional whim of the electorate.

I used to vote tory when I was young .So why does this lot of tories make me want to stab them with a fork.

Your amygdalae.

 

[LLETSA]

Acquire foreign capital through war. Or maybe take a whacking big loan off the ECB or the IMF. Indeed, the ECB angle likely accounts for some component of their European policy taboo. One thing's for sure, like Labour, they won't reindustrialise. Too dangerous. Got to keep us dependent on imports. Got to keep us like slaves to the international exchange value of Sterling.

No conceivable government wil reindustrialise because it can't be done.

 

[Carousel]

So says the voice of doom. Can't be done as in the self-driving car or as in faster-than-light travel? (That is to say, is it just very hard or theoretically impossible?)