Skip to content

Dangers of the Conservatives



OK so I get that this is a predominantly “work-based” blog, but its my blog and I can write about what the hell I like.  And tomorrow is kind of an important day……it’s the long awaited election day.

This will be the fifth General Election that I have been able to cast my vote and in all of them I have done so, primarily because I believe it is my duty.  There are a hell of a lot of places where there is no real democracy and say what you like about the UK system, it ain’t that bad.  So first of all, those of you that can vote, please do so.

Secondly, I want to talk about the Conservative party and David Cameron.  This man and this party are dangerous.  If in 24 or 36 or 48 hours we find him preparing to enter Number 10, the British people will have made a monumental mistake.  I know people feel the need for change, but change in itself is not a reason to put this country at risk.  Harsh?  I don’t think so.

1) The Conservatives pledge to implement immediate spending cuts will place the country in significant risk of a double dip recession.  You may not like Brown, but he has consistently and rightly argued that reducing spending whilst the economy is in such a precarious state is madness.  We are not out of the woods yet and we need to keep this fragile economy secure.

2)  The Conservatives are about the rich and the wealthy.  Increasing the inheritance tax threshold to £2m (£1m and £1m tranfer to spouse), does that sound like something that will help you?  Is this something that you think resonates when spending cuts on essential services are taking place?  Giving to the richest 3,000 whilst punishing the vulnerable.

3)  The Conservatives want to introduce directly elected Police Commissioners…..just hold that thought.  So I could become a Police Commissioner?  Really?  My relevant experience is…….  But what happens when the local bully boy, the local lunatic….the BNP get elected.  Do we want our Police to be governed by powerful individual war lords?  Accountable to and serving whom exactly?

4)  The Conservatives promise a free vote on the repeal of the hunting ban.  The ban that was democratically passed through parliament.  The ban that has seen an end to the jolly hockey sticks brigade donning red jackets and tearing up the countryside with dogs in the pursuit of an innocent beast yet at the same time promising elsewhere they will be “vigilant in the welfare of animals”…..

5) The Conservatives promise to reduce the number of MPs by 10%.  These will not be Conservative MPs.  Boundaries will be redrawn to shore up the Conservative MPs and to weaken “opposition” MPs in a process called gerrymandering.  They have done it before, they will do it again to make sure that they stay in power – for their benefit, not for yours.

This is a party that aligns itself with far right parties in the European parliament that consistently vote against Lesbian Gay and Bisexual rights, that supports a candidate who allegedly prayed to remove the “demons” from homosexuals.  This is not a party of tolerance or social justice, whatever they may say.

The right-wing press and Cameron will tell you that a hung parliament is a bad thing.  Don’t be scared by this nonsense.  Don’t be fooled by the last-minute strong-arm tactics to try to re-establish their supremacy.   This is the party that is against voting reform, that is against reform of the House of Lords that is against reform of the Westminster voting system.

This is not a party of change and progress, this is a party of the elite and the establishment.

Whatever you do, please vote.  Just, for the love of God, don’t vote for them.

11 Comments leave one →
  1. 05/05/2010 19:32

    You are an identity politician. I regard myself as generally apolitical, but to answer your points:

    1] This is a bold economic statement that requires significant justification, and not just a rehearsal of political spin.

    2] Inheritance tax- how consequential is it? £230 billion on benefits on the other hand…

    3] Who knows if this is a good idea or not. We will have to read the proposed bill with all of its safeguards. The detail of law rarely allows for indignant spin.

    4] I don’t care if people do or don’t hunt foxes. It is about as high on my list as the rest of topics of debate that 13 year old children get worked up about. All Acts of parliament have been democratically passed. Very many have been democratically repealed. Do you challenged the morality of repealing slave trading rules?

    5] I wonder if there is a political party in existence, including the Labour Party, that would not alter things to its own advantage…

    Beware of the road to hell, on which we travel. It is paved with good intentions and those claiming that morality is on its side. In a more modern context, the Labour party have surfed the bubble of the property boom, and have sought to introduce some truly appalling laws. Do you remember the ‘Legislative reform act’? If that had been passed, a minister of state would have the power to alter primary legislation by statutory instrument. If you get bored, look at the mess that this government has made of law making- unnecessary, expensive, ill-thought through.

    Have you ever been subject to Gordon Brown’s accounting laws? Simply terrible- designed to cripple the self employed and the small business.

    I don’t care who you vote for, but do it with independence, pragmatism, and do it without ‘identity politics’

    • 05/05/2010 20:07

      “Identity politics”? -these are all policies of the Conservatives…..if inheritance tax is inconsequential why do it other than to reward an elite. As for fox hunting, the Labour party were elected by the popular vote to outlaw it. Animal cruelty isn’t a childlike obsession.

  2. 05/05/2010 20:48

    By identity politics I mean the people who support one political group because they always have and it is then part of their identity. A sad reality of the majority of the electorate.

    Inheritance tax- focus on my words. He who asserts should prove. How consequential is it compared the the welfare bill for this country? I genuinely do not know. You are saying that the Conservative policy is a bad thing- why, and to what effect?

    Is foxhunting the most important thing in politics at the moment? Also, if the Conservatives have said that they will repeal it if voted in, and they are voted in, aren’t the majority of the people within our system giving their support to such a policy?

    I remember when I was younger thinking that debates on foxhunting were simply depressing- there are many better things to discuss. However, if you do want a discussion, what about the appalling lack of respect for the right to life shown by foxes to chickens? Do foxes have responsibilities if they also have rights? If they breach the rights of others, what punishment should follow? Are they entitled to a fair hearing? etc etc ad nauseum.

  3. 05/05/2010 20:55

    On a tangent, download this and stick it on your mp3 playing device- maybe we need toughness and / or a reminder that we live in a remarkable time that defies historical trend. Does hunting a fox make us tough?:

  4. vt306 permalink
    05/05/2010 21:04

    Thanks an interesting blog. Bearing in mind @fernandomando’s (not very apolitical) points, I want to add my views on your 5 points.

    1) When this crisis first hit it seemed that we were into a 30s style recession with mass unemployment – 4m was predicted. Now, I’m no fan of Gordon Brown but if you really think about it you can’t deny that Brown and his Government have made all the right decisions. Instead of taking a monetarist approach to a the worst economic problems of our lifetime, that the Tories were advocating, they put protecting the people as the first priority. That meant bailing out the banks, giving support to businesses and taking a range of anti-recession measures to keep people in jobs and create jobs. My view is that we are in the best position we could be in bearing in mind the catastrophe we were facing. The naive approach advocated by the Tories would have meant the predictions would have come true. I don’t think it is unreasonable to conclude that cutting now (and don’t believe the spin that any cuts can be painless) would increase the risk of a double dip recession substantially.

    2) Any tax cuts to the rich is the wrong thing now. Apart from the real impact, it shows where their priorities are. In any case inheritance tax is progressive. It helps to redistribute wealth when you don’t need it anymore.

    3) It’s probably right that work needs to be done on how the police service across the country works. I share the fear of what happens when we end up electing some celebrity as police commissioner. This election shows how presentational polish can make the running.

    4) I care about wanton cruelty to animals. This says so much about the morality of the society we live in and should be a concern for all thinking adults.

    5) Whilst I agree that a Tory government would probably use any boundary redrawing to it’s advantage, I can share the sentiment that anyone in power would tend to try to maintain their own power. But my question is, why are they only looking at 10%. Choosing such a low figure does look suspiciously like the overall aim isn’t fair electoral reform. Why not look at reducing the number of MPs to something that more resembles other parliaments. An objective and radical approach might go for something like 300-400 MPs and an elected second chamber, and that’s without diving into the PR arguments.

    You’re absolutely right to say that the Tory party is the party of the elite and the establishment. I find it quite appalling that they try to blame the current government for the current economic problems. Firstly, the focus on service industries instead of manufacturing came from the Tories after they decimated our industry in the 80s. Our exposure to the vulnerabilities of the financial services industry comes directly from that. Secondly, the bankers who still greedily overpay themselves at our expense are Cameron’s natural constituency. He has all the spin but the Tory party hasn’t really changed underneath.

    So I think I will be voting tomorrow. I hope you will, too.

  5. g-dog permalink
    05/06/2010 03:02

    I am always disappointed by the voter turnout in the US – especially since “we” seem to believe that there is nothing as democratic as a war to give others the freedom to vote, but we cannot be bothered ourselves.

    I have heard some snippets from a couple of your major candidates. And did see that Rupert Murdoch has a favorite. How many parties will have significant representation after the election? Labour, conservative & Tory? Sorry, like most Americans, a tad myopic re: world politics…

  6. g-dog permalink
    05/06/2010 11:51

    Your post prompted me to do a little more reading (BBC online) – so at least now I have a better idea of the 3 major parties (sorry for above error). They (BBC) have a ‘calculator’ on their website showing how shifts in votes would impact the outcome. You can also click on 3 poll results to see the outcome – all predict that no party gets a sufficient majority to control. NPR this morning reports that in that case, you would/may face another election in a year?

    Go vote!

  7. 05/06/2010 12:45

    I couldn’t agree more with everything you’ve said. Thank you for saying it. That is all

  8. 05/07/2010 19:06

    @fernandomando – To be honest there are too many points to answer succinctly, but I fail to see any economic benefit to allowing the 3,000 richest people to get richer. Trickle down effect? We all know that is bollocks. The only logic is looking after themselves.

    @vt306 – Welcome and thanks for commenting and making such a balanced comments. I agree that the decimation of industry in the 80s is still a major economic issue for this country. Part of the reason the financial crisis was so hard was our over reliance on that sector.

    @g-dog – Yep it happened… overall control. We can only hope that some good comes of this in the long run…..

    @Abi – Thanks for reading it! 🙂

  9. 05/08/2010 09:58

    Dear HRD

    On your points:

    1) No. Brown’s motivation is the extension of the state. Always has been.
    2)No. The Tories are about wealth creation. Different.
    3)I think you’d make a very nice police commissioner. Would you get a uniform?
    4)The hunting ban hasn’t saved a single fox. Farmers shoot them instead now.
    5)Mmmm. Labour never engaged in redrawing the boundaries in their favour then?

    Our differences, dear HRD, are great, but they mught be settled over a very nice lunch and a couple of bottles of expensive red. And since you are of the redistribution of wealth persuasion, it’s your shout!

    HB x

  10. 05/08/2010 11:26

    @Henry – I really struggle to agree with anything that you write other than the need for a long lunch and wine. I’m feeling a lost afternoon in the making. Although surely the redistribution of wealth it is from the rich to the poor… by my count……

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: