If we didn’t know better, we could start to imagine that she is for hardworking families, coping with the situation she has inherited and simply doesn’t want to be the Nasty Party Leader. LINK

T-M May MP/PM At The Police Federation Today

First of all I’m not going to pretend that this is an academic study of Thatcherism, this is my own personal take on what I recall of her government and it long-term effects.  I am writing this as my own contribution to the discussions being had about her legacy since her death.  It is also a reaction to a trend I see developing of some people now describing themselves as ‘Thatcherite’, some of whom may not realise the ramifications of appropriating such a tag.

To assess such a political figure as Margaret Thatcher it is problematic since it was never possible to be neutral about her; in many ways she was deliberately provocative in her pronouncements and always combative in her manner.  It was inevitable then that her death would polarise people as much as her political career had.  People either loved or hated her and in many ways I doubt that she would have had it any other way.

There is a tendency in British politics to laud those who display strength and grandeur and these are two qualities that many believe that Margaret Thatcher had.  But what is strength?  Thatcher was certainly brutally forthright about her opinions and bloody-minded but she also had a marked inability to listen to even her own ministers, let alone the people she was leading – stories about this were legion during her premiership but seem to have been forgotten now.  Grandeur?  Well Margaret Thatcher certainly has delusions of that.

Margaret Thatcher was famously a grocer’s daughter and never forgot it.  Proud of the fact and would often regale interviewers about the lessons she had learnt from her father.  Thatcher was grounded in the petite bourgeois and displayed many of the most stereotypical qualities of it.  This was highlighted by that phoney posh accent she had, something that even as child reminded me of one of my aunties utilising her ‘telephone voice’.  She was the absolute embodiment of petite bourgeois prejudices; the snobbish deferential voter; the I-vote-Tory-because-I’m-better-than-you-lot type; the mortal fear of anybody who works with their hands; the sheer terror of the ‘foreigner’; the pathological hatred of somebody being better off than you; the morbid infatuation with ‘hard-work’ and greed for its own sake.  Thatcher even went as far as joining the Conservative Party and eventually becoming its leader by ‘pulling up her own boot-straps’ (to coin a favourite phrase of hers) and marrying into money.  In fact her husband Denis subsidised her entire political career, and benefitted from it businesswise.

Margaret Thatcher’s background marked her out from the rest of the Conservatives who resented this upstart among their ranks, and this didn’t stop when she was elected Prime Minister – this was made quite obvious by the relish they displayed by tearing her off her pedestal.  However that relatively modest background did make her a remarkably astute politician; she had an instinctive insight into how people from those lower classes thought.  She was a born opportunist in the most opportunistic of British political parties.  The Conservative Party would support her for as long as those instincts were present, but for no longer.

The 1970s, we have been told, were a period of economic strife and this was all the fault of the Trades Unions who were always going on strike.  This, it will surprise no one, is a distortion of the way more complicated facts.  It was precipitated by a massive oil-crisis in 1973 and this not only had an impact on the UK but on an international scale.  For proof one only needs to look at the newspapers, magazines and even popular culture of the period to see how often this is referred no only here, but in the USA and Europe.  However we are still expected to believe it was old those evil TU’s fault for wanting too much money.

During Edward Heath’s Conservative government of the 1970-74 many fundamentally important things happened that would later prove influential to Thatcher.  Most famously her own profile rose during the ‘Thatcher The Milk Snatcher’ debacle and so she experienced for the first time the full glare of the spotlight.  Thatcher also witnessed Heath’s own attempts to curb TU power with the unsuccessful Industrial Relations Act of 1971 (repealed in 1974 by the Wilson government).  It was two Miners’ Strikes that would mortally wound the Heath government, the second of these led to Heath going to extraordinary measure of implementing the three-day week – Thatcher would never forgive the miners.  Heath is most remembered for leading Britain into the EEC and this decision has troubled the Conservative Party ever since.  He also oversaw the height of the troubles in Northern Ireland, most notoriously, the Bloody Sunday massacre.  All of these factors would indelibly mark out the character of Thatcher’s own leadership style.

Britain had up until recently been a colonial power, of course, and was only too aware that it wasn’t any more.  This fact traumatised the British psyche.  We are still experiencing to the long-term effects of this today but in the 1970s it was still raw.  People were brought up to believe that the UK was the ‘empire where the sun never sets’, maps of the world were still hanging in schools covered in the red of British colonialism..  To be born British was supposed to mean that were one of the elite, even if you were barely able to afford to eat and were treated like scum by your ‘betters’.  At least you were still from Blighty!  That had to stand for something, eh?  We won the war!  Could all of this have been a lie?

This was reflected in the politics of the time; the National Front was beginning to seem very influential.  This bottom-feeding political party tapped into those feelings of inadequacy some people were having and were only too happy to scapegoat immigrants and other marginalised groups for British woes, openly using racist terminology that would turn most people’s stomach today.  Let’s not forget that this was the era of Enoch Powell; his recent ‘rivers of blood’ speech still ringing in the ears like some cancerous tinnitus.

This was the environment that fostered the rise of Margaret Thatcher.  She told people we could make Britain great again.  Worried about those sweary punk rockers?  Well, don’t worry Maggie’s going to bring good old Victorian values, that will set them straight.  You hate all those ‘foreigners’ flocking over here and stealing your jobs?  Well, don’t worry Maggie’s not going to put up with that, she’ll  send them all home and then close our borders.  Sick of being inconvenienced by strikes? Those layabouts are going to get what’s coming to them as well.  What about those lazy bastards down our street who can’t even be bothered to wok but are living lives of luxury?  Well, they’ll have to get on their bikes and look for work or starve. Thatcher was lead us back into that fantasy version of what Victorian England was like, where everything was simpler, people knew their place and it was the richest place on earth.

This is the essence of Thatcher’s vision; a mix of prejudice, fantasy and – lest we forget – the dystopian economic philosophy of Friedrich Hayek and his most famous acolyte Milton Friedman.  Thatcher, the so-called patriot, would use Britain as a laboratory to try-out Friedmanism and although some would profit from it – mostly in the short-term – the interests of the vast majority would be sacrificed.  This was economics at its most psychopathic and even though Thatcher was warned about the dangers, she ploughed ahead regardless.

Thatcher broke away from the Post-War Consensus but didn’t replace it with anything meaningful or constructive.  Her own period of government didn’t successfully result in any grand designs neo-liberal, Keynesian or otherwise; that was left to the governments that followed (even New Labour).  Her own attempts at Friedmanism were eventually scrapped, hampered by her own destructive impulses, which merely resulted in near economic meltdown.  She did unfortunately succeed in making ‘socialism’ a dirty word on this side of the Atlantic for the first time.  This is an example of Thatcher’s gift – if it can be called that – for the negative.  Thatcherism is really about negation, being defined by what it is against than what it is for.  All of the things it claims to support fall apart when analysed too deeply.  Thatcher’s government achieved nothing.  Style over substance

Tory election posters trumpeted that ‘Labour isn’t working’ in 1979, but Thatcher’s Tory government tripled unemployment to three million in just four years (and even that figure was famously massaged down).  The resulting welfare bill meant that her entire tenure in government was marked by a persistent economic deficit, which was not even alleviated by her desperate selling off of state assets like British Telecom, or the profits generated by North Sea Oil.

It comes as no surprise then that her government’s other promises were never met either.  While in opposition her party had derided Labour’s inability to seize control of inflation which was as at 10%, promising that they could if given the chance.  This didn’t happen and in fact inflation continued to increase in the short term.  By the time Thatcher left office it was nearly back at 10% (9.7%).

Her period government was bookended by riots.  Her tenure as Prime Minister began with riots caused by unemployment, heavy-handed policing, housing shortages etc and ended with riots inspired by the Poll Tax.  Today’s praise of Thatcher has to be counterbalanced by the acceptance that this was not a popular or successful Prime Minister in any real terms.  This was the first Prime Minister whose government understood and mastered the art of popular culture – her political career resembled an ad campaign and had as much basis in reality.  The real legacy was the personality cult that British politics has become.  That and her divisiveness.

For the rest of us, growing up working-class in the 1980s was depressing.  Everybody you knew seemed to be unemployed.  Margaret Thatcher claimed to be on the side of people who worked hard but seemed hell-bent on making those who were working redundant and those out-of-work unemployable.  We were told jobs were out there but the reality couldn’t have been more different.  Thatcher also claimed she was on the side of the entrepreneur and this also rang hollow.  Shops were being boarded up, factories and other businesses closed down on a moreorless constant basis.  If you wanted to start a business you could go on the Enterprise Allowance Scheme of course, but you had to have a grand in the bank to secure your £40 a week from the benefits people (yes, the same people who supplied your income support) to do it.  If anything illustrates Thatcher’s tenuous grip on reality that does.

The old apprenticeships were replaced the crass cynicism of Youth Training Schemes or Job (later renamed Employment) Training Schemes, both of which left you only qualified to join another training scheme in six months, but allowed your labour to be exploited by the deeply unpleasant charlatans who ran such things.

All of this was part of the plan of course.  Thatcher was declaring all-out-war on the working-class.  This was the one thing they were successful at; by the time she and her colleagues left government the image of the working-class had – at least in the general public’s perception – changed beyond recognition.  It now conjured up visions of an ‘underclass’; Wayne and Waynetta Slob, the family from Bread.  A fictional caricature that eventually fed into itself.

No politician has showed more contempt for people who work with their hands than Margaret Thatcher.  This is the true ‘British disease’. It was therefore inevitable that those she hated the most were the ones whose hands got the dirtiest, that is; the miners.  As we have seen the Conservatives had already sworn vengeance on them.  During the riots earlier in Thatcher’s premierships the public had grown used to sights of the ‘tooled-up’ coppers, with riot-shields, batons, visored helmets.  These paramilitary police were used mercilessly against the miners and their families.  Margaret Thatcher did more than other Prime Minister to blatantly politicise the police.

The media built a hate campaign against the miners, particularly Arthur Scargill who was merely telling the truth about the government’s plans and doing the job of fighting for the people he was employed by.  Those of us who were properly informed knew that the strike was about pit closures that would (and have) destroyed communities but it didn’t seem to matter.  Margaret Thatcher saw his as a war akin to the Falklands; propaganda, triumphalism and contempt for the truth was the order of her day

The miners were merely the most visible of her hate figures.  Practically every industry that had created wealth for Britain was dragged under by her policies, causing vast unemployment to be embedded deep in many communities.  This was not only economically damaging, the societal damage has been long-lasting.

One of the most repeated Thatcher quote has been her claim that ‘there is no such thing as society’.  Let’s look at what this revealed about her.  Certainly it reveals that had little ability to perceive of something external to her immediate experience.  It also exposes Margaret Thatcher’s weird isolationism, her belief that she alone could be right.  To her, individualism went only as far as herself and by the end of her premiership she was even identifying herself as the embodiment of the nation in the same way that absolutist rulers used to, in her use of the royal ‘we’.  Margaret Thatcher could not perceive there being any such thing as society because her own limited experience was all that mattered to her, and informed her every action.

If only Thatcherism could be have died along with her.  If only people realised what an empty construct it actually was and is.

You know that things have come to a pretty pass when Labour Party supporters turn against the poor.

This has happened at a time when the number of people with money to spare has dropped dramatically, meaning more of our people have become poor.

The change may reasonably be blamed on Labour’s adherence to Liam Byrne’s diabolical welfare policy, that aims to continue where the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats leave off – demonising people who have done nothing wrong, unless you count illness, disability and unemployment as a personal choice.

It suggests that people of good heart are leaving the party in large numbers, allowing those who are left to turn it into what its critics have claimed it to be for a considerable time now: Tory Lite.

The change is identified in a report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, that showed 47 per cent of Labour supporters surveyed in 2011 thought that, if benefits were less generous, people would learn to support themselves – up from 17 per cent in 1987.

The fact of the matter, of course, is that benefits are much less generous now than they were in the 1980s. In 1987, unemployment benefits totalled around 20 per cent of the average weekly wage; now they come to around 10 per cent – around half of what they were. But Labour supporters – Labour! – say they are too generous.

It looks like the Tories really are brainwashing people with their nonsense rhetoric, as repeated in newspapers that Labour supporters shouldn’t be reading, like The Sun and the Daily Mail. That good friend of the Conservative Party, Joseph Goebbels, was right – “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”

Of course, Goebbels added: “The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent.”

So those of us who are interested in the facts may be looking forward to hard times. It’s still better than being a fair-weather friend of social justice – only interested in the good of our fellows if it doesn’t impact on us.

But it is already impacting on everybody!

The Office for National Statistics, using Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) figures, has reported that the UK has plummeted down the international league table of economic well-being, from fifth to 12th within the six years up to 2011.

On a separate labour-market ranking, the country fell even further, dropping 12 places. In the labour market league table it ranked 21st out of 34 countries. Top of the league was Norway, which has just three per cent unemployment and, as I understand it, a thriving welfare state. Think about that.

The ONS noted changes to taxes and benefits as key factors in the drop.

This morning, one of Vox‘s longest-serving commentators reported that there is a change among the people around him; that those who argued against his criticism of the Conservative-led government are now turning to the Left. If so, it seems they are not turning to Labour.

Recently we have witnessed a movement to form a new political movement, representing socialist views but untarnished by the memory of New Labour’s 13 years of Neoliberal mistakes. Several contenders have cropped up but none of them will carry any weight at the next general election – instead, all they are likely to do is sap enough votes from Labour to let the Conservatives back into office again. That would be a calamity for the country.

No, the best thing to do is to take Labour back for the people it was meant to serve. First step in that direction must be to consign Liam Byrne and his vile mess of a welfare policy to the back benches, and design a new plan, attacking the causes of unemployment and workplace sickness and disability, rather than their symptoms. This is simple logic.

And we need to get people into the shadow cabinet who have actually held proper jobs. Look at Ed Miliband: Oxford graduate – short media career – Westminster job for Labour. Ed Balls: Oxford graduate (Politics, Philosophy and Economics) – short media career – Westminster job for Labour. Douglas Alexander: University graduate – six-month career as a solicitor – Westminster. Yvette Cooper: Oxford (Politics, Philosophy and Economics) – Westminster researcher job for Labour. Andy Burnham: Cambridge – researcher for Tessa Jowell. Many of these also went to Harvard.

Liam Byrne, the demon of the Labour Party: University (Politics and Modern History at Manchester) – Harvard – then work for a multinational consulting firm (Accenture) and then the Rothschild merchant bankers(!) before going to Labour to help lead its ‘New Labour’ business campaign. This man has nothing whatsoever to do with real working people.

When everybody in a particular group – in business, politics, socially, whatever – is from the same background, they tend to agree about key subjects. From the above group we can see that many of the Labour front bench have followed exactly the same career path. What do they know about working-class people? At least two of them – Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper, no less – graduated from the same Oxford degree course as David Cameron, the comedy Prime Minister.

No wonder people are having a hard time distinguishing between the two main parties and want a left-wing alternative.

It’s time for Labour to grow up and realise it needs to change. It must come back to its voting base and start to represent the people of the UK once again – rather than Oxford, Cambridge and Harvard graduates. If Ed Miliband wants to keep his position, he needs to clear out his shadow cabinet and get some fresh thinkers in. Someone recently mentioned Abraham Lincoln’s ‘cabinet of enemies’, and the fact that it was good for him to have opposing views at the heart of his government.

Until we get that in the Labour Party, maybe we should agree that the ‘Tory Lite’ criticisms are accurate.

What are you going to do about it, Labour?

She has ‘saved-up’ a new policy concerning those who kill police officers so as she can announce it to the meeting today.

Please remember that she is concerned about hardworking families as well as the situation she inherited. She is also not seeking the Leadership of The Nasty Tory Party at any time.

What she said back in 2002 might just come back and bite her on the bum -

“You know what some people call us: The Nasty Party!” LINK

Theresa ‘Maggie’ May

“A possible future: The city of London is sacked by barbarian hordes. As a priest watches from the steps of St Paul’s, a burly Brixtonian drags David Cameron away from his wife Samantha. “

Did you know that the fall of the Roman Empire began when its richest citizens decided not to pay their taxes anymore and withdrew to their private estates? Public services were divided up and sold off, and the bulk of the tax burden was placed on the poor, who were in no position to pay up.

via Vox Political- read the full post here- History Repeats Itself, or The Decline and Fall of the Tory Empire.

“Build a bonfire, build a bonfire, put the Tories on the top… Put the Lib Dems in the middle and we’ll burn the fucking lot”

These are chants I took great pleasure in bellowing at the student protests in 2011 in London, when Clegg broke his promise to Lib Dem voters, and bent over backwards for JustCallMeDave. The tuition fees rose enormously, tripling in numbers, despite Clegg’s promise that tuition fees would instead be abolished.

However, I now feel Lib Dems are just tainted. The catch-all, cartel parties that the ‘Big Three’ are nowadays have merged into one ‘blob’ of politicians, all of whom nobody trusts anymore. The Lib Dems are tainted by Clegg’s pathetic apology, and to Cameron’s great delight, are tainted by their desperation to get to power.

Ideology is out the window. Principles are out the window. Pragmatism is all important, but gaining votes matters more. Representational functions are becoming ever less vital, and parties are forgetting their true functions.

Thus, we come to the title: the loss of a generation. The Lib Dems were really and truly on the rise. Their power was going to grow steadily, and they could have become a more vital player in Westminster. However, the domino effect of their spineless actions has created a new problem: a generation of voters who will never vote Lib Dem, or at least whilst under Clegg, again.

I know for one I will never, ever vote for Nick Clegg. Lib Dems really have shot themselves in their metaphorical foot, and until tuition fees drop back down or they fuck off, they will never regain any dignity in the eyes of this generation.

A further effect from their inability to keep a promise, is the rise of more ‘out there’ parties, such as the BNP and UKIP. Not for one minute am I likening the two parties, however, it is undeniable that a selection of their votes have been protest votes.

In the local elections recently, UKIP did outstandingly well for their size and historical standing. However, they should not have done. The ‘Kippers cannot argue that they do not play to some extent upon people’s lack of knowledge of politics and the EU. In spite of this, admittedly, a few people do understand it. 

And so – this generation moves forward. It may be moving away from a three-party dominated system. However, I just found it striking that one little mistake on the part of the Lib Dems could lead to such a change in the political sphere in the UK. Of course, UKIP would argue, it’s just people coming round to their common sense, of course! Silly me…

We have a Jordanian of 50 ish living in our Country. He has been here for some 20 years. He hates everything about our lifestyle and values in the Western world. We pay for him to live here. We pay for his family to live here. We pay for his lawyers and barristers and the rest of his legal team in continual trials to send him back to his country of origin. We pay for his fellow travellers. He has been here after arriving illegally on a forged passport – there’s no surprise there then.

He is described as a ‘radical cleric’. What the heck is that all about? He is a convicted terrorist. It is unbelievable that the Muslim community have not disowned him and denied him the right to claim such a religious description as a cleric – it demeans their faith, but that is a fundamental problem in their community unfortunately.

What kind of madness is this?

The problem with the British judicial system (like some other areas) is that there is no accountability. Judges make decisions and rulings that sometimes defy credibility – yet they just carry on totally unabashed. Criminals are given a ‘second chance’ or are given bail, or a suspended jail sentence, which turns out to be a disaster, but the person making that decision isn’t held to account and certainly doesn’t suffer, whatever the consequences. How can that be right? Or sensible?

Why is it that the defence QCs who plead their criminals’ case in court to get them off, or released, or lenient treatment, or bail, or whatever are not held accountable when the criminals are proven guilty, or even it all goes wrong later and they reoffend or even kill somebody?

What persons gave Abu Qatadaasylum status in the first place? Why have they not been identified? Why have they not been held to account for the £millions it has cost us all?

Prime Minister David Cameron and Home Secretary Theresa May repeatedly repeatedly repeatedly claim they are going to deport him – but every time they get it wrong and the British judges (make a name for themselves!) thwart the plan.

Unbelievably the judges trusted him and gave him bail (despite the fact that he had originally gone on the run for nearly  a year to avoid arrest in 2001)  – so he could continue to live the life of Riley at our expense. But of course he couldn’t be trusted could he – he broke his bail conditions enormously (of not accessing media facilities, but he had about75!) because they interfered with his operation of hate. So he is now back in Jail, but unbelievable his lawyers are asking for him to be released again (because he would not abscond!) since he ‘promises’ go back to Jordan, if laws are changes on evidence gathering. Quite possibly the judges will believe him again, don’t you think?

There is c couple of choices still available to the politicians – introduce torture in the UK (so there would be no disadvantage to any man in being sent to Jordan would there!).

Probably the easier option is for Teresa May to take the man from London’s  HM Prison Belmarsh in the dead of night, handcuff him, and  personally accompany him on a military plane from Northolt airfield and in person deliver him safely to the authorities in Jordan, where he was convicted (in his absence) of terrorist charges 14 years ago!

Of course this latter option would be seen as highly illegal and in breach of the judge’s decision. So what? Mrs May would of course have to resign – you can’t have a Home Secretary who knowingly breaks the law can we?

There is a possibility that she could face prosecution as well, but that would be a minimum risk  – particularly if she makes sure a shed load of others are involved in the plan as well as her (after all our prisons are so full there wouldn’t be room for a host of others would there?). Otherwise a ‘Royal Pardon’ would be forthcoming without doubt!

If May has the guts to do it then she can be certain to be the next leader of the Conservative Party (as Cameron is a busted flush already) and she will trounce all comers (including UKIP) to become the second female Prime Minister of the UK.Time now for our government to get a grip of this situation, deal with it, stop a systematic insult to a friendly major Arab country, as well sorting out the other foreign miscreants that are in this Country that the judges keep stopping us getting rid off (which is simply an abuse of our long held and genuine human rights principles).

A possible future: The city of London is sacked by barbarian hordes. As a priest watches from the steps of St Paul’s, a burly Brixtonian drags David Cameron away from his wife Samantha. Or is it the fall of Rome?

My brother phoned up to inform me that he has passed his PHd and is now a Doctor. This is a terrific achievement for a man who has been on incapacity benefits, of one form or another, for much of his adult life, and will open many doors for him.

During the conversation, he mentioned some very interesting facts.

Did you know that the fall of the Roman Empire began when its richest citizens decided not to pay their taxes anymore and withdrew to their private estates? Public services were divided up and sold off, and the bulk of the tax burden was placed on the poor, who were in no position to pay up.

Neither did I.

Isn’t that similar, though, to the situation in the UK right now? Never mind all the nonsense George Osborne and David Cameron have been talking about getting tough on tax avoidance; the fact is that the richest corporations – the multinationals and those with the ability to follow their example – have been paying far less than their due for many years, sequestering the rest of their money away in foreign tax havens, well away from prying tax inspectors’ eyes.

And David Cameron made it clear as early as 2011 that he wanted to sell of as much of Britain’s public services as he possibly could, retaining only justice and the security services (although we can see that justice is also being broken up, with plans to get lawyers to bid for the privilege of providing “adequate” service to defendants). The NHS is already being carved up; parts of some police forces have been privatised; we have some private prisons. Parts of the civil service are to be sold into private ownership. The list is growing.

The whole situation mirrors that of the Fall of Rome, and begs the question: Is David Cameron trying to engineer the end of British civilisation as we know it?

Just a thought.

We could, in light of this result, say that UKIP will split the right wing vote and aid Labour’s chances of winning an overall majority at the next general election but I believe this would be folly. Whilst knocking on the doors of Labour voters on election day I was shocked by the number who had voted for UKIP. Their reasons for voting this way ranged from welfare and housing issues to immigration. This isn’t an issue just for The Conservative Party.

So where has the rise of UKIP come from?

We are all use to hearing members of the public saying all the three parties are the same and if we are honest there are moments when we think it ourselves. Hopefully I am not alone in thinking that. This is because since 1994, whether you like it or not, Labour have taken a step to the right in political thinking and since 2005 the Conservatives have remained in the center ground and have not moved to the right as many of their back bench MPs and members would like. This means in football terms, which make easy for me to understand, they are only playing in the center circle. This means the rest of the pitch is up for grabs.

The center ground politics of the last decade and a half have left voters and members of Labour and Conservative felling abandoned by their party. The dividing lines, the distinctions, the differences between the two are no longer as clear as they were before. This is what happens after two long spells of consecutive governance the people are left believing all politicians are the same. No wonder the electorate left us with no overall majority at the last general election.

In steps Nigel Farage and UKIP. With so much empty space to the left and the right of the center ground politics of Westminster is it any wonder they can gain 23% of the nations vote. It still early to say if this result can be repeated in 2015. Thankfully we have an electoral system which doesn’t help minority parties but with such a void created by central ground politics the 2015 election is not one I am looking forward too.

http://skwalker1964.wordpress.com/2013/05/13/us-anti-obamacare-campaign-reveals-tory-anti-nhs-strategy/
‘Our bunch of right-wing bandits are a little bit more subtle than their US cousins – they are Brits, after all, and we don’t really do ‘over the top’ (except Alan Rickman, wonderfully).’

Unfortunately he is Spot On.

Hi There.

Despite your comment, SKWalker is ‘on the money’.  The Tories are going all out to spin the NHS negatively.  ~Gove trying to do same with teachers – but due to FOI requests he was caught out.

Public unrest: Thousands of people across the UK have demonstrated against government decisions that have increasingly burdened poor people with higher taxes while the rich, and fabulously wealthy corporations, have received tax breaks. The government’s response has been to order water cannons from Germany. Think about that.

How long does George Osborne expect us to believe his blather about cracking down on corporate tax avoidance when we have evidence all around us that he is helping multinational firms to get out of paying the tax they owe this country.

This is taking place at a time when the UK tax take should be maximised, in order to get borrowing down and help the country pay its bills.

And it is being organised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer – the government member whose principle job is to ensure that those bills can be paid.

All this doubletalk suggests he has a personal agenda that is different from what he’s been telling us, doesn’t it?

Vox Political has already dealt – at length – with the fact that the Coalition government has legislated to make it easier for UK-based multinationals to shift their income into ‘mailboxes’ in tax havens, in order to avoid paying tax in this country.

Why is Osborne doing this, when he knows we need the money?

We know that Osborne has cut Corporation Tax by a quarter – from 28 per cent to 21 per cent – during the course of this Parliament, even though changes in the rate of this particular tax have been proven to have no effect on economic improvement. Look at the USA, where a Corporation Tax rate of 40 per cent has done nothing to hinder the resurgence of that country’s economy.

Why is Osborne doing this, when he knows we need the money?

Meanwhile, we have been hit with a large increase in sales tax (VAT) which hits poor people hardest. As a result, they have to reconsider their purchases and buy fewer items, meaning the Exchequer takes less money, with this tax, than it should.

Why is Osborne doing this, when he knows we need the money?

The European Commission reckons it has declared war on tax evasion and avoidance – but has instructed member nations to single out only non-EU countries as havens, even though member states including Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Ireland and Belgium are known to have engaged in potentially harmful tax behaviour.

Why are these countries doing this, when they know they need the money?

Beginning in 2009 (meaning we started this under a Labour administration, please note), the UK began switching from taxing worldwide income to solely taxing profit that companies claim is earned within the country, a so-called “territorial” system. It eliminated taxes on dividends paid to a UK company, even if coming from a subsidiary in a tax haven.

Why is Osborne continuing with this, when he knows we need the money?

Beginning last month, the UK slashed the tax rate to 10 per cent from the regular 23 per cent rate on profit attributed to patents and intellectual property.

Why is Osborne doing this, when he knows we need the money?

Here’s why, according to Yvette Hodgson, a spokeswoman for the Treasury. She said the government is “committed to creating the most competitive corporate tax system in the G20.

“Global tax rules have stood still for almost a century. Britain is leading the international effort to bring them into the 21st century.”

So 21st century taxation means beggaring not only populations but governments as well, while allowing multinational corporations to make off with all the cash?

No wonder people in Britain are so angry. We have every right to be.

Many Tory backbenchers are unhappy that no such proposal was included in the Queen’s Speech and will try to amend it during a debate on Wednesday.

But David Cameron says he will instead speed up his plans to bring in a bill.

The Conservatives promise a referendum in 2017 if they win the next election.

Most Tories, Labour and Lib dumbs M.P’S want the UK to stay in the EU.

We don’t need a referendum we need out.

Only the BNP won’t have a referendum they simply will exit the EU.

The defence secretary gave the strongest sign that he would favour a departure from the European Union this morning, hours after Mr Gove made the same admission.

Speaking on BBC’s Radio 5live Hammonmd said ‘If there were to be  a vote’ today.. I have to say I am on the side of the arguemnt that Michael Gove put forward’

His comments came less than a day after Michael Gove said he felt ‘life outside (the EU) would be perfecrtly tolerable’

Many backbench Tory MP’s were left fuming when the promise of a in/0ut EU referendum before the coming election was not included in the Queens speech. Tory Backbenchers have since tabled a motion which could in effect pave the way for a referendum in the year ahead. The group of Conservative back benchers most notably John Baron have been highly vocal in demanding for Prime Minister David Cameron to commit to their casue by legislating a referendum before 2015.

The oppositon leader Ed Milliband used this oppourtunity to critize the government saying the Prime Minister had lost control of his party.

But the Conservatives dismissed these comments and accused Milliband of not wanting to give the public a say on an important issue

The Prime Minister’s move will deepen coalition divisions over Europe, with the Liberal Democrat wing of the Government “nonplussed” about the plan.

A senior Conservative source said the party would “examine all opportunities” to bring the legislation before Parliament, meaning the bill could be taken through the Commons by a backbench Tory MP.

The ballot to decide which MPs will get the chance to introduce their own legislation will be held on Thursday and any Tories who secure a prime spot near the top of the list will face pressure from Eurosceptic colleagues to take up the referendum bill.

A senior Lib Dem source said the issue of an EU referendum law was not discussed during coalition negotiations on the Queen’s Speech and Mr Cameron’s move was prompted by “internal Tory trauma”.

The source said: “The Conservatives are free to bang on about Europe as much as they like within their own party.

“Rather than spend time debating an internal Tory trauma on an issue where the Government has a clear position, the Liberal Democrats will focus on jobs and growth.

“The coalition Government have already passed a law – fully supported by the Liberal Democrats – that guarantees a referendum next time there is a transfer of power from Westminster to Brussels.

“When we were discussing that legislation, we didn’t hear a peep out of the Conservatives about all this. Neither did we in discussions on the Queen’s Speech.

“We’re a bit nonplussed that the Conservatives keep moving the goalposts.”

Shadow foreign secretary Douglas Alexander said the move showed Mr Cameron had lost control of his party.

He said: “This seems to be just the latest panicked response from the Prime Minister who is now following, rather than leading his backbenchers.

“David Cameron is a Prime Minister who has both lost control of the agenda and lost control of his party.

“Labour have said that we don’t think committing now to an in/out referendum up to four years from now is in the national interest because the priority must be getting growth into the economy not getting Britain out of Europe.

“This latest step has more to do with trying to get his party back in line rather than getting the economy back on track.”

The dramatic development follows weeks of damaging Tory jousting over how to deal with the issue of Europe and the threat to Conservative seats posed by the UK Independence Party (Ukip).

Mr Cameron received a welcome boost on his visit to the United States as President Barack Obama backed his strategy of seeking a renegotiation of Britain’s membership of the EU before holding a referendum on withdrawal.

Speaking after talks with the Prime Minister in Washington, Mr Obama said it “makes some sense to me” to try to “fix” the relationship before deciding whether to leave.

His comments, which delighted Downing Street aides, came as growing numbers of Conservative MPs signed up to a parliamentary motion calling for legislation on an EU referendum, which is expected to spark a potentially divisive vote in the House of Commons tomorrow.

Ministerial aides Stuart Andrew and Gavin Barwell said they will back the amendment after Downing Street took the unusual step of saying that parliamentary private secretaries (PPSs) are free to do so without losing their jobs.

Ministers have been told they may abstain but not vote for the amendment.

Mr Cameron said he regarded the status quo in Europe as “unacceptable”, but declined to say whether he would vote to leave in an immediate referendum, unlike Cabinet ministers Michael Gove and Philip Hammond who said that they would sever ties with Brussels if there was a vote now.

The Prime Minister insisted that “the whole of the Conservative Party” was signed up to his policy of renegotiating if he wins the 2015 general election and then staging a national poll in 2017, adding: “We are the only mainstream party making this offer to the electorate at the next general election.”

At a White House press conference, Mr Cameron insisted that a referendum now would not be in the national interest, as voters would be presented with a “false choice” between an unreformed EU or British exit.

“Is it in our interests to reform the European Union, to make it more open, more competitive, more flexible, and to improve Britain’s place within the European Union?” he asked. “Yes, it is in our national interests. And it’s not only in our national interest, it is achievable.

“Is it in Britain’s national interest once we have achieved those changes, but before the end of 2017, to consult the British public in a proper, full-on in/out referendum? Yes, I believe it is.

“That’s the approach we take. Everything driven by what is in the British national interest. That is what I’m going to deliver. It’s absolutely right for our country. It has very strong support throughout the country and in the Conservative Party and that’s exactly what I’m going to do.”

Mr Obama stressed that the decision on the UK’s future was a matter for the British people, but added: “David’s basic point that you probably want to see if you can fix what is broken in a very important relationship before you break it off makes some sense to me.

“I know that David’s been very active in seeking some reforms internal to the EU. Those are tough negotiations, you’ve got a lot of countries involved, I recognise that.

“We haven’t yet evaluated how successful those reforms will be. I at least would be interested in seeing whether or not those are successful before rendering a final judgment.”

Tory MP John Baron, who tabled the rebel amendment regretting the lack of a referendum Bill, said backing it would be the best way of ensuring Mr Cameron’s referendum pledge became law.

“If the Government thinks it’s going to get this Bill through by any other means than actually introducing it itself – it’s talking about a private member’s Bill – that is a ploy that could well fail,” he told BBC News.

“By far the better option is for the Government to have the courage to support our amendment on Wednesday, force Labour and the Liberals to decide and if we succeed in that amendment then the Government could introduce a Bill through normal channels and that would have a much better chance of succeeding. That would be the better approach.”

But fellow Tory Nadine Dorries said 2017 was too long to wait for the referendum and criticised the coalition for bringing forward bills which have alienated grassroots Conservatives.

“If we can give the gay marriage promise legislation, if we bring through an AV referendum then we need to bring through this much quicker,” she told BBC2′s Newsnight.

Ukip leader Nigel Farage said: “This is nothing more than gesture politics. The Conservative party’s position is clearly not a position Cameron holds in his heart.

“The very fact that he is in America selling the EU to the Obama presidency while members of his party are making what amounts to a contradictory statement back at home just goes to show this is an act of sheer desperation.

“This is clearly a Prime Minister not in control and a Government in total disarray. It is a basic principle of our democracy that no Parliament can bind a successor, without the support of Parliament this is a meaningless piece of constitutional shadow play.”

[PA]

Related articles

• David Cameron to draft 2017 EU referendum bill (scotsman.com)
• David Cameron to publish Bill on EU referendum (belfasttelegraph.co.uk)
• Cameron To Publish In-Out EU Referendum Bill (news.sky.com)
• Tories to publish EU referendum bill (bbc.co.uk)

Most times I receive messages, a quick glance is enough to know to delete immediately. ‘Nothing to see here. Move along, move along‘. But just occasionally, one of these emails is useful.

I received one such late last night, in which a US right-wing group that considers socialised medicine to be on a par with satanism, tries to persuade readers that ‘Obamacare’ – Barack Obama’s noble-but-limited effort to lift the crushing burden of healthcare costs from the backs of hundreds of millions of ordinary American citizens – is killing more people than it cures.

Why was this worth the time it took to read? Because in its simple-minded, over-the-top way, this group of US right-wingers is following exactly the same playbook that is currently being used by our own lamentable bunch of right-wing miscreants to denigrate the NHS – but because it’s so over the top, it shines a bright light on the more devious versions used by the Tory front bench.

Here’s the full wording of the message I received. Please note, this is not satire, but deadly serious and exactly as I received it:

Obamacare Just Killed its Millionth Person…

Dear Concerned Citizen, 

The eleventh hour is upon us.

In the coming weeks, the full impact of Obamacare will take effect. 

I’ve seen what’s coming and it’s scary. It’s a lethal dose of socialism being injected directly into the heart of the American health insurance market.

Heck, it’s already wreaking havoc. By our estimates, Obamacare has already killed a million people by further straining an already weak healthcare system. 

It’s NOT too late to fight back, though!

In a moment, I’m going to ask you to help me repeal Obamacare before it’s too late. 

You see, I’m petitioning Senate Democrats along with the President to kill Obamacare for good.

So if you’re on the side of personal liberty…

Small government…

And free markets… 

I urge you to join me in the fight.

By government mandate, once we hit 100,000 signatures in 30 days, the prevailing administration MUST consider our demands.

Even Obamacare’s most staunch supporters are beginning to crack, signaling that now is the perfect time to strike… 

But I need your help to pull off this historic victory.

Just click the link below. 

The second you click, you’ll have the opportunity to sign up for Capitol Hill Daily where we’ll rush to you (via email) simple instructions on how to participate in this landmark repeal effort.

Capitol Hill Daily already reaches over 125,000 readers. And it’s through this flagship publication that I’ll communicate our progress toward repealing Obamacare.

Time is a luxury we no longer have…

CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR FIGHT AGAINST OBAMACARE (I’ve removed the link for the sake of the innocent!)

Sincerely, 

Martin Biancuzzo
Senior Correspondent, Capitol Hill Daily

Isn’t that just lovely? Now, if you’ll bear with me, we’ll take a look at a few individual sections and compare how our own sorry ‘leaders’ apply the same principles as they try to destroy the world’s best social healthcare system, rather than trying to strangle one at birth like the US right is doing. I’ll do so by using actual claims, statements and arguments used by our own cuddly Tories – but converted into the US hyperbolic style:

In the coming weeks, the full impact of Obamacare will take effect.

Tory: The NHS wastes millions of pounds. It’s inefficient and must be reformed. It’s, it’s… UNSUSTAINABLE!!

I’ve seen what’s coming and it’s scary. It’s a lethal dose of socialism being injected directly into the heart of the American health insurance market.

Tory: Public services are inefficient. Private enterprise is much less wasteful. It’s all for your own good! Tough decisions! REFORM! PATIENT CHOICE!!

Heck, it’s already wreaking havoc. By our estimates, Obamacare has already killed a million people by further straining an already weak healthcare system.

Tory: If we can’t find any figures to twist, we’ll just make some up! A million new private sector jobs! 900,000 skivers! We need a culture of compassion! Overstretched?! Nonsense!! Our doctors and nurses don’t care! People are starving to death and bodies are being dumped in piles in the corridors!! We need reform!! MID STAFFS!!!

It’s NOT too late to fight back, though!

Tory: We must DO something! Anything!! As long as it’s for profit!!!

In a moment, I’m going to ask you to help me repeal Obamacare before it’s too late.

Tory: REFOOOOORRRMMMM!!!

You see, I’m petitioning Senate Democrats along with the President to kill Obamacare for good.

The NHS is safe in our hands!

So if you’re on the side of personal liberty…

Patient choice! Personal healthcare budgets!!

Small government…

Localism! Decentralisation! CHOICE!! Responsible to promote, not to provide!! ANYTHING as long as it means we can’t be held responsible!!!

And free markets…

Forget rail fares! Forget energy bills!! Don’t even THINK about G4S!!! Private is good. Private is better. Private is best!! It just IS!!!

Even Obamacare’s most staunch supporters are beginning to crack, signaling that now is the perfect time to strike…

The vast majority of British people still love the NHS – we’re doing EVERYTHING possible to change that! Aren’t we, Rupert?!! MID STAFFS!!!

But I need your help to pull off this historic victory.

We need you to believe us to pull off this historic demolition!!!

The second you click, you’ll have the opportunity to sign up for Capitol Hill Daily where we’ll rush to you (via email) simple instructions on how to participate in this landmark repeal effort.

We really, REALLY need you to believe us! Read the Daily Mail! Or even better, the Telegraph!!

Capitol Hill Daily already reaches over 125,000 readers. And it’s through this flagship publication that I’ll communicate our progress toward repealing Obamacare.

We’re actually a really, REALLY tiny group of people – but we own the press and control the BBC!! Hahahahaha!!!
[125k out of over 300,000,000 is less 0.04% of the US population)

Time is a luxury we no longer have…

It’s UNSUSTAINABLE, I tell you!!!!!

CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR FIGHT AGAINST OBAMACARE (I’ve removed the link for the sake of the innocent!)

See the picture? Our bunch of right-wing bandits are a little bit more subtle than their US cousins – they are Brits, after all, and we don’t really do ‘over the top’ (except Alan Rickman, wonderfully).

But by seeing the message behind the Tories’ spin, distortion and outright lies in its least subtle, most naked form, it helps to show their callous, venal, avaricious claptrap for exactly the steaming heap of ordure that it is.

And hopefully we’ll see that it’s not to be swallowed – especially when it comes to our most precious national possession: the NHS.

Now some emails have suggested that Gollum Gove is a clueless dimwit but, as usual, we could not possibly comment.

“I really am a total idiot!”

Last month, Vox Political wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a Mr Osborne, politely asking him whether he had any other documentary justifications for his disastrous programme of austerity after the previous principal pillar of his faith – a paper by Harvard economists Reinhart and Rogoff – had been disproved by a student at a rival university.

Today we received a response! A lengthy, well-considered one at that.

What a shame that we found a way to trash it before we reached the end of page one.

But we’re getting ahead of ourselves. Let’s all read the letter together, shall we? It begins:

“Thank you for your letter dated 22 April about the recent publication by Herndon, Ash and Pollin, a critique to the paper ‘Growth in the time of Debt’ by Reinhart and Rogoff.

“You asked for the Treasury’s views on the recent criticism of the paper by Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff which concluded that public debt above 90% of GDP could prove a significant drag on economic growth.

“As you will be aware, the Coalition Government inherited the largest deficit in post-war history due to unsustainable increases in Government spending by the previous Government and the effects of the financial crisis [We don't know that at all. The largest deficit in post-war history is something to which this writer cannot respond - I only know that the national debt at the end of WWII was 250 per cent of GDP, or very nearly four times as much as it is now. Spending by the Labour administration was less than that of the Conservatives until the financial crisis took place, so the writer is effectively admitting that Conservative spending between 1979 and 1997 was even more unsustainable. As for the financial crisis, the Tories would have done the same as Labour at the time, as is borne out by the history books]. In order to address these problems the Coalition Government set a clear and credible consolidation plan to reduce the risks of a costly loss of market confidence in the UK, to restore confidence and underpin sustainable growth.

“As noted by the OECD in their Economy Survey of the United Kingdom February 2013, ‘global developments have shown that the consequences of loosing [sic] market confidence can be [a] sudden and severe and sharp rise in the interest rates [that] would [be] particularly damaging to an economy with the United Kingdom’s level of indebtedness.’ A 1 percentage point increase in government bond yields would add around £8.1 billion to annual debt interest payments by 2017-18.

“Fiscal consolidation also reduces the risk of adverse feedback between weak public finances and a strained financial sector. This feedback can be very damaging, as evidenced by recent events in the euro area. Globally, the UK has one of the largest financial systems relative to the size of its economy, meaning that any loss of investor confidence in the UK’s fiscal position would not only affect the UK, but also the global economy. As the IMF has stated in their United Kingdom – 2011 Article IV Consultation Concluding Statement of the Mission, ‘the UK financial system thus serves as a global public good’. It is the IMF’s view that the UK’s economic and financial sector policies have a systemic impact on the global economy.

“The Government’s approach is supported by a large body of academic and professional literature which finds that there are strong theoretical and empirical grounds for a relationship between high levels of debt and slow growth, including:

“1. Work by staff of the Bank for International Settlements:

“* ‘The Real Effects of Debt’ by Cecchetti et al, 2011 (published as a Bank of International Settlements working paper in September 2011), found that government debt above 85% had a negative impact on growth.

“2. Research by staff of the International Monetary Fund:

“* ‘Public Debt and Growth’, an IMF 2010 working paper prepared by Kumar and Woo, found that an increase in debt ratio of 10& resulted in an annual decrease of 0.2% in per capita GDP growth, with a stronger effect at higher levels of debt. The paper found some evidence of nonlinearity with higher levels of initial debt having a proportionately larger negative effect on subsequent growth. Analysis of the components of growth suggested that the adverse effect largely reflects a slowdown in labour productivity growth mainly due to reduced investment and slower growth of capigal stock.

“* ‘How costly are debt crises’, an IMF 2011 working paper prepared by Furceri and Zdzienicka, finds that debt crises produce significant and long-lasting output losses. This study also provides support to the idea of a threshold for the debt-to-GDP ratio above which output growth starts to decline.

“* The IMF 2013 WEO box 1.2 ‘Public Debt Overhang and Private Sector Performance’, cites studies that have found a threshold beyond which public debt harms growth. It also lists several reasons why a debt overhang can affect economic activity.

“3. Work by staff of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development:

“* ‘Public Debt, Economic Growth and Nonlinear effects, Myth or Reality?’ Egert, OECD 2012, finds ‘some evidence in favour of a negative nonlinear relationship between debt and growth using a variety of econometric models.

“4. Work by staff of the European Commission:

“* Report on Public Finances in EMU 2012 supports the statement that public debt can trigger economic growth: ‘higher debt levels and interest rates might weigh on economic growth, especially when debt exceeds a certain threshold level as a number of papers suggest.’

“There are also theoretical reasons, highlighted in Boskin, 2012 and OECD, 2012 for believing that higher levels of public debt will damage medium-term growth prospect:

“* First, tax hikes needed to service a higher public debt may crowd out private investment by reducing disposable income and saving.

“* Second, if the higher debt servicing costs associated with increased debt levels are financed by increasing tax revenue, they also imply a deadweight loss on the economy as a result of distortionary effect of raising tax revenues.

“* Third, there is broad agreement that large deficit and debt levels are associated with a higher level of long-term Government bond yields which may crowd out productive public investment and reduce private investment through an increase in the cost of capital. Reduced investment in research and development will have long-lasting negative impacts on growth.

“The approach is also supported by international organisations. The OECD, for example, noted in its November 2012 Economic Outlook that ‘With the budget deficit (excluding temporary factors) at over 8% of GDP and gross government debt at over 80% of GDP, fiscal consolidation is necessary to restore the sustainability of public finances and will strengthen medium-term growth prospects. The fiscal stance remains appropriate, and is supported by the strong institutional framework.’

“Olli Rehn, Vice President of the European Commission, on the speech of the Spring Forecast in May 2013 noted: ‘It is important that the UK follows through with consistent consolidation of public finances with a view to achieve (sic) a more sustainable fiscal position.’

“At the end of this letter you can find the papers referred to above online.”

I shan’t embarrass the letter’s author by naming that person.

The online papers are:

Cecchetti, Bank of International Settlements, 2011. ‘The Real Effects of Debt’ http://www.bis.org/publ/work352.htm

Kumar and Woo. ‘Public Debt and Growth’, IMF 2010 http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2010/wp10174.pdf

Furceri and Zdzienicka. ‘How Costly are debt crises’, IMF 2011 http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2011/wp11280.pdf

IMF April 2013 World Economic Outlook (WEO) http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2013/01/

Egert, OECD 2012. ‘Public Debt, Economic Growth and Nonlinear effects, Myth or Reality?’ http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/public-debt-economic-growth-and-nonlinear-effects_5k918xk8d4zn-en

Boskin, M. Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, 2012. A Note On the Effects of the Higher National Debt On Economic Growth http://siepr.stanford.edu/publicationsprofile/2491

OECD Economic Outlook, November 2012. http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/economics/oecd-economic-outlook-volume-2012-issue-2_eco_outlook-v2012-2-en

European Council, 2012 UK Country Specific Recommendation (CSR). http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/economic_governance/sgp/pdf/20_scps/2012/04_council/uk_2012-07-10_council_recommendation_en.pdf

… all of which can be picked apart with one observation and a couple of attached questions:

Mr Osborne demanded in 2010, that cuts to welfare benefits alone should total £18bn per year by 2014-15 (meaning a total of £90bn over the five years of Coalition government). Other government departments have had to take huge hits as well.

So why is the total drop in the deficit this year just £300 million? And why is the national debt now more than 88 per cent of total GDP – well inside the danger zone that Mr Osborne has been trying to avoid?

Could it be that, once put into practice, the theories outlined above aren’t actually worth a farthing?

Expect much more on this subject as we really get our teeth into the material the Treasury has kindly provided.