As the two contenders for the Tory leadership engage in a race to the bottom in terms of honesty, relevance and decency, my friend John Cole, a fellow former teacher of Economics who served for 14+ years as a Liberal Democrat on Bradford Metropolitan Council, and I decided to put together a list of mistaken Tory policies which have been implemented in our lifetimes. We started with an aim of about a dozen, but the list grew longer and longer. My apologies, therefore, that this post is somewhat longer than usual. John is relatively youthful so the first item was not in his lifetime.
NHS. Bitterly opposed its creation in 1947. They were not, of course, in power, but it’s worth remembering this when, now that it is a “National Treasure,” they claim to support it while looking for ways to privatise more and more of it.
EUROPE. Failed to participate in the setting up of the Coal and Steel Community in 1952, and then the EEC in 1957. There were lengthy delays before we joined the ERM and when we did so it was at an unrealistic rate, leading to our being humiliatingly forced out on Black Wednesday in 1992.
SUEZ. The ignominious failure of this venture in 1956 was a clear illustration that Britain was no longer a 19th century- style Great Power capable of independent international action.
MAU MAU UPRISING (KENYA). The brutal treatment of Africans fighting for independence demonstrates that the empire was not always the avuncular institution we like to pretend. In particular the failure of the Colonial Secretary, Alan Lennox- Boyd, to take responsibility for the Hola Camp Massacre (1959) and resign from his post, was an early breach of the constitutional conventions which have become so frequent in recent years. Maybe the beginning of the end of the “good chap theory of government.”
BLUE STREAK. Untold millions were spent on this attempt to build an intermediate range ballistic missile to deliver Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent. After its cancellation in 1960 we’ve borrowed an American one: how independent is that?
PRIVATISATION. The selling- off of public assets at knock-down prices in the hope of creating a share-holding (and Tory voting) democracy. Most of the shares are now in the hands of hedge-funds etc. and many of the utilities are now owned by foreign companies, even some governments.
RIGHT TO BUY. Similarly, the selling of the social housing stock to tenants in the hope that they became Tory-voting owner-occupiers. Over 40% of the stock sold is now in the hands of buy-to-let landlords.
DEREGULATION. Regulations are rules it is the duty of any government to make to protect us from chancers, charlatans and bullies. Here are just two consequences. The abolition of the Parker Morris standards for houses in 1980 means that typical newly-built dwellings in the UK are barely half the size of new Greek or Danish homes. The failure to supervise and check on such standards as still exist has contributed to such tragedies as the Grenfell Fire (2017) and 71 deaths.
THE BIG BANG AND TAX HAVENS. Financial deregulation has opened the door to increased tax avoidance and financial opportunism. Londongrad has become a repository for funds from questionable sources.
THE FALKLANDS WAR. The withdrawal of HMS Endurance from the South Atlantic gave a signal which the Argentine government took to mean the UK would no longer defend the Falkland Islands. The ensuing war (1982) cost nearly 900 lives, mostly semi-trained young Argentinians.
SECTION 28. This series of laws across Britain prohibited the alleged "promotion of homosexuality" by local schools and authorities. It was in effect from 1988 to 2000 in Scotland and from 1988 to 2003 in England and Wales.
THE POLL TAX. An attempt to ensure that everyone paid for local services, even if they hadn’t any money. It was introduced in Scotland in 1989 and England and Wales in1990. It proved unpopular and unworkable, led to the defenestration of Mrs Thatcher and was replaced by banded council taxes in 1993. Since then no government has dared to re-evaluate the bands.
EMASCULATION OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES. This has continued steadily under both Conservative and Labour governments. UK government has become more centralised and local authorities increasingly merely agents of the centre with very limited powers to act or raise taxes independently.
AUSTERITY. Since 2010 the reduction in real terms of expenditure on all public services, including the NHS, leading to lengthy hospital waiting lists, a backlog in the courts, a barely functioning care service for the elderly, and the services provided by local authorities, including child protection, pared to a minimum. Spending on social security for those in poverty has been cut by 25%. The Bedroom Tax and the Two Child Limit indicate a vindictive attitude to struggling families.
THE HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT. Refugees from discrimination, persecution and torture are entitled in international law to apply for asylum in countries they consider safe. The hostile environment created by Mrs May when she was Home Secretary, continued since then and now including deportation to Rwanda, is callous, inhumane and probably illegal.
FAILURE TO TAKE CLIMATE CRISIS SERIOUSLY . Former Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson has been a leading climate change denier. Of the two current candidates for the leadership of the party, Rishi Sunak reduced the VAT on petrol and Liz Truss proposes to drop the Green Levy.
HOUNDING OF THE BBC. The BBC is almost universally respected as “the best in the World and the envy of the World” but the Tories are constantly sniping at it and threatening its financial independence. Funding has been cut by some 30% since 2010. The commercially funded public service broadcaster Channel 4 has also proved highly successful in providing investigative news and adventurous drama and is now also under threat.
LIES IN THE REFERENDUM FOR ELECTORAL REFORM. The Coalition Agreement of 2010 gave the impression that the Conservatives would remain neutral in the referendum campaign, but in fact they campaigned against it and poisoned it with misinformation.
ACADEMISATION OF SCHOOLS. (ongoing since 2010). In practice, privatisation. Among other abuses, hectares of playing fields have been sold off for private profit.
BREXIT. (Referendum 2016) An abrogation of our opportunities to develop peace and concord in Europe, a reduction in our abilities to influence world politics, and the ability effectively to fight a trade war against ourselves.
EXIT FROM THE CUSTOMS UNION AND SINGLE MARKET. (January 2021) The Leave Campaign implied that this would not happen, but the ERG faction of the Tory party forced the government to the hardest and most damaging form of quitting the EU.
CUTS IN OVERSEAS AID. Abandonment of the pledge, written into law, to maintain overseas aid at 0.7% of GDP. Lest we forget, Rishi Sunak , a candidate for the Tory leadership, was the minister responsible
TWO THREATS TO BREAK INTERNATIONAL LAW. The Internal Market Act (2020) and the abrogation of the Northern Ireland Protocol (pending). Both smear the UK’s reputation as a pillar of the law-abiding liberal democratic world.
HUMAN RIGHTS.
Respect for these is pilloried as being “woke” and they are now under threat.
Our democratic right to protest is being seriously limited and our
trade union movement has been severely constrained.
MISMANAGEMENT OF THE COVID PANDEMIC. (2020 and continuing); following the failure to implement the key recommendations of the Cygnus Exercise (2016) on how to be prepared for a predicted health pandemic.
INTERFERENCE WITH THE FRANCHISE. Second preference voting, where it existed, removed, and pictorial evidence needed for voter identification. The Electoral Commission made subject to government control.
If that's not enough this earlier post examines in more detail the myth of Tory economic competence.
https://keynesianliberal.blogspot.com/2022/01/the-myth-of-tory-economic-competance.html
So basically you don’t like the Conservatives doing conservative things.
ReplyDeleteFine, but the electorate tends to like the Conservatives doing conservative things, provided they do them competently. The Conservatives only get voted out when they stop doing conservative things, or when they stop being competent.
For the last couple of years the government has struggled (with a couple of notable exceptions) to be competent. But if they can recover their competence, and successfully deliver properly conservative policies (which you will hate, obviously), then I see no reason why they can’t win the next election.
If they remain incompetent, of course, then they will lose (and deserve to) and we will all suffer the consequences.
So your recognise the above as Conservative governments doing conservative things" and are content with the unsuccessful, and unfortunate outcomes.
ReplyDeleteSo your recognise the above as Conservative governments doing conservative things"
DeleteMost of them, yes.
and are content with the unsuccessful, and unfortunate outcomes.
On the contrary, most of them were quite successful. The Falklands War was famously successful. For example. Resisting the AV referendum was successful in stopping a change to the electoral system which would have had unpredictable results, but might well have meant the end of single-party governments and an era of permanent coalitions such as they have in lots of continental countries, which would have been awful. Brexit was successful in getting the UK out of the European Union and fending off the danger that we might have been sucked into further federalism.
Others look like they might be successful, but we have yet to see: the Northern Ireland protocol bill might be successful in ending a trade border between two bits of the UK, something no other country would find acceptable (imagine a trade border between, say, mainland France and Corsica). Redefining our relationship with the ECHR might be successful in rolling back the actions of activist judges who have expanded the definition of ‘human rights’ far beyond what was envisaged when that body was set up, and far beyond what is reasonable (for example the vast expansion of the ‘right to privacy’ — intended to stop governments spying on their citizens, Stasi-style, but which now threatens the freedom of the press by effectively granting anyone with enough money the ability to stop reporting of anything they do not wish the public to know).
So yes, in so far as the policies have been conservative and successful and continue to be so, I’m content with them.
And some of these you're just factually wrong about, like 'The selling- off of public assets at knock-down prices in the hope of creating a share-holding (and Tory voting) democracy. Most of the shares are now in the hands of hedge-funds etc. and many of the utilities are now owed by foreign companies, even some governments.'
ReplyDeleteIn fact most of the shares of nationalised utilities are in the hands of private pension funds. Do you have a private pension? If so then that means you own a share in those nationalised industries.
I mean previously-nationalised utilities, obviously — though of course the main benefit of privatisation was not, and was never meant to be, share ownership, it was about competition driving up standards. And if you compare, say, standards in the telephone market, whatever problems they still have, to the bad old days of the pre-privatisation monopoly, you can see that it worked; if we still had a nationalised telecommunications company then any time you wanted to buy, say, an iPhone, then —always assuming that the model you wanted was approved for connection to the network (remember the green circles and red triangles in the catalogues?) — you'd have to apply to have it connected, and then wait months for them to bother to send you your SIM card, and months more if you wanted anything complex like a number transferred.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThanks, as always for your comments.. I have tried earlier to respond and accidentally posted before I had completed my response. I hope for better things this time.
ReplyDeleteFalklands: nearly 900 deaths as a result of a flawed naval economy , and a failure to pursue a diplomatic solution.
Electoral reform: we remain trapped in a system which gives almost complete power to a minority, who can the and do ignore the other factors (especially the rights of minorities which constitute democracy.
Brexit; queues at Dover, falling trade, an additional 4% of inflation, danger of revived violence in Ireland, none, so far, of the promised advantages.
NIP: threatening to break international law. Johnson and Frost negotiated and signed this deal. They knew what it involved.
Human rights: important for everyone (even the rich) but most important for the most vulnerable. We are all in humanity together..
Hedge funds, OK, and pension funds as well. But not the share-holding democracy which was the declared aim.
Telephones: improvements more the result of advances in technology than competition. And I understand that once you're in a contract (I don't have one) it is very difficult to get out. Hardly completion at its best.
thos are the issues you defend.
I make it another thirteen bad outcomes to which you don't refer.
Now I'll try to correct the typos without deleting the comment.
Falklands: nearly 900 deaths as a result of a flawed naval economy , and a failure to pursue a diplomatic solution.
ReplyDeleteNo, nearly 900 deaths as a result of the decision of the Argentine government to invade sovereign British territory. Trying to blame that on UK 'navel economy' is geopolitical 'well if you're going to go out dressed like then then you should expect to get raped'.
Electoral reform: we remain trapped in a system which gives almost complete power to a minority, who can the and do ignore the other factors (especially the rights of minorities which constitute democracy.
No one claims our current system is perfect, but the alternative of a system where it's impossible ever to get rid of a failing government — see for example Ireland, where the voters tried to kick Varadkar out but he's right back in again, or Germany — would be worse.
That's the fundamental point of a conservative platform: don't change anything that is working, even if it doesn't work perfectly, because if you try to improve it you will almost certainly end up unintentionally breaking it beyond repair because of something you didn't foresee.
(You know how every time you install an update to your computer's operating system it promises to improve things but actually breaks everything? Like that, but with the country.)
Brexit; queues at Dover, falling trade, an additional 4% of inflation, danger of revived violence in Ireland, none, so far, of the promised advantages.
Like there were never queues at Dover before last year. But, in fact, we do have the main promised advantages: we are out of the EU. That was the goal and it's been achieved. We no longer have to worry about creeping federalisation (which continues to happen in the EU). And we no longer automatically have to follow any and all new regulation the EU proposes, like this brain-dead standardised mobile telephone charger nonsense, that's a good one.
NIP: threatening to break international law. Johnson and Frost negotiated and signed this deal. They knew what it involved.
They did. But it's an unacceptable deal, Frost is no longer in government, and Johnson soon won't be. A new administration can re-negotiate.
Human rights: important for everyone (even the rich) but most important for the most vulnerable. We are all in humanity together..
Human rights are indeed important, but there is no human right (for example) not to have the newspapers write about you, provided what they write is true and they can prove it's true.
The ECHR has invented, entirely out of the whole cloth, such a right and enforced it, among other totally made-up 'human rights' that are nothing of the sort.
Hedge funds, OK, and pension funds as well. But not the share-holding democracy which was the declared aim.
I guess from that you had a private pension, which means you are a share-holder. You also vote, so how does that not make you part of a share-holding democracy?
Telephones: improvements more the result of advances in technology than competition.
No, they're not. No matter how much technology improves, there is no incentive for a monopoly supplier to give good customer service.
And I understand that once you're in a contract (I don't have one) it is very difficult to get out. Hardly completion at its best.
Depends on the contract. You can get month-by-month contracts which have no ongoing commitment and can be ended at any time. Or you can get a longer-term contract where you trade flexibility for a lower price. It's called consumer choice, and it doesn't exist in a monopoly system where you just get what you're given, take it or leave it.
I make it another thirteen bad outcomes to which you don't refer.
I don't have infinite time!
Grateful for sharing this
ReplyDelete