Johann Hari: The harsh truth about Tory policies
Cameron adopts policies which will hurt the poor because he's never known any
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
The most common complaint against David Cameron is unfair and untrue. Critics keep charging that he has no policies – but in truth, now he has dropped his early attempt at kum-bay-ya Conservatism, Cameron is offering a fairly detailed prospectus. Unfortunately, it is of policies that will harm Britain.
There is a laboratory where these Tory policies are being played out now. It is called London. Boris Johnson said he was a "progressive conservative" who would "help the poor" and "green the city". One of his first acts in power was to lay off half the people in London government working on lowering the city's carbon emissions, and to kick plans to limit pollution levels into the long grass.
One year in, it is clear he has delivered handsomely – for the rich. He has given them a de facto tax cut by abolishing the extension of the congestion zone to well-heeled west London, and by abandoning the £25-a-day charge for SUV drivers. He has paid for it by pushing up costs for the poorest people in London, ramming up bus fares by 20 per cent. He has opposed all new regulation on the City of London, and still praises sub-prime mortgages – the cause of the Great Crash of 2008.
Under the Conservative council of Hammersmith and Fulham – named by Cameron as a model for how he will rule – things have gone further. It has paid for tax cuts by shutting down 12 homeless hostels, increasing the cost of meals on wheels for poor pensioners by 60 percent, and suddenly charging disabled people who need home help £12.40 an hour.
The council's leader, Stephen Greenhalgh, says he wants to abolish council housing and let rents rise to market levels. He argues that council estates today are "barracks for the poor" and complains their residents are "hard to get rid of". A recent meeting of Tory policymakers – including Cameron's housing adviser Owen Inskip – dismissed council housing as a "dead end" and mooted charging market rents. Prices for the poorest people in London would soar to between £150 and £650, stripping many of a secure roof over their heads.
Yes, New Labour has often been dire – but the people who say nothing could be worse are learning the hard way that it ain't so. Poring through Cameron's policy documents, I could find only one instance where there would be a clear improvement: he would not build a new terminal at Heathrow. He deserves credit for that. But otherwise, his announcements casually write off British lives. For example, he says he will not erect any more speed cameras, no matter how bad a car crash hot-spot becomes. When it is pointed out that they cut deaths by 40 per cent and currently save 900 lives a year, he keeps his eye on the speedophile vote and refuses to budge.
Cameron will oversee a huge rise in religious fundamentalist schools. His policy is to allow any group of parents who want to establish a school to be given public money. In every country where this has been tried, the groups organised enough to snaffle the cash are extreme religious followers who want to "protect" their children from secular values. Secular campaigners are staring at Tory plans in a new kind of disbelief.
Of course, the most consequential policies so far cover the economy, where Cameron is promoting a fringe philosophy rejected by every other elected government. Most economists believe that when private spending collapses, the Government has to fill the gap in demand by borrowing and spending – or a recession turns into a depression. Yet Cameron says governments must cut spending to pay down the debt, however bad the economic weather.
The country that has steered out of the recession fastest – China – did precisely the opposite. It ramped up state spending to 88 per cent of GDP growth. Even Angela Merkel, who used to share Cameron's analysis, was so struck by this she now plans a large debt-funded stimulus. Professor David Blanchflower – one of the most distinguished economists in Britain – says Cameron's policies mean another million people will lose their jobs. "It could send the economy crashing into a ten-year depression," he warns.
It is hard to escape the conclusion that Cameron and George Osborne can adopt policies that are so harmful towards ordinary people and the poor because they have never really known any. Barely a week passes without Osborne making a slip showing he is surreally out of touch.
He recently claimed his inheritance tax cut on properties worth £1m would be enjoyed by people living in ex-council houses. He then said his £20,000 a year private school, St Paul's, is "incredibly liberal" because "your mother could be the head of a giant corporation, or a solicitor in Kew."
If you think council houses are worth a million quid and solicitors in Kew are the lowest rung on the social ladder you can imagine, how does it affect your policies? Of course you can blithely advocate increasing the retirement age to 66: I doubt he even knows that in the place where I was born, Glasgow, most men are dead years before they reach that age.
This Cameroon-cocoon is best captured by the soon-to-be Tory MP, Jacob Rees-Mogg, who at the age of forty is accompanied at public events by his nanny, who he calls "Nanny." He recently snapped: "If I've got a nanny, I've got a nanny. And if anybody doesn't like it – tough!" He then added: "I do wish you wouldn't keep going on about my nanny. If I had a valet you'd think it was perfectly normal."
In the midst of all this, Cameron's policy documents show he will try to change Britain's political landscape to make it harder for the Tories to be defeated. He will abolish 10 per cent of parliamentary seats, almost all in Labour areas. He will scrap the rules requiring commercial broadcasters to be politically impartial, unleashing the rabid Fox News model against the British left. And he will threaten to outlaw trade union funding for Labour.
So let's be fair to him: David Cameron has policies. Lots of them. They suggest a sound-bite for the new election: Vote blue, and we'll all be singing the blues.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
Democracy in name only. I guess we're long past due for a forthright dictatorship that doesn't hide behind insubstantial policy promises that disappear the moment they're scrutinised. I just wonder how we ever got to this state?
"Modern Society is the mutual passive acceptance of sociopathic tendencies among the minority of the population." Discuss.
Equally,
"Modern democracy is the mutual passive acceptance of political policies and strategies intended to benefit a select proportion of the electorate, rather than the majority." Discuss.
What's the other option? Jaqui Smith? Alan Johnson? Brown...?
It seems a "lose lose" situation... a political "game over".
Don't tell the public about your policies, as shown by Andrew Neather and the immigration inflood to re-engineer the country. Don't tell the public about deals with the bankers to bet all the countries future on the Banking sector and the huge risk that failed. Don't tell the public about a referendum you promised but will not give them because they will not vote the way you want them. A Gov that that does those things; the harsh truth is that they are Traitors.
On the money Pete, right on the money. I will share with you somthing I predicted yesterday here and in Guardian posts. The latest You Gov poll today, puts the Tories 14 points ahead of Labour. AFTER the news of ratification pulling the rug on Camerons referendum had broken and been reported. This is 1 point BETTER than last week, and represents an 82 seat majority.
'@NEOCONCRITIC
Lifes a bitch.
It is clear to me that neither the Tories, and especially Labour, can not be trusted to run our affairs, mainly because they are too concerned about running their own, it is time for PR. Obviously this will not happen any time soon, but at least it should be looked into.
In the meantime, there are other parties to vote for, the Libdems for instance; less shrill, less hypercritical, less hysterical than both the main parties. Tory landslide next time round will probably just about finish the UK off for ever. It's up to you...
What on earth does he mean that China 'ramped up state spending to 88 per cent of GDP growth' ?
If you are going to plagiarise, please try to make sense.
As for broadcasters' political neutrality, the BBC is and has always been relentlessly pro-Brussels. In the run up to the Norwich by-election, they gave the Greens far more airtime than UKIP, despite the latter having done better than the former in every recent election and opinion poll. When the results were in, the BBC left UKIP out entirely by reporting which parties had come first, second, third... and fifth. Only Radio 5 Live filled in the gap, by reporting that UKIP had come "worryingly close" to the third placed Lib Dems.
Of course, this doesn't bother you since it's your own bias too – when you complain about "bias", you only ever mean bias in the other direction.
Your complaints about raising the retirement age might be better directed towards Crash Gordon, who made it necessary with his Weimar-Republic-style "quantitative easing". Moreover, the redrawing of electoral boundaries would do no more than undo the gerrymandering Labour has practiced during its 12 years in power.
But what really staggers me is your complaint about banning trade union funding of the Labour Party. One of the consistent themes in your writing is that political parties are beholden to those who fund them, and can't bring about real change as a result. But apply that same logic to your own party? No, that would be going too far.
Very well said sir: to add a little more, the BBC receive some funding directly from the EU. But they would have barked their master's voice regardless.
It was the Labour government that introduced 'faith based shcools'! What Hari fails to grasp is that the Tory education policy is based on the Swedish model, a country that is hardly infected by religious extremeism.
The early age of death in Glasgow - worse than some thrid world countries - is a disgrace for the whole of the UK one we should all be ashamed off, but this is hardly a the fault of the Tories, it's a failing of society as a whole - one the Labour party failed to address in 12 years.
when will Hari's hatred of 'private education' ever subside!!
The truth is, we've always had Tory policies, ever since the war when the NHS was set up, we've had policies dictated by the extremely wealthy for the extremely wealthy. War and climate change will be the result. Both the UK and the USA like many Arab states are slipping down the ladder. Why? because they are led by people who worship at the feet of false gods. "Free Enterprise", unlimited growth with no stopping - ever. many are turning their backs on inconvienient realities, the shortage of energy, minerals and water, the death of species, climate change. Whilst others tilt at knowledge because it challenges beliefs which have a tendency to become ever more ridiculously restrictive as time goes on. If climate change is real and evolution true, it's no use attacking scientists whilst tightening up on your codes of "morality". That way your "New Jeruselem" will drown as events overtake you.
Only societies that heed scientific advice and sincerely pursue freedom without dogma wil prosper.
This is the latest nonsense seen often in Guardian posts. Attlee, Wilson/Callaghan, Blair/Brown were/are all right wing Tories. Therefore Toryism is discredited as these politicians were hopeless (not to mention Major, Eden and Heath, who were also hopeless in the view of most Tories). The real answer then is "real socialism".
That has been tried and tested to destruction on every continent on the planet baring Australasia.
Why oh why do you people persist with this damn nonsense?
The article obviously presents something of a one sided view of current Tory thinking on social housing. For a more balanced assessment of what has happened and what is proposed in Hammersmith readers might like to take a look here http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/story.as
There is clearly a problem with a low turnover of tenants in social housing which contributes to frequent lack of availability to those in most need. If switching from secure tenancies to assured tenancies in the social sector is likely to alleviate this problem then I have no problem with that. In general the aim with social housing tenants should be to find the best way to enable them to improve their lives. That should usually mean either enabling them to be in position to purchase their residence, or enabling them to move out of social housing so that their residence can be made available to someone in greater need. As someone who was raised on a council estate I would hope that Mr Hari would not question my understanding of the experiences of social tenants in the way he does with Cameron and Osborne.
With regard to education policy the above comment is correct. How can introducing education reforms on Swedish lines realistically lead to a proliferation of nut job religious fundamentalist schools in a country every bit as secular as Sweden? Mr Hari should have a bit more faith in the British parents who would look to start new schools as allowed under under this policy than that.
As to parliamentary seats, of course almost any reform reducing the size of the Commons would result in fewer Labour seats. That is because a number of safe Labour inner city seats have tiny electorates. This is a policy of correcting a bias in the system already present, not of introducing a new bias.
I could go on, but suffice to say that anyone looking to this article to get a fair and dispassionate assessment of the likely implications of a Tory government is likely to be disappointed.
Keep religion out of education. Keep religion out of the state.
In terms of male life expectancy in Glasgow, he is wrong. The average male life expectancy in Glasgow is between 68 and 72 years, therefore most males in Glasgow will not die before 66.
http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/files1/s
I am 63 and live in rural Buckinghamshire. I could arrange to die in the next 5 years I expect, if I do the following.
Drink a bottle of whisky every day washed down with 6 or 8 pints of "heavy".
Eat an excessive amount of saturated fat. Eat few if any greens.
Cease exersise and gain weight, developing diabetes type 2.
How will a Tory govenment effect this?
It is obvious you people are beyond redemption. Your party of choice, your PM of choice makes the biggest balls up imaginable, yet still you persist in claims that Brown and his ilk are the nations saviours.
Well the boss of Marks and Sparks certainly does'nt think so and he could'nt give a good Godamn were you went to school either.
By the way, a Labour supporter has nothing to crow about these days regarding "silver spoons", just give it a rest. You make yourself look stupid.
The poor get stuffed whoever is in power, so keep your student outpourings to yourself and stop insulting the intelligence of the readers of this paper.
ANY new government will have just one priority, (the markets will see to that), cuts and more cuts to public expenditure and encouragement (at long long long last) of the productive part of the economy.
It's simply a matter of survival.
Cameron is the only one who shows even a passing acquaintanceship with this obvious truth.
Brown imagines that at the first uptick in quarterly GDP stats, it will be back to business as usual !!
Just contemplate another 5 years of Brown and his dwarves Johann, then have a very stiff drink, hold your nose, and vote Tory.
Don't whine about "the poor", it was Blair/Brown who put them there. They need jobs, not more benefit payouts and "legislation".
It occurs to me that anybody contemplating which party to vote for in 2010, who cares for the future of democracy, should be reminded of the Tories’ attitude to Pinochet as an indication of the kind of motives driving this essentially reactionary party.
Remarking on a visit to Pinochet, Norman Lamont said:
"He was in excellent spirits, AS YOU WOULD EXPECT OF THE GOOD AND BRAVE SOLDIER THAT HE IS (sic!). It was a private visit just to shake his hand and tell him there are many people in this country who deplore what's happening and wish to see him return to his own country."
BARONESS MARGARET THATCHER , with her husband Denis, hosted Pinochet to tea at her Belgravia home in Chester Square just before his arrest. They have been personal friends since she visited Chile on a tour to promote her memoirs
The above press comments - amongst many more in similar vein - at the time of Pinochet’s arrest reflect the widespreqd attitude of the Tories towards a murdering fascist dictator who - at the behest of and with the monetary support of the CIA - overthrew and murdered a democratically elected socially progressive leader - Salvador Allende - and introduced a regime of "disappearing", torturing and murder of thousands of people who might have opposed the introduction of the laissez-faire anti social neo-con "scientific" conclusions of that extreme right-wing laisssez-faire economist guru Milton Friedman . It will be recalled that our own Dr Sheila Cassidy was severely tortured for - as a doctor - treating someone who was against the Pinochet coup.
Friedman was of course one the economic reactionaries who inspired Thatcher (even to the extent of withdrawing school milk for poorer kids, which was one of the "minor" doctrinaire acts of Pinochet in Chile - inspired by Friedman.)
It is important to mention this widesread Tory attitude to Chile in the seventies as a reflection of the kind of party which we shall once again have in power if people are stupid enough to vote for it in 2010. Forget about the public relations babble issuing from Cameron: if they get into power the real Tories will once again emerge. In this regard we should also take into account the Tories far right virtually Fascist new EU associates.
While in many ways (above all, their betrayal on electoral reform) New Labour have been a disappointment, they are still infinitely preferable to the Tories if by 2010 we are still polling under FPTP which seems inevitable
Any way even if it were only yesterday is it worse than the Blair/Brown record. What about Browns love in with Gadafi ? How many airliners did Pinochet blow up, how many English policewomen did he kill.
For Christ sake grow up.
Another pseudo-marxist stream of conciousness, Johann? Thanks a lot.
"It is hard to escape the conclusion that Cameron and George Osborne can adopt policies that are so harmful towards ordinary people and the poor because they have never really known any."
I would change the last words to "because they can" - or most people think they will be able to. So whom to vote for? Any tips?
But I suppose this nonsense condemns itself, and is just another example of Labour's total intellectual bankruptcy.
Put it in a plastic bag and store it as another "exhibit" for the prosecution.
Bloody wierdos.