Best to get the caveats out of the way first I guess? I'm a Tory but also vehemently anti EU (and equally vehemently pro Europe) just so you know!
However I do try to be objective - I probably give Dave more stick than I give anyone else on twitter, largely because I'm disappointed in him and his campaign. It seems to me that he should be miles ahead of Labour if one looks at what has happened to the UK in the past decade but he's not been setting the agenda; he's allowed himself to become mired in the Labour smokescreen tactics about zero hours, the fraudulent save our NHS crap, the utterly fraudulent cost of living crisis and the frankly laughable contention that Labour will secure a prosperous future for us all by continuing to live beyond our means. How Labour can score positive political points from foreign policy when the consequences of their shambolic, 'poodle-to-the-US' policies which resulted in the crisis that is now spreading from the Middle East to right here at home, is just beyond me.
But it has happened and Dave and his team have allowed it to happen.
Being anti EU means that I do have some sympathy with UKIP and whilst I am not a UKIP supporter, I do like Nigel Farage. I think he's the best politician of the past five years and that he does connect with real people in a way which none of the others do. I think UKIP has been (and is) good for UK politics and whilst I am not (yet) an outright supporter, I am a defender of UKIP against the ridiculous negative campaigning against them that we have seen from the 'establishment' including, in particular the Main Stream Media (MSM) especially the BBC.
So to get to the point then - about bloody time I hear you think. What are we being offered by way of choice and difference in this coming election?
The Tories are offering more of the same. Which is partly why they have found it difficult to control the agenda with a 'big idea'. Dave has never been very good at vision - I have criticised him about this before, here. We've had 'localism, 'in it together' 'big society', 'aspiration nation' and several others, none of which have been committed to, which is why none of them has stuck and become an asset to the party. Quite the reverse - chopping and changing one's vision undermines one's credibility in the long run. And this is coming home to bite Dave right now.
However, the Tories have effectively turned around our fortunes as a nation in economic terms. We have created more new jobs than the rest of the EU combined and the UK is the fastest-growing economy in the G7. Two million new jobs have been created and contrary to what Labour will tell you, the vast majority of these have not been zero hours jobs or non-jobs in the public sector, but real private sector jobs.
Dave may have been lucky in terms of being in the right place when the economic cycle recovered, but he has facilitated the upturn pretty well. His plan (plan A), which was opposed at every turn by Ed Balls and Labour has actually worked.
To me this simple fact should trump any other discussion or consideration as to who should get your vote. But sadly it hasn't done so - so far anyway.
So what is Labour offering? Usually elections are won by parties offering change. Change from failure, change from a failing economic approach, fundamental change to the direction in which the country is headed. Labour isn't offering change. It is tinkering at the margins because it knows that the UK is not failing by any credible measure. Without a strong, thriving and growing economy we cannot afford to provide the infrastructure, healthcare, education, policing, welfare safety net or defence services that the fifth largest economy in the world requires.
So nothing 'big' from Labour either then. No real fundamental change because the current 'direction of travel' is an overwhelmingly positive one. Instead Labour is tinkering. Finding any negative, however obscure and blowing it up into a major issue, supported, inexorably by the BBC, provider of 75% of the media we consume. Zero hours? 2% of jobs in the UK and the majority of people on zero hours contracts are happy with them.
But a few aren't so let's focus on them. Let's find and interview them on prime time television; a small proportion of 2% of UK workers.
Cost of living 'crisis'. Well firstly it is not a crisis. There is no God-given rule that your salary should go on increasing ahead of inflation forever, particularly without productivity gains. And following the 2007 crash - the biggest economic and financial crisis the world has ever seen - a period of more straightened times was inevitable.
That it hasn't been much, much worse is down to the economic upturn and the Tories' policies over the last five years, all of which were opposed by Labour.
Complaining from their London mansions about a cost of living crisis is just a sick joke - but one which their supporters have lapped up.
Food banks? Not a good look in C21st Britain, but if you give people free stuff they'll take it. Whether they really need it or not. As far as I can tell we're not facing a starvation epidemic in this country, but we certainly are facing a massive problem with obesity. How this issue has been allowed to gain political traction just amazes me. It has happened partly because of Dave's failing to address the issue properly and also because the left wing media - particularly the BBC - has 'promoted' it as an issue giving it much more credibility than it objectively deserves.
We're talking about 1 million people getting three day's worth of free food in a year; food provided to them by charities with some government backing. So 1 million out of a population of 65 million getting 3 day's worth of food out of 365. So 0.65% getting 0.03% of their annual food requirement from food banks. It's 0.0195. So 0.0195% of meals in the UK are being provided by food banks. Fewer than 2 in a hundred meals and the other 98.5% are provided by the state in any case.
But it's a big issue? A big stick with which to beat the Tories? No it isn't. And even if it were a big issue, what has caused the need for food banks? Labour's recession and Labour's uncontrolled immigration - not just 'uncontrolled' but their active pursuance of migrants into the UK during their last time in office.
'Save our NHS' is also laughable. Labour introduced private provision into the NHS and it's PFI (Private Finance Initiative) has saddled the public sector including the NHS with ridiculous levels of debt repayment terms of over £300 billion for investment of £85 billion. And they did this while the sun shone - i.e. while the economy was in good shape. Just putting everything, as usual, on the 'never never'. Labour hid the problems at Mid Staffs and elsewhere and has presided over the NHS in Wales which has seen a massive decline in performance over the past five years. But only they can 'save' the NHS? You'd have to be pretty stupid to fall for that one. It's unutterably sad that so many are.
Inequality rose during Labour's 13 years in office last time, inequality has fallen under the Tories as millions of people have been taken out of paying tax altogether. Have the super-rich got richer? Yes they have - they were always going to. But we're talking about 1% of the population. The vast majority of middle and higher income earners are now paying more tax and making a bigger contribution to the less well off, who are themselves paying less tax.
Whether you think this is fair - hitting people who work hard, harder to pay for people who don't bother is a subject for another debate, but this is true nonetheless.
The thing is, I'm finding it difficult to see what Labour will do in a positive sense. They propose to close tax loopholes which the Tories are already doing but Labour did absolutely nothing to address last time. They will tax the bankers again (and quite right too - I think Dave should be much harder on bankers) but they'll also create a Mansion Tax to take more money from people who have worked hard, paid their taxes (at higher rates) all their lives in order to buy a nice home.
How is that 'fair'? These people are already taxed to the hilt, paying 40 or 45% of their income to the government. If this is not enough then it (general taxation) should be increased to pay for the welfare state, not taken from them retrospectively. The issue here is of course that all parties would find it very difficult to justify higher general taxation to pay for a woefully wasteful government, whereas playing the 'envy' card will have popular support from the many who are, well, envious of others' hard-won wealth.
And the argument is that the mega-rich are not paying their way in London. I have news. These people can fuck off whenever they want to. And they will or they'll find some petty cash to pay the Mansion Tax. People who have worked hard to pay for their home, which has increased in value over the years do not have that luxury. And because this tax panders to the envy of people who haven't done so well, they can impose it because it will be popular regardless of whether it's fair. It simply is not.
Just like zero hours and food banks Labour is targeting a very small percentage of people who lose out as if that means everybody. And targeting its tax take on wealthy people who everyone else loathes because they've been successful. But that is about 2% at the bottom and 1% at the top. It's not about real people. It's not about the 97% of people who don't fall into these categories.
What it is about is using these extremes to garner the support of people who are envious of others. What it is about is giving middle class Labour voters something to hang onto. An excuse to kick the Tories when actually there's not much reason to do so otherwise.
It's typical Labour. The Champagne socialists who are doing very well thank you, lamenting the plight of a few people who are suffering without really doing anything about it. But making political capital out of it nonetheless at their Chablis-fuelled dinner parties. It's entirely fraudulent and sickening, but it's the way things are.
The Tories fix problems with the help of wealth creators who then become more wealthy but create more jobs along the way. Labour create problems by spending money we cannot afford but they and their supporters also become more wealthy along the way too.They make damn sure that they get their 'uplift' before paying lip-service to 'helping the poor'.
So what's the difference? The difference is that the Tories create wealth and jobs; making their own supporters more wealthy yes, but at the same time as delivering a stronger economy and more jobs for everyone. Labour creates wealth for its senior supporters by effectively stealing the wealth created by entrepreneurs for itself, not helping the poor (look at where Labour is strong electorally in the UK and you'll realise that this is true), and then blames the inevitable downturn and failure on someone else.
It has always been thus but Labour has survived against all the odds, because people vote for their ridiculous promises of a better life for no effort and, surprise surprise, their voters still live in deprived areas because Labour doesn't really give a toss about poor people, so long as they get their vote.
Expecting Shangrila and getting Tower Hamlets or Wrexham or Hartlepool every time is just rank stupidity. And they never seem to learn.
So anyway the other options:
Lib Dems? Toast I think. Mr Clegg talks a good fight about being a king-maker but you have to have numbers. Enough MPs to be able to contribute to a coalition government. I think he'll be lucky to retain his own seat and will find himself with very few colleagues to offer to anyone as a king-maker. The Lib Dems will do better than they deserve to do because of our first past the post system, but they're gone as a political force and that's a good thing. A 'brain' for Labour and a 'heart' for Tories? They're a rectum for the country and have been for years.
Greens? I'd be amazed if they got more than one seat and I think they'll probably lose (that one seat in) Brighton anyway. Populist perhaps but also batshit crazy policies on defence, climate change and immigration. The Monster Raving Loony party has more credible policies.
SNP? Well you can't vote for them unless you're in Scotland. And they will do well there, possibly sweep the board. So a 'no' vote in the referendum was really a 'yes' vote but with the safety blanket of Westminster funding. Canny. They win all ways up. And Dave and Ed's totally unwarranted 'Vow' is now coming home to roost. I said so at the time the 'Vow' was made that it was utterly stupid, I was right.
UKIP? If I thought they would win in my constituency I'd vote for them. Farage is a class act. He stands up in front of anyone and debates the issues at hand. He knows his stuff and I agree with almost all of it. And so do the other parties - he's won the debate on immigration hands down and they're all trying to be tough on this issue with their hands tied behind their backs (EU law). So they are (Labour and Tories) trying to be as tough as they can on immigration - via laws on benefits - but still calling UKIP racist? That's completely disingenuous.
UKIP is not racist. Their policies on issues like defence, like grammar schools, the NHS and immigration are spot on. They've been setting the agenda (like Dave should have been doing hut hasn't) for months now. In the face of establishment ridicule - which has pushed me much closer to voting for them than any other factor. He also talks about curbing the BBC and addressing its undoubted and unforgivable bias. If that was truly a live possibility it would get my vote.
Farage connects with real people, doesn't dodge the issues, tells it like it is. If you are in a marginal seat in which UKIP could win, I urge you to vote for them. I would if I was in that position but I'm not. I may still vote for Nige, but it won't make any difference where I am. I happen to know and like my Tory MP - he might be UKIP anyway before long! (Holobone).
Do vote and use your vote wisely. This 'don't vote' mantra is just stupid. It doesn't matter to politicians how many votes they get, just that they get more than their opponents. Not voting on principle achieves absolutely nothing.
Thanks for reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment