Discussion in 'Current Affairs & Debate' started by Ag, Jun 26, 2016.
I think some people on Moopy need to get over their infantile hatred for the Conservative party that's based on an outdated view of what they are. There's undoubtedly still some awful fucking dinosaurs lurking within, but this isn't the 80s. Cameron was a progressive leader and I think May will be too.
The idea that they're somehow all evil cartoon characters is about as moronic as thinking everyone on the left is a tree hugging socialist. Get some perspective.
I don't know, I think even the most privileged £40,000+, Zone 2 posters can recognise that the Tories are still integral in stamping down on the poor, there's got to be a duty to look out for that minority too.
That slightly sinister CHRISTIAN FAMILY VALUES line also seems to be making a comeback. I can certainly see why particularly older posters would be less inclined given that they spent significant portions of their life under Section 28.
What would you say are the Tories most progressive policies?
(Please exclude Lib Dem policies and those that the majority of their parliamentary party voted against.)
Cameron and May have both spoken about their pride over marriage equality legislation in their recent speeches, and both have expressed regret over Section 28. Like I said, it's not the 80s anymore.
As a relatively low earner, my take home pay improved significantly under the coalition and the Tory government due to the massive rise in the tax free personal allowance. May's entire statement of intent as leader was about improving things for everyone and not just the privileged few. Those evil Tories stamping down on the poor.
I know it's 2016 but what I was on about is the resentment that that policy still presumably leaves. It's still only been 13 years since it was properly scrapped.
I do think it's easy to come up with platitudes like that, I can recall similar lines about everyone being "in this together". The policy has to be there. "Stamping down" may be slightly over-emotive but I'm not talking about relatively low earners, I mean the people using food banks, the disabled, the mentally ill, all who have been failed consistently.
(I wasn't actually referring to you as just another PRIVILEGED QUEEN btw )
What Moog has said. The rise in the amount of money after tax that people have to pay has been countered by so many other policy decisions, a lot relating but not limited to public services.
As for those who are being failed... I don't disagree. But were those people being well looked after under the Labour government? I think it's telling that something like 60% of households who had no-one working now have at least one person in work since their ability to work was reviewed.
Is it acceptable that disabled and mentally ill people were put through extra stress by the government? No. They were massively failed. Is it true that everyone who had their ability to work reviewed fell into this category? No. So, as ever, the truth is somewhere in the middle. For me, Tory policy was right in this instance, it's the implementation of it that was appalling and inhumane. For me, getting people into work is about a lot more than reducing the benefits bill. I'd support it even if it didn't reduce the bill... it's about making people an active part of their wider society.
Progressive? It's hard to know at this point what May's stance on anything is seeing as she's been towing the party line for so long.
She voted for gay marriage! Woo! She voted against gay adoption and lowering the age of consent. Oh.
The one time she didn't follow the party line? She voted against banning smoking in cars when children are present. Progressive!
Let's not even start about fox hunting and migrants! go! home!
She skipped every vote on the Gender Recognition Act according to a few Facebookers. She's as progressive as a fucking Caravan album*.
I'm amazed there's any real doubt as to who the Tories work for, coz it ain't low earning people/ families:
Cuts to local government that have been been approximately twice as much and as sweeping as budget cuts in other areas. I chose Newcastle at random and they have lost 30% of their budget (excluding public health) between 2010 and 2014. Obviously what services that affects are determined by local decision making, but cuts like that are getting rid of more than just a couple of pointless admin staff here and there.
Lots of info here on the FT:
National decisions such as a Spare Room Subsidy hit the poor pretty fucking hard as well... and barely saved the government any cash either. That's an ideological move, entirely.
The Tories are willing to help out people like us (as long as we share their goals... I personally privately rent and don't want to buy right now), supposed strivers (defined as anyone with a job) with policies like the Help To Buy scheme and raising of the point by which low income people pay tax. We must remember that the lower tax collection manifests in the form of cuts as well.
Tory policy is the defense of inherited wealth. That's yer one liner right there.
Perhaps not, but I don't know how much mileage is left in the "pin it on Blair and Brown" argument. It's been six years and two elections since they were in power and policy that is to the detriment of the "genuinely poor" seems (to me) far more visible today. Zero-hours contracts, thoroughly underpaid "apprenticeships"... it's not a particularly healthy labour market.
There are shades of grey, obviously. I've not called anyone evil, it's a tough job, but the Tories could have done SOMETHING effective to change that implementation.
Local governments have historically been over funded and incompetetnly run. It's like the NHS. It's all well and good protesting any cuts from an idealogical point of view, but the reality is that the wastage of money is astronomical. 3.5k local councillors were earning 6 figure salaries last year. It's completely ridiculous.
See also: MPs expenses.
How anybody can non-ironically use phrases like 'Theresa Slay' after the 'go home' vans and Yarl's Wood without feeling ashamed of themselves is beyond me.
Anyway, find me a senior politcian who doesn't have blood on their hands in some respect. I would suggest that being Home Secretary is not a particularly easy job.
What's the specific deal with Yarl's Wood though? I've just been reading about it and it sounds like the scandals have been coming thick and fast since the early noughties?
The fact that you mention that figure negates the idea that these cuts are doing anything to combat incompetence. Speaking as someone who deals with the council up here as a function of my job (and trust me, it is hard to defend councils) whenever they are looking to save money, the axe often comes down on externally facing grant money that supports organisations providing services. Councils might be a load of shite, but the cuts are less about the institutions themselves but the people they serve. What sense is there in minimising spend on council adult health and social care as the population ages? It just moves the person and their problems to the NHS, and a hospital stay is a lot more expensive than anything they'd require from that council budget.
Additionally, I think cuts of 30+ per cent are more than is required to minimise wastage. The line you are giving is that Cameron said to his own constituents when his own family were signing petitions to stop things getting worse (and that's in affluent Oxfordshire!)
Home Secretary isn't an easy job at all, but there are still some fairly open-close decisions that I think say a lot about a Home Secretary's priorities (on the topic, you wouldn't catch me dead queening out over David Blunkett or Charles Clarke either). Serco have been running it disgracefully - sexual abuse, violence against detainees, all the likes. As Home Secretary Theresa May not only renewed their contract to run it in 2014, but refused to let details of rape reports against Serco guards be released on the basis that “disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests” of Serco, along with barring the UN inspectorate for violence against women from visiting the centre. It's not just the likes of the Guardian and change.org calling it out either - the National Audit Office and the chief prisons officer have both said it's outrageous.
Essentially, allowing an incompetent private sector company to hide its crimes and go on running a centre so it will still bid for others, and covering it up from international inspection. Grotesque.
And yet abuse there has apparently been going on there since the early noughties? I'm not defending her, as it does sound grotesque. But it also sounds like it's been going on for longer than she's been around.
It does, but she's actively covered it up and renewed the contract of the company behind it. For all the last government's faults on it, they didn't refuse to release details on the basis of the commercial interest of the contractor.
Exactly! As Penny said, refusing to allow the UN Rapporteur access to inspect Yarl's Wood speaks for itself really.
Also, if it wasn't for the Cameron govt instituting gay marriage, what part of his legacy would be 'progressive'? I kind of resent the way that LGBT people rarely talk about how Tory policies affect LGBT communities aside from how they gave us gay marriage.
Also, I know it's easy to be bitter that the Tories got the jump on gay marriage after Labour put down so much groundwork, but the wind was obviously blowing that way anyway. So Cameron isn't an active homophobe who resisted what is increasingly seen as a basic human right (Theresa, lest we forget, did resist it). So progressive
They didn't even give us gay marriage: it was passed by labour, lib dems, and SNP votes.
And in fact, they don't have the balls to push it through across the UK.
Where does she make that quote about Serco because I can't find it?
The place sounds utterly grim and like they are battling institutionalised racism and lack of respect within the workforce, but the National Audit Office, alongside its criticisms did actually note that conditions were improving from where they had been... As always, there are two sides to every story.
I've no idea whether renewing Serco's contract was appropriate or not, but I know that whoever was awarded the contract would still have had to deal with the staff already working there and therein lies the challenge in changing a place like that.
It sounds like a response to a FOI request.
It was the Home Office's response to the enquiry - the decision to deny it on that basis will likely have come from high up if it's denied on that basis, and even if not, coverage of it being denied for that reason from two major papers should've been enough notification for her to overturn it if the decision wasn't made on her watch and she disagreed with it. The staff are Serco's, so they would have been replaced by a different contractor had it gone elsewhere - as it should have done after such negligence from them. It isn't that hard to employ staff who can make it through the day without raping the inmates.
Is that how it works? I doubt it.
I imagine it to be like ground handling agents at airports - when a new contractor takes over, they just employ the same staff already based at that specific location.
I see. So, actually, she didn't say it after all, as you earlier claimed in order to support your argument.
That's a lot of speculation going on in your post. Seriously, I don't doubt that half of Moopy know a lot more about politics than I do, but the bias that you attach to your knowledge, and the way you present it is often unhelpful.
The problem is the way it has been implemented. Does society benefit from a single mother with a young child having to take a bus to a job on a zero hour contract an hour away while potentially paying a large chunk of what she is earning on childcare anyway? Does society benefit from forcing a bloke with mental health problems away from manageable voluntary work in the community so that we can be pushed onto the tyranny of Jobseekers and sanctions or into precarious low paid and low hours job that exacerbates his condition to the extent that it might put him back into NHS care anyway?
That has been the government's definition of adding value to society... people's contribution is completely and utterly defined by whether they are in literally any form of paid work and that is once again driven by ideology rather than necessarily economic or financial sense. This government's strength has ultimately been making it sound like the latter when it isn't necessarily.
No, society does not necessarily benefit from those two examples, but you act as if those are the ONLY people affected by this legislation. It's deliberately obtuse to suggest that, and your language is ridiculous. The TYRANNY of Jobseekers? Take it down a notch, love.
I'm not denying that it's probably not been implemented that well. I think management of most of our public services is borderline incompetent.
If two major newspapers report that your department won't reveal data on rape to preserve the commercial interests of a contractor, you immediately do something about it if that isn't your position. It's the same principle as Jeremy Corbyn's stonewalling on the Shadow Cabinet - the buck stops with the leader on what's going on in their department.
Those aren't the only people affected by legislative change, no. But deliberate decisions have been taken amid the wider legislative change that have implicated those with mental health problems, or those who are single mothers (with younger and younger children, although admittedly Labour did previously start lowering the age of youngest child before a mother is expected to look for work).
Furthermore, for those in wider society, policies have not been a two way street on micro or macro level. People are simply told to get jobs, in a recessionary and post-recessionary employment market and often in post-industrial areas of the country that remain, on the most part, economically barren following decisions taken up to thirty years ago and exacerbated by the refusal of ALL governments to recognise that this has happened and that meaningful employment needs to exist to replace it. The argument of the right wingers is that the private and leisure sectors have stepped in to fill the void, which to some extent they have but decreased wages/standard of living in the process, and the lefties talk about bringing back industry, which is possible although not in the ways it is usually discussed (ie: bringing back widespread coalmining to the UK and producing alright standards of living for miners in 2016 is near impossible... but there are particular markets that Western countries can take advantage of like Germany has, if they so want to put their mind to it). Neither of these arguments are entirely helpful either way.
To get back to the point... on a micro level, the supposed "support" on offer to help people into work in the modern economy from the Work Programme is also hostile, pointless or at worst, harmful.
The gist of what I am saying is that people are being pushed and prodded to get back to work, often during periods where the job market has been in the toilet, often when the town that they and their family live in is something of a contemporary economic wasteland even in the good times, and always when the support available to help them back to work is as described above.
And that is what the current government want you to think. Think about the US... people distrust their public services because they are pretty bad, and they are pretty bad because over they have been driven into the ground by regimes that don't believe in public services with the support of the American public, who additionally have been convinced to be terrified of anything that could be classed as socialism... which is super helpful is you wish to undermine the credibility of government services.
People's current experiences of the NHS and local government are determined significantly by decisions made in central government, whether that be cuts or policy decisions such as the Junior Doctors contract and if those experiences are negative, then they fuel the mindset of people like yourselves who see the experience is poor and not worth the money invested in it... and the reason you are driven to think that way is because the narrative of these institutions are poorly ran, wasteful and need to be more efficient, as opposed to the one that the quality of these institutions is being affected by poor decision making or lack of resource.
I know it's easy to sound a bit mentul saying this stuff, but i'm not the alone in feeling that the Tories are trying to make the NHS so crap to the point where that use of private options becomes more and more common for those that can afford it, that gives license to give the NHS less money (because less people are using it), reducing the quality of service further until there is only a small minority of poor people left using it. That is basically the current situation in the United States.
These are deliberate choices (along with that not to increase taxes), and they are only partially motivated by genuine financial considerations.
Are you going to take umbrage if I tell you that I think that a little patronising and sexist?
I won't actually retract that choice of wording as I think most people will testify that being on the dole is SHIT, even worse for people trying to manage a health condition having been found "fit for work" and that's without even considering any of the additional petty and draconian shit like sanctions.
In summary: You're wrong RB.
I didn't realise it was an essay until I posted it, I swear.
I'll take patronising, but sexist? How so? You're well aware I'd have used the exact same turn of phrase to a male poster.
And as for 'people like me' being led to believe public services are incompetently run by the evil government machine, I was actually including all the privatised public service contractors in that. The Conservative obsession with privatisation is something I'm generally against, but neither option tend to be run that well, for the most part.