Wednesday, January 06, 2010

Changing the guard

It's no secret that Cameron's mantra for the upcoming election will be "change". Why not - it worked for Obama so it should work for the Tories, right?

Well .... maybe. I'm not convinced myself that a Tory landslide is as certain as so many seem to think. In fact, judging by the sounds coming from the Cameron camp, it is apparent to me that the Tories are downgrading their expectations to a slim majority or even a hung parliament.

However, suppose that the change mantra does do it for Cameron and the Tories do succeed in achieving a working majority - what sort of change are they offering?

Well, on the face of it they are promising a different approach to tackling our economic troubles - but this isn't as clear cut as it seems. The fact is that whoever wins the next election will have to make significant cuts to expenditure at some point in the next couple of years - that or risk having our credit rating downgraded leading to more expensive lending and rising inflation. Even with significant cuts a change to our credit rating is possible - without them it is almost certain.

But leaving that minor squabble aside, the goals of the Tory party are not much different to the goals of the Labour party or the Liberal Democrats. Whether it is health, education, industry, environment, crime or what have you they all have the same aspirational aims for Britain. They all want to keep us subservient to the EU, they all plan to change the constitution in some way or another, they all want to keep the NHS intact, they all want to persist with the current education system even though it is a demonstrable failure and they all want to persist with the cultural cringing that is leading to the destruction of British society, tradition, heritage and history - and will ultimately destroy this nation.

The only change the Tories are offering is a change of face guarding the liberal progressive ideology. Like the changing of the guard at Buckingham Palace, the faces may be different, the uniforms might have minor discrepancies but the edifice they protect will be the same.


TheFatBigot said...

The problem Mr Cameron has is that he has to make things saleable.

So many are now so dependent on the State that radical measures could appear to present a direct threat to the wallets of the swing voters he needs.

Cutting the State's employment roll is essential, indeed it is the single most important thing, but it means putting people out of work during a recession - not saleable.

Reducing the benefits bill looks like hitting the disabled and those currently down on their luck - not saleable.

Keeping the top rate of income tax at 40% rather than increasing it to 50% looks like pandering to those who earn sums the vast majority cannot even aspire to - not saleable.

And so it goes on. The things that need to be done are not saleable primarily because no coherent argument of principle is being put forward to explain why they are the right thing to do.

There is an argument available, it has been put forward for decades by the likes of John Redwood, but it is so different from the position taken by the Conservative party under David Cameron that it is too late for him to change horses now.

His only viable option is to tinker at the edges and hope a few small changes will be enough to win votes against an utterly discredited government and a hopelessly incompetent Prime Minister.

Stan said...

I agree totally, FB. However, when things were looking bright economically Cameron made mistake of hitching up to the New Labour bandwagon. He did that because he isn't a conservative - he is a progressive liberal. Redwood IS a conservative - which is why he doesn't have a prominent role in the Conservative shadow cabinet. The same for IDS.

I blogged a couple of years back - before the economic crisis struck - saying that Cameron's decision to commit to Labour spending plans will come back to haunt him and so it has proved. He cannot - as he has tried to do - make the claim that things would not be so bad if he had been PM because his plans were exactly the same!

Anonymous said...

Which is why I'm voting BNP. What a nasty, evil "right-winger" I am, huh?

Stan said...

I'm not one of those people who think the BNP are evil, anon. They may be racist - I think everyone is to some degree or another - but I don't think it's evil to discriminate, either. It only becomes evil if that discrimination turns out to be violent and homicidal such as that displayed by Nazism and - from its inception to current times - Islam.

Are the BNP violent and homicidal? Not from what I've seen - but what they definitely are not from what I can see is "right wing".

Anonymous said...

Just take a look at those MPs of all three main parties caught recently plundering and stealing from their voters.It was never "a few bad eggs" it was most of them. Some are being considered for prosecution (fat hope!) some are seeking to hide behind the constitution and the "glorious revolution", virtually all resent and resist any sort of parliamentary reform. These are the worthless wasters you are about to vote for. Please find a modicum of courage and vote for "anybody else". Send them a message they can't ignore!

North Northwester said...

Blogger TheFatBigot : "Reducing the benefits bill looks like hitting the disabled and those currently down on their luck - not saleable. "

It's broken record time for me here again, but unmarried mothers and their unruly little bastards are the biggest cause of excessive public expenditure - from benefits [the huge one] to extra help for everyone in schools and the health service who even go near their evil spawn through to the criminal justice system into which a large proportion of those children will funnel. Stop all welfare support after the second child and you breed out the chavs in a single generation [which is about 15 years these days.]

That's a vote winner, and from all parties' supporters. Employed working class people resent it the most, having to live near them and having their neighbourhoods disrupted by them.

Naturally, Cameron won't do that as it's cheap, simple, and sensible.