As per the Liberal Democrat manifesto, I've read the Tory party's offering to save you time. And, what do you know, it is an absence. Sure, there's plenty of asides attacking "Corbyn" as if he's the devil incarnate, Brexit fancies on every page, and a bit of EU bashing that sees the sclerosis of Brussels bureaucracy compared unfavourably to the swift and nifty pen pushers of Whitehall. One supposes the author, a former Gove lackey and fracking lobbyist had never dealt with the DWP or the Home Office during her time at Education.
That said, because there is very little here apart from Brexit and the delusions the manifesto repeatedly indulges (save the £350m/week for the NHS, which is conspicuously absent), this is probably the most innocuous Tory manifesto I've seen. Minus the usual hobby horses, it's, well, a bit wonkish and a few side steps to the left of Labour's 2005 manifesto. It's true, read it for yourself. Lots of stuff on wellbeing, mental health, try hards on the NHS, and all topped off with photos of who they deem the more acceptable Tory candidates out there. And so the chapter on schools is illustrated with their Stoke North candidate, who happens to be a teacher. The NHS bit has a couple of nurses who are standing for the Tories. Crime with some ex-coppers, and above the policy section setting out the points-based immigration system we have a chummy photo of Priti Patel and Sajid Javid. Cheap, sick bucket-hugging stuff.
And while this is probably the most innocuous of Tory manifestos, it was preceded in its lineage by a statement of authoritarianism from May and plans to chop down public services and marketise the rest from Dave. Everything is relative, and so this is not without its signature unpleasantries. On top of the points-based stuff, which will mollify the puce-faced bigots in the shires, we have a singling out of Travellers as the numero uno group of undesirables ripe for scapegoating. The manifesto writes, "we will tackle unauthorised traveller camps. We will give the police new powers to arrest and seize the property and vehicles of trespassers who set up unauthorised encampments, in order to protect our communities. We will make intentional trespass a criminal offence, and we will also give councils greater powers within the planning system" (p.19). Can't ever see this measure used to demonise and traduce a powerless minority being turned against others. In-keeping with this theme, while protections of free speech are mentioned more than once we have this:
We will ban public bodies from imposing their own direct or indirect boycotts, disinvestment or sanctions campaigns against foreign countries. These undermine community cohesion. (p.20)And taking aim at Johnson's old adversary, the RMT, the Tories will be requiring "that a minimum service operates during transport strikes. Rail workers deserve a fair deal, but it is not fair to let the trade unions undermine the livelihoods of others" (p.27).
To avoid accusations this document is a billionaires' manifesto (they bought it, you'll pay for it, as Jeremy Corbyn tweeted earlier), the Tories promise to get tough on tax evasion (p.35), pledging to beef up HMRC and introducing tough new penalties for the most "egregious cases". But don't let this fool you, this is but window dressing and will do nothing to address the yawning chasm of wealth and power. The Tories also plan to preside over this state of affairs well beyond this election. On p.48 we find commitments to scrap the Fixed Terms Parliaments Act, bring back the constituency boundary review to rob Labour of seats, introduce photo ID for voters, and give ex-pats the permanent right to vote in UK elections. Measures that will hold the old long-term decline in temporary check.
There are a couple more issues with the manifesto. First, there is a glaring numbers mistake. Second, on the flagship policy to reduce National Insurance and take the lowest paid out of it altogether, there is no detail at all on how this will impact state pension entitlements and eligibility for contributions-based Job Seekers' Allowance. This is a very serious issue, as those who are lowest paid are more likely to face unemployment than well-remunerated ex-spads and rubbish journalists who've climbed the greasy pole. What happens? Of this there is no answer.
Nevertheless, I think this is an interesting document. It's interesting because, as far as the collective thinking of the Tories are concerned, it shows they know thin gruel cannot be handed out forever. The emergence of Corbynism, its transformation of the British political landscape, and the mass support it commands portends a future the Tories would rather not have to deal with. And so they don't. All the big problems of the day are met with weak promises and non-committal position taking, but it does recognise the ruin of austerity, which did a great deal to activate Corbynism to start with, is no longer a viable means for ensuring the hoi polloi remain disciplined and pacified. At present, not least thanks to the contradictions of the Tory coalition they can't offer anything else. Plenty of Tories genuinely believe Brexit to be a magic bullet that will expand the economy, raise wages, and somehow make Britain a happier, healthier, wealthier place. But it won't. Brexit is nothing but a pathetic talisman.
And so this begs the question. The Tory manifesto contains very little, while Boris Johnson gurns his way about the country demanding we get Brexit done so we can "move on" and concentrate on the people's priorities. Yet those priorities are not reflected in this plan for government, which raises another question. If Johnson gets his wish and we're afflicted with him for another four or five years, what is he actually going to do?
It seems to me that this:
ReplyDelete"We will make intentional trespass a criminal offence"
is perhaps intended to hit protesters. For example, the right to roam protesters could have been arrested and jailed as they intentionally trespassed. The same could be true of those looking for the right to roam streams and rivers.
It protects the aristocracy I would guess.
The other thing I noticed immediately about this manifesto is that it is full of outright lies.
ReplyDeleteThis, for example, is a lie:
Boris Johnson’s new deal takes the whole
country out of the EU as one United
Kingdom. It takes us out of the customs
union, allowing us to set our own tariffs
and do our own trade deals. It allows us to
pass our own laws and ensures that it is
our courts that enforce them.
a) it's not new b) it does not do any of those things.
"building 40 new hospitals across the
country" - a known lie. Only 6 are being re-built.
and so on. It makes me angry that people buy this sh*t. Why? I cannot for the life of me understand why the Tories are ahead in the polls.
"I cannot for the life of me understand why the Tories are ahead in the polls."
ReplyDeleteIt's all the homeowners anxious to protect the housing wealth bequeathed to them by Margaret Thatcher's policies.
In answer to TowerBridge, here's a good answer to why -
ReplyDeletehttps://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/11/interfering-with-laura-kuenssberg/
"I cannot for the life of me understand why the Tories are ahead in the polls."
ReplyDeleteThen you my friend know nothing of the class composition of the UK.
In reality it doesn't matter if Corbyn promises stauch remain or staunch leave or what, his humane, decent, sustainable and responsible politics is out of tune with the ;let them drown in the med' sociopaths that pass for the electorate in this country.
Some servile lackeys talk about capitalism's civilising mission, it can be described as such if you idea of civilised is Marie Antoinette! That is what capitalism created, a million and one petty Marie Antoinettes all ready to vote Tory whatever.
In the latter part of the 19th century conditions changed because people became outraged by the poverty and destitution around them, great novels drove home the message, even in the Middle of the 20th century art could stir people, Cathy Come Home for example caused deep empathy among people.
These days no one gives a toss about anyone or anything, the Tory voters are worse than ISIS, and scientific studies and UN reports prove the point.
A new Tory government would be a provocation, remind me of the justice dished out to Marie Antoinette!
"A new Tory government would be a provocation, remind me of the justice dished out to Marie Antoinette!"
ReplyDeleteWTF in a nutshell - the only person truly dreaming of Tory domination.
Boffy's comments about him being a professional troll look ever more likely.
"the only person truly dreaming of Tory domination."
ReplyDeleteNo I was imagining the nightmare that would be Tory domination, it is far right sock puppet speedy who imagines Tory domination to be a dream, which is speedy in a nutshell.
We don't have to imagine or dream about Tory domination, we have had it for 10 years already.
ReplyDeleteIn that time it is estimated that 130,000 salt of the Earth, god save the queen Brits have been murdered by the Tories. I say murdered because killing 130,000 is just the Tories delivering on their manifesto (no doing things by half or compromise from these psychopaths), and their disgusting, horrific base of supporters lapped it up and is why they will vote for the Tory party again it will be because they want another 130,000 salt of the Earth, god save the queen Brits murdered.
Also during this time the UN rapporteur has described poverty in the UK as being systematic and tragic among other things. This was all music to the ears of the debased Tory supporters.
To say a new Tory government would be a provocation is an understatement, it is a declaration of war and collusion with terrorists.
This election is not about Brexit or Anti Semitism (a simple witchhunt - nothing more nothing less), that is all noise.
This election is about a society where uber econoimic nationalism (imperialism) is even more extreme, where homelessness explodes further, inequality grows exponentially and food banks become the bigger than Lidl (which is nearly a food bank as it is!) versus a society where there is some modicum of social democracy, cohesion, justice and humanity.
"I cannot for the life of me understand why the Tories are ahead in the polls."
ReplyDeleteGeorge Carty said... «It's all the homeowners anxious to protect the housing wealth bequeathed to them by Margaret Thatcher's policies.»
Broadly yes, but some important qualifications:
* Southern homeowners specifically.
* Not bequeathed to them, but redistributed to them from poorer people.
* Not just Thatcher's policies, also Blair's and Osbornes' etc.
Blissex, it can't be just Southern homeowners as that doesn't explain why Tory support is so strong in the Midlands too, and even among older voters in the North.
ReplyDelete«It's all the homeowners anxious to protect the housing wealth bequeathed to them by Margaret Thatcher's policies.»
ReplyDelete«Broadly yes, but some important qualifications: * Southern homeowners specifically.»
«Blissex, it can't be just Southern homeowners»
Indeed, but that's the big block that decides elections, and that votes against governments that let southern property prices slide.
«as that doesn't explain why Tory support is so strong in the Midlands too, and even among older voters in the North.»
Yes, some of that is some midlands/northern homeowners who are still afraid that "the communists" will confiscate their properties, and that's why I said “Broadly yes”. And those are idiots, because their home prices have been crashing:
http://loveincstatic.blob.core.windows.net/lovemoney/House_prices_real_terms_lovemoney.jpg http://www.lovemoney.com/news/53528/property-house-price-value-real-terms-2005-2015-uk-regions
That's because Conservative policy is to attracts businesses and jobs and migrants only to the south, to keep pushing up prices there, and that keeps hurting property owners in areas of low wages and emigration.
I am not sure, but the widespread support of Conservatives outside the south is I guess mostly due to non-property reasons, e.g. their dominance in rural areas (a legacy I think from the times where the local lord of the manor told peasants that there would be hell to pay if the constituency did not return a tory). Those are the traditionally-safe Conservative seats, so not very interesting for electoral purposes, just like the traditionally-safe seats of Labour in areas where there were concentrations of steam-era plants.
Regardless in 2017 T May succeeded in reclaiming nearly 2m Conservative votes from UKIP, after they had departed because of Cameron's support for gay marriage and the EUSSR, so obviously a chunk of Conservative voters are there for metaphysical/ideological reasons.
The interesting seats anyhow are the swing-able ones, where property owners are the most swing-able constituency, because for them property gains are a "button" issue.
"some of that is some midlands/northern homeowners who are still afraid that "the communists" will confiscate their properties"
ReplyDeleteThe number of times I heard people say, but the communists want to abolish private property! People assumed communism meant everyone living in one big house and some official taking your house.
The housing sell off reminds me of the oil voucher scheme in post Soviet Russia, but played over a longer term, given the nature of housing. Eventually everyone will be renting off some spiv or the wealthy, if they even have a home.
Home ownership was a big factor in the 2017 election, it would be a mystery if that wasn't the case this time round. Though I suspect renters are less likely to vote.
I would also point out that the abolition of private property was mainly a reference to money, certainly in Marx's time. So abolition of private property was the abolition of private money. A lot flows from that.
Though I am pretty sure the Middle classes and petty bourgeois of Britain (the substantial number) will flee to the hills at the prospect of private money being abolished!
Blissex: "Indeed, but that's the big block that decides elections, and that votes against governments that let southern property prices slide."
ReplyDeleteElections are (by definition) decided by marginal constituencies, so if you were right that Southern property prices were the key to deciding the outcome, then that would imply that marginal constituencies would be concentrated in the South: that doesn't seem to be the case...
Blissex: "I am not sure, but the widespread support of Conservatives outside the south is I guess mostly due to non-property reasons, e.g. their dominance in rural areas (a legacy I think from the times where the local lord of the manor told peasants that there would be hell to pay if the constituency did not return a tory)."
Perhaps nowadays we could substitute "Rupert Murdoch" for "the local lord of the manor", given that Tony Blair (the only Labour leader to win General Elections since the 1970s) was also the only Labour leader who managed to get Murdoch on his side.
«The number of times I heard people say, but the communists want to abolish private property!»
ReplyDeleteApparently Ian Duncan Smith is basing his constituency re-election campaign on telling voters that Corbyn will confiscate their property (with nice photo of him Halloween-style):
https://twitter.com/willgoring/status/1201058101790687233
“He’s my local MP and he turned up on our doorstep last week. Never seen him before. He told us that if we voted Labour we would lose our house. Really weird conversation.”