It wouldn’t pay to underestimate the baleful influence of the Daily Mail on current policy, not just its current, day-to-day effect (although it does appear to have briefed the Home Office on the deportation of cats) but its long, slow, cumulative impact on attitudes that have hit the ground running.
The reason my distrust of the Conservative party has crystallised into what it is now is not simply because they’re the Blue Team and I march under some other banner, but because of, specifically, what they’ve been champing at the bit to do to welfare. You’re right to say that, just like any other party, the Tories are a coalition of sorts between moderates, extremists and outright nutters, but of course it’s not the moderates who make it their mission to, for example, lay into welfare.
I have spoken to the person who authored a paper for the Conservatives several years ago on reducing funding for public services without actually cutting the services provided. In private, just as in public, both Iain Duncan Smith and Cameron seemed very committed to this idea, according to this person, who was therefore stunned when they took power and began doing the precise opposite of everything they had spent several years espousing. You may object that this is merely anecdotal, but nonetheless it formed another building block in my solid conviction that even the more liberal wing of the party is rather enjoying the opportunities afforded it by current economic chaos.
Lord Freud, similarly, makes out in Committee that he is merely playing a dispassionate numbers game, but (aptly, given his lineage) his language betrays him: the grudging, patrician note sounded by passing comments like “We are injecting £4 billion into the pockets of the poorest people” is indicative. Again, circumstantial, but still revealing.
The key place to do exactly what you describe and crunch the government’s numbers to a fine powder is of course Parliament—that’s what Committee stage is for—but, too often, a place so hamstrung by the government’s control over business will be lucky if it gets to raise these questions at all, let alone press them. The Lords might kick up a fuss, which indeed they are over welfare reform, but the government aren’t obliged to really pay any attention.
I acknowledge what you are saying about some of the ideas emerging from the more liberal wing of the coalition—indeed, the digital government services that launched today and Cameron’s NHS research move last week seem as if they would be positive moves from a government of any stripe (Ben Goldacre described them as being “good on nerd issues”)—but I’m unconvinced that they provide enough of a counterweight to the rampaging right for my fears to be allayed or my anger to abate.
I also take your point about dismissing out of hand the contribution of big banks, but:
(1) It’s also true that the only people whose reckless behaviour pre-crash was at all penalised were those who worked for Lehman because it was allowed to implode (and even most of them have probably found even better remunerated positions since), and that is a scandal that grows with time, rather than diminishes.
(2) Percentages can tell their own story. The fact that the banks contribute such a large percentage is in part because other industries currently don’t, which needs tackling as much as banks need reassuring.
I do, however, note your phrase “the noblest of the most deserving”, which seems very coalition-flavoured. If you cheat, you are obviously not deserving; otherwise, I hold that by definition, as a citizen, you deserve help and support as a matter of course. A significant portion of the coalition, in tune with many of those who own our media, would have us think otherwise.
EDIT: Also, if there are persuasive examples which show that my IV-drip illustration does not reflect the prevailing mood music of this government, I'm genuinely keen to know about them.
no subject
The reason my distrust of the Conservative party has crystallised into what it is now is not simply because they’re the Blue Team and I march under some other banner, but because of, specifically, what they’ve been champing at the bit to do to welfare. You’re right to say that, just like any other party, the Tories are a coalition of sorts between moderates, extremists and outright nutters, but of course it’s not the moderates who make it their mission to, for example, lay into welfare.
I have spoken to the person who authored a paper for the Conservatives several years ago on reducing funding for public services without actually cutting the services provided. In private, just as in public, both Iain Duncan Smith and Cameron seemed very committed to this idea, according to this person, who was therefore stunned when they took power and began doing the precise opposite of everything they had spent several years espousing. You may object that this is merely anecdotal, but nonetheless it formed another building block in my solid conviction that even the more liberal wing of the party is rather enjoying the opportunities afforded it by current economic chaos.
Lord Freud, similarly, makes out in Committee that he is merely playing a dispassionate numbers game, but (aptly, given his lineage) his language betrays him: the grudging, patrician note sounded by passing comments like “We are injecting £4 billion into the pockets of the poorest people” is indicative. Again, circumstantial, but still revealing.
The key place to do exactly what you describe and crunch the government’s numbers to a fine powder is of course Parliament—that’s what Committee stage is for—but, too often, a place so hamstrung by the government’s control over business will be lucky if it gets to raise these questions at all, let alone press them. The Lords might kick up a fuss, which indeed they are over welfare reform, but the government aren’t obliged to really pay any attention.
I acknowledge what you are saying about some of the ideas emerging from the more liberal wing of the coalition—indeed, the digital government services that launched today and Cameron’s NHS research move last week seem as if they would be positive moves from a government of any stripe (Ben Goldacre described them as being “good on nerd issues”)—but I’m unconvinced that they provide enough of a counterweight to the rampaging right for my fears to be allayed or my anger to abate.
I also take your point about dismissing out of hand the contribution of big banks, but: I do, however, note your phrase “the noblest of the most deserving”, which seems very coalition-flavoured. If you cheat, you are obviously not deserving; otherwise, I hold that by definition, as a citizen, you deserve help and support as a matter of course. A significant portion of the coalition, in tune with many of those who own our media, would have us think otherwise.
EDIT: Also, if there are persuasive examples which show that my IV-drip illustration does not reflect the prevailing mood music of this government, I'm genuinely keen to know about them.